Individual
Respondent
Role: To
articulate their perception and concerns about the impact of a proposal.
Responsibilities:
o
to
make reasonable efforts to gain an understanding of a proposal .
o
to
interact with community representatives in evaluating a proposal.
o
to
respond to notifications within the timeframe.
o
to
recognize that considerations other than their own concerns are weighted by
decision-makers when reviewing an application.
Ward Councillors
Role: To be fully informed of the application, to
facilitate stakeholder understanding, and to advocate a position based on the
careful consideration of all the information presented on an application.
Responsibilities:
o
to
gain a full understanding of a proposal through all available sources.
o
to
provide equal treatment to all stakeholders in the process.
o
to
evaluate a proposal with regard to neighbourhood impacts and concerns and from
the perspective of established municipal policies and technical standards.
o
to
protect the legitimate interests of the community.
o
to
facilitate interaction, information sharing and discussion between the
stakeholders.
o
to
respond to circulations in a timely fashion and provide concurrence on
delegated approvals within the required timelines.
o
to
explain to their colleagues their views on a proposal including its merits and
demerits.
o
to
recognize and accept that all proposals may not be intrinsically "Ward
issues" but rather require broader civic consideration.
Planning and Development Committee /City Council
Role: To
make a decision on the merits of a proposal and to ensure a fair and efficient
process.
Responsibilities:
o
to
evaluate a proposal in a city-wide context giving regard to the broader public
interest, neighbourhood impacts and concerns, and from the perspective of
established municipal policy and technical standards.
o
to
hear all stakeholders in an open-minded manner.
o
to
make decisions in a timely fashion and prevent undue delay.
o
to
make their decision criteria visible and to state the rationale for their
decision.
o
to
monitor and review whether the participants in the development review process
are meeting agreed process standards.
Development
Services Department
Role: To
deal with all applications submitted in a thorough and professional manner, to
develop a recommendation or a decision based on planning principles and the
policies established in the Official Plan, to provide information and advice to
all stakeholders, and to carry out the process so that it is timely, fair and
accountable.
Responsibilities:
o
to
understand the process from the perspective of all stakeholders.
o
to
explain the process clearly to all stakeholders.
o
to
facilitate early information exchange and discussion among the stakeholders.
o
to
assist individuals and stakeholders to participate meaningfully in the process.
o
to
inform stakeholders in a clear manner of the application ensuring that
notification is properly given.
o
to
monitor the timely progress of an application ensuring that deadlines are
respected, but not to act as a mediator.
o
to
evaluate a proposal professionally and objectively, taking into account
neighbourhood impacts and concerns and from the perspective of established municipal policy and technical standards.
o
to
make recommendations to Planning and Development Committee and City Council in
a timely fashion.
o
to
explain to stakeholders its rationale for its recommendations and decisions.
o
to
constantly monitor, review and improve the process.
Public Bodies and Other Technical
Review Agencies (e.g. National Capital Commission, School Boards, Conservation
Authorities, utility companies)
Role: To evaluate a proposal within the context of
their mandate.
Responsibilities:
o
to
evaluate a proposal with regard to impact on agency interests, taking into
account neighbourhood impacts and concerns and from the perspective of
established policy and technical standards.
o
to
respond to technical circulations within the timeframe.
o
to
recognize that considerations other than their concerns are weighted by
decision-makers when reviewing an application.
Other
Interest Groups
Role: To
advocate their special interest concerns in a focused, articulate and informed
manner.
Responsibilities:
o
to
succinctly state the group's goals, objectives and position in relation to the
project.
o to recognize that considerations other than their own concerns are weighted by decision-makers when reviewing an application.
Document 3
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Policy Statement
The Development Services Department will actively seek opinions, attitudes and advice of individuals, community and special interest groups, advisory committees and public bodies regarding development applications and ensure that there are adequate reporting mechanisms in place which will provide all stakeholders with the complete and unbiased results of this consultation.
Objectives of the Policy
· to encourage pre-application consultation by the proponent with the potentially affected public in order to consider public input prior to finalization of the proposal
· to provide bilingual notification of development applications as early as possible to the public throughout the new City
· to provide opportunities for the public to contribute input for the use of staff in the development of recommendations, or elected representatives in decision making
· to provide the potentially affected public with additional opportunities to understand complex and controversial developments and to promote the resolution of issues prior to decision making
· to account for the feedback received from the public and to continue to inform those individuals who respond throughout the process
· to implement the process in a cost-efficient and effective manner and one which takes advantage of technology
Notification of Ward Councillor
The Ward Councillor will be notified of all development applications located within the ward including:
- Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, including Interim Control Liftings, Temporary Zonings and Removal of Holding Zones
- Site Plan Control applications (all applications under the delegated authority of either the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals or the Assigned Planner)
- Plan of Subdivision and Plan of Condominium
- Part Lot Control Exemption
- Lifting of 30 cm Reserves
- Road Closures
- Road Openings
- Cash-in-lieu of Parking
- Demolition Control
Protocols and
Procedures
· Proponents will be encouraged to contact the Ward Councillor prior to application submission
· The Ward Councillor will receive a “Heads Up” at the same time as community groups followed by the internal circulation and circulation to public bodies and other external agencies
· If the lands included in an application straddles two or more wards, or directly abuts two or more wards, all affected Ward Councillors will be notified
· For all applications that are subject to public notification and consultation, the comment period will be 21 calendar days (28 days if no pre-consultation) from the date of the circulation
· For applications not subject to the public notification and consultation policy, the comment period will be seven calendar days
· If delegated authority is to be withdrawn by the Ward Councillor, a written advisement is to be sent to the General Manager, Development Services Department or the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals by the end of the comment period
· The Ward Councillor will be sent the conditions of approval for Site Plan Control applications under the delegated authority of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals and Plan of Subdivision and Plan of Condominium applications prior to their approval and is requested to concur within three working days. If no response is received, this will be deemed to be concurrence. If the Ward Councillor does not concur and subsequent discussions do not resolve any of the issues, the application will proceed to Planning and Development Committee for a decision
· The Ward Councillor will receive a copy of all staff delegated decisions
· The Ward Councillor will be sent a notice of the Committee meeting and a copy of the Committee report, at least 10 days before the Committee meeting for applications which are not staff-delegated
Applications Subject to Public Notification and Consultation Policy
While the Ward Councillor will be
notified of all development applications, only the following applications are
recommended to be subject to the public notification and consultation:
· Official Plan Amendment
· Zoning By-law Amendments, Interim Control Liftings and Temporary Zoning Amendment applications
· Site Plan Control applications for:
i) the construction, erection or placing of one or more buildings or structures of 250m2 or more of gross floor area;
ii) the making of an addition to a building or structure which is more than 50% of the gross floor area of the existing building
· Part Lot Control Lifting applications (only for lands not previously subject to a Plan of Subdivision or Site Plan Control approval and resulting in the conveyance of four or more units)
· Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval applications
· Cash-in-Lieu of Parking applications
· Demolition Control applications
· Road Closure applications
Method and Timing of Notification
The method of notification for most application types will follow a standard procedure, as illustrated in the table at the end of this document entitled Public Notification and Consultation, which includes:
· discretionary pre-application consultation by proponent with community groups, if groups in area of proposal
· planner provides “Heads Up” by telephone, facsimile or e-mail to community groups if no pre-consultation undertaken, immediately after application deemed complete or reviewed for adequacy
· as a result of “Heads Up”, meeting with proponent and staff can be requested by community groups within three working days, meeting must be held within one week of “Heads Up” contact prior to application circulation
· on-site sign posting and notice to community groups, deadline for comments to be considered during issue resolution and decision making:
1) 21 calendar days when:
- there was pre-consultation with community groups,
- a meeting was held at request of community groups in response to “Heads Up” contact
- there are no community groups registered to participate in the development approvals process in the area of the proposed development.
2) otherwise, the comment period is 28 calendar days
· an enhanced notification can be given in addition to the on-site sign posting and notice to community groups in the form of a notice sent to abutting property owners in the following situations:
1) site is located in an undeveloped area or abutting large parcels of land where property owners would not likely to be able to see the sign
2) there are no registered community groups in the area
· in
the case of Road Closure applications, a notice to abutting owners will replace
the on-site sign, to be in line with the requirements of the Municipal Act
· notice of a staff delegated decisions will be sent to respondents, including the part of the delegated authority memo with the response to public comments
· notice of Committee meeting to respondents, with copy of report, sent at least 10 days prior to the Committee meeting
· any subsequent statutory notices are provided in accordance with the regulations
It should be noted that for Official Plan or Zoning By-law amendments that are City or area-wide or are technical modifications only, the standard procedure described above will not apply. Staff will determine on a case-by-case basis the most appropriate method of notification and consultation with the public. As for technical modifications, and for the removal of holding zones, notification will be limited to the statutory requirements.
Registration of Community Groups in the Development Approvals Process
The purpose of notification of development applications to community groups is to notify those groups who want to be both informed and participants in the process, including committing to responding to pre-consultation with proponents, providing feedback and establishing positions on proposed applications. The intent of the registration process is to include only those community groups who want to participate in the process and who represent the local community. Other interest groups such as condominium corporations, housing co-operatives, or community school councils for example, will have to rely on the on-site sign posting and request an information package from the planner.
Criteria for Registration
Notification will be given to those groups who register with the Department and who meet the following criteria:
· The community group must hold an annual general meeting where representatives, directors, or officers are elected in a democratic fashion by the group’s membership. The membership must be given proper advance notice of this meeting and its purpose through a door-to-door flyer or letter, community or daily newspaper or telephone, facsimile or electronic mail.
· A minimum of 10 members of the organization must attend the annual general meeting in order for the group to be eligible for automatic notification.
· The following types of community groups are eligible to automatically receive notification of development applications:
1. community, residents’, ratepayers’, homeowners’, property owners’ and tenants associations which have membership boundaries that are neighbourhood or ward-specific; and
2. business improvement areas, merchants’ associations and business groups which have boundaries that are neighbourhood or site specific.
· additionally, neighbourhood based community newspapers can register to receive notification of development applications only.
Protocols and Procedures for Registration of Community Groups
· Community groups will be contacted on an annual basis to confirm their status for continuing notification of development applications or to be added or deleted from the list
· Community groups will receive notification of applications that are within the boundaries, or directly adjacent to the boundaries of the geographic area which the community group represents
· Community groups can request not to participate in Pre-application Consultation or the “Community Heads Up”
· It is the community group’s responsibility to contact the City to update contact information
Document 4
ON-SITE SIGN PROCEDURES
FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Intent
To improve public awareness of impending development
proposals that may impact on an area land uses. The sign would apply to the applications specified by the City’s
Public Notification and Consultation Policy.
City Responsibility
For all applications requiring signage as a form of notice,
it will be the City’s responsibility to administer the On-Site Information Sign
Policy and General Guidelines and to ensure the quality control of bilingual
signs.
Procedure
A sign company(s) will be responsible for the production,
posting, including supports and fasteners, maintenance and removal of a sign in
accordance with the following:
· The sign will include a standard
bilingual template for sign wording that will include the City logo that will
be provided to the company by the City.
