Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement

Minutes 30 / Procès-verbal 30

Tuesday, 10 May 2005 9:30 a.m.

le mardi 10 mai 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, J. Harder, D. Holmes G. Hunter, H. Kreling

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

No declarations of interest were filed.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ratification dES procÈs-verbaUX

Minutes 29 of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 26 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 4-143, 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 CAPITAL COMMISSION PRESENTATION - Canada's Capital CORE AREA SECTOR PLAN

EXPOSÉ DE LA COMMISSION DE LA CAPITALE NATIONALE - PLAN DE SECTEUR DU COEUR DE LA CAPITALE DU CANADA

ACS2005-PGM-POL-0025 RIDEAU-VANIER (12), SOMERSET (14)

Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management (PGM), Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment & Infrastructure Policy, and Richard Kilstrom, Manager, Community Planning and Design Division, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 14 April 2005. Mr. Kilstrom advised the NCC has been working on its Core Area Sector Plan for several years, much of which was accomplished with the City’s own Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy. The NCC was present at the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) this morning to introduce their Core Area Sector Plan. He then introduced Francoise Lapointe, Director, Planning, NCC, Pierre Dubay and Mary Taylor who will be speaking to the item and respond to any questions. Documentation presented to PEC is on file with the City Clerk. (Public Programming & Activities Vision for the Core Area of the Canada’s Capital (Reflecting a Nation – Creating a Capital Experience for all Canadians; Canada’s Capital Core Area Sector Plan – Executive Summary; Canada’s Capital Core Area Sector Plan – Draft / March 2005). Mr. Lapointe advised what was before PEC is the final product of this staged process. Mr. Dubay provided the key highlights of the Core Area Sector Plan followed by Ms. Taylor who briefly addressed the Public Programming and Activity Visions.

Following the presentation, PEC members posed questions, with the following clarification:

· The widening of the canal to accommodate floating bistros, restaurants, etc. came forward as a result of consultation with stakeholders and NCC’s partners, particularly Parks Canada. The NCC wanted to make that space function better since Confederation Square is one of the most significant cultural landscapes in the Capital and possibly the country; and, it currently does not function as a gathering space particularly at the canal level. In speaking to Parks Canada representatives, they did ask for more services for those navigating the canal. Therefore, one of the ideas that arose out of the consultation was to incorporate into the plan such things like cafes and bistros through a slightly wider canal to allow for the type of barge bistros in places like Paris; it would be addressed by the very strict cultural resource management policies of Parks Canada; and, whether in fact that idea would see fruition would be something that would require significant examination and debate. It would be a very process oriented decision.

· The NCC works collaboratively with Public Works and in terms of its ability to steer or regulate, there is a limit to what the NCC can do. They are currently undertaking a very significant real estate strategy and re-looking at their assets and there is an opportunity to make representation in terms of enhancing existing buildings and achieving the Vision. In terms of asset management, the NCC does have a design focus and does its utmost to reflect quality design in all projects approved. The NCC has a close one on one relationship with Public Works and has also set up a Federal Forum that brings together all departments and agencies that have real asset or planning mandates in terms of properties or lands. There were sporadic meetings in the late 1990’s when they were working on Plans for Canada’s Capital, but in the context of the core area and the Urban Lands Master Plan, the NCC wants to meet more regularly with the different federal stakeholders. Based on staff comment, the NCC does intend to meet with City staff to look at the joint work programme and how to collaborate. Before any new projects are undertaken, the NCC (or any other government department) must secure specific funding through Cabinet or Treasury Board, which at times means selling property, but it is not necessarily for new projects. When the NCC does sell land it is re-invested in existing assets as part of the life cycle approach. There was a basic capital budget ($18 Million/year), but there are a considerable number of properties at different stages in their life cycle. The LeBreton area is a priority and the NCC is working on another project on Sparks to bring in residents. Mr. Dubay also added two areas that could be focused (the canal and Ottawa River basin) on in partnership with the City because over the years they have developed an integrated development plan for the Ottawa River in partnership with Ottawa and they would like to go a step further, especially in terms of boating facilities or access to the River. The NCC is currently working on LeBreton in its development and a looped interpretive trail and looks forward to the days when the islands will be a part of the public experience of the Capital as well. The NCC is in a much better position with ideas and realistic suggestions, but it is long term and the NCC must work with the government of the day. There is a process that must be undertaken and that is the next stage.

· The NCC will be a stakeholder in the Congress Centre development and has met with Conference and Congress Centre representatives; a few years back there was a pedestrian linkage initiative (headed by Jean Pigott), which the City was very much involved in. It is obvious that if there are linkages with a visual impact on the canal and views to Parliament, it will be a large issue for the NCC. The NCC and the City will be involved and it must recognize the synergy with the Arts and Conference Centres and the Congress Centre. In terms of actually undertaking the work that will obviously have to be debated, but he agreed in principle. The NCC will be a player, but the City will be a key player in this, and it should not be viewed that the NCC would be the doer in this. Since two of the buildings are federally owned, it can be discussed, but it was obvious Mr. Lapointe could not make a commitment.

· Mr. Lapointe understood there is current discussion with the City through the LRT, but he was not familiar with the details. There is ongoing discussion, but as far as the current plan, it is a shared corridor. Mr. Lathorp advised the actual preliminary alignment identified through LeBreton Flats was a carryover from work completed by the Region of Ottawa-Carleton (RMOC) for the identification of the transitway, which was to be on a separate alignment (fairly close to where the transitway is currently located) and recent discussion with the NCC has suggested a slight movement of that line either closer to the aqueduct or Scott Street to provide for the greater potential of developing the LeBreton Flats area and less impact on the transitway LRT alignment. There are current discussions taking place with the NCC and it was anticipated to resolve that matter shortly, but there is no question the LRT and transitway will be going through this area; it is simply a matter of the detailed location. It will be the same corridor, adjacent to each and the existing right-of-way (ROW) that was reserved for the transitway needs only be slightly enlarged to accommodate LRT and the major transit station that would be in that area would be at the Booth transitway LRT interface as well as Bayview. Ms. Taylor added the map in the Vision document is a base map used for NCC programming activities and the transitway was not addressed; it is simply shown in its current location and not addressed by the Vision.

· The NCC purchased the Scott Paper facilities a year or two ago and these are shown on the map as a green area with an annotation. The NCC does recognize the northern and western side of the capital are areas that from a programming perspective do not reflect much activity taking place and the NCC does see some way of addressing that in the future. There are discussions relative to different ways of drawing visitors to access views of the Chaudiere Falls. As far as Confederation Boulevard, the area between Parliament Hill and the Museum of Civilization is the pedestrian circulation route. The NCC wants to draw people westward and also talks about having an anchor at the west end of Wellington in the area of the Garden of the Provinces or the west side of Sparks Street or the new LeBreton. It is not known whether that will be a large commemoration or museum. Mr. Dubay advised the NCC bought the land, but there is a current lease until 2028. If they decide to leave at that time, the NCC has indicated it will probably transform the site into a park because there is a question of contamination.

That Planning and Environment Committee receive this report on the National Capital Commission's Canada's Capital Core Area Sector Plan.

RECEIVEd

REFERRALS/deferrals

RENVOIS/reports

2. HAULED LIQUID WASTE STRATEGY REVIEW

EXAMEN DE LA STRATÉGIE SUR LES DÉCHETS LIQUIDES TRANSPORTÉS

ACS2004-TUP-UTL-0017

Deferred from 14 December 2004/11 January 2005 meetings

Richard Hewitt, Acting/Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services (PWS), Ken Brothers, Director, Utility Services, Fel Petti, Manager, Environment Programs and Technical Services, David McCartney, Manager, Waste Water and Drainage, and Debbie MacLennan, Program Supervisor, Sewer Use By-Law, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 14 December 2004. Following a PowerPoint presentation by Mr. Petti, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk, Committee members posed questions, with the main points summarized below:

· The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has strict regulations with respect to septic systems; they are dealing more with the issue of the pump outs and ensuring the septic systems are working properly, but with respect to whether there are too many septic systems, that is an issue best left with MOE. MOE signs off on estate lots, but may have delegated that to the Conservation Authorities (CA) through recent legislation.

· Staff will continue to monitor and sample to better understand the types of waste that arrives at the Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre (ROPEC). The blended calculation takes into consideration the concentration of the holding tank. When staff reviews that blended rate on an annual basis, it will incorporate information collected over the year to ensure the rate charged does reflect the charge to treat. If the concentration is lower, then the treatment cost will drop and be reflected in the blended rate. If an owner wants to deal directly with ROPEC to have their waste delivered to the site, the City could sample and better calculate the actual treatment cost for that particular load. That provision is provided for in the Sewer Use By-Law.

