Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement

Minutes 36 / Procès-verbal 36

Tuesday, 13 September 2005, 11:00 a.m.

le mardi 13 septembre 2005, 11 h

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

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

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

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

Absent / Absente : Councillors / Conseillers H. Kreling (Regrets / excuses), G. Bédard

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

No declarations of interest were filed.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ratification dES procÈs-verbaUX

Minutes 35 and Confidential Minutes 10 of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 23 August 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 or the proposed subdivision listed as Items 2 - 93, must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council or the proposed subdivision is granted draft approval by the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).

REFERRALS/deferrals

RENVOIS/reports

1. HARMONIZATION OF SIGN BY-LAWS Regulating PERMANENT SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

HARMONISATION DES RÈGLEMENTS SUR LES ENSEIGNES QUI RÉGISSENT LES ENSEIGNES PERMANENTES SUR LES TERRAINS PRIVÉS

acs2005-pgm-bld-0008 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Deferred from 14 JUne 05 meeting

Arlene Gregoire, Director, Buildings Services, Planning and Growth Management (PGM), Sandra Garnett, Manager, Legal and Service Integration, Don Brousseau, Senior Policy Officer, Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Environment Law, and Susan Jones, Director, By-Law Services, Emergency and Protective Services, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 23 August 2005. Following a detailed PowerPoint presentation by Ms. Gregoire, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk, staff responded to questions raised by Committee members and Councillors El-Chantiry and Stavinga and the following represents the main points. Staff had made a presentation to the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) in May, who identified some key items, some of which have been addressed immediately.

· If what is now seen on the streetscape is legal, it will continue. There are no major changes, particularly with respect to former Ottawa; for some of the rural areas where there was a prohibition related to billboards, these would be a potential reality, but with restrictions on numbers.

· There are two types of developer signs; one might be in the right of way (ROW), in which case it falls under a By-Law enforced by By-Law Services. If it is on private property, there is no sunset clause in the By-Law, but the City has authority after construction is completed to direct the developer to remove a sign. Councillors were asked to contact staff if there were any problems.

· The former City of Gloucester did have a Signs Review Committee with reports rising to that Committee as opposed to Council. There is no legal basis for these Committees under the new Municipal Act and that is why staff is seeking special legislation to establish such a Committee should staff want to pursue that route to fast track the handling of Sign Minor Variance reports. Too often the sign industry or their clients wait till the last minute to erect their signs and unfortunately it does take 2-3 months to conduct the research, prepare the report and bring it forward to PEC. As such, staff is looking for a mechanism to streamline the process. There is currently no authority. The Gloucester Sign Committee is defunct; it was retained as long as possible, but as members were lost, staff could not legally fill vacancies. It has been well over a year since that practice has been discontinued. Of the former municipalities across the former Region, Gloucester was the only one with a Signs Review Committee. If the City was given the authority to create that Committee, it would have to be a Committee of Council. The Committee of Adjustment would not be able to perform that function. The enabling legislation states that Council may consider a variance to the By-Law and Council has to be a Committee of Council with membership compromised of Councillors.

· Former municipalities of Cumberland, Goulbourn, Kanata, Rideau and Nepean By-Laws were enacted under the former Municipal Act, which was not specific to the authority to prohibit billboards. The new Municipal Act is specific and limits the City to only regulate and not prohibit. That does achieve the purpose of the enabling legislation, which is to ensure safety and control against proliferation. There have been court cases with other municipalities that have had complete prohibitions and lost. Once a By-Law has been struck down, there are no regulations and signs can proliferate until a new By-Law is put in place. Billboard companies invest significantly in their structures and are the first to apply for a permit to ensure everything is appropriate and permitted under the By-Law. They are not the source of proliferation unless there is a vacuum. The problem is primarily temporary signs that are easy to print off and install, then left for City staff to remove after a period of time.

· Within the rural areas, staff would need to review the zoning designation of lands along roadways, between the villages to determine if signs are permitted. It is either a District 4 or 5 land use. Once that is determined, staff would then need to review the restrictions imposed by the District, over and above the 2.5km setback. Opportunities may be nil due to the zoning. Staff must be careful when there are zoning amendments in the future to analyze the impact relative to sign regulations if land use is changed from agriculturally zoned to commercial/industrial because not only will there be the industrial development, but potentially a billboard on the site. Opportunities are limited and dictated by whether the billboard company determines if business/traffic counts warrant their investment.

· Councillor El-Chantiry referred to a new concept that has signs on the back of trucks or vans that revolve, which create a distraction when driving 100km/hour.

· Councillor El-Chantiry referred to the Dunrobin sign, which was not the sign referred to by ARAC; ARAC was referring to a City logo with all businesses/institutions/churches, etc. listed thereon. Ms. Gregoire clarified a sign was envisioned that would likely have a blue background with the City’s logo at the top and identify the Village. Below would be the businesses, directions, similar to the provincial signs seen off the Queensway or major highways. It was also contemplated to have a bottom section that could permit the clipping of signs to advertise scheduled year-round community events. The sign would then be removed when the event concluded. It was contemplated as part of the sponsorship program through a Request for Proposal (RFP), with the private sector developing, installing the signs and approaching businesses that would want to take advantage. Obviously, there would need to be discussion with the Ward Councillor and community as to the best location for those signs. Ms. Gregoire confirmed that information will be made available with a report by December 31, 2005 and staff would undertake to provide information regarding the provincial signs and the qualification required by a business.

· Overhanging signs on the downtown streets (Elgin, Bank, Preston, etc); i.e. a shoe for a shoemaker, a gold bagel if it’s a bakery, etc. – there were two issues; one is area and the other safety. There must be a 14-foot clearance for snow in the winter; there is also a maximum area of two metres² contained in the By-Law. The City cannot restrict businesses from installing backlit plastic, although staff has encouraged other forms; i.e. a hanging sign that is carved and painted. The City can only regulate area, projection and safety. In response to Councillor Holmes on the old overhanging sign on Elgin (at the McDonald’s) that is grandfathered, Mr. Brousseau confirmed there have not been any reports on that sign specifically, but there have been instances with respect to other signs. The new By-Law must also adhere to urban design guidelines; therefore, if defined within the guidelines for planning that certain types of signs are encouraged, staff would respect that.

· Site Plan Approvals and Sign By-Law – Building Services staff has been reviewing and discussing with Planning and Infrastructure Approval (PIA) how best to dovetail both applications. Staff is looking at requiring the site plan application to also be submitted at the same time as the sign application, so both can be reviewed simulataneously. There is some streamlining required to ensure existing design guidelines are incorporated in the approval process; and, certainly the Site Plan process is a good starting point and provides sufficient lead time for the developer. Staff is attempting to implement a process that would have early identification of the sign and illustrate same on the Site Plan as part of the entire package.