· Upon receipt of an application,
the City will notify the sign company of the requirement for a notice sign(s)
to be posted and provide the wording of the sign in bilingual format with the
following included:
- type
of application
- brief
project description (in concise format and plain language describing purpose
and effect of application)
- municipal
address or alternatively, a description of the location of the site if the site
has no designated municipal address
- contact
information, including the phone number of French speaking planner
On-site signs for Plan of Subdivision applications
will also include the date, time and location of the public meeting, to be
affixed to the sign upon confirmation of
the meeting.
·
The
sign company must erect the notice sign within four days of receiving written
notification by fax or e-mail of the sign wording from the City.
·
The
sign company shall provide to the City a coloured photograph, with a date on
the photograph of the notice sign(s) on site within a week of the sign having
been posted.
· The sign company shall maintain
the sign until the matter has been considered by staff under delegated
authority or by Planning and Development Committee and City Council.
· The notice sign shall be removed by the company within four working days following notification from the City.
Sign Specifications
Materials
- The sign is to be made from 12mm exterior grade plywood panel.
- A chloroplast sign can be used at the discretion of City staff for windows or walls (see locational criteria).
- The vertical structural members are to be 101.6mm by 101.6mm fir, with 50.8mm by 50.8mm fir stringers.
- The sign should be anchored at least 0.6 metres into the ground.
Size
· Plywood sign dimensions are to be 1.2 metres high by 1.8 metres wide with a minimum 0.6-metre ground clearance and a maximum height of 2.1 metres.
· Chloroplast sign dimensions are to be 0.6 metres high by 0.9 metres when required (see locational criteria).
Paint
·
The lettering
is to be black inscribed on a white background.
Lettering
·
The sign is to
be professionally lettered or silk-screened using typeface as prescribed by the
City.
Location
·
One sign shall
be erected for each street frontage of subject property and posted in a visible
unobstructed location a minimum of 3 metres from the roadway or within 1 metre
of the property line midway between opposing lot lines and parallel to the
street. If a property has two or more frontages, staff may reduce the total
requirement as appropriate to provide adequate notice for the public.
· A 0.6 x 0.9 m chloroplast sign may be used at staff’s discretion under the following circumstances:
- there is no ability to locate a sign a minimum of 3 metres from the roadway and there is opportunity to place a sign in an unobstructed window facing the street;
- a building is set back less than 1 metre from the lot line and there is opportunity to place a sign in an unobstructed window facing the street; and
· the sign must not be affixed to items such as trees or utility poles.
Examples of Recommended Sign Format
Document 5
NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Approach
The newspaper advertising guidelines adopted for the Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch to notify the public regarding development application matters would be subject to a Corporate Newspaper Advertising Policy, when approved by City Council.
Advertising will be based on the following principles:
· advertising will be undertaken primarily to meet statutory requirements in the English daily having the highest circulation and in the French daily
· discretionary advertising to consult with the public on issues of city-wide impact will be undertaken in at least one of the English and French dailies
· discretionary advertising in the community newspapers for development application matters will be limited to those applications which affect a large area in the community or are of a controversial nature
· all advertising originating from the Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch is to be co-ordinated with other City advertising, unless there is a timing issue, in which case the advertisement will be stand-alone
· statutory and discretionary advertisements will be designed to be cost-efficient by including the minimum statutory information required by regulation and relying on the provision of appropriate contacts for further details
Requirements and Guidelines for Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch
1.
Notice of Public Meeting Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Amendments
The advertising component of the statutory requirement under the Planning Act (using the alternative measures contained in all the Official Plans of the former municipalities of the City of Ottawa) for the Notice of Public Meeting for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments will be met through:
· the Notice of the Planning and Development Committee listing of items which is published in the City Page in the English daily of highest circulation and the French daily on the Friday before the Planning and Development Committee meeting normally held on Thursdays;
· although not required to meet the requirements, the notice will also be published in the City Page of the second English daily since all Committee listings appear in all three dailies;
· the advertisement must appear a minimum of five calendar days prior to the meeting, if this requirement cannot be met due to a change in meeting date, then the listing of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments should appear in the previous week’s City Page;
· the listing will identify whether the item is an Official Plan or Zoning amendment and will identify the property subject to the amendment with a municipal address, and where there is no designated municipal address, a description of the geographic location of the site
· a contact number is provided which can then direct the call to the assigned planner for further information about the application or the Committee report
· if the caller is French speaking, the contact person will direct the call to a French speaking planner who provides cover off for those planners or Managers who cannot respond to the call in French
2. Notice of Application and Public Meeting for Plan of
Subdivision
Generally, advertising in the dailies or a community newspaper will not be used to meet the statutory requirement for the notice of application and public meeting for Plan of Subdivision applications. Instead, it is anticipated that the statutory notice will be met through the circulation by mail to surrounding property owners and the posting of the on-site sign at least 14 days before the meeting.
Discretionary advertising of the statutory public meeting, whether it is held in the community or at Planning and Development Committee, in the appropriate community newspaper can be used as an additional means to notify the local community of the meeting.
3. Notice of Intent for Road Closure
The mandatory requirements for the Notice of Intent to Close a Road will be met through an notice published in the City Page, for four successive weeks, in the English daily of highest circulation and the French daily.
The advertisement will provide:
· a description of the lands, rather than including a map to reduce costs,
· an English speaking and French speaking contact person shall be
identified in the English or French advertisement respectively for additional information or copy of the map showing the road to be closed, and
· the last date for submission of objections identified in the ad should be approximately one week after the publishing of the last advertisement.
The notice can also be published in a community newspaper that is distributed in the area of the proposed closure and:
· is distributed at least weekly;
· is sold;
· is sold to the public and regular subscribers.
4. Notice of Passage of a Zoning By-law
Statutory requirements for the Notice of Passage of a Zoning By-law will generally only be met through advertising in the English daily of highest circulation and French daily in the City Page, unless a community newspaper is available which meets the criteria for statutory advertising noted above, for Zoning By-law amendments that:
· modify general provisions of the Zoning By-law(s)
· affect properties within a large geographic area when it is considered more cost effective to provide the notice in the newspaper rather than by mail
For cost-efficiencies, wherever possible, a description of the affected area should be provided rather than a map.
The English notice will have an English speaking contact person, and the French notice will have a French speaking contact person. If the statutory requirement is met through the community newspaper, it the advertisement should be bilingual.
5. Notice of Intent for Heritage Designation
Statutory requirements for the Notice of Intent for Heritage Designation will be met through a notice in the English daily of highest circulation and the French daily in the City Page. The advertisement will provide for the minimum statutory requirements (location of property, very brief description of reason for heritage designation and where and by when objections can be submitted) and provide an English and French contact person for the English and French ad respectively for additional information.
6. Notice of Heritage By-law
Statutory requirements for the Notice of Passage of a Heritage By-law will be met through advertising in the English daily of highest circulation and the French daily in the City Page. The advertisement will provide for the minimum statutory requirements (location of property, very brief description of reason for heritage designation and date of passage of by-law) and provide an English and French contact person for the English and French ad respectively for additional information.
7. Discretionary Advertising in Community Newspapers
Advertising in the community newspapers for development application matters can be undertaken in addition to the required statutory advertising for the following situations:
· to advertise a public meeting in the local community for a Plan of Subdivision application
· to advertise a Community Information Session for applications considered to be controversial or complex
Document 6
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE MEASURES – NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING TO CONSIDER OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENTS AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS
AMENDMENT NO. __ OFFICIAL
PLAN OF THE CUMBERLAND PLANNING AREA –
RURAL SECTION
AMENDMENT NO. __ OFFICIAL
PLAN OF THE CUMBERLAND PLANNING AREA – URBAN SECTION
AMENDMENT
NO. __ CITY OF GLOUCESTER OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. __ TOWNSHIP OF
GOULBOURN OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
NO. __ OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF
KANATA
AMENDMENT
NO. __ OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF
NEPEAN
AMENDMENT NO. __ OFFICIAL
PLAN OF THE TOWNSHIP OF OSGOODE
AMENDMENT
NO. __ CITY OF OTTAWA OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
NO. __ OFFICIAL PLAN REGION OF
OTTAWA-CARLETON
AMENDMENT
NO. __ TOWNSHIP OF RIDEAU OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
NO. __ OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE VILLAGE OF
ROCKCLIFFE PARK
AMENDMENT
NO. __ CITY OF VANIER OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. __ OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE WEST CARLETON PLANNING AREA
INDEX
Page
THE STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS……………………………………………i
PART A – THE PREAMBLE
1.0 Purpose ………………………………………………………………………….. 1
2.0 Applicability …………………………………………………………………….. 1
3.0 Basis ………………………………………………………………………………1
PART B – THE AMENDMENT
1.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….4
2.0 Details …………………………………………………………………………….4
3.0 Implementation and Interpretation
……………………………………………….7
THE STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS
PART A – THE PREAMBLE introduces but does not constitute part of the Amendment.
PART B – THE AMENDMENT consisting of the following text constitutes individual amendments to the listed Official Plans for the former municipalities in the newly amalgamated City of Ottawa:
Amendment No. __ to the Official Plan of the Cumberland Planning Area - Rural Section
Amendment No. __ to the Official Plan of the Cumberland Planning Area - Urban Section
Amendment No. __ to the City of Gloucester Official Plan
Amendment No. __ to the Township of Goulbourn Official Plan
Amendment No. __ to the Official Plan of the City of Kanata,
Amendment No. __ to the Official Plan of the City of Nepean
Amendment No. __ to the Official Plan of the Township of Osgoode
Amendment No. __ to the City of Ottawa Official Plan
Amendment No. __ to the Official Plan Region of Ottawa-Carleton
Amendment No. __ to the Township of Rideau Official Plan
Amendment No. __ to the Official Plan of the Village of Rockcliffe Park
Amendment No. __ to the City of Vanier Official Plan
Amendment No. __ to the Official Plan for the West Carleton Planning Area
PART A – THE PREAMBLE
1.0 Purpose
Currently a variety of methods are used by the former municipalities in the newly amalgamated City of Ottawa for notice of public meeting (Planning and Development Committee) required under the Planning Act for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments as well as Community Improvement Plans. In most cases, the public is notified in accordance with the standard regulations of the Planning Act, which stipulate that either a notice be placed in the newspaper 20 days prior to the public meeting or that a sign be erected with notice of a public meeting plus a letter sent by first class mail to owners within 120metres of the subject site.
The Planning Act also allows a municipality to adopt its own methods of notification of the public meeting that vary from those stipulated in the Act, provided that these are incorporated into a municipality’s Official Plan. Only the former City of Ottawa Official Plan contains comprehensive alternative measures for notification of the public meeting and these have been in effect for many years.
The purpose of this Amendment is to provide details of alternative measures to be used for notice of the public meeting to consider Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and Community Improvement Plans that will be incorporated in the Official Plans of all the former municipalities. A single approach is now required to ensure consistency and cost efficiencies in terms of the public notification process within the new City of Ottawa.