· Based on the numbers established ($6.14), it is anticipated to take 7-8 years to reach full cost recovery. There will only be an impact on the rate side the first year since there will be a full year of revenue next year and that is one reason the fee structure has been increased to 3x for waste outside the City. That will then offset the impact on the rate supported side earlier than if the City had remained at 2x the rate. Staff has factored in a drop in volume as a result of the increased rate; obviously there will be less haulage to the plant, but even when that reduction is factored in, next year’s revenue will meet treatment costs.

· On Councillor Bellemare’s Motion that staff be directed to characterize the hauled liquid waste disposed of at the R.O. Pickard Environmental Centre over the coming year to determine concentration of content, and report back to Planning and Environment Committee in the fall of 2006 with recommendations on how to fairly reflect actual treatment costs to individual businesses, Mr. Petti advised staff intended to conduct that monitoring over the next year. He added that staff would continue to look at the impact on the blended rate rather than a two-tier rate.

· The impact of traffic (costs associated) on the surrounding roads has not been included, although the cost to upgrade ROPEC and the roadwork around that facility (on site) has been included. On Councillor Bellemare’s Motion that reads Whereas the septage receiving facility at the Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre was never designed to accommodate the volume of hauled liquid waste currently being received nor the associated truck traffic affecting area roads; That staff examine future transportation requirements in connection with the increasing truck traffic to the Pickard Centre and determine the appropriate level of cost recovery through disposal fees, Mr. Hewitt advised that as part of the process to report back, staff could include this component and certainly look at the related transportation issues and determine whether there are major impacts and, if so, bring back recommendations relative thereto.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Rob Taylor, Senior Analyst, Canadian Federation Independent Business (CFIB); Claude Pryor, Pryor Metals; John O’Brien, Health Craft Products; Marco Campagna, Hovey Industries; Maurizio Campagna, Camtag were present in opposition to the staff recommendations and copies of their presentations are held on file with the City Clerk. CFIB represents the interests of 105,000 small or medium sized business owners across Canada (over 40,000 in Ontario and 2,000 in Ottawa). Today, Mr. Taylor represented the interest of a handful of members located in the Albion Road Industrial Park and the hundreds of Ottawa residents they employ. These companies will suffer a severe financial impact if the hauled liquid waste strategy is adopted without amendment. A comprehensive PowerPoint Presentation was presented, circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Taylor thanked Councillor Deans and her staff for their assistance in attempting to arrive at a fair and equitable solution. His presentation covered three issues; the importance of small business to the community and the economy; the impact of the proposed fee increases on the businesses at the Albion Road Industrial Park; and, a proposal for a fair and equitable solution to the problem. From the City’s perspective, it is losing money on sewage treatment. ROPEC staff is unable to distinguish between the waste in holding and septic tanks and proposed a blended rate, based on the highest concentration. From CFIB’s perspective, waste from holding tanks is similar to sewage from households and businesses hooked up to the sewer system. Holding tank owners have to pay between $100-150/load to have their tank pumped and hauled away at a frequency as high as three times per week for some businesses. Land was purchased at the Albion Road site on the understanding they would be hooked up to municipal water and sewer; therefore, room for septic beds was never considered. The proposal before PEC today is that what enters holding tanks at these businesses is similar to what enters the sewer system at Ottawa businesses and residents (approximately $1.05 to $1.10/cubic metre). Yet, these businesses are being asked to pay $6.64/cubic metre by the City, plus the high cost of transporting it to ROPEC. The proposal is quite simple; to determine a fair rate for holding tank waste applicable to the 230 locations within Ottawa. The fees listed in the hauled liquid waste strategy be charged to everyone, yet locations with holding tanks would submit invoices to the City for a refund of the difference between the two rates. This is a fair compromise, with the reporting onus on the individual, not the City. The City could ask for previous year’s records to monitor volume consistency. A letter was forwarded to Councillor Deans and circulated to PEC, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

In response to Councillor Deans on the Motion Councillor Bellemare put forward on her behalf, Mr. Taylor indicated CFIB would support that Motion.

Claude Pryor thanked Councillor Deans for her initiative. 26 years ago Pryor Metal established a manufacturing enterprise in the Leitrim Industrial Park with three employees, 2,000 square feet of rented space, used equipment and one customer. It was a family-run business; today the company has 175 full-time employees, plus 25 summer students. It has established a reputation as a leader in the industry through its commitment to excellence in quality, on time delivery and competitive pricing. Since the 2000 meltdown, the market place has become very price sensitive; many jobs are won as a result of Pryor Metals’ aggressive competitive approach to satisfying customer needs, who expect them to implement continuous improvement processes that eliminate waste. The report ignores some very important numbers; e.g. 5% of 230 companies will be affected by a $5,000 increase. In their park alone more than 500 full time are being affected by this increase.

John O’Brien, provided a written presentation that was circulated and is on file with the City Clerk. Mr. O’Brien thanked Councillor Deans as well. Health Craft Products is also located in the Albion and Leitrim Business Park. Health Craft Products designs and manufactures home health products and has moved three times, to larger premises each time. Over the last two years, as Mr. Pryor mentioned business has been difficult; the price of steel and much of their raw material has increased 80-100%; the exchange rate has had a significant impact on their profitability and they have gone from a modest profit to a loss over the last year. This is concurrent with learning of a 1,250% increase in one of their key utilities. As a resident, he could determine he pays $1.12/cubic metre for the waste generated from his home. As a business owner, if he were to disconnect from that sewer pipeline, it would stand to reason he would pay less than that amount because they are physically transporting that waste. If he were concentrating his waste, he would expect to pay multiple dollars per cubic metre, which stands to reason. The City approach was to call for a blended rate of $6, which accounts for the higher volume of the holding tank waste. It is too difficult to separate those who deliver concentrated waste vs. the holding tank waste. Although the 1,200%+ increase would be phased in, which is appreciated, it is only delaying the agony for them. As a business owner, he sells $50 and $600 items; it is a little like him telling his clients that he knew they wanted the $50 item, but he had a fixed price list of $600 for everything. He could not get away with that. The argument presented that it is difficult to administer is appreciated; however, in conversations with his liquid waste hauler, he obtained a manifest used at ROPEC. The document contains information relative to the specific hauler and places for six individual loads on the one sheet. It is very specific as to where the liquid waste is coming from, the volume and whether it is septic tank or holding tank waste. There is the challenge when the hauler picks up from holding and septic tanks, but it can be addressed. Typically, tanks in their park are large and can occupy a complete truck load and more. It seems this is the workings of a solution.

Marco Campagna also thanked Councillor Deans. Hovey Industries has been in business for 27 years and located in the Albion/Leitrim Business since the early 1990’s with two properties in that Park. There are currently 59 employees, down from 71, two years ago. Hovey is a manufacturing company and builds a specialized railroad product for customers like CN/CP Rail and Union Pacific in the U.S. and it also designs engineered metal fabrication products for local clients. He provided a brief overview of their market place in the industry. On the metal fab side they are competing against larger firms from Montreal and Toronto who have larger economies of scale and are clearly more efficient in some of the processes. In addition, they have been adversely affected by the strong Canadian dollar, with some railroad customers in the U.S., and by dramatic steel prices. Sales have been relatively flat, but margins have dropped by 50% and costs have increased. Cost increases like the liquid waste disposal fee are especially hard to take when they are considered unfair and unreasonable. The proposal calls for increases in the disposal fee until the fee fully recovers treatment cost. If the cost to treat waste from Hovey is more than the typical sewer waste, then Hovey should pay more. However, he did not believe their waste is so vastly different from typical sewer waste that it justifies a cost above the sewer waste and certainly not 1,250%. If their waste is not different, then this increase is not a cost recovery fee. Ironically, in a few years, they will be mere metres from homes (Finlay Creek) that will be hooked up to the sewer system and paying a fraction of the cost for Hovey to haul away. There was a meeting with the Manager of the Environmental Programs and it was quite discouraging when early in the meeting, he dismissed their proposal, which was based on a fair and reasonable premise using a rebate program, as a non-starter with the City’s finance and admin staff. Further, he categorized their concept of fairness and reasonableness as theoretical. An increase on this scale, even over the years contemplated, is not theoretical in practical terms and limits their ability to compete. If the waste from Hovey is no different than that from City office’s, they are in effect subsidizing the sewer system, since they are not connected to it in any way. In conclusion, he wished to say that Mr. Taylor from CFIB has spoken well on their behalf and presented a proposal that is clearly fair and reasonable.

