STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR ZONING MATTERS SUBMITTED FOR POST JANUARY 1, 2007
DÉCLARATION POUR LES DEMANDES DE MODIFICATION DE ZONAGE PRÉSENTÉES
APRÈS LE 1ER JANVIER 2007
Chair Hume read a statement
relative to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, listed as items 1,
2, 3, 5 and 6 on the agenda. He advised
that only those who made oral submissions at today’s meeting or written
submissions before the amendments are adopted could appeal these matters to the
Ontario Municipal Board. Applicants may
also appeal the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board if Council does not adopt
an amendment within 120 days for Zoning and 180 days for an Official Plan
Amendment of receipt of the application.
Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability
Services d’infrastructure et
Viabilité des collectivités
PLANNING
and growth management
URBANISME et Gestion de la croissance
1. ZONING
- 1601 SIEVERIGHT AVENUE
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve
an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 1601
Sieveright Avenue from Light Industrial - IL2 H(14) to Residential First
Density - R1W as shown in Document 1.
CARRIED
2. ZONING - 1080 BANK
STREET
ZONAGE
- 1080 RUE BANK
ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0010 Capital/Capitale
(17)
(This application
is subject to Bill 51)
Written
correspondence was received from the following and is held on file with the
City Clerk and Solicitor:
·
Email from Tim Bennett dated January 12, 2009
·
Email from Sue Fay, owner of Soul Matters, dated January 12, 2009
·
Email from Gabriela Gref-Innes dated January 12, 2009
·
Email from Laura Rees dated January 12, 2009
·
Email from Nancy Watters dated January 12, 2009
·
Email from Gordon Schwartz dated January 9, 2009
Lorraine Stevens,
Planner I, provided a PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the
City Clerk and Solicitor. John Smit,
Program Manager of Development Review and Grant Lindsay, Manager of Development
Approvals Central/South accompanied her.
In response to
questions from Councillor Qadri, Ms. Stevens advised that most buildings in the
area are below the permitted 15 metres and an opaque fence is solid and cannot
be seen through. She noted the building
would be located on the corner, with parking and loading at the rear. Fire access would be achieved from the
street on Sunnyside Avenue and Bank Street.
The vehicular entrance to the parking lot is on Sunnyside Avenue.
Ted Fobert, FoTenn spoke on behalf of
the applicant and presented a colour rendering of the proposed building façade. Katherine Grechuta, also from FoTenn
and Ron Jack, Delcan, accompanied him.
Mr. Fobert reviewed the context of the site and characteristics of the
proposal. He touched on public
consultation, which occurred with the community association, including four
pre-application meetings in January, February, March and June 2008, as well as
a public meeting organized by the ward councillor in October 2008. He added that changes were made because of
pre-consultation, including adding an office use to the second floor and design
changes (stepping back the second storey on Sunnyside Avenue, changes to the
entrance, full brick, additional glazing and glass, and increased
articulation.)
Mr. Fobert stated
that the proposal is in keeping with the Traditional Mainstreet (TM) zone and
the retail and office uses are permitted.
Under the current zoning, a mixed use five-storey building could be
constructed on the entire site; however, the proposal is limited to two
storeys, leaving the back one third of the site for parking and allowing light
and air for abutting properties. He
noted the considerable depth of the property, which has remained vacant for
many years. He said that the establishment
would be a community-based store with 78 per cent of customers expected from
the neighbourhood. It is thought that
many customers will come to the store by foot.
In response to
questions from members, Mr. Fobert and his team provided the following points
of clarification:
·
The TM zone in this location limits single-use retail to 600 square
metres. The proposal calls for 1200
square meters.
·
The building is configured in order to allow it to be subdivided into
two or three shops, if necessary, in the future. The proposed store is not “big box”.
·
The Shoppers Drugmart in the Glebe is approximately 6-7,000 square feet
with seven to eight parking spaces. It
works well and has no major issue with parking.
·
The Glebe store did not require re-zoning as the TM zone in the Glebe
does not have a single retail-use size limit.
·
The four pre-application meetings were held with the community
association executive. Changes were
made to the design as a result of feedback received.
·
Approximately 80 to 100 people attended the full public meeting.