2.0 Applicability
The Amendment will affect notification methods for public meetings for the former City of Cumberland, former City of Gloucester, former Township of Goulbourn, former City of Kanata, former City of Nepean, former Township of Osgoode, former City of Ottawa, former Region of Ottawa-Carleton, former Rideau Township, former Village of Rockcliffe Park, former City of Vanier, and former Township of West Carleton.
3.0 Basis
Existing Policy
The
former City of Ottawa has included alternative measures for notice of public
meetings for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments as well as Community
Improvement Plans in Chapter 13 – Implementation and Monitoring of its Official
Plan (Section 13.25.2 b). Instead of
following the Planning Act’s standard requirements,
notice
is published in at least one newspaper having general circulation a minimum of
seven calendar days prior the scheduled public meeting. The policy also states that notice shall be
given to all persons and public bodies who requested notice of the public
meeting, where possible, a minimum of 10 calendar days prior to the meeting by
personal service, prepaid first class mail, or by fax. These alternative measures are used in
conjunction with and as a follow-up to the former City of Ottawa’s Early
Notification System, which seeks to notify the affected public early in the
planning process. The affected public
(owners, tenants, community groups and public bodies) is provided with the
necessary information to understand a proposal’s potential impact and an
opportunity to submit input to staff to consider in the development of
recommendations and for consideration by elected representatives in the
decision-making process. With staff
receiving comments from the affected public prior to preparation of
recommendations, there is an opportunity to resolve issues prior to
consideration by Committee and City Council.
The notice of public meetings is dealt with differently in the existing Official Plans now in effect in the City of Ottawa. For example, the Township of Goulbourn Official Plan focuses only on Official Plan amendments and states that the public shall be notified of a public meeting specifically by advertisement in the local newspaper in accordance with the Planning Act. The Official Plan for the former West Carleton Township identifies the methods of notification and reduces the public notice period to 14 days. However, the Official Plans for the former City of Cumberland and former City of Gloucester are silent on the matter of public notice.
In the case of “minor” changes to their Official Plans, Zoning By-law and Community Improvement Plans, direction is provided in certain Official Plans as to how these changes should be handled by staff. The Township of Osgoode and Township of Rideau Official Plans state that Council may forego public notification and public meetings in connection with Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments as well as Community Improvement Plans if the proposed changes are considered “minor” in nature and will not affect the policies and intent of the above noted documents. These “minor” changes are listed and include matters such as altering punctuation, correcting grammatical or typographic errors, adding technical information to base maps, updating text to reflect changes in terminology and changes to the numbering and arrangement of legislation. Focusing only on consolidations of the City of Vanier Official Plan, Council may adopt a consolidated version without providing notice of a public meeting.
3.1 Proposed Changes
Notice of public meeting
Notification procedures for public meetings now vary and follow “home rules” for the former municipalities. Proposed is one consistent approach to notification thereby replacing the current “home rules”. The proposed changes will apply to Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, as well as to Community Improvement Plans.
In light of the Public Notification and Consultation Policy, where the emphasis will be placed on early notification and consultation of the public (owners, tenants, community groups and public bodies), prior to a date being set and advertised for the Planning and Development Committee, it is recommended that notice be provided in the manner specified below:
An advertisement for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments as well as for Community Improvement Plans will appear in one English and one French daily newspaper having general circulation in the municipality. This advertisement must be published a minimum of five calendar days prior to the scheduled public meeting (Planning and Development Committee meeting).
Individual notification (members of public and public bodies) for those who provided written comments on the proposed amendment (or plan) or who requested notice of the meeting shall be sent this notice at least ten calendar days prior to the public meeting.
Notice may be given by personal service, prepaid first class mail, facsimile, or electronic-mail.
Notice of Public Meeting – Technical Changes
Notwithstanding the recommended
Public Notification and Consultation Policy for development applications, it is
recognized that there will be instances where minor changes will be required to
correct items such as spelling, grammar, punctuation and numbering in the
Official Plans, Zoning By-laws and Community Improvement Plans. These types of amendments will not affect
the intent of these documents.
Therefore, it is recommended that public notice only be given as an item
on the Committee agenda listing that will appear in one English and one French
daily newspaper at least five days prior to the meeting. There would be no added value in carrying
out early notification, e.g. circulating the community groups and public
bodies, for these types of minor changes.
As required under the Planning Act, the standard notice of passing of
by-laws to implement any and all Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments as
well as Community Improvement Plans would be followed.
PART B – THE AMENDMENT
1.0 Introduction
All of this part of the document entitled “Part B – The Amendment”, consisting of the following text constitutes the Amendment to the Official Plans of the former City of Cumberland, former City of Gloucester, former Township of Goulbourn, former City of Kanata, former City of Nepean, former Township of Osgoode, former City of Ottawa, former Region of Ottawa-Carleton, former Rideau Township, former Village of Rockcliffe Park, former City of Vanier, and former Township of West Carleton.
2.0 Details
The Official Plans of the former municipalities will be amended and replaced with the following text in the manner detailed below:
Notice of
Public Meeting
“City Council shall ensure that the public is notified in accordance with the Public Notification and Consultation Policy for Development Applications which ensures that the affected public is notified of proposed planning and development matters, provided sufficient information and given sufficient opportunity to provide input allowing time for issue resolution prior to decision making.
City Council shall require that notice of a public meeting shall be given for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and Community Improvement Plans in one English daily and one French daily newspaper having general circulation, a minimum of five calendar days prior to the scheduled public meeting. Notice to individuals and public bodies, who provided written comments on the proposed amendment (or plan) or requested notice of the public meeting, shall be sent at least ten calendar days prior to the meeting by prepaid first class mail, facsimile or electronic-mail.
In the case of minor amendments to Official Plans and Zoning By-laws as well as Community Improvement Plans, City Council shall require that the item be listed on the Committee agenda to be published in the daily newspapers, but are not subject to the Public Notification and Consultation Policy for Development Applications. These minor amendments shall be restricted to the following matters:
· Altering punctuation or language for consistency
· Correcting grammatical or typographical errors
· Inserting historical footnotes or similar annotations to indicate the origin and approval of each provision
· Changing the number and arrangement of any provision
· Adding technical information to base maps such as plans of subdivision, buildings, contours and elevations to base maps”
2.1 Proposed Text Changes
2.1.1 Section 7.6 is renumbered Section 7.7.
New Section 7.6 of the Official Plan of the Cumberland Planning Area – Rural Section will consist of the text found between the quotation marks cited in Section 2.0.
2.1.2 New Policy 6.11 consisting of the text found between the quotation marks cited in Section 2.0 is added to the Official Plan of the Cumberland Planning Area – Urban Section.
2.1.3 New Section 11.2.2 o) consisting of the text found between the quotation marks cited in Section 2.0 is added to the City of Gloucester Official Plan.
2.1.4 Policy 12.5 of the Township of Goulbourn Official Plan is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the text found between the quotation marks cited in Section 2.0.
2.1.5 Section 10.6.1 of the Official Plan of the City of Kanata is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the text found between the quotation marks cited in Section 2.0.
Section 10.6.4 of the Official Plan of the City of Kanata is deleted in its entirety.
2.1.6 Existing Sections 9.15 and 9.16 of the Official Plan of the City of Nepean are renumbered 9.16 and 9.17 respectively.
New Section 9.15 of the Official Plan of the City of Nepean is comprised of the text found between the quotation marks cited in Section 2.0.
2.1.7 Section 6.9.1 of the Official Plan of the Township of Osgoode is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the text found between the quotation marks cited in Section 2.0.
Section 6.9.4 of the Official Plan of the Township of Osgoode is deleted in its entirety.
2.1.8 Policy 13.25.2 b) of Volume 1 of the City of Ottawa Official Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the text found between the quotation marks cited in Section 2.0.
2.1.9 New Policy 3.8 consisting of the text found between the quotation marks cited in Section 2.0 is added to the Official Plan Region of Ottawa-Carleton.
2.1.10 Section 7.4.1 of the Township of Rideau Official Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the text found between the quotation marks cited in Section 2.0.
Sections 7.4.5 and 7.4.6 of the Township of Rideau Official Plan are deleted in their entirety.
2.1.11 New Section 4.11 consisting of the text found between the quotation marks cited in Section 2.0 is added to the Official Plan of the Village of Rockcliffe Park.
2.1.12 Section 5.11.0 (English and French text) of the City of Vanier Official Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the text found between the quotation marks cited in Section 2.0 and with its equivalent French translation shown below:
Avis de réunion publique
« Le Conseil municipal doit
veiller à ce que la population soit avisée des demandes d’aménagement
conformément à la politique sur la consultation et la notification de la
population. Cette façon de procéder permet d’avoir l’assurance que les
personnes concernées sont avisées des projets d’urbanisme et d’aménagement,
obtiennent suffisamment d’information et ont la possibilité d’intervenir, en
prévoyant un délai pour la résolution des différences avant que les décisions
ne soient prises. »
Le Conseil municipal exige que les
demandes de modification au plan officiel et au règlement municipal sur le
zonage ainsi que les plans d’amélioration communautaire faissent l’objet d’un
avis de réunion publique dans un quotidien de langue française et un quotidien
de langue anglaise à grand tirage au moins cinq jours civils avant la réunion
publique prévue. Les particuliers et les organismes publics ayant formulé des
observations écrites sur la modification ou le plan proposé ou ayant demandé à
être avisés de la réunion publique doivent être avisés, si possible, 10 jours
civils à l’avance par courrier de première classe pré-affranchi, télécopieur ou
courrier électronique. »
Dans le cas de modifications
mineures aux plans directeurs et aux règlements municipaux sur le zonage ainsi
qu’aux plans d’améliorations communautaires, le Conseil municipal exige que la
question soit inscrite à l’ordre du jour du comité devant être publié dans les
quotidiens. Les modifications mineures, qui ne sont pas assujetties à la
politique d’avis publics et de consultation du public concernant les demandes
d’aménagement, ne peuvent porter que sur les questions suivantes :
· Modification de la ponctuation ou du
libellé à des fins d’uniformité.
· Correction d’erreurs grammaticales
ou typographiques.
· Insertion de notes en bas de page à
caractère historique ou d’annotations semblables pour indiquer l’origine et
l’approbation de chaque disposition.
· Changement du numéro et de la
présentation d’une disposition.
· Ajout de renseignements techniques à
des cartes de base, tels que des plans de lotissement, des immeubles, des
courbes de niveau et des élévations.
Section 5.11.1 (English and French text) of the City of Vanier Official Plan is deleted in its entirety.
2.1.13 Sections 8(7) (i) to (iv) inclusive of the Official Plan for the West Carleton Planning Area are deleted in their entirety and Section 8(7) (i) is replaced with the text found between the quotation marks cited in Section 2.0.
Section 8(8) of the Official Plan for the West Carleton Planning Area is deleted in its entirety and Section 8(9) is renumbered accordingly.