In response to Councillor Feltmate on the charges across the Province, Mr. Campagna did not have an issue with paying on a cost recovery basis. Councillor Feltmate posited that if any business was located outside the municipality, the business would be paying more. Mr. Hewitt posited there are some aspects that must be taken into consideration. One is that it is staff’s belief that even holding tank waste is in fact a more costly material to treat than is the material that comes through the City’s sewers for a variety of reasons. The City is looking at a phase in solution; the first year of that phase in comes out to be fairly close to what would not be disputed as a reasonable fee. The opportunity is before the City to spend the year as indicated with regard to reviews and evaluations to see whether there are other directions staff would like to bring forward within the year and there is already the facility within the By-Law for specific arrangements under certain circumstances. Whether that meets all the requirements of the delegations before PEC, he was not sure, but the year would allow staff the opportunity to fully evaluate whether it does or not and, if it doesn’t, whether there are opportunities to work on other solutions.

Vice-Chair Feltmate chaired this portion of this item.

Councillor Thompson noted that this year would allow staff to address the concerns, since everyone does understand there is a difference and there is a business owner in Osgoode Ward who has a plaza in the City and one on a holding tank. He can best compare the difference. Having heard the concerns, the delegations did accept the Motion presented by Councillor Bellemare on behalf of Councillor Deans that would accept the first phase of the raise and that at this time next year there would be a fair take on this.

Dale Harley, Osgoode Ward Business Alliance, represented businesses in Osgoode Ward with both septic systems as well as holding tanks. He was in support of the staff report and thanked staff and Councillors, particularly Councillors Thompson and Deans for listening to their concerns and having that reflected in the revised staff report. First, as rural businesses, they were not opposed to cost-recovery or paying their fair share of the cost of services. However, as mentioned by the previous group, the original proposal translated into a 1,250% increase, which was not acceptable, particularly when taking into consideration the whole idea was to offset a $500,000 shortfall. If that original proposal had been approved, a significant number of rural businesses would have had to close because of that cost impact. One of the businesses mentioned by Councillor Thompson, as an example, in a rural 12-unit strip mall would have seen their costs rise from $1,600/year to $24,000/year, which could not be passed on to the respective businesses in the mall. Those important rural businesses would have been lost. The proposal to increase $1/year is reasonable, workable and enables the City to meet its cost-recovery objectives; as the previous group, they respect the possible two-tier system, recognizing the costs associated with holding tanks vs. septic systems would be appreciated. In closing, he encouraged PEC to support the staff report. As a taxpayer, he would like to see this resolved because $.53 is not fair and it is time they paid their fair share.

Tom MacWilliam, Gloucester Chamber of Commerce and National Capital Business Alliance, was present in support of a move to full cost recovery. As businesses, they believe they should be paying their fair share, but do object to paying something greater. The original proposal put forward was totally unacceptable and would have put an inordinate amount of pressure on business and seen a number of businesses close or re-locate. They were very pleased to see this was tabled and thanked Councillors Thompson and Deans as well as the other rural Councillors for their support. They are very much in support of the phase in, but would like to see it done fairly. He was at a total loss to understand how it cannot be monitored, when a manifest is provided every time a truck pulls up. It would be a relatively simple matter to require trucks to either haul liquid waste from a holding tank or from a septic system. Obviously, the trucks would perhaps have to vary their routes or pick up schedules, but he did not believe that would be an impossibility. He questioned the need for two full time equivalent staff to monitor this over a period of time, given the information that is provided in the manifest. The Gloucester Chamber of Commerce and National Capital Business Alliance do support the phase in process, want to see it done fairly and think there is a need to look at the differentiation between the holding tank pump outs and sewage.

Responding to Councillor Bellemare on his Motion to have staff examine the actual transportation requirements in the future, Mr. MacWilliam believed that was an excellent point since the amount of truck traffic has increased.

The Committee received the following correspondence:

· Email dated 22 March 2005 from Glenn Scobie

· Email dated 14 March 2005 from Victor Grostern, Econome Inc.

Councillor Deans thanked staff for working with the rural Councillors to more adequately address this issue. The original report was completely unacceptable to the rural businesses, with a 1,250% increase in cost that was insurmountable for many businesses. Staff did work closely with Councillors Thompson, El-Chantiry, Jellett and herself and the recommendations before Committee are vastly improved and more acceptable to the rural businesses. But, there is still a significant fairness factor that has not been fully addressed. That became clear to her when she approached the businesses in the Albion Business Park. The main point not addressed is the issue of the difference between the density in a septic vs. that in a holding tank. Septic tanks are pumped out possibly once every two years, therefore the cost, even if increased 1,250%, is not that insurmountable. But, a holding tank pumped out three times/week lumped in with septic tanks at $6.50/cubic metre is not fair. She proposed and Councillor Bellemare has agreed to move on her behalf that the City look at this issue over the next year to characterize the hauled liquid waste disposed at ROPEC and report back to PEC with recommendations on how to fairly reflect the actual treatment costs to individual businesses. That moves away from the blended rate, which is not fair to holding tank owners. The Albion Industrial Park businesses have holding tanks because they believed 20 years ago they would be hooked up to City services and the businesses were constructed without room for septic beds. They are still without services. She was aware staff is reluctant and there are challenges, but there are ways of characterizing the waste and separating it out and the City must be fair to these businesses as it moves forward. She asked PEC to support the Motion and recommendations in the staff report.

Councillor Hunter was concerned with the additional Motion by Councillor Bellemare to examine future transportation requirements. Two things concern him; one is that staff examine future transportation requirements, which generally means that staff hire a consultant. It then suggests determining the appropriate level of cost recovery through disposal fees. Vehicles using public roads and highways pay high gasoline and diesel fuel tax, which is supposed to be focussed on the maintenance of roads. The decision has been made to direct those monies elsewhere for the foreseeable future. Lastly, it sets a dangerous precedent. If the City is going to target trucks on roads in this Business Park, what about the Merivale Business Park and those in Kanata and Ottawa South, etc. He understands exactly where Councillor Bellemare is coming from, but it is a dangerous road and he would suggest that direction not be taken, now or in the foreseeable future. Councillor Harder also would not support that Motion and mentioned the tanker trucks that drive through Knoxdale-Merivale and 60-100 tankers that haul leachate from Trail Road through many roads (in different wards) down to ROPEC. With on site treatment, that will no longer take place.

In response to a query from Councillor Bellemare as a result of Councillor Hunter’s concerns, Mr. Hewitt did not anticipate hiring a consultant; he was looking at a straightforward evaluation of traffic volumes, in-house.

Moved by Councillor M. Bellemare:

Whereas the septage receiving facility at the Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre was never designed to accommodate the volume of hauled liquid waste currently being received nor the associated truck traffic affecting area roads;

That staff examine future transportation requirements in connection with the increasing truck traffic to the Pickard Centre and determine the appropriate level of cost recovery through disposal fees.

CARRIED

Yeas (7): Councillors M. Bellemare, G. Bédard, D. Holmes, H. Kreling, A. Cullen, P. Hume, P. Feltmate

NAYS (2): Councillors J. Harder, G. Hunter

Moved by Councillor M. Bellemare:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff be directed to characterize the hauled liquid waste disposed of at the R.O. Pickard Environmental Centre over the coming year to determine concentration of content, and report back to Planning and Environment Committee in the fall of 2006 with recommendations on how to fairly reflect actual treatment costs to individual businesses.

CARRIED

The Committee approved the recommendations as amended:

That the Planning and Environmental Services Committee recommend Council approve the followingat:

1. The City of Ottawa continue accepting hauled liquid waste generated outside the City boundaries, with priority given to in-City waste, until the impacts of the Nutrient Management Act, 2001 can be quantified;

for as long as the Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre can accommodate the waste;

2. The disposal fee for hauled liquid waste generated within the City boundaries be increased from $0.53 per cubic metre to $1.53 per cubic metre, effective 01 July 2005as of 01 January 2005, and by $1.00 per cubic metre annually thereafter until the fee fully recovers treatment costs;

3. The disposal fee for hauled liquid waste generated outside City boundaries be increased from $9.21 per cubic metre to $19.92 per cubic metre, effective as of 01 JanuarJulyy 2005 and be revised annually to reflect current data, including any inflationary effects; and

1. The Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre continues to be the only location for the disposal of hauled liquid waste in the City; Staff be directed to further investigate the implications of the proposed changes to the Nutrient Management Act, 2001 prior to submitting a final report with recommendations on the direction of the Hauled Liquid Waste Strategy;

4. Disposal fees be set to include fundinga levy to be set aside to upgrade and maintain the hauled waste disposal facility, to alleviate environmental and health and safety concerns;

5. The hauled liquid waste monitoring program be increased to include the analysis of 10% of the loads received and that the sources of the waste be sampled onsite, in keeping with Best Management Practices;

6. Disposal fees be set to include funding for the staffing of an additional full time position to deal with the increas ed workload resulting from the aadministeration of the Hauled Liquid Waste Strategy;

7. The Sewer Use By-law be revised to reflect any change in disposal fees; and

8. Two full time positions be approved to provide for appropriate auditing of the hauled liquid waste, funding to be provided by revenues generated from the acceptance of imported waste, as outlined in this report.