·
Twelve parking spaces would be provided, whereas the by-law requires 48
spaces for the general office use. It
is hoped that the City will consider additional on-street parking in the area.
·
It is anticipated that clients will be coming to the store by foot and
bicycle. The requirement for parking is
generally less in the TM zone. Parking
is provided on site, well back from the intersection and removed from the
school.
·
The by-law does not restrict who can utilise on-site parking but it will
be reserved for store customers.
·
No objection was received from the operator of the Mayfair Theatre, an
adjacent property.
·
The applicant has entered a long-term lease with the owner (over 20
years). Soil contamination was mostly
addressed when the gas station was removed.
Additional remedial work is required due to trace contamination before
the issuance of a building permit.
·
Underground parking is cost prohibitive and not feasible due to
ownership issues. It is not generally
utilised in mainstreet settings.
Mr. Smit indicated
that additional parking would be required if a medical office use is introduced
on the second floor. Mr. Fobert stated
that possible tenants would be explored once the zoning is in place. He added that an office use was added after
consultation with the community association.
The applicant agreed to add the use as it would be a benefit to the
community but it is not a necessity for the applicant. He confirmed a stairwell and an elevator
would provide access to the second floor.
Councillor Holmes
suggested supportive and community housing for the second floor. Mr. Fobert replied that they are permitted
uses in the existing zone. He also
confirmed that Ministry of Environment approval is required as part of the
remedial work to deal with the limited contamination.
Timothy Bennett spoke in
opposition to the proposal with two arguments:
the existing zoning requirement on maximum retail space should be
preserved, and there was a lack of comprehensive public consultation on the
plans. He commented that there was no
pressing need to nearly double the allowed single commercial use in a small
community and the proposal has no place in Old Ottawa South. He noted the existing zoning was arrived at
through significant public input and study.
He stated that the effort put in to creating the existing zoning
involved long, hard work by members of the community and the ward
councillor. He added that the present
proposal has not been given the same study and exposure to the community. The public meeting of October 2008 was the
first presentation of the proposal to the public with no follow up
opportunity.
Arthur McGregor,
Ottawa Folklore Centre, also indicated his opposition to the proposal,
noting the 2006 census showed 8,168 people living in Old Ottawa South. Mr. McGregor countered the argument put
forth by the applicant that the majority of business will be from walk-in
traffic. He advised that a 2001 retail
report showed that Shoppers Drugmart has to achieve $1000 per square foot in
sales per year. A family of four in Old
Ottawa South would be required to spend $360-400 a week at the store for it to
be viable and truly community-focussed.
He explained that Shoppers Drugmart would use contemporary shopping
science and psychology to lure customers, noting this type of store is a
‘category killer’. It is a business
concept that will take over the local market in general products by dispensing
drugs in the back. He summarized a
large piece of the trade to keep the store viable must come from drive-in
customers, which will have a negative effect.
With regard to neighbourhood fit, he countered staff’s position that the
proposal would not adversely affect the small-scale retail character that is to
be retained along Bank Street given the depth of the property. He also noted that such controversy over a
large 12,000 square foot box store in an urban situation has also been seen in
Toronto. In sum, he requested that
retail be limited to a decent size to help create a true mainstreet with a
human scale, neighbourhood supported and run by local supporters.
Carolyn Inch, a 20-year resident
of the community, said that the majority of Old Ottawa South residents would
not support the amendment to the zoning by-law to allow 12,000 square feet of
commercial space. She suggested the consultation
process was faulty. She indicated that
she heard of the proposal in September 2008 although it had been before the
community association executive since January 2008. She noted that the proposed store would be directly across from
the elementary school, raising safety and traffic concerns. She suggested the proposal would be setting
a precedent. She added that the store
would be unsightly, explaining that the street has gone through massive
renovation with nice streetlights and furniture; moreover, existing businesses
went through hardship during street re-construction. She stated that the community association went beyond its mandate
in dealing with the developer for several months in the absence of a public
meeting, which once held lacked sufficient notice. She suggested the current proposal is too big and would
effectively put an end to the traditional mainstreet, impacting small local
businesses. She reiterated that the
community has a vision, which was developed deliberately and over time.
Lyne Burton, Wag
Pet Shop, who has owned a business in the area since 1994, was pleased with the
implementation of the TM zone.