Councillor Feltmate recalled the recent experience in Kanata. In conducting the investigation it was discovered there were many businesses that could not find their permits and that the former City of Kanata, although it did have a By-Law, did not enforce it. Having said that, she would be presenting a Motion directing staff to review and report to Committee and Council on the question of enforcement of the Signs By-Law with respect to illegally erected signs prior to January 1, 2001. In response to the Motion, Ms. Gregoire commented that when staff piloted the joint enforcement of signs illegally placed on the road allowance as well as the temporary and permanent signs this summer, staff discovered the City’s information data was suspect or lacking. Certainly, staff can ascertain how to best deal with the situation, based on this summer’s experience to simplify or enable those signs that may have been installed correctly pursuant to the By-Law. Councillor Feltmate opined that to ask businesses with signs installed for 15-20 years to either find documentation or to pay a fee is an insult and the City should not be looking further than the date of amalgamation.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Bob Stevenson addressed the Committee in opposition and provided a written submission, which was circulated and a copy is held on file with the City Clerk. The following summarizes the main points:

· Council announced $100,000 would be spent to attract tourists from Toronto to visit Ottawa. Unfortunately, the lasting impression will be visual pollution through excessive signage on public/private lands.

· It is irrelevant to harmonize if there is no will to enforce. Yet, the City encourages residents to clean their property each spring. Most signs can be removed in a matter of minutes and if a concerted effort was made daily by By-Law Enforcement Officers, the majority could be removed within a few months. Students were hired this summer to assist in removing signs, which is inadequate; it is a year-round job and it may be necessary to impose fines on repeat offenders.

· Proposed By-Law is too permissive; a total ban on billboards is a good first step.

· Private land – one size for each business in conformity with the existing By-Law.

· Total ban on gaudy mobile mini billboards that line commercial strip malls; there is a 120-day time limit and others do replace them which result in permanency.

· End practice of corporate donations at municipal level, which would reduce the pressure for such excessive commercial signs. Remove obnoxious Client Services sign at City Hall. Residents are not clients, but citizens; the City is not a business.

Sean Watts and Guy Francoeur, Viacom Outdoor and Pattison Outdoor, confirmed Ms. Gregoire’s comments that they are the first to come in requesting a permit and abide by same. Their structures are well-designed and proportioned with no possibility of falling over. They have worked with the City over the past several months to work out the By-Law to remain in business. They have been in the industry since 1904 and in Ottawa for well over 65 years erecting billboards and continue to thrive. The new By-Law would not see a proliferation, but possibly some additional billboards and numerous restrictions. They support the By-Law because it is fair to the industry and public. Although restrictive the new By-Law will allow some growth that is necessary for the industry and will not be near anyone’s backyard, but in the industrial areas where there is traffic flow. The By-Law will permit the industry to move ahead and allow the City to commence the removal of garbage signs in the community. Mr. Francoeur added the By-Law should be accepted and approved as is.

The matter then returned to Committee.

In response to Councillor Cullen, Ms. Gregoire advised the primary step was to eleminate 548 regulations and reduce these to 200 to make it more easily enforced. Enforcement is provided through By-Law Services, but Buildings staff must work closely with By-Law Services because permanent signs on private property are much like zoning since there are non-conforming rights when the By-Law is changed. Staff must investigate the history of the property and development, locate the records and as found this summer, through the pilot, it is somewhate difficult after a period of time. Ms. Gregoire anticipated enforcement will improve as a result of the new By-Law, primarily because administration and regulations are clearer and staff will immediately commence enforcement of illegal signs. Her discussions with Ms. Jones have indicated there will not be a need to increase staffing for that enforcement. Ms. Jones added that By-Law services is proactive presently relative to the enforcement of the Temporary and Portable Sign By-Law as well as the signs displayed on the road allowance, particularly in the summer months. That is also the area that creates the majority of problems. One By-Law in place will assist enforcement. It is understood there will be some signs that are labour-intensive in terms of enforcement, but like any new By-Law it will require additional attention at the front end. Once the information is out there, enforcement should level off.

Ms. Jones acknowledged the Permanent Sign By-Law is complaint driven. Building Services, By-Laws Services and Public Works (PWS) do work together and follow through with respect to enforcement whether on the road allowance or private property; in the end all three branches have done their due diligence in ensuring what rules have to be in place and what must be complied with.

Ms. Gregoire added the New Sign By-Law has a provision for set fines, which was not universally available in the former by-laws and will provide By-Law Services with an additional and very effective tool in dealing with illegal signs. Councillor Harder commented that as Vice-Chair of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, that additional tool was imporant.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

That staff be directed to review and report back to Committee and Council on the question of enforcement of the Signs By-Law with respect to illegally erected signs prior to January 1, 2001.

CARRIED

The recommendations were approved with the amendment to staff.

1. Approve the harmonized Sign By-law, as detailed in Document 1, to establish harmonized regulations for the installation and maintenance of permanent signs on private property, citywide.

2. Approve the delegation of authority to the Director of Building Services Branch to grant an administrative variance of ten per cent in increase to the physical dimensions of a sign in those instances where an exception is deemed warranted, as described in Document 1.

3. Approve that the Planning and Growth Management Department undertake a review of specific issues identified through public consultation relating to directional and community signs in rural areas and report back on options and by-law amendments by December 31, 2005.

4. That staff be directed to review and report back to Committee and Council on the question of enforcement of the Signs By-Law with respect to illegally erected signs prior to January 1, 2001.

carried as amended

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

2. OFFICIAL PLAN - part of 4800 Bank Street

PLAN OFFICIEL - partie dU 4800, rue bank

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0196 GLOUCESTER-SOUTHGATE (10)

The Committee considered Items 2 and 3 together.

John Moser, Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals, Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment & Infrastructure Policy, Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals, Larry Morrison, Manager, Development Approvals, T. Marc, Cynthia Levesque, Program Manager, Environmental Management, Leslie Vanclief and Cathlyn Kaufman, Planners, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 9 August 2005. Ms. Kaufman provided a detailed PowerPoint presentation relative to Items 2 and 3, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Bill Royds, Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital (GACC), provided a detailed submission in opposition, a copy of which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The main points are summarized below:

· Development near Bank is a good development and conforms with OP goals, etc. and the western half is a large suburban development in a Provincially Significant Wetland. There are two wetlands: the Casino Wetlands (south) and Albion Road Wetlands or Leitrim Wetlands (west)

· Plan of Subdivision would result in direct destruction of wetland that ought to be complexed with existing Provincially Significant Wetland by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR).

· Will destroy part of a site that is an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) which is also evaluated as the highest value for preservation by the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study (UNAEES UNA #184).

· Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not prepared, but only a Wetland Impact Statement (WIS) that does not cover all that is required of an EIS, as required in OP.

· Wetland areas that ought to be complexed with Provincially Significant ones are located on the Remer property and not covered by any previous OMB decision. Complexing was requested and the fact MNR has not yet acted does not mean the request is without merit. Boundaries must be clearly defined by MNR in advance of the acceptance of development proposals.

· The Plan of Subdivision's location will not allow it to properly use the stormwater management system to the west of Bank without negatively impacting the Provincially Significant Leitrim Wetland and Findlay Creek by directing subdivision run-off through significant wetland habitat. Since this is adjacent to a provincial "area of natural significance", it requires a permit under the Environmental Protection Act (Environmental Protection Act - O. Reg. 153/04 Sect. 41) for discharge of water.

· Development will involve the destruction of fish habitat; in accordance with Ottawa 20/20 and OP principle “A Green and Environmentally Sensitive City”, the City expects and desires a thorough environmental assessment by DFO.