9. That staff examine future transportation requirements in connection with the increasing truck traffic to the Pickard Centre and determine the appropriate level of cost recovery through disposal fees.

10. That staff be directed to characterize the hauled liquid waste disposed of at the R.O. Picard Environmental Centre over the coming year to determine concentration of content, and report back to Planning and Environment Committee in the fall of 2006 with recommendations on how to fairly reflect actual treatment costs to individual businesses.

CARRIED as amended

3. VILLAGE OF CARP ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

PLAN DE GESTION DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT DU VILLAGE DE CARP

ACS2005-PGM-POL-0001 WEST CARLETON (5)

Deferred from 11 JAN 2005 meeting

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 7 April 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve:

i) the Village of Carp Environmental Management Plan, Final Report (prepared by Robinson Consultants Inc., November 2004, revised March 2005); and

ii) the filing of the Village of Carp Environmental Management Plan for the required thirty-day public review period.

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

4. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING - 1890, 1900, 1920 WALKLEY ROAD, 2980, 3000 Conroy road, 2500, 2502, 2510 St. laurent Blvd. and 2425 Don reid drive

plan officiel et zonage - 1890, 1900, 1920, chemin walkley, 2980, 3000, chemin conroy, 2500, 2502, 2510, boulevard st-laurent et 2425, promenade don reid

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0099 GLOUCESTER SOUTHGATE (10)

N. Lathrop, D. Jacobs, J. Moser, Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals, Tim Marc, Manager, Development Law, and Louise Sweet-Lindsay, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 14 April 2005. Following a PowerPoint Presentation by Ms. Sweet-Lindsay, staff responded to questions posed by Committee members and Councillor Deans, the Ward Councillor, with the main points summarized below. A copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

· In the early 1990’s, the property was zoned CE [360] to accommodate the current businesses, prior to that it was similar to the IP. There are circumstances associated with zoning the subject property that impact the entire block and issues that arise therefrom, aside from the application, that impact the recommendation. Discussion of these issues would require Committee to move in-camera

· The context was different in 2000 and the present report does not build on a premise that because one property is commercial, the City will expand that commercial zoning to the remainder of the site. The original vision for this site was to accommodate a premier business park for high-end businesses to be held to a higher design standard. If Loblaws were successful in their application, the City would hold the development to those extensive design features outlined in the report.

· Staff agreed to report back on whether changing the designation of this property will change the tax ratio.

· The comprehensive Official Plan Amendment (OPA) retail appellants report forthcoming to PEC will take a position that will not permit big box retail in industrial parks. The issue before PEC today is clearly not viewed as the same circumstance. The two situations are different in that there are mitigating circumstances surrounding the reason this site can be considered for big box retailing. That combined with the planning rational as a result of its location on an arterial roadway was the reason staff is recommending this application.

· The issue of big box retailing is not a centrepiece of the forthcoming report on the Retail Amendment. The concept of big box retailing is being removed from the OP in that report in that it is a retail service; it is not the size of the store that is the issue, but the nature of the land use.

· In the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), there is a section that deals with the protection of employment lands and the need to ensure there is an adequate supply. The City is currently undertaking that assessment as part of monitoring the implementation of the new OP. The proposal before Committee today would not be categorized as being against that policy. The lands were developed for employment purposes and the proposal would provide employment. The City reviews its policies on a regular basis and staff did not believe this application would mitigate against those policies. The application has been considered on its own merit.

· There are issues with this proposal that go beyond what is directly under this City’s control. The City can move the agenda forward on smart growth principles but there will not be immediate change

· The Official Plan Amendment (OPA) will indicate no big box retailing outside the general commercial designations. The discussion within Riverside South community is about how to better integrate commercial into a transit-oriented environment. This community will be a prime example of where it can be successfully accomplished.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Kevin Kinsella indicated the staff report did not identify the area south of the proposed Loblaws development. This would cut off Hunt Club Park from the rest of Gloucester Southgate and hasten the widening of Conroy Road. There are eight grocery stores in the neighbourhood, including a 24-hour Loeb. This can present a problem to the survival of Heron Gate Mall. The proposal is dangerous from a traffic point of view for area residents. It is not a good planning decision, as there is nothing in the report encouraging pedestrian or transit issues. He acknowledged some Hunt Club Park residents might like this new development until they realize the traffic impact it will have on their residential area.

Linda Kinsella expressed concern about the lack of transit to the proposed Loblaws. She indicated she was involved in OP meetings that spoke to a pedestrian friendly City, yet that is not reflected in this report. She urged PEC not to approve this development since it is not pedestrian, nor transit friendly.

Joan Gullen and Isobel Mackenzie, on behalf of the Board of Directors, Hawthorne Meadows Nursery School Inc. (Cornerstone Daycare and Heatherington Nursery School) as well as the Andrew Fleck Day Care, indicated their Day Care has been in existence at the corner of Don Reid and Walkley for eight years and were opposed to the staff recommendation. Their concerns are outlined below:

· Traffic impact on Don Reid and children’s safety. The concept plan illustrates two full access/egress roads on Don Reid close to the Day Care Centre, which will endanger children’s safety as they are picked up and dropped off at the Centre.

· As the traffic increase will be significant, the position of the Board of Directors is to close off those two access roads from Don Reid as vehicles will be tempted to use Don Reid as a cut through to avoid Walkley to access Conroy. The deceleration lane is useful as well as the banning of truck traffic.

· Loblaws has offered to pay for a new exit point at the far end of the Day Care’s parking lot to mitigate the situation, so there is a better view of oncoming traffic and a stop sign at the entrance; however, those offers do not change the major traffic problem.

· They located in the area because it was zoned as a Business Park, which was compatible with the day care.

· There is a choice between the corporate interest and the safety and well being of children. They requested deferral of the zoning aspect until the significant impact on day care and other community and business interest in terms of traffic have been addressed. They appreciate these are two different processes, but once zoning has been approved, there will be enormous pressure to accommodate the site design.

In response to questions from Councillors Bédard and Holmes, Ms. Gullen indicated the proposed zoning would generate enormous additional traffic through the retail block and have a direct impact on the Day Care. An office building would be less subversive.

Greg Gilson, owner, Tim Horton’s, spoke in support of the proposed zoning change, as it would be a good land use. He does not feel that traffic will be an issue with the manner in which the traffic lights are set up and it would create employment in the community.

In response to Chair Hume, Mr. Gilson advised that approximately 5,000 clients visit the Tim Horton’s and Wendy’s every day. There are 71 parking spaces between the Tim Horton’s and Wendy’s.

Michelle St. Germain, Director of Properties, Commerce City Properties, presented a comment sheet that indicated a concern with the proposed application, specifically the building orientation, loading and possible overflow parking.

Al Cohen, Soloway Wright, Brian Casagrande and Ted Fobert, FoTenn Consultants Inc; Ron Jack, Delcan; Mario Fatica, on behalf of Loblaws, appeared before Committee in support of the application. Mr. Fobert provided a comprehensive PowerPoint Presentation, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are outlined below:

· Five public meetings were held with the majority in attendance in support of this development. Specific concerns were raised with respect to cut-through traffic and specific sites, but overall there was general support. The reason for that support is due to the area being under-served for a grocery store. Market analysis indicates that 50% of the trade area is north of Walkley, the remainder coming from the south.

· The zoning in the area is commercial. Across the road zoning is in place that permits retail uses.

· The site plan outlined six entrances, with a full turning movement on Don Reid. There are signalized intersections at Ryder, Conroy, a right in/right out off Conroy, etc. The site plan was filed and put on hold until the use was considered, which is normal process. The entry across the middle of the site is important because it does channel traffic north or south into parking areas. If that were closed traffic would be forced along the front of the store, which would create a significant pedestrian traffic impact.

· This store is in walking distance of the Alta Vista Community where there is no store currently within walking distance.

· The design is very modern and fits within the current style of development in the Ottawa Business Park. It is heavily landscaped. The design will exceed the design guidelines for the Business Park.

· An employment study was conducted as part of the submission, which staff has looked at that. The study found, looking at the last five-year trends, there is a 23-year supply of land based on a heavy absorption and strong economy.

· The site represents .5 of the vacant employment lands in this city. The development density for jobs in the Ottawa Business Park, if this site is developed out at that density would generate 133 jobs; the Loblaws store will generate 450 jobs.

