02 September 2011 / le 02 Septembre 2011
Submitted by/Soumis par :
M. Rick O’Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor/Greffier et chef du
contentieux
(613) 580-2424 x21215, rick.oconnor@ottawa.ca
Contact Person/Personne ressource :
Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel/Conseiller
juridique principal
(613) 580-2424 x21444, timothy.marc@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT:
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
That the Planning Committee
receive this report for information
Que le Comité de l'urbanisme prenne
connaissance du présent rapport.
This report is being submitted to
Planning Committee pursuant to the direction from Council to report on the
rationale in Ontario Municipal Board cases where the City has been unsuccessful
and to identify any potential changes
to City plans, policies and/or procedures as a result of this decision.
History
The applicant in this case sought minor variances, consents to sever and
a rezoning to permit the creation of two lots with a remainder lot with an
existing single dwelling. Upon the two
new lots would be detached dwellings.
Whereas the zoning required lots with a minimum frontage and lot area of
20 metres and 900 square metres respectively, the new lots would be 13.72 m/15
m and 579 m2 /557 m2.
Kemp Park had developed on private services in two stages with 63 lots,
either one-half or one acre in size. By 1984, the subdivision had been serviced
with municipal water and the 1984 Gloucester Zoning By-law also had a minimum
lot frontage of 20 metres and lot size of 900 square metres. With the enactment of Gloucester’s
comprehensive zoning by-law in 1999, smaller lots of nine metres frontage and
555 square metres lot area were permitted when sanitary sewer service was
provided. There was no evidence before
the Board that any public consultation took place with respect to this change.
With the advent of full services, 16 severances had taken place such that
at the time of the hearing there were a total of 79 lots in Kemp Park. The staff recommendation with respect to the
City’s new comprehensive zoning by-law in 2008 was that the minimum lot
frontage and lot area revert from nine metres and 555 square metres to 20 metres and 900 square metres
respectively. Pending enactment of the
new by-law on June 25th, 2008, Council directed Legal Services on
May 28th, 2008 to appeal any Committee of Adjustment decision
creating a lot with a frontage of less than 20 metres.
Hearing
As noted above, the applicant sought in the alternative both minor
variances and a rezoning to permit the desired lots to be created. In finding for the applicant, the Board noted
both the Provincial Policy Statement and the City’s Official Plan support
infill development. However of greatest
weight in the decision was the fact that the neighbours closest to the site
supported the proposed development and the Board’s concern over the lack of
consultation that had taken place with respect to the reinstatement of the 20
metre frontage and 900 square metre lot area requirements.
The Board noted that while there had been a community meeting in 2003 to
address this issue, and a survey subsequently conducted, there was no report
back to the community on the outcome.
The Board may, in an appropriate case, be willing to give some weight to
community views in addressing compatibility, but in the present case was not
satisfied that there was a community consensus in favour of the greater
performance standards. The Board did
specifically state in its decision:
“This decision is based upon evidence particular to the subject
property…and… is not intended as precedent”.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The Official Plan does support intensification and infill development
subject, at stated above, to the general test of compatibility. The decision in the case of 8 Robert Kemp
appears to show some willingness on the Board to accept and give weight to the
view of the community as to what is appropriate development within the Kemp
Park Subdivision.
The policy recommendation to address this decision is that in order to be
able to respond to any future development applications within the subdivision,
it may be appropriate to complete the community consultation process that was
started in 2003.
N/A
This report is being submitted to Committee pursuant to Council’s direction for a summary of unsuccessful OMB outcomes and their policy implications. No additional consultation has taken place.
On June 28, 2011, a representative from the City of Ottawa met with the Kempark Property Owner’s Association to discuss zoning matters of interest in the community. The Kempark Property Owner’s Association made a request following this meeting to seek assistance from the City of Ottawa to administer a survey to their community on the matter of zoning for residential lots within their development.
I support the Kempark Property Owners Association’s request to consult the entire Kempark neighbourhood via formal written City of Ottawa survey. I request that the Planning and Growth Management Department support the survey process and proceed as soon as possible to administer the survey and to share the results with residents.
There are no risk management implications associated with this report.
N/A
There are no technical implications associated with this report.
There are no additional financial implications associated with this report as the hearing was conducted with in-house legal counsel.
N/A
Planning and Growth Management Department will create and distribute a survey in 2011. The results of this survey and any follow up action will be discussed with the community and included in the 2012 work programme.