· WIS was prepared by Daniel Brunton, who is not a hydrologist. Someone with appropriate expertise, like Dr. Frederick Michel, Department of Earth Sciences and Institute of Environmental Science, at Carleton University should be retained.

Arising out of the presentation, Councillor Deans asked Mr. Royds to define the exact portion of the site he was objecting to. Mr. Royds identified a section of land to the west, the Casino Wetlands, the Albion Road Wetlands and an area of open water. Mr. Royds pointed to a stream that will run through the lands; if built on there will be significant problems especially in basements. At the same time, the wetlands will lose water. The property needs to be severed into two parts.

Councillor Cullen noted Mr. Royds was present when PEC dealt with the Leitrim Community Design Plan (CDP) and at that time, the issue of UNF 184 was raised in the GACC presentation. Staff was certainly aware of UNF 184 and came to the conclusion it was accommodated. Mr. Royds responded that this was the same CDP GACC has argued over for several years. Staff has consistently ignored GACC requests to consider UNF 184. Originally, there was to be a phasing of development and this Plan does not even talk about the phasing.

Councillor Deans asked staff to outline for PEC where this file has been and the OMB ruling on same. Ms. Kaufman noted the Remer land, which is part of 4800 Bank, was dealt with at the OMB when the Leitrim community was being dealt with. It was added to the Board’s decision to be freed up for residential development and the 1994 OMB decision gave regard to the wetlands reflected at the bottom of the diagram (referred to as the Casino Wetlands). The Board decision also said that MNR, Remers and Tartan walk the wetlands to determine the boundaries and buffer strip; and, also set in place for Remer the boundary of land that could be developed at that time. Ms. Vanclief advised that an EIS has been undertaken and approved by the Environmental Management Division as well as the South Nation Conservation; the EIS has looked at the portion of the property proposed for Plan of Subdivision and does take into account the issue raised by Mr. Royds and allow for consideration of the flowage discussed with the water moving from the southern wetlands south of property through the subdivision lands into the Leitrim Wetlands and that will be dealt with through the drainage. Ms. Levesque iterated a review was underway of UNF’s across the City and with regard to #184, an evaluation was completed and ranked high.

Mr. Jacobs posited the report before PEC does represent an accommodation of the evaluation of #184 as well as recognizing the constraints placed on the City’s ability to protect that site by virtue of the 1994 OMB decision. The OMB actually determined the limits of these sites; staff has conducted further evaluation of that area, but the CDP PEC dealt with and approved in June reflects the nature of the City’s ability to control development in that area and respect the boundaries of the natural features as they exist. Following on that, Councillor Cullen noted the EIS states Dan Brunton, who is a respected biologist, but not a hydrogist, prepared the WIS. Ms. Kaufman advised drainage has been reviewed through the Infrastructure Approvals Division (IAD) and stormwater reports that have been received. As the proposal moves through Draft Approvals, further studies and investigation will be implemented and reviewed by IAD as it relates to stormwater management. Councillor Cullen received confirmation the sensitivity of the wetland complex is such that any drainage plan will recognize and sustain the wetland complex that will remain.

Councillor Cullen then referred to the issue of having this complexed with a Provincially Significant Wetland. Ms. Vanclief advised that once the Remer Subdivision is built out, the Casino Wetlands immediately to the south will be physically severed from the Leitrim Wetland, which it is now a part of. It will basically become an orphan piece of wetland. There are criteria established through MNR where if a wetland is in close proximity to a Provincially Significant Wetland such as the Leitrim Wetland, then it can be considered complexed, so it is essentially part of the larger wetland system.

Councillor Holmes referred to the comment from GACC about the consideration of the Plan of Subdivision being premature until the OMB Appeal of the OP is complete? Ms. Kaufman advised the applicant filed under the old Plan (former Regional OP (ROP) and Gloucester OP). Mr. Marc further responded that the legally effective plans will be the former ROP and Gloucester OP. With respect to the complexing, Ms. Vanclief advised a subsurface connection has not been looked at through the various studies completed, but essentially the developer will need to ensure any overland as well as underground drainage must have that physical hydrological connection between the two wetlands. Ms. Vanclief further advised that staff has asked that a physical connection is maintained, both for the hydrological connection as well as a wildlife corridor. Staff has also asked Remer to work with the proponents to the south who will also set aside lands to ensure the corridor is there on the lands to the south.

Vice-Chair Feltmate assumed the Chair for this portion of the item.

Albert W. Dugal, provided a detailed submission (partially in opposition), which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The main points are summarized below:

· Draft Plan of Subdivision should be restricted to Blocks 1-17, Block 22 and the eastern halves of Blocks 19-21 and 23 (Phases 1, 2 and part of 3), for the following reasons.

· Western part of Phase 3 and largest part of Phase 4 are situated in prime wetland.

· In 1992, Dr. Wm. Nuttle (wetland hydrology expert) visited the land in question and considered it a very important part of the Leitrim Wetlands.

· The importance of this area was confirmed by a) the UNAEES, which bestowed a high environmental rating; and, b) the designating of the area as part of an ANSI.

· Lack of Wetland Knowledge – at least 5 independent experts indicated there is insufficient knowledge of the hydrogeology of the Leitrim Wetlands and adjacent properties. The necessity to relocate the proposed stormwater ponds to the Findlay Creek property east of Bank validated the concerns expressed by independent experts with regard to excessive water leakage from various substrates.

· Destruction of fish-bearing waterways should require an authorization under Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act.

· Greenhouse Gas Release and Destruction of Carbon Sinks – according to surficial geology maps, much of the wetland designated for urban sprawl on the Remer lands is covered with a layer of organic soil, mostly peat. Large areas of woodland, also carbon sinks, are slated for destruction, which violates the intent of the OP and adds to the ever-increasing City deficit of greenhouse gas removal capability.

· The Draft Plan of Subdivision entails loss of large areas of woodland, contrary to OP objectives.

· Nationally Endangered Species – staff advised of the presence of Nationally Endangered Butternut in woodland areas within and adjacent to the wetland area.

· Significant Plant Species – flowage component contains many significant plant species.

· No plan to mitigate the severe negative impacts on the Casino and Leitrim Wetlands.

· Although OMB did not impose a buffer requirement adjacent to the Casino wetlands, the City should realize the Remer development is not adjacent to a wetland but within a high-quality wetland and should therefore require 120m buffer.

As a result of the presentation, Councillor Deans and Committee members raised questions and the following summarizes the main points:

· There are no current discussions underway to acquire the land in question.

· Priorities identified through the Greenspace Master Plan(GMP) and UNAEES represent an acquisition that far exceeds any financial commitments the City has today. The process has been to identify lands that will imminently be taken over by development and assign a higher priority thereto and to apply the funds as required. There are some limitations as to how the City can currently acquire land because the OP Acquisition Policies deal with Natural Environment Areas (NEAs) as defined in the former ROP, therefore the City does not have the authority to acquire other lands through that process. It is part of the GMP strategy to identify an acquisition or securement policy that will allow the City to go beyond in the OP. At this time, staff is under negotiations for a variety of lands that would exhaust current funds. The ROP was specific and the new OP has acquisition policies that were subject to appeal and part of the resolution of that Appeal is being done through the GMP. Staff is currently operating under the more restrictive ROP policies. The GMP and that process has been placed on hold until after the Rural Summit. Many of the issues related to acquisition deal with rural properties and the ability to secure or protect those lands is of discussion that was to be held over for the Rural Summit and following that staff would be in a position to bring forward the report on the Greenspace Strategy and the Acquisition Policies contained therein. That would take place towards the end of this year or beginning of next.