Councillor Doucet, community members and business owners all shared a
common vision as volunteers worked with City staff to limit development to
small-medium sized businesses. Ms.
Burton indicated that the current zoning and size restrictions played a role in
the decision to open a second business in Old Ottawa South in 2005. She said that mega stores swallow small
independent shops and size restriction should not be seen as arbitrary. Ms. Burton advised that her business is
situated directly across from the proposed development and questioned why she
and other adjacent businesses were not notified of the public meeting. She urged the City to protect the current
zoning, which protects the area from the large format trends.
In response to
questions from the Chair, Ms. Burton stated that parking would become a huge
issue, as Old Ottawa South is already challenged in this regard.
Chair Hume noted
that if the proposed store were divided into three separate shops, the impacts
would be the same, including parking.
Ms. Burton reiterated her general opposition to large format stores as
they cater less to neighbourhood walking traffic. She indicated she would not have the same retail concerns if the
development was divided into three smaller stores but the parking problem would
remain.
Councillor Feltmate
wondered whether more drive-in traffic generated by the proposal would help Ms.
Burton’s business across the street.
Ms. Burton indicated she would benefit if sufficient parking were
available. She stated that a small
comparative study of on-street parking in a one-block radius showed 106 spaces
in the Glebe and 27 in Old Ottawa South.
Councillor Feltmate
reiterated that the zoning by-law requires for 48 parking spots for the office
use. Ms. Burton responded that she does
not support large format stores; however, she would be more agreeable if more
parking was accommodated.
Missy Fraser, a resident of
Belmont Avenue, opposed the application.
As a member of the community association committee, which examines
development applications, she encouraged the holding of a full community
meeting as soon as possible, even before the submission of a formal
application. She noted that only 150 of
8,000 residents were notified of the public meeting a week before it took
place. She opined that a majority of
those who attended the meeting and who wrote to the planner opposed the
proposal. She stated that the community
association is not fully supportive of the proposal, noting some members did
object. With respect to safety, she
indicated the store would be located directly across one of the largest public
schools in the city with over 900 kids.
Ms. Fraser said the proposed loading zone and parking entrance are
directly across the street from the kindergarten and primary entrance on
Sunnyside Avenue. She suggested the
school council was not consulted on the proposal and many other concerns were
raised at the community meeting that must be considered. Ms. Fraser reiterated the current zoning was
developed in a consultative process and cautioned the proposal could be viewed
as a precedent that would change the street character. In conclusion, she asked that the Committee
reject the application or find reasonable accommodation by reducing the size of
the development.
With regard to
shipping and receiving, Councillor Qadri noted that the majority of Shoppers
Drugmarts have a central warehouse and use large trucks for shipping. He asked if sufficient space was available
for loading, especially with parking at the rear. Mr. Smit stated that the urban model for Shoppers Drugmart is
generally not serviced by 18-wheelers.
Chair Hume advised
that this issue would be addressed through the site plan process where
restrictions could be imposed if necessary.
Curtis LeBond, a resident of
Sunnyside Avenue, requested that the proposal be rejected as it seeks to double
the required floor space for the store.
He said the request seems excessive.
He urged that the existing rules be followed rather than allowing
development to occur by variance.
Janet Desroches stated her
opposition to the proposal, referencing her experience with the Glebe store, as
a resident of that neighbourhood. Her
objection also touched on the effect of mega stores on smaller businesses, as
well as on the character of the community.
Touching on the Glebe store, she noted a huge unsightly billboard is
used to advertise the business, which takes away from the community
feeling. Parking is also insufficient,
causing some congestion on Bank Street.
Councillor Feltmate
asked how many parking spaces are provided at the Glebe store. Mr. Smit indicated eight spaces are
provided. Councillor Feltmate remarked
that an office use is not part of the Glebe building.
Diane McIntyre, who also resides
in the Glebe, expressed concern with the development in terms of its scale and
the extent to which the traffic study has looked at safety issues. She noted that office uses above drug stores
tend to be medical, which require additional parking. She also applauded Councillor Holmes’ suggestion to introduce
public housing on the second floor. Ms.
McIntyre conceded that some development is advantageous at this site, but she
questioned the scale of the proposal.