3.0 Implementation and Interpretation
Implementation and interpretation of this Amendment
shall be made with regards to the Public Notification and Consultation Policy
for Development Applications and with reference to the relevant chapters of the
Official Plan of the Cumberland Planning Area – Rural Section, Official Plan of
the Cumberland Planning Area – Urban Section, City of Gloucester Official Plan,
Township of Goulbourn Official Plan, Official Plan of the City of Kanata,
Official Plan of the City of Nepean, Official Plan of the Township of Osgoode,
City of Ottawa Official Plan, Official Plan Region of Ottawa-Carleton, Township
of Rideau Official Plan, Official Plan of the Village of Rockcliffe Park, City
of Vanier Official Plan, and Official Plan for the West Carleton Planning Area.
Document 7
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT – SITE PLAN CONTROL APPROVAL
AMENDMENT NO. __ OFFICIAL
PLAN OF THE CUMBERLAND PLANNING AREA – RURAL SECTION
AMENDMENT NO. __ OFFICIAL
PLAN OF THE CUMBERLAND PLANNING AREA – URBAN SECTION
AMENDMENT NO. __ CITY OF GLOUCESTER OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. __ TOWNSHIP OF GOULBOURN OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. __ OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KANATA
AMENDMENT NO. __ OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF NEPEAN
AMENDMENT NO. __ OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE TOWNSHIP OF OSGOODE
AMENDMENT NO. __ CITY OF OTTAWA OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. __ TOWNSHIP OF RIDEAU OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. __ CITY OF VANIER OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. __ OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE WEST CARLETON PLANNING AREA
INDEX
Page
THE
STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS ……………………………………………i
PART A – THE PREAMBLE
1.0 Purpose ………………………………………………………………………….. 1
2.0 Applicability …………………………………………………………………….. 1
3.0 Basis ……………………………………………………………………………. 1
PART B – THE AMENDMENT
1.0 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………3
2.0 Details
……………………………………………………………………………3
3.0 Implementation and Interpretation ……………………………………………….5
THE STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS
PART A – THE PREAMBLE introduces but does not constitute part of the Amendment.
PART B – THE AMENDMENT consisting of the following text constitutes individual amendments to the listed Official Plans below.
Amendment No. __ to the Official Plan of the Cumberland Planning Area – Rural Section
Amendment No. __ to the Official Plan of the Cumberland Planning Area - Urban Section
Amendment No. __ to the City of Gloucester Official Plan
Amendment No. __ to the Township of Goulbourn Official Plan
Amendment No. __ to the Official Plan of the City of Kanata
Amendment No. __ to the Official Plan of the City of Nepean
Amendment No. __ to the Official Plan of the Township of Osgoode
Amendment No. __ to the City of Ottawa Official Plan
Amendment No. __ to the Township of Rideau Official Plan
Amendment No. __ to the Official Plan of the Village of Rockcliffe Park
Amendment No. __ to the City of Vanier Official Plan
Amendment
No. __ to the Official Plan for the West
Carleton Planning Area
PART A – THE PREAMBLE
1.0 Purpose
In dealing with incoming applications, the Development Services Department staff currently applies a myriad of Official Plan policies and Site Plan Control By-laws from the former municipalities to decide whether or not a development is subject to Site Plan Control. In an effort to create one set of consistent rules for the City, Official Plan Amendments are proposed which will remove references in the existing Official Plans as to which types of development are subject to or exempt from Site Plan Control. This level of detail will be addressed in a new Site Plan Control By-law.
2.0 Applicability
The proposed Amendment will affect the Official Plans for the former City of Cumberland, former City of Gloucester, former Township of Goulbourn, former City of Kanata, former City of Nepean, former Township of Osgoode, former City of Ottawa, former Rideau Township, former City of Vanier, and former Township of West Carleton.
Excluded from the list of Official Plans requiring amendments are the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton Official Plan since the Region was not responsible for Site Plan Control approvals and the Official Plan of the Village of Rockcliffe Park since there would be no issues of non-conformity between its Official Plan and the new proposed Site Plan Control By-law for the City of Ottawa. Specifically, the Official Plan of the Village of Rockcliffe Park does not list the types of development subject to or exempt from Site Plan Control.
3.0 Basis
Existing Policy
With the exception of the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton, all of the existing Official Plans identified all lands within their boundaries as being under Site Plan Control, which is a requirement of the Planning Act in order to undertake Site Plan Control review in a municipality. In many cases, further guidance is provided in the Official Plans as to the specific types or classes of development that are either exempt from or subject to Site Plan Control. This level of detail could potentially create issues of conformity between the Official Plan and the new Site Plan Control By-law that will specify those developments not under site plan control.
Other Site Plan Control matters are discussed in the existing Official Plans including factors that should be considered by staff during site plan review, identification of specific technical agencies that should be consulted during technical circulation and the need for agreements. These other items will remain and will not be affected by the proposed Official Plan Amendments.
Proposed Changes
The recommended Official Plan Amendments will identify for deletion all references regarding the type or classes of development and areas that would be exempt from or subject to Site Plan Control. By initiating these Amendments at this time, possible issues of non-conformity between the existing Official Plans and the new Site Plan Control By-law will be eliminated.
The result of these
Amendments will be such that the existing Official Plans will provide broad
guidance only identifying the areas subject to Site Plan Control whereas the
new By-law will identify the specific types of development that will be
affected. By including these detailed
lists in the new Site Plan Control By-law, it will be possible to more easily
modify and amend the list over time rather than requiring an Official Plan
Amendment when it is deemed appropriate to include new types of development or
areas under Site Plan Control.
PART B – THE AMENDMENT
1.0 Introduction
All of this part of the document entitled “Part B – The Amendment”, consisting of all of the following text constitutes the Amendment to the Official Plans for the former City of Cumberland, former City of Gloucester, former Township of Goulbourn, former City of Kanata, former City of Nepean, former Township of Osgoode, former City of Ottawa, former Rideau Township, former City of Vanier, and former Township of West Carleton.
2.0 Details
The Official Plans of the former municipalities will be amended as detailed below:
Proposed Text Changes
2.1 Sections 7.4.2 a) to c) inclusive of the Official Plan of the Cumberland Planning Area – Rural Section are deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
7.4.2 “The whole of the municipality as shown on Schedules “A” to “F” of this Official Plan is designated as a proposed Site Plan Control area. Council may adopt a Site Plan Control by-law under Section 40 of the Planning Act.”
2.2 Section 4.2.12 iii) of the Official Plan of the Cumberland Planning Area – Urban Section is deleted and Section 4.2.12 iv) is renumbered accordingly.
Section 4.11.6.2 a) of the Official Plan of the Cumberland Planning Area – Urban Section is deleted and Section 4.11.6.2 b) is renumbered accordingly.
Section 6.10.1 of the Official Plan of the Cumberland Planning Area – Urban Section is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
6.10.1 “Council may control the details and conceptual design of development proposals through the use of a Site Plan Control Area By-law. The entirety of the Urban area of the Township as shown on Schedule A shall be considered a Site Plan Control Area.”
Section 6.10.2 of the Official Plan of the Cumberland Planning Area – Urban Section is deleted in its entirety and Sections 6.10.3 and 6.10.4 are renumbered accordingly.
2.3 Section 11.2.2 c) of the City of Gloucester Official Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following:
11.2.2 c) “A by-law pursuant to the Planning Act will be maintained designating the City as a Site Plan Control area.”
2.4 Section 12.3.2 of the Township of Goulbourn Official Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following:
12.3.2 Site Plan Control Area
“The area of Site Plan Control shall include all lands within the geographic boundaries of the Township.”
2.5 Section 10.3.2 of the Official Plan of the City of Kanata is deleted in its entirety and Sections 10.3.3 to 10.3.8 are renumbered accordingly.
2.6 Section 9.8.2 (a) (ii) of the Official Plan of the City of Nepean is deleted in its entirety and Sections 9.8.2 (a) (iii) to (ix) are renumbered accordingly.
2.7 Policy 6.8.1 of the Official Plan of the Township of Osgoode is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the following:
6.8.1 “Council may control the details and design of development proposals through the use of a Site Plan Control Area By-law. The entire Township of Osgoode shall be considered a proposed Site Plan Control Area.”
Policy 6.8.2 of the Official Plan of the Township of Osgoode is deleted in its entirety and Policies 6.8.3 to 6.8.5 are renumbered accordingly.
2.8 Policy 13.13.1 c) of Volume 1 of the City of Ottawa Official Plan is deleted in its entirety and Policies 13.13.1 d) to g) of Volume 1 of the City of Ottawa Official Plan are renumbered accordingly.
2.9 Section 3.8.1 of the Township of Rideau Official Plan is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the following:
3.8.1 “Council may control the details and design of development proposals through the use of a Site Plan Control By-law. The area of Site Plan Control shall include all lands within the geographic boundaries of the Township of Rideau. All land use designations included in Schedule “A” are subject to Site Plan Control and must satisfy the provisions of Section 40 of the Planning Act.”
Section 3.8.2 of the Township of Rideau Official Plan is deleted in its entirety and Sections 3.8.3 and 3.8.4 are re-numbered accordingly.
2.10 Section 5.2.2 of the City of Vanier Official Plan is deleted in its entirety.
Section 5.2.3 of the Official Plan for the Vanier Planning Area is deleted in its entirety and Section 5.2.4 is renumbered accordingly.
2.11 Sections 4(6)(g) including (i) to (iii) of the Official Plan for the West Carleton Planning Area is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
4(6) (g) “Site
Plan Control Area
The entire Township of West Carleton shall be considered a proposed site plan control area.”
3.0 Implementation and Interpretation
Implementation and interpretation of this Amendment shall be made with regards to the City of Ottawa Development Approvals Process and with reference to the relevant chapters of the Official Plan of the Cumberland Planning Area – Rural Section, Official Plan of the Cumberland Planning Area – Urban Section, City of Gloucester Official Plan, Township of Goulbourn Official Plan, Official Plan of the City of Kanata, Official Plan of the City of Nepean, Official Plan of the Township of Osgoode, City of Ottawa Official Plan, Township of Rideau Official Plan, City of Vanier Official Plan, and Official Plan for the West Carleton Planning Area.
Document 8
PROPOSED CLASSES OF DEVELOPMENT
TO BE EXEMPT FROM SITE PLAN CONTROL APPROVAL
All development as defined by the Planning Act
is proposed to be subject to Site Plan Control Approval in the new City of
Ottawa except,
1. the construction, erection or
placing on land of a,
a.
single family dwelling,
b.
semi-detached dwelling,
c.
duplex dwelling,
d.
triplex dwelling,
e.
special needs housing and group home,
f.
bed and breakfast establishment,
g.
utility
installation having a gross floor area of less than 10m2,
h.
communication
tower not exceeding 16.6 metres above ground level;
i.
building or structure accessory to a single
family dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, duplex dwelling, triplex
dwelling, special needs housing or group home and bed and breakfast establishment,
j.
building or structure accessory to a commercial,
institutional or industrial building or structure if the gross floor area of
the accessory building or structure is less than 100m2 ,
k.
building or structure used for agricultural and
forestry uses that is less than 1000m2,
l.
building or structure for which a temporary permit is
issued, and
m.
transitway building or structure;
2.
the
making of an addition to,
a.
a single family dwelling and a building or structure
accessory to a single family dwelling,
b.
a semi-detached dwelling and a building or structure
accessory to a semi-detached dwelling,
c.
a duplex dwelling and a building or structure
accessory to a duplex dwelling,
d.
a triplex dwelling and a building or structure
accessory to a triplex dwelling,
e.
a special needs housing or group home and a building
or structure accessory to a special needs housing or group home,
f.
a bed and breakfast establishment and a building or
structure accessory to a bed and breakfast establishment,
g.
a building or structure used for agricultural and
forestry uses that is less than 1000 m2,
h.
a building or structure for which a temporary permit
is issued,
i.
a transitway building or structure, and
j.
any other building or structure if the gross floor
area of the addition is less than 100m2;
3. the making of an alteration(change
of use) to a building or structure.