· In terms of market impacts, one concern was raised with respect to Heron Gate Mall, which has an existing food store, with very little reinvestment in that property. It is in need of refurbishment. The market study shows there will be no closures as a result of this store; there will be some transfers (10-12%), but after anticipated growth that pattern comes back up. Taxes are in the order of $936,000 per year. There are $1.8 million in Development Charge fees, Building Permit fees and $320,000 Cash in lieu of Parkland Development.

· They did meet with the Cornerstone Children’s Centre and agreed to look at alternate designs for their sites, which Delcan did review with another exit, with one way in and out back onto Don Reid to reduce the conflicts close to the corner. There will also be a deceleration lane to provide a safer turn around that corner. Loblaws has agreed to incur the costs associated with any improvements thereto. An office development in morning peak hour when children are being dropped off is more impacting than a grocery store. On Saturdays and through the day and afternoon peak, it is different.

· This development will serve the residential community and Business Park.

Mr. Jack added that the traffic perceptions are overestimated and stores that have developed have proved that and referenced other Loblaws stores that were controversial. Loblaws posted funds to conduct a post-monitoring study of traffic and transportation. Once the store opened, the traffic issues were completely benign. There was little congestion and the post-monitoring was never exercised because there was no need. This store is larger, but it is in the same order of magnitude. Don Reid is a business collector road that is designed to carry traffic, but currently only carries 400-500 per hour. The Loblaws’ site will add 2-300 vehicles an hour to it, which is well within the capacity that road is meant to carry. With respect to the issues with day care, there is a functional solution that will allow it to operate. He did not know how many cars are dropping off children, but combined with traffic on Don Reid, it can be made safer and offset the exit to the south will improve the site distances. Loblaws has agreed to undertake that matter. The east/west spine road is important. Stores are now designed to allow traffic to enter the middle or back of the parking lots and distribute into aisles. The main circulation is not wanted across the front of the building, which significantly reduces on site circulation and pedestrian conflicts along the store frontages.

Mr. Cohen thanked the two Councillors (Deans and Hume) and staff that brought matters to their attention, which has resulted in the lack of multitudes attending in objection. There was a concern about the potential impact of this proposal on the supply of industrial land, which was put to Loblaws before the PPS was adopted by the Province and in response to that a study was prepared and filed with the City, which demonstrates there is negligible impact on the supply and therefore it can be said the proposal is fully in compliance with the PPS. With respect to the OP, one may easily extract points to demonstrate non-compliance. But looking at all the requirements and aspirations of the OP, this location is on two arterials, services a mature industrial park without threatening it, provides a service to two significant neighbourhoods and therefore performs many planning goods. It is fair to say they have filed appeals on behalf of Loblaws and others with respect to the retail policies and those policies are coming forward. He was satisfied this is an appropriate site for the use separate and distinct from the employment area retail issue.

Councillor Harder referred to the issue of traffic and would presume the bulk of traffic will come in off Conroy, either through the back or front of Loblaws. Mr. Jacks advised it is based on the market area and 50% is to the south of the site. At least half will come up from the bottom; 20-25% is to east from Walkley and 25% from the west and north, using Don Reid or by Tim Horton’s.

Responding to Councillor Cullen, Mr. Fatica advised the Westboro Loblaws was 92,000 square feet at grade, with 12,000 square feet of mezzanine; this would be 153,000 square feet at grade, with 20,000 square feet of mezzanine. It is virtually identical to the store presently under construction at Innes and Lanthier. Loblaws is repositioning itself in the market place and making a heavy investment in the Ottawa market place.

The Committee received the following correspondence, which is held on file with the City Clerk:

· From Wendy Lambert in opposition

· A package of comments from the public meeting held on Monday, 9 May 2005, from Councillor Deans (Allan Porter, Gerri Scott, G. W. Ruygrok, Alfred Yu, Fred Michel, Ernest Schmidt, Jim Ryan, Laura Bethune)

· Eli Tannis, President, Ottawa Hawthorne Business Parks Association, in opposition.

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

Chair Humes noted Councillor Holmes moved deferral and asked Committee members to speak to that Motion, moved on behalf of Councillor Deans.

Councillor Deans addressed PEC in support of deferral. One of the biggest concerns raised is the conflict between the Day Care and the amount of traffic that will be generated. Loblaws has gone a long way in addressing that issue in terms of access/egress, but there is a more fundamental issue relative to that access into the site and if it is really needed. It was stated that 50% of the traffic will come off Conroy onto St. Laurent to enter the site. The question is whether it will be necessary. For that reason, she asked for deferral to bring it back at the same time to work out those issues and then when it is ultimately approved, that fundamental issue will be dealt with.

In response to Councillor Bédard on the timelines, Ms. Sweet-Lindsay advised the site plan application has been filed and put on circulation and comments have been received, but it has been put on hold. It would in likelihood come forward to Committee, if delegated authority were lifted, in early fall.

Responding further to Councillor Bédard, Councillor Deans advised that the feeling is that once an OPA and Zoning Amendment have been approved, any leverage in dealing with this issue is lost. It was not her experience that the Ward Councillor has any control in addressing these issues once the zoning has been changed. If it is dealt with concurrently, a solution in everyone’s interest can be arrived at. In response to Councillor Hunter, she was not sure they are looking to close both accesses onto Don Reid, but simply the one closest to the day care, but want to have the sense they will be listened to in the process. If dealt with concurrently it is more likely they would meet with some resolution that would protect the children of the day care.

Mr. Lathrop advised the process is developed the way it is because it makes sense and it makes sense to let the applicant know whether or not Committee and Council will agree with the Rezoning and OPA. A traffic study was undertaken that indicates there are no major implications and it is an ideal site. He cautioned that if PEC defers the application, the applicant might take this the OMB who will make a decision. It is prudent for PEC to make a decision and hopefully not bring it back to PEC and resolve those issues without lifting delegated authority. The site can be developed and it is an ideal location from an access point of view.

Responding to Councillor Holmes, Mr. Lathrop advised he had not been informed by anyone that has any interest in taking this to the OMB from within the Business Park.

Chair Hume would like to have the site plan come to PEC because he had amendments he would like PEC to approve that would provide his community significant comfort. However, he questioned if that is the right process. The City has defined a process that allows the ward councillor to deal with those issues and if she cannot come to an agreement with staff and the applicant, it then comes to this Committee for approval. Once site plan is approved, the applicant can accept or appeal it to OMB. The greatest leverage for the community rests with the Councillor. The best way to achieve the goals of the day care community is to approve what is before PEC; leave the site plan with Councillor Deans and if she cannot come to an agreement PEC will deal with it. The best way to deal with this development is to approve the staff recommendation and he would not support lifting delegated authority to deal with the Site Plan Approval since Councillor Deans is the best person to deal with the Site Plan.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

Therefore be it resolved that Item 4, the OP and Zoning Amendment for 1890, 1900, 1920 Walkley Road, 2980, 3000 Conroy road, 2500, 2502, 2510 St. Laurent Blvd and

2425 Don Reid Drive be deferred until the site plan application is brought forward allowing for all applications be dealt with Concurrently.

LOST

Yeas (3): Councillors D. Holmes, A. Cullen, M. Bellemare

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

Councillor Deans believed it is inconsistent with the big box strategy, with PPS, with the master plan for that business park and with a fundamental tenant of the OP, which is to build a more transit friendly community, and it doesn’t meet that test. This is problematic for other businesses in the community. The Heron Gate Mall is one km away and this will probably be its death. The day care has a real concern. She does agree with the presentation by the applicant that there has not been a lot of objection from within the community. Residents assume it is going to be built and accept it. She presumed they are concerned about traffic. A principal concern is that this may lead to traffic calming and she understood Loblaws has an agreement with Councillor Hume to put in traffic calming measures through Alta Vista if this leads to increased traffic north of the site. In the absence of the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor those are the access roads to the hospital for the south end communities, to the two high schools and the swimming pool in that neighbourhood. Loblaws would have been better to take over the Heron Gate area where zoning is in place and it needs to be redeveloped. This was intended as a premiere business park and it is inconsistent with what was intended to be there. She will be looking to protect the day care and to ensure traffic flow at that intersection. This will contribute to the corner of Conroy and Walkley failing in 2008.

Chair Hume advised the use before PEC is a better use than what exists today. His constituents drive to South Keys through this neighbourhood. Having something in close proximity they can walk and cycle to will be better. A new bus route will come from the interior of his community right by the front door of this development, which will provide tremendous access for the Alta Vista seniors community. He was concerned about traffic impacts and so informed Loblaws. The issue at hand is approving the matter before PEC and understanding how to address the community’s concerns and refusing the recommendation will not necessarily address the community’s interest, which Loblaws has gone a way to address, but need to go a little further.

Responding to a question from Councillor Deans on the traffic measures, Chair Hume summarized there will be a process that will outline what those measure are and they are the traditional measures used within the basket of solutions within the City and an Open House will be taking place in June.