She expressed concerns about truck entry and egress from the loading
zone and remarked that parking access is opposite the school, where children
park their bicycles. Ms. McIntyre also
outlined concerns with water runoff, the flat roof and lack of greenspace due
to the small set back. In closing, she
noted the corner of Bank and Sunnyside is important as many children cross
there on their way to school and it is a key access route to Carleton
University.
In reply to a
question from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Smit clarified that additional parking
would be required if a medical office use was introduced on the second
floor. A public process (cash-in-lieu
of parking or minor variance) would be required to reduce the required parking.
Brian Tansey opposed the
application and countered the staff argument that the proposed drug store use
is one that serves the neighbourhood.
The proposal is out of scale and defeats the existing zoning developed
with community involvement. He
suggested the proposal is the first test and if allowed would be precedent
setting, leading others to assemble land.
He also commented that a proper public meeting should have been held
earlier and debated the argument that if the proposal is rejected no
development would occur at this site.
He touched on the opportunity costs of allowing the current proposal,
which would nullify what should go there, as currently allowed by the existing
zoning. He suggested this proposal did
not fit with the community and was a ‘gussied up big box store’.
Councillor Doucet
remarked that this proposal is smaller in height than what is permissible under
the existing by-law. Mr. Smit agreed
and outlined the changes to the zoning as outlined in the report.
Mr. Lindsay
discussed intensification efforts around the city and agreed that the proposal
was relatively small and compatible with Official Plan objectives.
With regard to
impact to the retail fabric of the street, as raised by Chair Hume, Mr. Lindsay
suggested the impact was the same whether or not the building was broken into
one or three shops. He noted that the
market drives retail function and the building is convertible. He stated that staff are pleased the second
floor would be used to benefit the community, ensuring continued viability over
time.
Mr. Smit added that
the property is unique on Bank Street in Old Ottawa South because of its depth,
as it extends some 90 metres down Sunnyside Avenue, while properties typically
have a depth of 30-50 metres. He added
that this proposal on a deep lot maintains the rhythm of the streetscape by
being street-oriented, pedestrian focussed, with articulation. He noted that the single retail size
provision is not found in other TM zones in the city.
In response to
further questions, Mr. Smit indicated that a store the size of McQueen’s in the
Glebe could probably not be replicated in Old Ottawa South because of lot
size. He added that the 600 square
metre limit was probably arrived at by using the size of the fresh food mart
that once existed on the east side of Bank Street as a benchmark.
Councillor Feltmate
asked if staff considered rejecting the application in order to test the
validity of the 600 square metre provision.
She indicated she was sympathetic to arguments supporting smaller
retail, particularly when independent retail is overwhelmed by larger chains.
Mr. Smit responded
that staff is comfortable with permitting a site specific exception in this
instance due to the uniqueness of the site, without compromising the integrity
of the zone provisions or undoing the ability to assess how effective the
limitation is generally.
Mr. Lindsay
reiterated that retail uses change overtime, are volatile, and influenced by
market demand. He emphasized the staff
position that the proposal is appropriate.
In response to a
further question from Councillor Feltmate, Mr. Lindsay indicated a zoning
amendment would not be required if the proposal was developed as three separate
shops at the outset.
Councillor Holmes
spoke in support of the recommendation, noting the benefits outweigh the
negatives. She observed a five-storey
building could be built under the current zoning, which would negatively impact
adjacent property owners in terms of shadowing and light. She commended the community for their work
in influencing the design, which resulted in increased articulation and
glazing, as well as a useable second storey.
She also made comparisons with the grocery store at the corner of Bank
and Somerset where some concessions were made to achieve a sustainable
development with affordable housing above.
She suggested maximum retail square footage provisions might exist in
the TM zones on Preston and Somerset.
Councillor Doucet
spoke of the divisive nature of the proposal; however, he indicated he would
support the departmental recommendation.
He noted the design has evolved, resulting in a beautiful building. He added that 15 of 17 members of the
community association committee supported the proposal and many people want to
see additional shopping opportunities within walking distance. He addressed some of the concerns raised
with regard to public consultation, noting those who support the proposal are
not present. He stated he and his staff
hand-delivered flyers for the public meeting, which was also posted on his
website and locally advertised. He also
went door to door to inform adjacent residents of the proposal and spoke to the
school. Councillor Doucet said that
little development has occurred in Old Ottawa South in the last 30 years and
this site has remained vacant for seven.