4.
revisions to previous Site Plan Control Approvals:
- for single detached, semi-detached, duplex,
triplex, special needs housing and bed and breakfast involving swimming
pools, decks, landscaping and site works including driveways, and outdoor
recreational structures, and
- to provide for handicapped access or to comply with the City regulations relating to the provision of handicapped parking,
unless the Site Plan Control agreement has been released, or Site Plan Control Approval was granted with a Letter of Undertaking and all securities have been released, in which case approvals for revisions to a site plan is not required.
Document 9
CRITERIA FOR LETTERS OF UNDERTAKING
The standard City of Ottawa Letter of Undertaking may be used as an alternative to registered site plan control agreement in the following situations:
Residential Developments
For the approval of all residential developments under Site Plan Control approval, including planned unit developments, townhouses, apartment buildings and retirement homes which:
· do not require easements and conveyances of land to be provided to the City after issuance of the building permit
· do not require special measures for the protection of existing private trees, including a requirement for the submission of a tree compensation deposit, and the submission of a post construction tree evaluation report
· do not impose conditions requiring the owner to enter into other related development agreements with the City after the issuance of a building permit
· do not impose special conditions where it has been determined that a registered agreement is necessary for purposes of enforcement and notification of subsequent owners of the conditions
Non-residential Developments
For the approval of non-residential developments which meet all the criteria for residential developments and only when the total amount of site plan securities to be provided to the City does not exceed $5,000.
STANDARD FORMAT FOR LETTER OF UNDERTAKING
(Letterhead of Owner of Lands)
Date
The City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1J1
Attention: Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals
Dear (name of Director)
Subject: Letter of Undertaking for Site Plan Control Approval
(municipal address or legal address)
(Site Plan Control file number)
I/We, the Owner of the above-noted lands (the “Site”) hereby acknowledge(s) that Site Plan Control Approval has been applied for from the City under the above-noted site plan reference. Approval was granted on (date of approval) for a (brief description of approved development). Once construction has commenced, I/We undertake to carryout our development of the Site in strict accordance with the various plans approved by the City (which includes landscape plans, private sewer, lot grading and drainage plans, building or structure plans, building or structure location plans, elevations, drawings and all plans and drawings approved under this application) and any modifications thereto which may from time to time be approved by the City.
In addition to all the conditions contained in the Site Plan Control Approval and any other provisions of municipal by-laws, statutes, and regulations that I/We acknowledge must be satisfied, I/We further agree to the following terms and conditions:
1. Installation and Planting of Landscape Elements
I/We agree to install and plant all landscape elements in accordance with the Site Plan Control Approval, within one year from the date of occupancy, to the satisfaction of the General Manger of Development Services. The landscape elements shall include but not be limited to, all vegetation and topographic treatment, walls, fences, hard and soft surface materials, lighting, site furniture, free-standing ground-supported signs, steps, ramps, and play equipment, information kiosks and bulletin boards and other ground cover and new tree(s) and shrubs located on the road allowance.
2. Reinstatement of Damaged City Property, Including Sidewalks and Curbs
I/We agree to reinstate to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Transportation, Utilities and Public Works, any property of the City including sidewalks and curbs, that is damaged as a result of the subject development. I/We acknowledge that this reinstatement will be at our expense.
3. Financial Securities for Landscape Elements and Other Works
I/We acknowledge and agree that the City shall hold in its possession security for the landscape elements and any other works until completion in accordance with the approved plan(s) to the satisfaction of the City. The City may, without notice and at its discretion, utilize the financial security for any matter required to be done by the Owner as a result of site plan and associated approvals.
4. Time Limit for Approval
It is understood that the Site Plan Control Approval is valid for one year from the date the approval is granted, provided that the Letter of Undertaking is executed by the City within six months of approval; and that if a building permit has not been issued during this period, the approval shall lapse and no development of the site shall be undertaken until a further Site Plan Control Approval has been granted by the City.
I/We understand that this Letter of Undertaking shall be considered to be of the same force and effect as an Agreement executed with the City under the authority of clause 41(7)© of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p.13 as amended, and that it may formally be constituted as such an agreement by execution of the Letter of Undertaking by the City.
Dated at ____________________ this _________day of ____________________ 2001
________________________________ _____________________________
Signature of Owner Corporate Name (if applicable)
________________________________ _____________________________
(print name) I have the authority to bind the Corporation (authorized signature)
________________________________ _____________________________
Witness (for individuals) (please
________________________________
(print
name)
____________________________________________________
Execution
for The City of Ottawa
____________________________________________________
Name and
position
___________________________________
Date
Document
10
OTHER INFORMATION
AND MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR CONSIDERATION OF OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS
AND PLAN OF SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUM APPLICATIONS
In addition to the prescribed information identified by regulation in the Planning Act, the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals will be delegated the responsibility to require any of the following other information or materials, depending on the nature of the application. The other information or materials are to be provided by the applicant either at the time of filing an application or subsequently to assist in resolving any concerns identified through the review of the application.
· Plan of Survey
· Concept Plan Showing Ultimate Use of Lands
· Municipal Environmental Evaluation Checklist and Municipal Environmental Evaluation Report (for applications within old city of Ottawa)
· Environmental Impact Study
· Market Feasibility and Impact Study
· Socio-economic Impact Statement
· Wetland Impact Study
· Hydrogeological Study and Terrain Analysis
· Archeological Resources Impact Assessment
· Agrology and Soil Capability Study
· Servicing Study for Public Communal Services in the Rural Areas
· Mineral Aggregate Impact Assessment (Existing and Future Operations)
· Aircraft/Rail/Road Based Noise Study
· Airport Zoning Requirements Analysis and Compatibility Assessment
· Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment – Record of Site Conditions
· Parking Study
· Transportation Study
· Servicing Study
· Stormwater Management Report/Master Drainage Plan
Document 11
MODIFICATIONS TO
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY BY-LAW
SCHEDULE E
1. That Section 7 be amended to add the words “and the Ward Councillor of the Ward in which the application is located” after the words “the conditions are supported by the applicant”.
2. That Section 8 be amended by replacing the words “Manager of Development Approvals” with “Assigned Planner” and that there be no requirement for the Ward Councillor to support and for the applicant to concur with the conditions of Site Plan Control approval under the delegated authority of the Assigned Planner.
3. That Section 17, of Schedule E be amended to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to release financial securities related to Site Plan Control approvals.
4. That Section 18, of Schedule E be amended to remove the word “two” before the word “owners”, and to remove the words “single detached residential” before the word “properties”.
5. That the Plan of Condominium Section 4 (d) be deleted and replaced with the following words which are currently used in the by-law for the withdrawal of delegated authority for Plan of Subdivision applications, “Where the Ward Councillor has indicated in writing that such Councillor desires that the delegated authority be removed from the Director of Planning and Infrastructure approvals, all authority under this section for any actions not taken to the date of the receipt of the letter shall rest with Planning and Development Committee.”
6. That the Part Lot Control Section 6 (b) be deleted and replaced with the following words “Where the Ward Councillor has indicated in writing that such Councillor desires that the delegated authority be removed from the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals, all authority under this section for any actions not taken to the date of the receipt of the letter shall rest with Planning and Development Committee.”
7. That a new Section be added to Schedule E for Cash-in-lieu of Parking approvals to:
i) re-confirm the delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals within the old City of Ottawa, and in accordance with the criteria contained in By-law 251-94 and to,
ii) delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to approve cash-in-lieu of parking applications within the old City of Vanier as identified in By-law Number 2661, as amended, of the City of Vanier subject to the following conditions:
a) compliance with the relevant policies of the Official Plan for the City of Vanier;
b) compliance with the Evaluation Criteria attached as Appendix 1 to By-law Number 2661 but not forming part of said by-law; and
there is no reduction in the cash-in-lieu of parking fee as determined in By-law Number 2661, as amended.
iii) to include the following sentence for delegated authority for Cash-in-lieu of Parking applications: “Where the Ward Councillor has indicated in writing that such Councillor desires that the delegated authority be removed from the Director of Planning and Infrastructure approvals, all authority under this section for any actions not taken to the date of the receipt of the letter shall rest with Planning and Development Committee.”
8. That
a new Section be added to Schedule E to allow the Director of Planning
and Infrastructure Approvals to determine the appropriateness of conveyance of
land or cash for development, in compliance with applicable Official Plan policies.
9. That
a new Section be added to Schedule E to allow the Director of Planning and
Infrastructure Approvals to make minor revisions to the standard form for
Letters of Undertaking, provided the intent of these is maintained.
10. That
a new Section be added to Schedule E and F to provide for delegated authority
to the:
i) Director of Planning and Infrastructure
Approvals to approve applications for Lifting Holding Zones, and
ii) Director of Legal Services to be
authorized to proceed directly to Council authorize the lifting of a holding
zone, as approved by the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals by
way of placing of a by-law on The Orders of the Day for enactment.
11. That
a new Section be added to Schedule E to provide for delegated authority to the
Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to require any person or
public body that applies for an Official Plan or Zoning By-law amendment or
Draft Plan of Subdivision or Condominium approval to provide such other
information or material that the City may need.
Document 12
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF ADVERTISING STATUTORY NOTICES IN THE DAILY AND COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS*
Notice of Public Meeting – Planning Act
The requirement to give notice of public hearings under the Planning Act is set forth in the Act and the regulations concerning each type of planning application.
With respect to Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendments, notice may be given in accordance with the regulations. In addition, the Official Plan may provide for alternative public notification procedures for such amendments. This option is not available for Plans of Subdivision, consents to sever, nor minor variances.
The regulations under the Planning Act (196/96, Plans of Subdivision), (198/96, Official Plan amendments) and (199/96, Zoning By-law amendments) permit notification of a public meeting to be given:
by publication in a newspaper that, in the opinion of the clerk of the municipality…is of sufficiently general circulation in the area to which the proposed by-law (or amendment) would apply ( or adjoining the proposed plan of subdivision) to give the public reasonable notice of the public meeting.
A Zoning By-law or Official Plan amendment of application to the entire City would of course have to be published in a newspaper circulated throughout the entire City in order to meet the requirements of the above provision.
However, for a site-specific Zoning By-law or Official Plan amendment or for a Plan of Subdivision, the above provision would not necessarily require publication in a newspaper circulated throughout the city. Publication in a newspaper of more limited circulation would meet the regulatory requirements if such newspaper would give the public reasonable notice of the public meeting.