Chair Hume resumed the Chair.

Janet Bradley, Borden Lodner Gervais, Harold Ship, Ship & Krokov, and Andy Naoum, CLGE Engineering, addressed PEC on behalf of the proponent. Ms. Bradley advised the proponent has owned the property since the 1960s and asked PEC when is enough enough? This Committee and previous Committees have considered this issue many times over. In 1994, the OMB conducted a very lengthy hearing. Although there is an OMB decision, decisions can be changed. In 1997 the Region completed an ROP and that is the line shown on the plan that divided the wetland from the urban area. After 1997, there was an UNAEES and these issues were raised again; there was a GMP, with the issues raised again. Part of the lands were identified as Site #184, but the decision made by Council through those various analysis is that these lands had development approval pending and would be recognized as such given the history and ongoing study with respect thereto. In 2003, the City conducted another analysis of wetlands with more wetland mapping and studying resulting in this very mapping as to a division line between the urban area to be developed and what is the wetland. Finally, pursuant to its OP, the City undertook an extremely lengthy study – the CDP with the entire community involved and in June PEC spent many hours considering the CDP now in effect. It does create a 120m buffer and there is a recommendation the buffer area be designated in the OP as Urban Natural Forest (the dark green area identified in the CDP). Today’s exercise implements the CDP and the OP through a Subdivision Approval. Ms. Bradley submitted this issue has been resolved, considered and looked at over time and again. The final subdivision approval stage is not the forum to reopen that door. There were many opportunities in the past and she submitted this is the line that has been established and we need to move forward only looking at the Conditions of Draft Approval, which are before PEC for consideration.

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

Councillor Deans, as the Ward Councillor, posited the lands do have a history and it is a difficult parcel. The OMB drew the line with a buffer that said that was the boundary. Given that and all of the processes that followed, including the CDP, the applicant has a reasonable expectation this would now be approved and have worked with the community on many issues and in good faith can reasonably expect PEC to approve it. The Councillor believed that if PEC listened to the environmental arguments and is convinced the wetland could be jeopardized, then the only choice that remains is to attempt to acquire the property by using the Green Funds the City acquired by selling 5309 Bank.

Councillor Holmes indicated she would be moving a Motion that negotiations be undertaken with the owner of 4800 Bank to purchase the piece of wetland (Site #184). She was not aware if that was possible, but was concerned that funds were sitting in the Green Account with the City not purchasing lands before there is a change in designation. These are significant lands that are going to be developed and it is clear through the Brunton Report and various other comments there are Provincially significant species and the City should ask the Province to come forward with their work on Provincial Wetlands.

Councillor Harder emphasized she would not support the Motion and underscored the significant number of properties she and Councillor Feltmate have been waiting years for the City and former Region to purchase, but there are insufficient funds. In this case, the City is grasping at straws at the end of the line.

Councillor Feltmate concurred with Councillor Harder’s comments and asked if there is a potential to sever the land so that a portion is approved today; that the second part is held until PEC can see the list and prioritize rather than suggesting acquisition at this time.

In response to Councillor Holmes, Mr. Jacobs advised that, in looking at a diagram, there is very little of #184 left as a result of this development. Councillor Holmes then asked whether the item should be tabled for 60 days while negotiations are underway. Mr. Marc responded that PEC could do that and it would be open to the developer under such an instance to appeal to the OMB. Responding further, Mr. Marc advised PEC could approve the eastern section today and hold the western portion for 60 days with respect to the OPA, but he would have to defer to Planning staff to comment on the ability to divide the Plan of Subdivision. Ms. Currie advised the Plan of Subdivision could be approved for the eastern section; specifically staff could identify it by a clear delineating boundary. The lands to the east could be draft approved and Draft approval for the lands to the west brought back pending the decision. The conditions as they read may need to be modified; through the re-delegation to the Director of Planning it could be clarified.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

That negotiations be undertaken with the owner(s) of 4800 Bank Street to purchase the western portion of the lands.

CARRIED

YEAS (4): Councillors A. Cullen, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate, P. Hume

NAYS (3): Councillors J. Harder, G. Hunter, M. Bellemare

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

That the eastern portion of the development be approved and the western portion be tabled for 60 days pending the outcome of the negotiations undertaken with the developer to purchase the western portion of the land.

LOST

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

NAYS (4): Councillors J. Harder, G. Hunter, M. Bellemare, P. Hume

The Committee approved the recommendation as amended.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Gloucester Official Plan for part of 4800 Bank Street as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2, as amended by the following:

That negotiations be undertaken with the owner(s) of 4800 Bank Street to purchase the western portion of the lands.

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

3. Subdivision - Part of 4800 Bank Street

lotissement - partie du 4800, rue bank

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0217 GLOUCESTER-SOUTHGATE (10)

See Item 2 for discussion and Motions.

The Committee approved the recommendation as amended.

That the Planning and Environment Committee authorize the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to grant draft subdivision approval for the Subdivision Application for part of 4800 Bank Street as shown on Document 2 and subject to the draft conditions outlined in Document 3, as amended by the following:

That negotiations be undertaken with the owner(s) of 4800 Bank Street to purchase the western portion of the lands.

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

4. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING – 15 & 81 COLONNADE ROAD NORTH

PLAN OFFICIEL ET ZONAGE - 15 ET 81, CHEMIN COLONNADE nord

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0185 BELL-SOUTH NEPEAN/BELL-NEPEAN SUD (3)

Chair Hume noted the item was withdrawn by staff and should come forward in late October to facilitate further consultation with interested parties.

5. ZONING - 130 LANGSTAFF DRIVE

ZONage - 130, PROMENADE LANGSTAFF

ACS2005-DEV-APR-0213 WEST-CARLETON (5)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 24 August 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 130 Langstaff Drive from Open Space Temporary Zone (OST) to Residential Type 2 Zone - (R2) and Open Space Type 1 Zone - (OS1) as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 3.

CARRIED

6. ZONING - General amendment to the former city of nepean Rural zoning by-law to resolve technical anomalies

ZONAGE - MODIFICATION GÉNÉRALE AU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL DE ZONAGE RURAL DE L'ANCIENNE VILLE DE NEPEAN POUR RÉGLER DES ANOMALIES TECHNIQUES

ACS2005-DEV-APR-0193 BELL-SOUTH NEPEAN (3), BAY (7), BASELINE (8),

KNOXDALE-MERIVALE (9)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 26 August 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve amendments to the former Nepean Rural Zoning By-Law to correct technical anomalies as detailed in Document 1.