He reported that he reviewed the Glebe example where no complaints have
been received. He consulted a small
storeowner in the Glebe who commented that the new Shoppers Drugmart has not
affected his business. He concluded
that a range of services is needed to keep people in the neighbourhood. He indicated that he could do the easy thing
and vote against it, but believed supporting it was the right thing to do.
Following debate,
Committee considered the departmental recommendation.
That
the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve an amendment to Zoning By-law
2008-250 to change the zoning of 1080 Bank Street, as shown in Document 1, from
Traditional Mainstreet - TM2 H (15) and Traditional Mainstreet - TM2 [98] H(14)
to TM2 [98] H(15) as detailed in Document 2.
2. Approve an amendment to the former City
of Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98 to change the zoning provisions for part of 1080
Bank Street, as shown in Document 1, to reduce the separation for a parking lot
from a public street, as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
Chair Hume advised that he consulted with
senior legal counsel and the motion below is within the mandate of the
Transportation Committee. A referral
motion was then presented and carried.
Moved by C. Doucet:
That the Planning and
Environment Committee endorse and forward the following motion to the
Transportation Committee for consideration:
WHEREAS it is
generally agreed that the amount of parking proposed for the Shoppers Drugmart
is appropriate given the community based nature of the business;
AND WHEREAS a concern
remains among some business owners that the proposed Shoppers Drugmart will
nevertheless increase the demand for on-street parking, and that the businesses
located along Bank Street would benefit from additional parking spaces;
AND WHEREAS the
proposed Shoppers Drugmart building, which will replace a vacant parking lot,
will result in a continuous building façade along Bank Street which provides
the opportunity for additional on-street parking;
BE IT THEREFORE
RESOLVED that:
1. Staff implement, as a priority, the installation of additional
on-street parking spaces along the west side of Bank Street and the along north
side of Sunnyside Avenue, as appropriate, for the length of the proposed
Shoppers Drugmart project; and
2. That staff be directed to carry out a comprehensive Parking
Study to assess the need for, and the opportunity to provide, additional public
parking for the businesses along Bank Street, between the Canal and the Rideau
River, in Old Ottawa South.
CARRIED
3. ZONING
- 1238 MARENGER STREET
ZONAGE - 1238, RUE MARENGER
ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0017 orléans (1)
James Locke was present in support of
the recommendation.
That the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law
2008-250 to amend the Residential Fourth Density Zone, Subsection Z, Exception
1241 (R4Z[1241]) of 1238 Marenger Street as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
4. ST. JOSEPH BOULEVARD COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
PLAN D'AMÉLIORATION COMMUNAUTAIRE DU BOULEVARD ST-JOSEPH
ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0003 Orléans
(1), Innes (2)
An email in support of the plan, dated January 9,
2009, was received from Colette Côté and is held on file with the City Clerk
and Solicitor.
That Planning and
Environment Committee and Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
recommend that Council:
1. Enact a by-law to designate the area
shown as Schedule “A” on Document 1 as the St. Joseph Boulevard Community
Improvement Plan Project Area.
2. Enact a by-law to adopt the St. Joseph
Boulevard Community Improvement Plan as detailed in Document 2 and 3.
3. Delegate to the General Manager,
Planning and Growth Management the authority to approve Community Improvement
Plan grant applications for which the total combined grant amount does not
exceed $250,000.00, subject to an annual financial reporting to Council.
CARRIED
5. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
BY-LAW 2008-250: ANOMALIES AND MINOR CORRECTIONS - FOURTH REPORT
RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE 2008-250 : ANOMALIES ET CORRECTIONS MINEURES –
QUATRIÈME RAPPORT
ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0023 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
(This matter is subject to
Bill 51)
Moved by P. Feltmate:
That Recommendation 1 of the
report be amended to rezone the lands at the north-east corner of Meandering
Brook Drive and Lester Road from O1-Parks and Open Space to R5A[1235] H(22)-
Residential Fifth Density.