The Interpretation Act defines a newspaper in the following manner:
“newspaper”, in a provision requiring publication in a newspaper, means a printed publication in sheet form, intended for general condition, published regularly at intervals of not longer than a week, consisting in great part of news of current events of general interest and sold to the public and to regular subscribers.
An advertisement for the statutory public meeting for a site specific Official Plan amendment, a site specific Zoning By-law or a Plan of Subdivision could, in accordance with the regulations under the Planning Act, be in a community paper if the following four conditions are met:
1. The community newspaper is distributed at least weekly; and
2. The community newspaper is distributed to the area affected by the Zoning By-law/Official Plan amendment or adjoining to the Plan of Subdivision;
3. The community newspaper is sold; and
4. The community newspaper is sold both to the public at large and to regular subscribers.
An Official Plan amendment to the Official Plans of the City of Ottawa (i.e. the former area municipal and regional official plans) related to the adoption of alternative measures could provide that notice be given by a community paper distributed to the lands in the vicinity of the property subject to the Zoning By-law or Official Plan amendment without the requirement that such a paper be for sale.
Notice of Adoption/Approval – Planning Act
With respect to Official Plan amendments, Zoning By-law amendments or Plans of Subdivision, only in the instance of Zoning By-law amendments is notice by publication an option in the case of adoption/draft approval. The Planning Act does not permit the municipality to identify an alternative means of providing notice. As a result, where notice of an adoption of a site specific Zoning By-law is to be given by newspaper, such notice may only be given by a newspaper that meets the four criteria identified above.
Notice of Road Closing – Municipal Act
The Municipal Act requires notice to be published at least once a week for four successive weeks. The publication of such notice must meet the four criteria identified above.
Ontario Heritage Act
Notices under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act must be published
in a newspaper having general circulation throughout the City of Ottawa. Thus publication in community newspapers,
even where such papers meet the above four criteria, does not meet the
requirements of the statute, although publication in such papers may be done in
addition to those papers with a City-wide circulation.
*
The Statutory background and discussion
was provided by the Legal Services Branch.
Document 13
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF ADVERTISING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NOTICES IN THE DAILY AND COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS
This document provides information on the financial cost of all the various options available for advertising in all three dailies and all community newspapers. The costs of a number of different approaches, including the most expensive option which would involve undertaking all statutory advertising in all three dailies, to the recommended approach which proposes a combination of taking advantage of existing advertising in the dailies and use of community newspapers principally for community meetings, are listed at the end of this document.
Cost of Statutory Advertising in the Dailies
- Notice of Public Meeting for Official Plan and Zoning Amendments
a) Alternative Measures (City Clerks current bi-weekly Committee Listing in City Page on Fridays– requirements of proposed Alternative Measures in the Planning Act proposes a minimum of the English daily with highest circulation and the French daily, the second English daily is in addition to the minimum required)
Ottawa Citizen $27 per ad times 267* applications/year
Le Droit $7 per ad times 267 applications/year
The Sun $19 per ad times 267 applications/year
b) Standard Advertisement (according to regulations of Planning Act if option used to advertise rather than give notice by mail to abutting owners plus on-site sign posting)
Official Plan - Ottawa Citizen $1074 per ad times 33*/year
Le Droit $280 per ad times 33/year
The Sun $754 per ad times 33/year
Zoning - Ottawa Citizen $690 per ad times 234*/year
Le Droit $181 per ad times 234/year
The Sun $486 per ad times 234/year
- Notice
of Public Meeting for Plan of Subdivision (option to placing notice in dailies is notice by mail to
abutting owners plus on-site sign posting)
Ottawa Citizen $701 per ad times 63* applications/year
Le Droit $181 per ad times 63 applications/year
The Sun $493 per ad times 63 applications/year
- Notice of Intent for Road Closure (notice must be published in at least one daily for four consecutive weeks)
Ottawa Citizen $537 per ad times 4 consecutive weeks times 6* applications/year
Le Droit $141 per ad times 4 consecutive weeks times 6 applications/year
The Sun $391 per ad times 4 consecutive weeks times 6 applications/year
- Notice of Passage of Zoning By-law (generally newspapers would be used for this notice if the zoning by-law affected a large geographic area)
Ottawa Citizen $1282 per ad times estimate of 10 amendments/year
Le Droit $336 per ad times estimate of 10 amendments/year
The Sun $901 per ad times estimate of 10 amendments/year
(estimate of number of amendments based on previous years experience)
- Notice of Intent for Heritage Designation (Part IV)
Ottawa Citizen $394 per ad times estimate of 10 designations/year
Le Droit $103 per ad times estimate of 10 designations/year
The Sun $277 per ad times estimate of 10 designations/year
(estimate of number of designations based on previous years experience but assuming a much shorter notice than in the past, minimum statutory requirement)
- Heritage Designation By-law (Part IV)
Ottawa Citizen $274 per ad times estimate of 10 by-laws/year
Le Droit $72 per ad times estimate of 10 bylaws/year
The Sun $192 per ad times estimate of 10 bylaws/year
(estimate of number of bylaws based on previous years experience, length of advertisement minimum statutory requirement)
Total Cost of Statutory Advertising in : Three Dailies Two Dailies
Official Plan and Zoning Amendments
Public Meeting (using alternative measures) $ 14,151 $ 9,078
or
Official Plan and Zoning Amendments
Public Meeting (standard regulations using
advertising option rather than written notice
to property owners plus on-site sign posting) $387,102 $248,496
Plan of Subdivision Public Meeting $ 86,625 $ 55,566
Notice of Passage of Zoning Bylaw $ 25,190 $ 16,180
Notice of Road Closure $ 25,332 $ 16,272
Notice of Heritage Designation $ 7,690 $ 4,970
Heritage Designation Bylaw $ 5,380 $ 3,460
Cost of Advertising in the Community Newspapers
|
Ward Community
Newspapers (b)
bilingual (w)
weekly (bw)
bi-weekly (m)
monthly (bm)
bi-monthly (s)
seasonally |
Cost
of Notice of Meeting for Official Plan Amend-ments |
Number
of Official Plan Amend-ment Application/Potential Ads (first four months
2001) |
Cost
of Notice of Meeting for Zoning Amend-ments |
Number
of Zoning Amend-ment
Application/Potential Ads (first four months 2001) |
Cost
of Notice of Meeting for Plan of Subdivision |
Number
of Plan of Subdivision
Applications/Potential Ads (first four months 2001) |
|
WARD
1 Weekly
Journal (b) (w) L’Express
(w) Orleans
Star (w) |
$464 $316 $372 |
|
$232 $158 $132 |
|
$232 $158 $132 |
|
|
WARD
2 Weekly
Journal (b) L’Express Orleans
Star |
$464 $316 $372 |
|
$232 $158 $132 |
|
$232 $158 $132 |
1 application (1 English ad) (1 French ad) |
|
WARD
3 Barrhaven
Independent (bw) Nepean
This Week (w) |
$188 $305 |
|
$77 $152 |
7 |
$77 $152 |
3 |
|
WARD
4 Kanata
Kourier Standard (w) |
$416 |
2 |
$103 |
6 |
$103 |
3 |
|
WARD
5 West
Carleton Review (w) |
$109 |
1 |
$55 |
13 |
$55 |
3 |
|
WARD
6 Stittsville
Signal (w) |
$110 |
1 |
$55 |
4 |
$55 |
|
|
WARD
7 West
End Chronicle (m) |
$220 |
|
$90 |
4 |
$90 |
|
|
WARD
8 Nepean
This Week |
$305 |
|
$152 |
1 |
$152 |
1 |
|
WARD
9 Nepean
This Week |
$305 |
|
$152 |
1 |
$152 |
|
|
WARD 10 Greenboro/Hunt Club News (bw) |
$148 |
|
$74 |
2 |
$74 |
2 |
|
WARD
11 Weekly
Journal (b) |
$464 |
|
$232 |
1 |
$232 |
1 |
|
WARD
12 Image
(bm) L’Express |
$105 $316 |
|
$52 $158 |
1 |
$52 $158 |
|
|
WARD
13 Manor
Park Chronicle (s) New
Edinburg News (s) |
$118 $118 |
|
$52 $52 |
1 |
$52 $52 |
|
|
WARD
14 Centretown Buzz (m) |
$150 |
|
$62 |
4 |
$62 |
|
|
WARD
15 Newswest
(m) |
$125 |
|
$74 |
|
$74 |
|
|
WARD
16 Hunt
Club Riverside News (bw) Hogs
Back News (s) Carlington
Summit (m) Baseline/ Carlingwood
News (bw) |
$148 $55 $90 $148 |
1 1 |
$74 $35 $52 $74 |
2 1 |
$74 $35 $52 $74 |
1 1 |
|
WARD
17 Glebe
Report (b) (m) Oscar
(b) (m) |
$94 $100 |
|
$64 $68 |
1 |
$64 $68 |
|
|
WARD
18 Vistas
(m) |
$81 |
2 |
$45 |
2 |
$45 |
|
|
WARD
19 Weekly
Journal (b) L’Express Orleans
Star |
$464 $316 $372 |
1 application (1 ad English) (1 ad French) |
$232 $158 $132 |
7 applications (7 ads English) (7 ads French) |
$232 $158 $132 |
3 applications (3 ads English) (3 ads French) |
|
WARD
20 Ottawa
Carleton Review (w) Ottawa
South This Month (bw) |
$230 $172 |
|
$115 $88 |
16 |
$114 $88 |
3 |
|
WARD
21 Ottawa
Carleton Review (w) Manotick
Messenger (w) Ottawa
South This Month (bw) |
$230 $161 $172 |
|
$115 $80 $88 |
5 |
$115 $80 $88 |
1 |
|
Total
Annual Cost by Application Type (based
on applica-tions received Jan. to April 2001 times three) |
Official Plan $6,594 |
|
Zoning $25,227 |
|
Subdivision $9,192 |
|
Total Estimated Costs for Advertising of Development
Applications Under Various Scenarios
All Statutory Advertisements in All Three Dailies:
Including all OPA’s, Zoning, Plan of Subdivision, Intent to Close a
Road, Passage of Zoning By-laws (not site specific), Heritage Act
With Alternative Measures $164,368
Without Alternative Measures $537,319
All Statutory Advertisements in The Citizen and Le Droit Only:
Including all OPA’s, Zoning, Plan of Subdivision, Intent to Close a
Road, Passage of Zoning By-laws (not site specific), Heritage Act
With Alternative Measures for OPA’s and Zoning $105,526
Without Alternative
Measures $344,944
Cost of Discretionary Advertising of Public Meeting in Community
Newspapers:
Including all Official Plan, Zoning and Plan of Subdivision
$41,013
Recommended Approach - Cost of Statutory and Discretionary Advertising in
Two Dailies and Community Newspapers
All OPA’s and Zoning (alternative measures) in two dailies $9,078
Plan of Subdivision in community newspapers $9,192
Intent to Close a Road in two dailies $16,272
Passage of Zoning By-law in two dailies $16,180
Heritage Designation in two dailies $4,970
Heritage By-law in two dailies $3,400
Total - $59,092 + cost of Community Information Session
(ranging from $35 to $232 per meeting)
Note: Advertising estimates for all newspapers was provided by the Corporate Communications Branch and data on number of applications received was generated by the Development Tracking System.