CARRIED

7. ZONING - 22 Steel Street

ZONAGE - 22, Rue steel

ACS2005-DEV-APR-0184 BEACON HILL-CYRVILLE (11)

J. Moser, D. Jacobs, K. Currie, L. Morrison, T. Marc, Michael Wildman, Ron Jack, Delcan, and Cheryl McWilliams, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 23 August 2005. Following a detailed PowerPoint presentation by Ms. McWilliams, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk, staff responded to questions raised by Committee members and the following represents the main points:

· There was a comparison of traffic that would have been generated as a school vs. that of the development; essentially looking at the a.m. peak there would be no change, but there would be an increase in the p.m. because it is a different peak.

· Staff did not have the exact percentage increase for the p.m. peak, but did not believe it was a 50% increase. Numbers indicate the existing is 275 and it would add 70 vehicles during the p.m. peak, but would need to confirm that figure. Because the school has not been occupied for a few years, they could not conduct an accurate measurement; and, used two approaches; standard trip generation rates as one and other school counts for similarities. When fully occupied the school could generate upwards of more than 100 vehicles/hour (vph) in the peak hour with teachers, buses and students that are driven to school (10-15%) that equal 100-130vph two-way total. The proposed development is 100 +/- units, which equates to 50 cars in the a.m. and 75 in the p.m.; on average it is 60, with different peak hours. At worst it is the same as the school and at best it is half the generation rate of the school when fully occupied.

· Mr. Jack clarified the traffic generation for the development itself has changed because the unit count has dropped from 120 to 99; therefore, the site traffic for the residential proposal was reduced somewhat.

· There is one erroneous sentence in the original traffic study that resulted from previous work when the school was wrapping up and counted the number of buses at 10/hour and traffic that drove by the school as 20-30/hour on Sumac. There was a sentence that added the two and said it was school-generated traffic of 30/hour and that is an incorrect statement contained in the report. The school when fully occupied was certainly not generating 30 vph. A school is similar to an office with peak periods and generates more than the residential during the peak hours; during the rest of the day and weekend the residential generates more.

· Mr. Jack advised there were no Saturday/Sunday counts. But, if during peak hours residential generates on average 60vph, other hours of the day it will generate less, but certainly more than a school since the school is closed.

· The analysis undertaken has demonstrated there is capacity in both the sanitary and storm sewer to accommodate flows from the development. There is an allowable release rate for this property; the proponent is required to either stay with that or provide offsite measures that adhere to an allowable release rate. They have proposed such a measure, which would include some upsizing of pipes offsite. The development would exceed its allowable release rate should no mitigation measures be implemented (in the order 30%).

· The decision relative to Appleford was made within the policy context and looking at the existing community at that time, based on the application presented. On this site, if the applicant had come forward with a single family residential plan, staff would certainly have considered same; the policy framework being operated under today is different from that in 2001. The OP policies now direct staff to seek more development density within the urban context to support many of the Smart Growth initiatives. Staff would have reviewed the plan and had discussions with the applicant relative to density and may have sought to increase the density or a mix of singles and multiples to address the density, affordability issues, etc.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Rich Verbisky provided a a PowerPoint presentation that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The main points are summarized below:

· Traffic Impact Overview: Traffic counts completed July 2004 prior to completion of 13 unit townhomes on Steel; Data from 2000 relating to the elementary school traffic generation was referenced in the report, but was prior to two adjacent townhome developments and a single dwelling development. Report conclusions: one new vehicle every 40 seconds; peak hour traffic constitutes a significant % increase over existing volumes; two way volumes on Sumac are anticipated to be 65vph (am) and 110vph (pm) which is above the TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Other considerations absent from report: Safety: Loss of two schools=increased busing in and out of the local neighbourhood. Pedestrian/bicycle safety and roads/routes were not addressed in traffic overview. No identification of remedial measures to address any negative impact on transit operations due to development traffic. There needs to be further work before a decision is made.

· Process: Despite Public Notification and Consultation Policy in the City’s website encourages pre-application consultation with community organizations in communities immediately affected by a development application, this was not the approach taken.

· Other Issues: Greenspace is already below suggested guidelines. The density touches the threshold of the maximum density for the area.

· Process: There is a standard format for PEC reports that include various sections. The report is missing ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS and therefore all the information is not before PEC.

· In closing, he was not opposed to development, but based on information and proposed site development, suggest PEC refuse Minto’s current application and invite the City, Minto and community to work together to achieve an amicable development.

Arising from the comments by the delegation, Councillor Bellemare received the following clarification:

· Staff did not conduct an overall analysis of the percentage of greenspace; Parks and Recreation do review applications re demands and needs; they would also have had an opportunity to look at the site when it was offered for sale by the School Board as to whether it was needed by the City for parks and open space. The report does reflect discussions between planning and parks and recreation staff as to needs. Many of the details will form part of the site plan, but there is a small portion of the site that is to be added as parkland; there are linkages that will connect the two parks and there is discussion about action in terms of modifying the facilities in the park to the east, which are intended to accommodate this development.

· The process for disposal of the property would have taken place in advance of the application and the process by any School Board when offering a parcel for sale, is to offer it to the City and Parks and Recreation would have addressed the question of protecting playing fields at that time. The decision was made not to pursue acquisition and therefore protection of that field.

Vice-Chair Feltmate chaired this portion of the item.

Denis Landry provided a written presentation, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The main points are summarized below:

· Density: Recognize the policy of intensification, but 54 units/ha. far exceed the single family and executive semi-detached homes immediately adjacent. Degree of intensification needs to be compatible with existing neighbourhood and should be revised accordingly.

· Parking density: plan is for the garage and driveway to serve as two parking spaces, as opposed to the norm of two spaces in the driveway. The second car will inevitably be parked on the street creating an unattractive neighbourhood and safety hazard.

· Egress onto Steel: it is a small street that already absorbs significant traffic. Solutions could entail egresses to Elmridge and other streets from the site.

· Traffic: disagree with dismissal of safety and noise considerations by staff. Quality of life in terms of emissions, family safety and noise factor cause great concern and seriously need to be considered.

· Compatibility with neighbourhood: three-stories will loom over the street, despite the so-called set-back allowance; and, are not in conformity with neighbourhood.

· Wastewater drainage: Despite the fact the report states is not an issue with services, there is a great impact when going from one building to 99.

Chair Hume resumed the Chair.

Paul Strigner provided a written presentation, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The main points are summarized below:

· Loss of Parkland: current lack of parkland; Cardinal Heights deeded 0.5% lands (Kinsmen’s Park) in the original plan (1954) – entitled to lost 4.5% and still waiting. Desperately need open space. What happens to the Cash in lieu of parkland?

· Already suffer from traffic emanating from within the area.

· Future Schools: Poor planning not to leave space for elementary schools. Where will children from this development attend school?

· Services: questioned the sanitary and storm sewers, water and electrical system capacity. Parking: Insufficient. Single family homes: Cardinal Heights contains only single-family homes and should remain as such.

Martin Waurach provided a written presentation, in opposition, that was circulated and a copy is held on file with the City Clerk. The main points are summarized below:

· The current neighbourhood is quiet with large yards and small houses with a nice park at the end of the street and low traffic density.

· Lack of transparency in the process. The consultation process is merely a display of a consultation process, required by law, as opposed to an open forum.

· The traffic study was not available at the public meeting and in response to questions, Minto indicated there would be a noticeable increase in traffic. 100 units translates to close to 200 additional cars.

· The lost greenspace will be irreplaceable as the neighbourhood is fully developed.