The Committee approved the staff recommendations.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Official Plan for the lands as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 3.

2. Approve an amendment to the City Council Approved Official Plan for the lands as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 4.

3. Approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning from Industrial Business Park - IP F(1.0) and Employment Centre - CE[360] SCH. 58 to General Commercial - CG 13 H(12.0)[XXX] for the lands as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 5 .

CARRIED with Councillor D. Holmes dissenting

Chair Hume asked if the Committee would agree to have Item 4 rise to Council on 8 June 2005 since he has been appointed to the Waste Diversion Organization Board representing municipalities and the second Board meeting is on the 25^th of May. The Committee agreed.

5. Official Plan and Zoning - Part of 1435 Caledon Place, Part of 549 Industrial Avenue, 830 Belfast Road

plan officiel et ZONAGE - PARTIE DE 1435, PLACE CALEDON, PARTIE DE 549, AVENUE INDUSTRIAL, 830, CHEMIN BELFAST

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0119 ALTA VISTA (18)

Marty Koshman, Ottawa Train Yards Inc., was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 27 April 2005. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve and adopt an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Official Plan to redesignate part of 1435 Caledon Place, part of 549 Industrial Avenue, 830 Belfast Road from Traditional Industrial Area to Traditional Industrial Area with Site Specific Policies, as detailed in Document 2.

2. Approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of part of 1435 Caledon Place, part of 549 Industrial Avenue, 830 Belfast Road from General Industrial IG F(1.0) to a General Industrial IG exception zone as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 4.

CARRIED

6. ZONING - 140 Main strEet

ZONAGE - 140, rue Main

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0114 CAPITAL (17)

D. Jacobs, J. Moser, G. Lindsay, John Smit, Program Manager, Development Review, and Krista Burgess, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 14 April 2005.

Christian Pupp provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Pupp urged Committee to keep the options open for commercial development of this property in light of the large impact this amendment would have on the future role of Main Street in the area. Main Street has the potential, as the central corridor for Ottawa East, to become the focal point and organizing centre for the whole area. If this amendment is approved it could cause a significant population increase and increased demands for mixed use. Committee should encourage the community of Ottawa East to develop, in collaboration with City staff, a comprehensive vision for Main Street and its role for the whole area.

Councillor Harder asked if Mr. Pupp was aware that very recently an application came before PEC from Main Street and PEC recognized that a review of Main Street was necessary and that rests with Councillor Doucet. Mr. Pupp responded that he is loosely connected with the Ottawa East Community Association that has seen a huge inflow of young professionals into the area.

Jane Ironside, on behalf of the School Board, appeared in support of the staff recommendation. This parcel is owned by the School Board, which is now the Immaculata High School, and determined the property to be surplus to their needs. The small area coloured in yellow is the focus of the rezoning. Most of that land is already zoned residential R3J, which does not currently permit any commercial uses and is strictly residential. The portion coloured in pink is part of the institutional zone and for some reason the boundary between the residential and institutional is currently located there. Recently the School Board approached the Committee of Adjustment for approval to sever the portion of land outlined in yellow. The purpose of this application is to change the boundary location between the R3 and the institutional zone for the 42 square meter area. She appreciated the comments by the previous speaker because she was involved in the other application that requested removal of the commercial zoning, but this particular location is not appropriate for commercial use. This lot is immediately adjacent to a signalized entrance to Immaculata School, so on the available nine meter frontage of the lot, there will only be sufficient room for one driveway leading to a single family home and immediately adjacent to that is this signalized intersection with access to a parking area. She asked the Committee to support the staff recommendation

The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of a portion of the property at 140 Main Street from I1 - Minor Institutional Zone to R3J - Converted House/Townhouse Zone; and to change the zoning of a portion of the property from R3J to I1, as shown in Document 1.

CARRIED

7. ZONING - 251 Northwestern Avenue

ZONAGE - 251, avenue northwestern

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0118 KITCHISSIPPI (15)

D. Jacobs, J. Moser, G. Lindsay, J. Smit and T. Marc appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 15 April 2005. Following a PowerPoint Presentation by Mr. Smit, staff responded to questions posed by Committee members and Councillor Little (Ward Councillor) and the following represents the main points:

· The land was in an employment centre zone, which does allow a number of uses that may include public parking. It was being used for public parking by the Mosque in part to raise funds and that was proving problematic to the community.

· This property was part of Tunney’s pasture and lands were leased by the Federal Government to the Mosque to provide additional parking to relieve the on street parking congestion within that residential community and the Mosque was then making those lands available as commercial parking for Tunney’s pasture employees. The land transaction that was affected between the Federal Government, the City and the Mosque specifically dealt with the notion of accessory parking only, not commercial. There was never an ability to access this property until the lands were leased to the Mosque; it was always accessed off Tunney’s Pasture and in that context commercial parking would be appropriate.

· The Agreement of Purchase and Sale conveyed those lands from the Federal Government to allow the City to convey the lands to the Mosque, given that the Federal Government cannot effect that type of direct conveyance although they can convey to a public agency. The City conveyed the lands to the Mosque specifically for purposes of allowing additional Mosque parking to be provided and eliminate the use of those lands for commercial parking, which the Mosque had established when they first commenced leasing the lands from the Federal Government.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Lynne Bankier, Secretary, Champlain Park Community Association, provided a detailed written submission in agreement with the staff recommendation that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk (as well as her speaking notes). The Association agrees with the staff report that represents the needs and position of the neighbourhood quite well. The Association cooperated with the Ottawa Muslim Association (OMA) to arrive at a win-win solution that was agreed to by City Council in 2000. That resolution addressed the needs of the communities, OMA and the Association. It was designed to provide additional parking to the Mosque while protecting the interest of the local community from the commercial parking that was introducing traffic into the community and to provide additional parking that was needed to accommodate the large volume and success of the Mosque in drawing the parishioners to worship on Friday. Commercial parking and Mosque worshiper parking impacts the community, causing additional traffic, concerns about access of emergency vehicles, blocked driveways, even displacement of 20-30 cars onto local streets.

In response to a question from Councillor Little, Ms. Bankier counted approximately 165 cars before the additional land was purchased. Now there are 300 cars commercially parked. Prior to 2000, Councillor Little, Dr. Malik and she met to arrive at solutions to the stressors in the community associated with both parishioner and commercial parking. The result was that OMA wanted to purchase the land they currently leased and there was an additional parcel of land that could be joined to that. Purchasing the originally leased land would alleviate the high leasing cost paid to the Federal Government and adding the additional parcel would expand their parking to double the number of parishioners that could be accommodated on site, taking some strain off City streets. This was a win-win solution. City Council adopted a resolution to become involved in the land transfer, with the attached conditions on title and the community has not changed its position since that time. The Federal Government was reluctant to sell this land and it required a joint lobbying effort to achieve that. If the community had thought the land would be expanded to the commercial use, it would not have helped in this effort. The expectation was that the neighbourhood would be protected.

Heather Pearl, member, Champlain Park Community Association, provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The community has been working hard to arrive at an amicable and equitable solution. It is a small neighbourhood of approximately 420 homes. The community worked long and hard to reach an agreement that is not being honoured. The Mosque no longer has to pay leasing fees to the Federal Government. These vehicles create additional pollution, exhaust, dust, heat and noise. Recently there have been a diminished number of vehicles on Fridays because they have been able to use the parking lot, which means driveways are no longer blocked in. The community needs to know what is going to be done to provide similar screening to that provided at Tunney’s Pasture and would like the agreement honoured.

Amy Kempster was pleased to support the change in the former Tunney’s Pasture area to institutional zoning, but not the type that supports commercial parking. She opposed the By-Law the city put through years ago to allow commercial parking on institutional grounds. She felt it was prostituting churches to allow something that would not be allowed in residential areas. The decision to sell this site was based on the agreement to not allow commercial parking by the OMA. OMA would be showing good faith if it withdrew the application for commercial parking. The provision for further parking for Tunney’s Pasture, a site well served by transit goes against the principles in the new OP to increase transit ridership. Why place more parking in an area that provides such good transit? In addition, such use encourages cut-through traffic and is not in keeping with a residential neighbourhood. The use of institutional lands for commercial parking is, in general, not a good idea and because in this case, there was an actual agreement not to do so, is especially not a good idea.

Craig Wells provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The main points are summarized below:

· Lives in the neighbourhood because of local amenities and presence of Ottawa Parkway, with an excellent public transit system.

· Over the years, there has been an increase in traffic and on street parking.

· Respectfully asked the Committee to consider the following points:

· The land was recently sold to OMA for express purpose of providing parking for those who worship at the Mosque.

· When this agreement was finalized, it was agreed to by both parties that commercial parking would be prohibited for the next 20 years.