* Number of applications is based on number of applications received from January to April 2001 times 3.
Document 14
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS PROCESS
Background
On February 22, 2001 Planning and Development Committee considered a report prepared by the Development Services Department entitled “New City of Ottawa Development Approvals Process – Preliminary Report” and directed that this report form the basis for consultation with the stakeholders in the development process. They also directed in relation to the consultation that:
· Special efforts be made to ensure community input be gathered on the proposed means of public notification, particularly the use of daily newspapers versus community newspapers.
· That the City’s newspapers be circulated.
· That a template be provided to accompany the public consultation document to indicate changes from past practices being proposed.
· That those citizens previously on local environmental advisory groups in the former municipalities of Ottawa-Carleton be circulated the report.
As directed, flow charts and comparisons in chart form, were prepared by staff comparing the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment process and the Plan of Subdivision process in former municipalities with the proposed process. As well, a chart comparing the types of developments that required Site Plan Control approval in all the former municipalities with the proposed new Site Plan Control requirements was also prepared. A cover letter explaining the public consultation and specifically identifying the desire for input on the use of daily versus community newspapers was prepared. The entire package of information was translated into French.
All Ward Councillors were also asked to verify the list of community associations for each ward, which was put together using information from the Regional Master Contact List and the former City of Ottawa Early Notification List.
Notification
From approximately March 21 to March 30th, stakeholders were sent a copy of the bilingual information package containing:
· the preliminary report considered by Committee
· comparisons of previous and proposed processes for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, Site Plan Control approval and Plan of Subdivision approval, and
· a comparison of existing Site Plan By-law requirements for all former municipalities with the proposed Site Plan By-law
An advertisement appeared in the three dailies on March 23, 2001 and in 20 community newspapers from mid to the end of April. The advertisement in the community newspapers also specifically requested feedback on the use of daily versus community newspapers. The information package was also completely available on the City’s web site at about this time.
In total, the number of information packages mailed were as follows:
Ward Councillors and Mayor 22
Community Groups, Chambers of Commerce, Business Improvement Areas 216
City-wide Special Interest Groups 27
Members of former Environmental Advisory Committees 25
Developers, Architects, Planning Consultants and Lawyers 82
Daily and Community Newspapers 20
Individuals 23
Consultation Feedback
The following provides a summary of the submissions received.
Goulbourn Environmental Advisory Committee (e-mail sent February 22, 2001)
· No mention of circulating Environmental Advisory Committee
· Ideas in staff report are generally good but given expected growth in Ottawa, timelines are very tight
· Pressure placed on groups to communicate amongst each other in the ward, may be difficult with time constraints and different perspectives
· A lot of onus placed on Ward Councillor, almost mediator/referee, not appropriate
· 21 days for public comment not enough
Tom Taylor (e-mail received March 31, 2001)
· notification to owners within 400 feet of site of potential rezonings is inadequate as in rural areas 400 feet is only one or two properties
Pen Equity Management Corporation (letter dated April 2, 2001)
· greatest frustration in site plan approval process in Kanata is request for numerous revisions by staff, especially with special condition in agreements that site plans may still require revisions after Council approval, process increased costs
· there should be a cut off date to be imposed on site plan comments from staff and that all comments be given in writing so there are no disagreements or problems with interpretation
· the Ward Councillor should not have ability to change staff report once written through the current requirement for concurrence by Ward Councillor
· Ward Councillors should provide staff, fellow Councillors and applicant detailed reason for the removal of delegated authority
Harold Keenan (letter dated April 5, 2001)
· There should be no mandatory requirement at time application submitted to consult with Ward Councillor or community groups, is political patronage
· Ward Councilors have work loads that prevent them from meeting with developers before application stage
· Applicant should have right to choose sign company
Alexandra Mosquin (e-mail received April 6, 2001)
· A ward by ward policy should be drafted for what community newspapers will be used
· Should be reviewed annually to adjust for new newspapers and failures
· For inside greenbelt, The Citizen and Le Droit may be sufficient, but outside, there are clear alternatives
· The City should publish on web site newspapers it will use, along with other application information
· If Friday is the day for advertising, it should be written in stone
· The 5 day notice for advertising should be worse case scenario
· The City should approach The Citizen and Le Droit to discuss possibility of Friday and Saturday package delivery if Friday paper has all City information, currently only Saturday delivery is available
· How can pre-consultation be confirmed that it has been done adequately, as well there should be a mandatory information exchange as well in case proposal is different than that presented at pre-consultation
· Can on-site signs be written in plain language, as well public meeting should be announced on sign, could be done with a large sticker added to sign
· Dislike working of roles and responsibilities of Ward Councillor, role should not be an extension of planning bureaucracy or as mediator, instead role should be “to be fully informed of the information presented in the application, to facilitate stakeholder understanding, to use their judgement to advocate for proponents or for community or other Ward or City interests when appropriate.”
Tartan Land Corporation (letter dated April 18, 2001)
· Generally speaking pleased with attempts made by staff to adopt best management practices and implement a process that is relatively fluid and streamlined
· However, proposed process may not be optimal for “greenfields” development application, as subdivisions, zoning amendments and site plans not typically contested or challenge since represent first applications after Official Plan amendments and Secondary Plans have been adopted and the formulation of these policy directives involves intense technical review, public consultation and Council scrutiny and approval
· Should be possible to merge milestone steps between technical circulation and writing of staff report/approval memo for these developments which have already gone through public review
· Concerned with system adopted for committee reports which require 5 weeks from preparation of report and public meeting
· Comprehensive process be defined that includes review and approval of project engineering design, commencement of on-site servicing, preparation and execution of legal development agreements
Faircrest Heights Community Association (received by facsimile on April 24, 2001)
· Use of community newspapers for communicating with residences is essentially weak as the time of issuance of such newspapers is variable and their delivery timing is inconsistent
· Written notice to community groups is more advantageous, ensure timing of notice is recorded for determining actual time of delivery
· Reduction to a 14 day notice period after posting a sign does not allow time to consult with members or prepare a position
· Delegation of authority requires vigilance by Ward Councillor and community groups
· Community associations and public who provided comments should receive all staff reports and notification seven days prior to the Committee meeting
· If there is no agreement between all parties, the application should automatically proceed to Planning and Development Committee
Barbara Barr (e-mail received May 2, 2001)
(comments provided by Ms. Barr which are also contained in the submission by Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital and identical comments are not duplicated)
· Disappointed that proposed process does not appear to be an improvement over process used by former City of Ottawa as there is room for improvement given experience
· Biggest two problems is i) short period of time between release of departmental report and Committee meeting and ii) inability to provide input into the staff delegated approval memo before decision is made
· Public should be able to review a draft of the staff report, to give public opportunity to ask Ward Councillor to withdraw delegated authority, and should be posted on Web site at the time the Councillor has three days to concur with conditions in report
· Approvals process has to be designed to address the likelihood that not every Councillor can keep on top of projects and consulting with community, and not every Councillor will agree with opinion of substantial portions of the community that Councillor represents
· Part lot control applications should be discouraged for lot division, and plan of subdivision used instead because provided public process, with opportunity to appeal to OMB
· South Keys/Greenboro community has had unsatisfactory experience with part lot exemption applications in terms of public consultation
· Experience is few proponents have pre-consulted with community
· Appreciated the Mandatory Information Exchange from staff
· Staff procedures should be designed to really encourage applicants to meet with community as early as possible
· A mechanism needs to be developed for annually providing all community associations and other relevant community groups with explanation of how to participate in pre-consultation/MIE and how to get on, get off list and to update contact information
· Community groups should have at least until the date of the on-site sign deadline for comments, or their deadline, whichever is latest
· Written notice to neighbours should be considered for large areas
· Written submissions should be acknowledged in staff report, has been omitted in past in certain situations
· As well, individual comments are sometimes not addressed in report in recognizable way
· 7 day minimum to release a committee report to public is inadequate, not enough time to prepare response to staff’s recommendation
· some of concerns raised by public are treated dismissively, and even inaccurately by staff in report, requiring rebuttal at Committee
· report should be on website 5 working days from Committee meeting
· chair at Committee should remind Councillors that written submissions have been received, does not appear to be done at new Committee
· advertising in The Citizen and Le Droit for Plan of Subdivision should be in addition to written notice, not an alternative
· when a decision is made by Council, notice to those members of the public who provided oral or written submissions seems to be missing
· there should not be Site Plan Control approval without a sign permit approval, it should be coordinated
· comments received from the public should be sent to Ward Councillor at time of review of draft conditions by Ward Councillor
· no provision made for required concurrence of Councillor when away for a month long summer holiday
· it is good to see the section on roles and responsibilities of stakeholder
Carlington Community Association (facsimile dated May 3, 2001)
· Thank you to staff for presentation on proposals at our annual meeting May 1
· Our community association should be advised or notified of any new developments that take place in Carlington
Claridge Homes (facsimile received May 3, 2001)
· Workload in legal affecting turnaround times for agreement production and security reductions
· Log in at Client Services Centre extremely slow for permits, single family home now approaching 3 months
· Criteria for issuing conditional permits should be loosened
· Policy/guidelines for part lot control need to be restated
· List of prerequisites for a draft plan of subdivision or site plan has grown, can some submission requirements be submitted later
Lorne Plunkett & Associates (e-mail received May 3, 2001)
· Concern that adjacent property owners not directly notified if major change to the Official Plan being considered
· Advertising in newspapers of no value to property owners away for extended periods of time
Old Ottawa South Community Association (letter dated May 8, 2001)
· For Official Plan and Zoning amendments, while on-site sign is supported to notify the public, additional information provided in mailings to abutting residents is useful
· Notification of proposed changes in use should be maintained
· Pre-consultation with public for complex or controversial developments should be required, not encouraged
· Opposed to exempt from notification applications for site plan control for establishment of restaurant, automobile shop and service station, amusement center, bingo hall, bowling alley cinema, library, museum, pool hall, recreation and athletic facility, sports arena or theatre, can have significant impacts
· Suggest Nepean practice of requiring environmental review for site plan control in case of large residential developments or subdivisions
· Notification to public on communication towers should be required
· Term temporary needs to be defined for site plan control approval
· Need clearer criteria that will apply when a public consultation period is extended because a proposal is complex or controversial, request should be triggered by community association or Ward Councillor and may require more than two additional weeks
· Individual residents directly affected should be included as stakeholders and given appropriate consideration
Al Crosby (letter dated May 8, 2001)
· Major concern is that staff is not advising community associations of development proposals before they are submitted
· Developers provided with facilitators to assist in setting up meetings with external agencies prior to submitting applications, citizens provided no funds from their Councillors to print brochures informing local citizens of potential developments
· Timeline of 27 days after application submission is insufficient time to mobilize, advertise and set up a general public meeting
· Developers have all facts in place prior to OMB hearing while citizens are scrambling to get witnesses and organize rebuttals, this was our experience with Montfort Woods rezoning
· There should be a limit to submitting repeated zoning applications when application already refused