· The housing units are not compatible with the surrounding area, specifically the area to the west. The City (and Minto) has taken the approach that only immediately adjacent areas are considered in density calculation. As an alternative solely single-family housing should be constructed to make it compatible with the entire neighbourhood. The OP does not automatically allow the City to maximize density.

· Access/egress should also lead onto Elmridge, as it allows traffic from the development to easily access Ogilvie and Montreal Roads.

· Insufficient time and/or effort has been expended in the process and the results of the traffic study are one-dimensional and do not take into consideration the full impact on the surrounding neighbourhood.

· In closing, not opposed to development on the site, provided it is done with consultation and approval of residents and the proposed housing style and density accurately reflect the character and style of the neighbourhood.

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

· The proposed density of 54 units/ha. fails to satisfy OP requirements that development should be compatible with environs. One small development to the north is 50 units/ha. and surrounding areas are 10-30. It should not be higher than 30.

· The development will increase traffic on surrounding streets, but the impact will be less if traffic can exit via Elmridge and Steel. Staff suggested this might permit “cut through traffic”. There would be no incentive to cut through this area since it is a very poor alternative to go from Ogilvy to Blair or Montreal.

· The portion that abuts the north boundary of Fairfield Park should be zoned so that the 5% required for parkland could be attached to the existing park. There should be no thought of accepting a payment in lieu of parkland.

Jeanne Fillmore was quite concerned about the storm sewers. The report indicates Appleton has demonstrated that existing sanitary sewers offsite can accommodate the flow from the proposed development; and, will be increased by 30%. There will be 100 homes; therefore the capacity should be increased by 100%. Ms. Fillmore next referred to water pressure. When the homes were built on Millgreen, her water pressure was reduced, but the report states there is adequate water pressure. She has a problem with that statement and was not confident the developer will accomplish what he says he will do and not confident with the entire project.

As a result of the presentation, Councillor Bellemare requested staff to respond to the concerns raised. Mr. Morrison explicated the development sits on the boundary for the pressure zones. Water will come off Steel because it is the higher pressure zone. There is no problem. The area Ms. Fillmore resides in does experience lower pressure than Cardinal Heights. As for the storm sewer, it was reviewed by both the developer’s consultant and the City modeled it as well. There would need to be stormwater attenuation on the developing site and replace some sections of storm sewer on Elmridge to improve the flows not to create a problem in the immediate area where they were connecting into the storm sewers.

Michael O’Leary provided a written submission, in opposition, a copy of which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The main points are summarized below:

· Elmridge was a quiet road that has become very busy considering the school buses and car traffic from Ogilvie, Elmsmere and Montreal. Additional traffic would create a very dangerous situation for children walking to school.

· Sewer system: even with changes to handle the extra volume Elmridge could face sewer back-ups similar to other parts of the City.

· Parking: a proper study has not been undertaken, especially when the school does not allow parking; therefore, Elmridge has a number of cars parking on the street.

· Winter maintenance is a major concern.

· Local schools may not be able to accommodate the additional students.

Rita Lemay addressed PEC in opposition and endorsed the comments made by previous speakers. Ms. Lemay wanted to provide a personal spin and advised that her father purchased his home on Blair, in the vicinity of Mowatt in 1965. She lived on Elvina with her husband who grew up in that home. There are many (20) second generation residents who grew up in the area and returned because Cardinal Heights is a wonderful, single-family community. Residents do not want to lose that. It is part of their heritage. They were not against development and would like to see single-family homes constructed.

Conrad Maxwell was in opposition and addressed the storm sewers, water pressure, electricity and traffic. There are no sidewalks. Mr. Maxwell lived beside the property and would like to see homes consistent with the existing community. He suggested that construction use Sumac and not Steel because his wife has a severe medical condition and noise affects her considerably. Mr. Maxwell circulated pictures that illustrate problems with the sewer system and are held on file. Traffic should not all be directed on Steel.

Jack Stirling and Jennifer Murray, for Minto Developments Inc., in support of the report. Mr. Stirling indicated Minto has worked with staff on the site for two years with various proposals and the application meets OP criteria. A traffic study was conducted, as required in any application for Site Plan, Subdivision and Zoning, in accordance with the Terms of Reference Guidelines set out by the City. PEC heard from Ron Jack who is available to respond to any additional questions PEC may have, but the recommendations of the study as supported by staff clearly indicate the proposed development is in accordance with standards acceptable to the City with respect to traffic. Minto has heard issues and speculation about servicing. Councillor Bellemare had asked if the applicant was not going to complete the work recommended in the study, would there be a 30% increase in the release rate? No, there would probably be a 500% increase. A study was completed and revealed what has to be done from a servicing component point of view to allow this site to be serviced. Again, it was done in accordance with City guidelines, with City staff direction and has been modeled several times and found to be correct and supportable.

Density, Minto has reviewed with staff several proposals for the site over the years and as indicated by staff, reducing the density consistently. The proposed site has 54 units/ha. The site immediately to the north has 50. The difference between the site to the north and the subject site is less than two units/acre. The site immediately north has a range of 30-60 units/ha.; the site to the northeast – 60-120 units/ha.; the areas to the south have lower densities. Minto is transitioning densities from the lower density of 30 and 37 (when translated to acres, it is only 3 or 4 units/acre difference) to a high of 120 units on Montreal Road. The areas to the west, which are single-family, at 10-12, are standard single-family development. There is nothing inappropriate or incompatible with the proposed density on this site compared to the site immediately to the north or adjacent thereto.

Reference was made to a previous application built by Minto, which is a single-family development in 2001, prior to the adoption of the new OP and under the guidelines of the ROP and former Gloucester OP. Any discussions with respect to speculation of how would staff have dealt with that application in the past are clearly inappropriate because it was dealt with in accordance with the guidelines of the Plans in place at the time. Contrary to comments of arrogance and not knowing their business, Minto does listen to the City, the community and area politicians. The Appleford site cannot be compared to the subject site on Steel, which does not have single-family abutting. The areas being addressed in terms of compatibility with the community are dealt with as set out by staff in the Zoning By-Law. The units have been set back on Steel to the same set back as the new units across the street; the rear yards on the southern property are similar to the rear yard on the cul-de-sac of semi-detached to the south. Minto has not requested any change in height that is not already in existence in the surrounding communities regardless of the densities. The only changes requested to achieve the densities deal with set backs, side yards and rear yards in the internal portion of the site, which as staff has said clearly reflect the urbanization guidelines the City is trying to work with and establish in delivering various OP policies.

As a result of the presentation, Councillor Cullen referred to the 5% parkland. Mr. Stirling indicated that in accordance with some of the discussion with staff, contrary to some of the comments heard today, the plan does accommodate greenspace connectivity to the parklands. The southwest corner depicts a pathway that would be dedicated as parkland as all pathways are and there is another pathway to the east to connect to that park as well. Whether that land will be calculated as parkland dedication under the provisions of the Planning Act and the balance would be cash in lieu, has not been finalized as yet. Relative to the cash in lieu, Ms. Currie advised that a specific number could not be provided today. The discussion has been that a component of the land would come to the City, not all of that land seen in that connection would be counted as parkland because the City typically counts pathways as non-parkland. That is a negotiation that must still be resolved as part of the Site Plan and Subdivision Approval. There would then be a calculation based on the entitlements, based on the By-Laws to what the balance would be and an appraisal is required, with a process to arrive at the value. Responding further to Councillor Cullen relative to the amount of land, Mr. Stirling indicated that if the parcel was six acres, 5% would .3 acre; land is in the range of $200-225,000/acre.