· The increase in traffic would cause a change in the nature of this community and is not in line with the OP.

· The subject of Friday exclusion would be difficult to enforce. Even if it could be enforced, there is some question whether it would be legal.

· This should be refused and OMA made to live up to the agreement negotiated in good faith so recently.

Louise Radmore, Agent, Holland Cross Developments, operates a competing parking lot. Ms. Radmore was in support of the staff recommendation to rezone the property, provided commercial parking continues to be prohibited on the site. There is plenty of parking already available in the community that is operating legally and within the zoning on the appropriate properties. They relied on the promises by the Mosque in signing the Agreement of Purchase and Sale in which they agreed to prohibit commercial parking for 20 years. It is a sign of poor faith they immediately applied to rezone the property to allow for commercial uses. They were told they could not be shut down until this matter is heard and have been able to clearly operate in contravention of current zoning. They are able to offer parking at substantially reduced rates because they do not have to adhere to the restrictions in place on the Holland-Cross site. They have not provided appropriate drainage, surfacing, lighting, security or berms. It is their hope this matter will be settled today and they will be forced to live up to the commitments made and keep commercial parking out of the residential zone. As a commercial operator they are restricted in how much parking they can provide on their site because they are in an employment zone and respect the OP to encourage public transit.

In response to Councillor Little, Mr. Marc advised the Agreement of Purchase and Sale was signed on June 22, 2004 and registered on July 28, 2004. Mr. Smit advised the date of the application was August 10, 2004, within two weeks of the registration of the Agreement.

Paul Webber, Bell Baker, and Dr. M. A. Malik, Ottawa Muslim Association (OMA) provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. OMA is not asking for commercial parking on the new land. There are five distinct pieces of land at issue; one is 251 Northwestern. Contrary to what Mr. Smit advised, this application not about 251 Northwestern, which is the existing Mosque property. Adjacent to that, moving north, is a single lot that is the Imams residence, part of the same title, but not 251 Northwestern. To the north again, there is a property with the zoning shown as I1599, which is the United Church on which commercial parking for Tunney’s Pasture is permitted under the provisions of the Ottawa Zoning By-Law. There are two parcels that are crosshatched. The more southerly one was leased from DPW and used for parking for a number of years and when acquisition occurred the second parcel became available and OMA purchased both. There are problems with the applications filed. The first is that it only relates to the newly acquired land, which is the two cross-hatched parcels lying to the east. What ought to be considered in terms of making planning sense is the whole of the site. The application was not drafted properly and did not address the existing Mosque property.

The second problem is that it left the impression with the community that OMA was seeking to renege on the agreement, which was very contentious. In 2000 all of these conditions emerged; DPW would only flip the land through the City. The conditions for no commercial parking were imposed; the OMA Executive at the time was prepared to do that, but lost their election. The next few Boards refused to close the agreement because they thought it was a bad deal, which is why nothing happened until 2004. He was instructed to say that OMA accepts the deal; it does not ask for commercial parking on the newly acquired land. OMA seeks to preserve the right it has always had for 60 paid parking spots. It would be entitled to those spots on its existing Mosque property just as the United Church is entitled to have parking on its property, but because of the manner in which the application was framed that is not what the department looked at. PGM saw the application as relating to the new land. When he raised this with Mr. James five weeks ago, his response was that it could not be studied in the time available. There is a zoning solution that satisfies the interest being asserted by the Mosque for 60 parking spaces, none of which would be located on the land where they have undertaken not to have commercial parking. OMA needs this matter deferred and staff directed to look at that Section of the Ottawa By-Law that permit places of worship to have commercial parking.

There is a substantial amount of misinformation. OMA undertook a survey of the 82 people then parking commercially on the property; 66% response rate, of that 66%, 100% claimed to access the site from Scott. The Mosque is proposing to pay for a proper destination study of the 60 commercial parkers during the period of adjournment, which will be conducted independently. The request that will be made for commercial parking on the Mosque property will only be Monday through Thursday, which is what the Mosque presently does; no commercial parking is permitted on Friday. It is enforced with two security officers. The community solution of no commercial parking will add 60 cars on the streets Monday through Friday. There is no planning reason why a proper study could not demonstrate that parking Monday to Thursday, limited to 60, not 300, was not a problem, and not on the new lands until the 20 years are up. The leased parking on the southerly cross-hatched piece dates back to 1985 and access was always from Northwestern. OMA is not asking that internal residential streets support commercial traffic going to Tunney’s Pasture. That will be dealt with either by directing it from Scott or ultimately off Ross from the internal street. OMA agrees with the settlement reached with the City and community and will live up to it. OMA would like to have the matter assessed comprehensively, which can be done by the second meeting in September. The best result for everyone to arrive at the right planning decision and avoid further proceedings, to ensure equity between the one church and the other is to look at the entire package.

In response to Chair Hume, Mr. Webber advised the 60 spaces are not available as of right on the property. Responding further on the rationale for the ability to allow commercial parking on institutional property, Mr. Smit advised there is a general provision in the Ottawa Zoning By-Law that allows for parking associated with institutional uses to be made available as public parking, but that must undergo a site specific zoning change. Mr. Webber added this application should have applied to the entire OMA holdings.

Councillor Hunter indicated he was prepared to move deferral, having received an explanation of the situation.

Mr. Lindsay was not sure if 60 parking spaces can function properly on that site and would ask that the resolution not pertain to a specific number. Mr. Webber had said there would be no parking on the new portion (based on submissions by previous delegations) save and except for the church facilities on Fridays and the balance of the site be referred back to staff to look at the viability of any parking on the old site and to bring that forward in September.

Responding to Councillor Bellemare on parking rates, Mr. Smit advised there is no mechanism through the planning approvals process to set rates; that may be negotiated and agreed to between the City and OMA, but would defer to Mr. Marc. Mr. Webber added that the reality is that the Mosque is trying to support its works. There is no reason to provide subsidized parking or cut prices. It should be charging what the market can bear. This is a revenue generating mechanism to assist the huge immigrant population that requires an abundance of services.

In response to Chair Hume that pending the return of the item to the September meeting there be no private commercial parking on the new land, Mr. Webber advised the new land is still zoned CE and OMA will continue as it has and may be in breach of the covenant and run that risk, but OMA does not want to give its clients’ two months notice while this is still in active process.

Moved by Councillor G. Hunter:

1. That zoning 251 Northwestern Avenue be deferred with the intention of bringing an application for commercial parking on the ‘old land’ owned by the Ottawa Muslim Association and limited to not more than 60 spaces.

2. That in the revised by-law, no commercial parking be permitted on the new lot as per the 2004 agreement.

3. That the item return to PEC no later than September 2005.

4. That no new fees be required for the revised application.

Mr. Marc advised OMA is not permitted to have commercial parking now under the arrangement signed with the City. There is on title a clause that states “the purchaser agrees that the property shall be used exclusively for parking that is restricted solely for users of its Mosque located on the abutting lands”. The City would have to seek an injunction to stop it, which would take a couple of weeks.

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

Councillor Hunter stated PEC was dealing with a zoning matter; if there is a breach of an agreement, that should be dealt with. It should not affect how PEC proceeds in arriving at a fair arrangement for the future. He pointed out the United Church is allowed to do the exact same thing the Mosque is asking to regularize.

Councillor Little posited the City should deal with this application because under the Agreement of Purchase of Sale is a requirement that OMA come forward for rezoning of this property. To get around filing an application for the original property, OMA is now coming forward and asking that the entire parcel of land be considered as one to avoid paying an additional fee and going through public process. The former (Ottawa) Zoning By-Law allowed 65% of the land to be rented out commercially for parking. The United Church rents out 7-10 spaces, but underwent the proper public notification process. Mr. Smit advised he would agree with Councillor Little in terms of dealing with at least that component of the application to bring the zoning from CE to Institutional zone. The whole objective behind the land transaction was to have the accessory parking for the church off the street and onto the property. If there is a desire on the part of PEC to direct or refer it back to staff, consideration of the rezoning of the current Institutional zoning on the Mosque property is clearly within the purview of PEC. In terms of some of Councillor Little’s comments with respect to the section of the zoning by-law that does deal with the ability to have commercial parking associated with churches, again there are general provisions, but it must undergo the zoning process and the application submitted by the Mosque did not clarify that was the intent of application and it was not dealt with in that context. The institutional zoning should be put in place on the CE lands to allow the accessory parking. The CE5F1.5 zone may allow public parking; however, access to that parking is through an institutional zone, which is not allowed. It was never established as a parking lot formally through a site plan process.