That there be no further
notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
That Council approve the
amendments recommended in Column 4 of Document 1, to correct anomalies in
Zoning By-law 2008-250, as amended to rezone the lands at the north-east corner
of Meandering Brook Drive and Lester Road from O1-Parks and Open Space to
R5A[1235] H(22)- Residential Fifth Density.
CARRIED
as amended
7. AMENDMENT
TO PLANNING APPLICATION FEES BY-LAW AND CONDOMINIUM APPLICATION TIMELINES
MODIFICATION DU RÈGLEMENT FIXANT LES DROITS
RELATIFS AUX DEMANDES D'AMÉNAGEMENT ET DÉLAIS DES DEMANDES RELATIVES AUX
COPPROPRIÉTÉS
ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0013 CITY
WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Moved by P. Feltmate:
WHEREAS the Report
Recommendation of Planning and Environment Committee Report
ACS2009-ICS-APR-0013 contains a minor error in Document 1;
AND WHEREAS, within said
document, reference is made to “1,606.50 Legal Fee + GST” while reference
should be made to “1,530.00 Legal Fee + GST”;
AND WHEREAS, in said
document, reference is made to “687.75 Legal Fee + GST”, while reference should
be made to “655.00 Legal Fee + GST”;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
THAT Committee approve the required correction.
CARRIED
That the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee and the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve
the establishment of new fees for Common Elements and Vacant Land Plans of Condominium,
as detailed in Document 1, as amended to correct legal fees, and amend
the Planning Fees By-law accordingly, effective 1 February 2009; and
2. Approve
the establishment of a revised timeline for Common Elements and Vacant Land
Plans of Condominium applications, as detailed in Document 2.
3. Replace
reference in Document 1 of “1,606.50 Legal Fee + GST” with “1,530.00 Legal Fee + GST” and correct
reference to “687.75 Legal Fee + GST” with “655.00 Legal Fee + GST”.
CARRIED
as amended
BUILDING CODE SERVICES
SERVICES DU CODE DU BÂTIMENT
8. SIGN BY-LAW MINOR VARIANCE - 1194 CARP
ROAD
DÉROGATION
MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES - 1194, CHEMIN CARP
ACS2009-ICS-BLD-0002 Stittsville-Kanata West/Ouest (6)
Moved by S.
Qadri:
WHEREAS Building Code
Services has drafted report number ACS2009-ICS-BLD-0002, item 8 of Agenda 47,
requesting a sign minor variance for the subject property to allow a ground
sign for a commercial use in a residential zone;
AND WHEREAS in the time
since the report was submitted, it has come to the attention of the Department
that a sign has been manufactured and temporarily affixed in place, located too
close to the road allowance and exceeding the sign area and height originally
requested, thereby rendering the report incomplete;
AND WHEREAS the
recommendations require reconsideration given the actual site conditions, and
therefore a new report will be submitted to Committee; and
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED
that the Planning and Environment Committee approve a withdrawal of the subject
report and that a new replacement report be submitted at the February 2, 2009,
Planning and Environment Committee meeting.
CARRIED
That
Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:
1. Refuse the application to vary Sign
By-law 2005-439, to permit a non-illuminated ground sign within a residential
zone with a height of 2.75 metres and with an area of 2.23 square metres for
the retail use at 1194 Carp Road.
2. Approve a variance to Sign By-law
2005-439, to permit a non-illuminated ground sign within a residential zone
with a height of two metres and with an area of 1.5 square metres for the
retail use at 1194 Carp Road.
WITHDRAWN
COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS
ARTICLES DES CONSEILLERS
Councillor / Conseillère Holmes
9. PRESTON STREET
REHABILITATION BETWEEN SPRUCE AND ALBERT STREETS
REFECTION DE LA RUE PRESTON ENTRE LES RUES
SPRUCE ET ALBERT
ACS2009-CCS-PEC-0001 SOMERSET (14)
Lori Mellor, Preston Street
Business Improvement Area, was present in support of the motion.
That the Planning and Environment
Committee recommend Council approve that funds in the amount of $1.9 million
required for the water portion ($570,000) and sewer portion ($1,330,000) of
this project be allocated from the water/sewer reserves.
CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
The meeting
adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
Original signed by Original
signed by
Robert
Tremblay Councillor
P. Hume
Committee Coordinator Chair