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

· Email dated 13 September 2005 from Josée Maxwell

· Fax dated 13 September 2005 from Maud Roy

· Email dated 12 September 2005 from Jim Walman

· Email dated 12 September 2005 from Melisa Lessard

· Letter dated 12 September 2005 from Nicole Mondou

· Email dated 12 September from Martine Anthony-Ross

· Email dated 12 September from Kirk and Clara Zynger

· Email dated 12 September from Lorraine Garrett, Bruce Johnston and Yvonne Johnston

· Email dated 12 September from Martin and Denise McNeely

· Email dated 11 September 2005 from Jana Sigutova

· Email dated 11 September 2005 from George Danihelka.

· Letter dated 11 September 2005 from Lindsay Merrill, Past President, Cardinal Heights Community Association

· Email dated 10 September 2005 from Shawn McDonald

· Email dated 10 September 2005 from F. Poulin.

· Email dated 10 September 2005 from Shawn McDonald

· Email dated 8 September 2005 from Manon and Stephan Richard.

· Email dated 8 September 2005 from Mahmoud and Ihsan Abou Dakka

· Letter dated 7 September 2005 from Howell Jones

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

Councillor Bellemare addressed a Motion he was presenting and thanked all those in attendance. Over 150 residents expressed their concerns at a public meeting similar to today. There is a very clear consensus this development application is not compatible with the neighbourhood. There seems to be a focus that because there are some adjacent townhouses that should be mimicked, when in fact Steel is a small local street. The City should be concerned about the extra volume of traffic this will generate for the community to the west that will bear the brunt (Cardinal Heights). In the end, when looking at the various applications, residential intensification is a matter of degree and does not mean sacrificing quality of life in the City’s mature neighbourhoods. Instead, Smart Growth requires the protection of their vitality and character. PEC must also be mindful that this neighbourhood is currently mourning the loss of its second school. With schools closing across the City, it is a lamentable situation; one over which the City has no control, but that is part of the transformation of neighbourhoods. There is a recent OMB decision he found interesting; that of 11 August 2005 regarding Brookfield Homes and the Appeal by Del Corporation. Page 34 highlighted the OP targets with respect to housing types. The City has not solely set a target to build 190,000 units of any type over the next 20 years. The evidence presented is that 46% of the dwellings to be built over the next 20 years are single-family homes. The OMB decision was based on City staff evidence put forward (by Ian Cross, Program Manager, Research and Forecasting, PGM), and found there is a shortfall in the number of single-family being built in Ottawa, identified to be over 13,000 units. There are not necessarily the lands available to build those homes. One way to address that shortfall is to re-designate rural and possibly agricultural lands to allow residential development or the City could redesignate lands such as a former school. The zoning he was putting forward is the same zoning approved in 2001 and represents 3X the density in Cardinal Heights and would allow the construction at the rate of 37 units/ha.

Moved by Councillor M. Bellemare:

WHEREAS the established neighbourhood most impacted by the proposed amendment and immediately west of the subject property is largely comprised of single detached bungalows on relatively large lots;

AND WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB Decision/Order No. 2092 issued Aug. 11, 2005) identified a proven need for additional residential single family lands to meet the objectives of the 2003 City of Ottawa Official Plan and Provincial Policy Statement guidelines in order to provide an adequate mix of housing types;

AND WHEREAS designating serviced urban lands for new single detached houses is more cost effective and preferable to placing continued development pressure on the rural areas of the municipality;

AND WHEREAS, of the 1797 new dwelling units approved to date in Beacon Hill-Cyrville Ward since 2001, 325 (18%) are new multiple units (311 townhouses and 14 semi-detached), 1371 (76%) are apartments, and only 101 (5.6%) are new single detached houses;

AND WHEREAS a reasonable precedent exists to build singles at this location since, in 2001, the same developer applied for – and City Council approved – a change in zoning to another similar-sized former school property within the same neighbourhood (54 Appleford Street – former St. Gabriel school land) to build 51 single detached houses;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve:

1. An amendment to the former City of Gloucester Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 22 Steel Street from Institutional Neighbourhood (In) to Residential Single Dwelling (Rs6) and Residential Single Dwelling – Exception 28 Rs6 (E28);

2. That the implementing By-Law not be forwarded to City Council for enactment until such time as the related Site Plan Control Application has been approved.

Chair Hume noted recommendation 2 in the Motion and pointed out that Site Plans are not required for single-family homes and usually implemented by Plan of Subdivision. Councillor Bellemare accepted the change as a friendly amendment and asked for confirmation on the exact process for the eventual Subdivision Application. Mr. Moser confirmed that Site Plan Applications are not requisite for single-family developments. In this case, if the zoning was approved as presented by staff, there would be a Subdivision because public roads are involved. Unless delegated authority was lifted, staff would approve the Subdivision through various circulations and the approval process in place.

In response to Councillor Cullen, Ms. Currie noted the Rs6 zone was the same as that applied on the Appleford site shown on the overhead as 37 units/net ha., which subtracts the roads. She did not have a net area calculation for the site, but it would be in the range of 60-70 units. The zone permits an 11m frontage for singles.

Councillor Cullen next referenced the issue of school sites. Over the course of this Council term, this is the third such site. Each time the community has asked about the parks. Not only does the City lose the greenspace associated with the school site, but the sportsfield, playground, community programming, after four programming, summer camps, the ability to run lighthouse programs and child care centre that could have been located in the school. The Councillor had brought forward a Motion previously at PEC regarding the school site disposal process. There was a direction to staff to come forward with a policy, which would see the City purchase or acquire vacant school sites and questioned the status of that policy and would be filing an inquiry in that regard.

Councillor Hunter spoke to a Motion that he would be putting forward after hearing from all the residents. His Motion would provide where there is an adjacency that mirrors the type of housing the residents occupied; i.e. looking at the proposed development, Area C borders on Applegrove Court and Area B faces the recently built semi-detached housing on Steel. It is important that residents living in houses of a certain type that border the site have the same type of housing mirrored back at them. That is a principle the City has tried to achieve in many locations. It is not unusual for residents to despise and object to the unknown. Minto and other builders are creating a product they want people to buy. As there are infill developments in all communities, every Ward Councillor can say that one of the features that happens is that a large percentage of the purchasers of the smaller units in the community will be residents from the existing community that development is going into. They want to remain in their community, but do not want that large lot or house.

In response to Councillor Holmes on the number of units Councillor Hunter’s Motion will yield, Ms. Currie advised the former Gloucester By-Law did not include densities and does not provide a per ha. calculation; it is a 9m frontage for a semi-detached unit. That may result in two units less in Area B and the loss of a couple of units in Area C.

Moved by Councillor G. Hunter:

That the zoning of Areas B and C be revised to permit only residential semi-detached to reflect the adjacent housing on Steel Street and Applegrove Court, respectively; and, that the lot area, frontage, set back and similar provisions of the Zoning By-Law be revised accordingly.