Councillor Little did not support deferral and has been dealing with the issue since elected on Council. He has worked very hard on this file with the community and OMA to reach an agreement. There was a requirement under the Agreement of Purchase and Sale to come forward with this application; clearly, that is why the application was filed to deal with this portion of land that needs to be properly zoned to be in conformity and to honour the agreement. There were two major covenants in the agreement; one preventing commercial parking for 20 years and one preventing any building on the land for 20 years. He asked PEC to respect the public process and to approve the staff recommendation and to reject the Motion to defer this matter and to allow for public process if that is indeed OMA’s intent to bring forward another application to deal with that issue specifically.

Councillor Hunter was shocked at the lack of flexibility and spoke in support of deferral. The issue of parking on the new land is no longer an issue, but PEC must deal with the fairness of the issue and the old parcel of land where parking space is available. There should be some flexibility to see this through to its conclusion at the best possible price for OMA and the best possible gain for the community because the large parking lot would be available for the call to prayers on Friday. As well, residents who work at Tunney’s Pasture would have parking available.

On Councillor Hunter’s Motion to defer.

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors G. Hunter, M. Bellemare

NAYS (6): Councillors G. Bédard, D. Holmes, H. Kreling, A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, P. Hume

The Committee approved the staff recommendations:

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1. Refuse an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, to change the zoning of 251 Northwestern Avenue from an Employment Centre (CE5 F(1.5)) zone to a Minor Institutional (I1) exception zone, to permit commercial parking in addition to accessory parking for 251 Northwestern.

2. Approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 251 Northwestern Avenue from an Employment Centre (CE5 F(1.5)) zone to a Minor Institutional (I1) exception zone, as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 3 to only permit accessory parking for 251 Northwestern.

CARRIED

8. ZONING - 4100 strandherd drive

ZONAGE - 4100, promenade strandherd

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0104 BELL SOUTH-NEPEAN (3)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 20 April 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 4100 Strandherd Drive from FG - Future Growth to CN Block xx - Commercial Neighbourhood Exception as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED

9. ZONING - 75 Waterbridge Drive

ZONAGE - 75, promenade waterbridge

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0111 BELL SOUTH-NEPEAN (3)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 20 April 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 75 Waterbridge Drive from Future Growth Zone (FG) to Institutional School Zone (IS) as shown in Document One.

CARRIED

10. ZONING - 325 Didsbury Road

ZONAGE - 325, CHEMIN DIDSBURY

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0137 KANATA (4)

Miguel Tremblay, FoTenn Consultants Inc., was present in support and Michael Rourke was present in opposition to the staff recommendation. Mr. Rourke’s concerns were addressed and the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 29 April 2005 was approved.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve amendments to the former City of Kanata Zoning By-Laws 74-79, 78-96 and 132-93 to change the zoning of 325 Didsbury Road from Agricultural (AGR) Zone and Hazard (HZD) Zone to Community Level Shopping Centre (CLSC) Zone, Community Level Shopping Centre Special Exception (CLSC –1) and Kanata West Business Park (KWBP) Zone as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 3.

CARRIED

11. ZONING - 5457 Abbott Street

ZONAGE - 5457, rue Abbott

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0107 GOULBOURN (6)

Dave Krajaefski, Trow Associates, was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 18 April 2005. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Goulbourn Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 5457 Abbott Street from Industrial Business Park Zone (MBP-4) to Residential Fourth Density Exception Zone (R4-x) to permit freehold townhouses as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 3.

CARRIED

12. ZONING - 2817 and 2821 Munster Road

ZONAGE - 2817 et 2821, chemin munster

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0103 GOULBOURN (6)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 14 April 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Goulbourn Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 2817 and 2821 Munster Road from a Residential Zone (R1) to an Institutional Zone (I) to permit a cemetery as shown in Document 1.

CARRIED

13. ZONING - 1776 MAPLE grove road

ZONAGE - 1776, CHEMIN MAPLE GROVE

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0127 GOULBOURN (6)

Miguel Tremblay, FoTenn Consultants Inc., was present in support and Michael Rourke in opposition to the staff recommendation. Mr. Rourke’s concerns were addressed and the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 28 April 2005 was approved. Correspondence from Ted Fobert, FoTenn Consultants, was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Goulbourn Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 1776 Maple Grove Road from Agriculture (A1) to Residential, (R2-x, Temporary) to provide temporary zoning, for three years, on the site shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 3.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

That Item 13 proceed to City Council on 11 May 2005.

CARRIED

14. ZONING - 4041 Grainger Park Road

ZONAGE - 4041, chemin grainger park

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0112 WEST CARLETON (5)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 15 April 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of West Carleton Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 4041 Grainger Park Road from Rural Zone (RU) to Rural Special Zone - XXX to restrict future residential uses as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 3.

CARRIED

15. CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKING - 433 Cooper Street / 366 Lisgar Street

règlement financier des exigences de stationnement - 433, rue cooper / 366, rue lisgar

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0136 somerset (14)

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

That the fee be $1 per space.

CARRIED

Jane Ironside, Youth Services Bureau, was present in support of the proposed amendment. The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 20 April 2005, as amended.

1. That Planning and Environment Committee approve a Cash-in-lieu of Parking application for five parking spaces in the amount of $5 ($1/space) to accommodate the Youth Services Bureau in the proposed redevelopment of the building at 433 Cooper Street and 366 Lisgar Street subject to the following conditions:

(a) That the Applicant enter into the standard agreement required by Section 40 of the Planning Act; and

(b) That full payment be made upon execution of the agreement.

2. That this approval is void if the agreement required by (a) above has not been signed within six months of the date of this approval.

CARRIED as amended

MOTION OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GIVEN

MOTIONS AYANT FAIT L’OBJET D’UN AVIS PRÉCÉDENT

COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS

ARTICLES DES CONSEILLERS

COUNCILLOR / CONSEILLeR G. Bédard

16. ZONING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING

ZONAGE POUR LES LOGEMENTS SPÉCIAUX

ACS2005-CCs-pec-0003

Councillor Cullen noted the memorandum, dated 5 May 2005, from the Mr. Jacobs relative to Councillor Bédard’s report dated 29 April 2005. Mr. Jacobs confirmed staff’s preference to have the initiative referred so that it can be considered as part of the Citywide strategy to deal with group homes. The consultation process is kicking off this year with the by-law before Council in the Fall of 2006. Councillor Cullen noted the application that began Councillor Bédard’s Motion quest and asked what impact the Motion would have on the Youth Services Bureau project. Mr. Jacobs did not believe it would have any affect, due to the fact they are grandfathered through a previous Council decision.

Councillor Bédard did want to ensure that whatever is decided today would exclude 433 Nelson, since it was not his intention to bring 433 Nelson on the table since it has been dealt with. He is simply trying to move ahead. Councillor Bédard fully understands this presentation and accepts it would be best to deal with the issue in a more global sense, but he had a concern with this particular neighbourhood and something needs to be done. His concern is that the report will come forward in January 2006 and that area can be subject to more large institutions being created.

Moved by Councillor G. Bédard:

That the City of Ottawa enact an Interim Control By-Law for 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 for the purposes of regulating Special Needs Housing as well as Retirement Homes and Shelter accommodations for the purposes of assessing the implications of these housing forms in this neighbourhood and establishing appropriate standards, excluding 433 Nelson Street.

The Committee heard from the following delegation:

Jane Ironside, Youth Services Bureau (YSB), advised that with respect to this specific site, it is necessary for any recommendation that comes forward to specifically exclude 433 Nelson since a building permit has not as yet been approved. Therefore, until a building permit is in hand, if the zoning is amended to change the number of residents then YSB would be impacted. With respect to the broader issue, the special needs housing provisions of the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law came about through a very extensive study that involved community associations, housing providers, residents and it is inappropriate for this recommendation to come forward based on a handful of people that object to one specific location; therefore she would support the broader issue being dealt with as part of the comprehensive zoning by-law review.

The Committee approved the amended recommendation.

That the City of Ottawa enact an interim Control By-Law for 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 for the purpose of regulating Special Needs Housing as well as Retirement Homes and Shelter accommodation for the purposes of assessing the implications of these housing forms in this neighbourhood and establishing appropriate standards, excluding 433 Nelson.

CARRIED as amended

INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED

INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT

A. on time review status reports

rapports d’étape sur l’examen en temps voulu

ACS2005-DEV-APR-0139 city-wide

RECEIVED

B. Advisory Committee Reserve Appointment - Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee

Nomination d’un membre suppléant au Comité consultatif sur les forêts et les espaces verts d’Ottawa

ACS2005-CRS-SEC-0022

RECEIVED

INQUIRIES

DEMANDES DE RENSIGNEMENTS

EMPLOYMENT LANDS

Councillor P Feltmate raised the following inquiry:

How much employment land has been lost through Official Plan Amendments and Rezonings in each year since amalgamation?

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