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors G. Hunter, P. Hume

NAYS (4): Councillors A. Cullen, M. Bellemare, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate

On Councillor M. Bellemare’s Motion with the amended recommendation copied below:

2. That the implementing By-law not be forwarded to City Council for enactment until such time as a related Subdivision Application has received draft approval.

CARRIED

YEAS (4): Councillors M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate

NAYS (2): Councillors G. Hunter, P. Hume

The Committee approved the recommendations as amended.

1. That Council approve an amendment to the former City of Gloucester Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 22 Steel Street from Institutional Neighbourhood In to Residential Single Dwelling (Rs6) and Residential Single Dwelling – Exception 28 Rs6 (E28).

2. That the implementing By-law not be forwarded to City Council for enactment until such time as a related Subdivision Application has received draft approval.

carried as amended

8. ZONING - 1544 stagecoach road

ZONAGE - 1544, chemin stagecoach

ACS2005-DEV-APR-0203 OSGOODE (20)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 8 August 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Osgoode Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 1544 Stagecoach Road from RU - Rural to R - Residential as shown in Document 1.

CARRIED

9. ZONING - 7890 and 7900 Springhill Road

ZONAGE - 7890 et 7900, chemin springhill

ACS2005-DEV-APR-0204 OSGOODE (20)

Bill Royds, GACC, was present in opposition to the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 8 August 2005 and presented a comment sheet that in summary observed the report did not properly reflect the environmental values and features that led to a Rural Natural Features(RNF) designation. Reports should list the species and rarity of the feature as well as a general description of the topography, surficial geology and land cover of the area to better allow public and councilors to understand the ecological significance of the proposed redesignation / rezoning. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Osgoode Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 7890 and 7900 Springhill Road from RU (Rural) to CE (Country Estate) as shown in Document 1.

CARRIED with Councillor A. Cullen dissenting.

10. cash-in-lieu of parking - 415 richmond road

règlement financier des exigences de stationnement - 415, chemin richmond

ACS2005-DEV-APR-0009 KITCHISSIPPI (15)

Chair Hume noted a request from Michael Polowin, McCarthy Tetrault, on behalf of the applicant, to defer this item to the 27 September PEC meeting.

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That the Planning and Environment Committee defer this item to the 27 September 2005 meeting.

deferral carried

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

POLITIQUES D’URBANISME, D’ENVIRONNEMENT ET

D’INFRASTRUCTURE

11. APPEAL 46 TO THE 2003 Ottawa OFFICIAL PLAN - OSGOODE-RIDEAU SOCCER Association

APPEL 46 AU PLAN OFFICIEL DE LA VILLE D'OTTAWA 2003 - OSGOODE - RIDEAU SOCCER ASSOCIATION

ACS2005-DEV-POL-0051 OSGOODE (20), GLOUCESTER-SOUTHGATE (10)

Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering Consultants Inc., on behalf of the applicant, was present in support of the recommendations contained in the departmental report dated 15 August 2005. The Committee approved the recommendations.

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1. Support the re-designation of part of Lot 1 Concession 1, former Township of Osgoode, as shown at Document 2 attached to this report, from Agriculture Resource Area to General Rural Area.

2. Direct staff to communicate this position to the Ontario Municipal Board at a future pre-hearing on the appeals of the 2003 Official Plan.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that the Rules of Procedure be waived to allow this item to rise to City Council on 14 September 2005.

CARRIED

12. OTTAWA BY DESIGN - URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES

CONCEPTION URBAINE D'OTTAWA - LIGNES DIRECTRICES

ACS2005-DEV-POL-0053 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 2 August 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for information and that staff report back in early 2006 with a report outlining the recommended urban design guidelines for (1) Traditional Mainstreets, (2) Arterial Mainstreets, (3) Gas stations, (4) Drive-throughs and (5) Large Format Retail.

RECEIVED

13. VACANT URBAN RESIDENTIAL LAND SURVEY, 2004 UPDATE

ENQUÊTE SUR LES TERRAINS RÉSIDENTIELS VACANTS EN MILIEU URBAIN, MISE À JOUR DE 2004

ACS2005-DEV-POL-0054 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 24 August 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for information.

RECEIVED

BUILDING SERVICES

DIRECTION DES SERVICES DU BÂTIMENT

14. PRIVATE ROADWAY NAMING - 120 PARKDALE AVENUE (TUNNEY'S PASTURE)

NOM DES ROUTES PRIVÉES - 120, AVENUE PARKDALE (PRÉ TUNNEY)

acs2005-pgm-bld-0018 KITCHISSIPPI (15)

The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 29 July 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve:

1. An amendment to Section 11 of By-law 2002-521 respecting private roadways to permit the suffix "DRWY" to be substituted for the suffix "PRIV" for the following roadway names:

TUNNEY'S PASTURE DRIVEWAY, SIR FREDERICK BANTING DRIVEWAY, COLUMBINE DRIVEWAY, GOLDENROD DRIVEWAY, ELGANTINE DRIVEWAY, SORREL DRIVEWAY, YARROW DRIVEWAY, CHARDON DRIVEWAY.

2. To amend Section 11 of By-law 2002-521 respecting the naming of private roadways to permit the continued use of "DRWY" as an alternate assigned suffix associated exclusively with names designated for roadways under Federal jurisdiction.

CARRIED

COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS

ARTICLES DES CONSEILLERS

Councillor / Conseillère D. Holmes

15. cash-in-lieu of parking - 282 ELGIN STREET

règlement financier des exigences de stationnement - 282, rue elgin

acs2005-CCS-PEC-0008 Somerset (14)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in Councillor Holmes report dated 31 August 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee approve a reduced Cash-in-lieu of Parking levy of $19,600.00 (Nineteen Thousand Six Hundred) dollars ($2,800.00 per space) for the Seven (7) parking spaces required to establish a coffee house at 282 Elgin Street.

CARRIED

INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED

INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT

A. ON TIME REVIEW STATUS REPORT

rapports d'étape sur l'examen en temps voulu

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0216 city-wide

RECEIVED

B. Advisory Committee Reserve Appointment - ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

NOMINATION D’UN MEMBRE SUPPLÉANT AU COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR L’ENVIRONNEMENT

ACS2005-CRS-SEC-0041

RECEIVED

Inquiries

DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS

Councillor / Conseiller A. Cullen

Acquisition of School Sites

Councillor A. Cullen raised the following inquiry:

What is the status of the direction Planning and Environment Committee and Council gave to develop a policy to acquire vacant school sites prior to disposal for development, in order to protect community amenity space?

(Please place the response to this inquiry under “Information Previously Distributed” portion of the PEC Agenda.)

Chair/ Président P. Hume

Evaluation of Sewer Inspections

To the Utilities Branch

Chair Hume raised an Inquiry from June 14 (PEC-05-05) relative to the review of sewer tapes by Sewer-Matic for possible improvements. They were some six to eight months behind. The response has not come forward and Chair Hume inquired when could PEC expect to see the results of that inquiry.

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m.

Original signed by Original signed by

L. Ferrari Councillor P. Hume

Committee Coordinator Chair