· No follow up on promises made by developers, i.e. mitigating environmental issues, no penalty imposed if no follow up done
· Interpretation of boundaries of Official Plan big concern, but no requirement to address public concerns a flaw in process
· Timelines of process can allow developer to pick best times for process, such as the summer when residents away on holidays
· Concern that public who have objected do not obtain status at the OMB if developer has appealed
· Short timelines, lack of transparency with process and legal complexity make process unfair to citizens
· Suggestions to process:
- update contact information for community associations
- proponents to be forced to contact community after initial contact with City
- Official Plan to be strengthened, amendment to require 60% of Council
- Any ambiguity between OP and zoning should require Secondary Plan to be prepared by developer
- Should be geographic link between OP and zoning
- Developers to be accountable to statements on mitigating environmental issues, penalties to apply
- Developers should provide written answers to concerns raised by public within 20 days
- Cash-in-lieu of greenspace to be removed as alternative, consideration to increasing to 10% of land dedication
- System for monitoring trends and targets in OP required
- Planners must establish better communication and transparency, community must be available for meetings
- Web site for applications should be made available
- Consideration to establishing an ombudsman to champion unfairness inherent in development process
The Woodpark Community Association Inc. (letter dated May 8, 2001)
· Community associations should be certified, bona fide and legitimate to be part of process
· A 28 day notice period should be provided, notice date and envelope post mark are the same
· Who determines who will be notified of a Community Information Session
· Planner should work with all community groups in issue resolution
· Responses from community groups should be verbatim in an appendix in staff report
· Advertisement of public meeting in newspaper should be 10 working days before Committee meeting
· Report should be sent to respondents at least five working days before Committee meeting
· Submission requirements should be listed in process
· Those members of the public should receive the report at the same time as the Councillor
· Same comments regarding the proposed changes to the types of development requiring Site Plan Control approval as the Federation of Community Associations
· Role and responsibilities of community representatives should be changed to indicate they should be legitimate community groups; delete option that they may be an action committee (should instead be with special interest groups), must be certified association; delete the responsibility that they are to recognize that communities perform a broader regional function
National Capital Commission (received by facsimile on May 9, 2001)
· Objectives of proposed process should make reference to enhancing consultation with other government agencies
· Would prefer a longer response period for comments than suggested in report
· Responsibilities of all stakeholders should be to consider context of comments in terms of larger policy environment and neighbourhood impacts
Riverview Community Association (meeting held May 9, 2001)
· On-site signs should use plain language, describe proposal, not what type of application
· Concern about minor site plan control applications not subject to public notification, example is of change to noise fence location without community being advised
· Proposed Handbook should be in plain language, should be contracted out for “plain language” review
Ottawa Construction Association (received by facsimile on May 9, 2001)
· OCA supports decision to base new development approvals process on old City of Ottawa model
· Supports provision of delegation of approval authority to staff
· Support reduced timelines due to delegation and improved methods of public notice
· Support inclusion of definition of roles and responsibilities of stakeholders including Ward Councillors
· Recommends the planner be provided responsibility and authority to coordinate other City disciplines, legal, financial services, engineering
Copeland Park Community Alliance (received by facsimile on May 10, 2001)
· Notice period should remain at 30 days, 21 days not enough for community association to review, consult, get facts, analyze potential impact, notify community, obtain mandate, raise money, prepare written or oral response
· Notice of Committee not be reduced, should stay at 10 days
· Notice of Council’s decision on a Zoning By-law amendment should be given to all those who have made a request to be notified
· Attached to the comments is the Hansard record of the community association’s presentation to the Ontario Government Standing Committee on Resource Development
Convent Glen South Community Association (e-mail received May 10, 2001)
· Proposed process is too long and unfair to the applicant, adds two weeks compared to process of former municipalities
· Should be very specific deadline for all stakeholders to input, deadlines to apply to everyone
· Staff should not have the discretion to decide to hold a public meeting
· Portable classrooms should be subject to Site Plan Control approval, given they are left in place for many years and impact adjacent properties
North West Goulbourn Community Association (letter received May 10, 2001)
· Issue of delegated authority should be revisited as more onus now on Ward Councillor to trigger more public involvement, this assumes great deal of interest or time on part of Councillor or community group
· Notification in local newspapers should be mandatory
· Pre-consultation should be mandatory and in case of rezonings, site plans and subdivisions, should include all owners 120 metres from property
· Site plans should be circulated to all owners within 120 metres of property
· Do not agree with no notification provided to public for extensions of approvals
· Other application processes such as process for licences for Pitts and Quarries are not dealt with, and process be provided for such approvals
Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd. (received by facsimile May 11, 2001)
· Novatech provides consulting services to the wireless communications industry with respect to network deployment and currently involved in many “cell sites” in Ottawa area for purpose of providing digital wireless telephone services
· Generally supportive of proposal that the development of new communication tower sites would only be subject to staff delegated Site Plan Control approval
· Letters of Undertaking should be used instead of Site Plan Control agreements to expedite process by eliminating the need for property owner to be involved in process since most cell sites are leased
· Technical submission requirements associated with communications tower plans should not be dictated by norms of larger commercial or industrial developments
· Landscaping requirements through site plan approval process should be reflective of the location in the city (i.e. rural versus more urban sites)
· Staff report takes a fair approach to the application of planning controls to communication tower development
Kanata Research Park Corporation/Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd. (letter dated May 11, 2001)
· Many of comments provided based on current application processing, however may reflect basic concerns with proposed process
· Two objectives of proposed process need to be clarified or reinforced,
- first it needs to be clear that pre-consultation by proponent with community groups may not be productive use of time
- second, commitment to target timelines is critical to development community, currently an issue with numerous applications
· proposed targeted timelines appear reasonable but experience shows may not be achievable, two week for issue resolution requires serious commitment from all parties, including applicant
· current experience is that reports required well in advance of three weeks before Committee meeting, staff must finish report five weeks before meeting, resulting in five weeks of “down time”
· for rezonings, City must establish a process to ensure notice of passage must be issued in advance of the prescribed 15 days to allow for unforeseen delays
· for site plans, process from issue resolution to decision by staff must be clearly established,
· support exemptions from Site Plan Control approval, further exemption requested is to exempt accessory buildings for commercial, industrial and institutional use, not just building (i.e. pump house for golf course)
· need to clarify the terms public parking areas and commercial parking areas and which would be subject to site plan control approval
· strongly support use of Letters of Undertaking and policy for release of agreements, site plan agreements are often an unnecessary encumbrance on title and cause confusion and excessive delays for future financing and sales
· support exceptions for notification of various applications, including site plans
· support proposed alternative measures
· given Councillors work loads, may be difficult for them to respond to staff in proposed timelines (21 days for major site plans, 5 days for minor revisions)
· if Ward Councillor does not respond to staff’s proposed approval of subdivisions, condominium or site plan within 3 days, should not mean matter goes to Committee, surely not intent, no response should mean concurrence
· withdrawal of delegated authority should be determined by Councillor early in process, unreasonable that withdrawal could be done anytime
· there should be reasonable guidelines for Councillors to withdraw authority, should be on a very restrictive basis
· wording relating to invoking MIE should be less threatening
· first responsibility of applicant should be revised “to meet with key stakeholders where necessary or where appropriate… “
· fourth responsibility of Ward Councillor should be “to protect legitimate interests of the stakeholders” and the ninth “to respond within required timelines”
Bridlewood Community Association (received by e-mail May 11, 2001)
· BCA pleased with effort of city in developing process framework and support its adoption
· Concerned with time available through notice period, which even with a Community Information Session would not exceed 5 weeks, request an extension of two weeks to normal notice period to allow consultation through regular community association meeting, although if CIS, may be enough time
· The major difference between past practice is there will be set time frame targets, in former City of Kanata there appeared to be more time for community associations to develop position, proposal is less flexible
· Should be noted that inability of City to take action on a file could be taken to the OMB by the applicant, they could complain their file was not processed within the time frames
South Keys/Greenboro Community Association (received by e-mail May 11,2001)
· In general terms, the association supports process, strikes appropriate balance
· Opposed to reduction in time to 21 day notice period, does not allow community association to meet and discuss proposal, reduce ability to submit meaningful comments
· Should continue to use on-site signs and notice to property owners to greatest extent possible, more effective than advertising
· Most significant concern is potential wholesale exemption from public notification and consultation for certain part lot control applications (i.e. the further division of large blocks approved under Plan of Subdivision which has an community impact in terms of street layout)
Rockcliffe Park Residents Association (letter received May 13, 2001)
· Concern that the report proposed that majority of properties in the Village would be exempt from Site Plan Control approval, successive Councils have found it to be an effective means of guiding the evolution of and their settings
· Used in combination with Heritage Act, because applies to landscaping and structures themselves
· Site plan control and agreements essential tools in management of Village of Rockcliffe Park heritage district
· Concerned about simplified procedure for staff to lift part lot control, suggest that in a Heritage Conservation District only Council have ability to lift
· Written notice to property owners within 120 metres of site for zoning and official plan amendments should be safeguarded, may miss notice in newspaper
· Concerned about notification to Councillor by telephone, need written record
Henry C. Morash (facsimile received May 14, 2001)
· The process should include the subsequent steps in approval process (i.e. stormwater management plan approvals for Ministerial approval)
· Technical circulation, on-site sign posting and notice to community groups should be sent at same time, eliminating one to two weeks of process
· Contact person should be able to converse with anyone of the application (i.e. when contact is away on holidays, no one can answer questions on specific application)
· City should have fortitude to disregard frivolous community group comments
Construction Information Technology Inc. (letter received May 18, 2001)
· CITinc provides internet based services for efficient management of documents and improved communications between project participants
· We believe we can help the City of Ottawa with its objectives of providing more efficient and effective development approvals process
· Our PermitServer system improves the distribution of the documentation and communication among stakeholders to help reduce processing time for all applications
Action Sandy Hill/Action Côte-de-sable (e-mail received May 18, 2001)
·
Ward
Councillor has been given far more responsibility than he/she can reasonably be
expected to handle, community associations should also be notified of each
application
·
A 28
day period rather than 21 days should be provided
·
Too
many aspects of planning process left to discretion of staff members
·
Councillor
needs more than three days to concur with staff position
·
The
proposed consultation process should be considerably revised before it is
presented to Planning and Development Committee
·
Concur
with FCA position, and will oppose process at hearing if changes not made
Amy Kempster (e-mail received May 18, 2001)
·
Like
emphasis on pre-consultation, if pre-consultation has not occurred, later steps
in process should take longer periods of time
·
In
areas where no community associations, nearby landowners should be notified
·
Subdivisions
should not be delegated to staff, too important
·
Disagree
with certain exemptions from Site Plan Control approval, such as for planned
unit developments and all buildings adjacent to provincially significant
wetlands or environmental areas should be subject to site plan
·
Road
closures and openings should have sign posting in addition to notice to
abutting residents in case road allowance used as informal pedestrian route or
may signal new development in old vacant subdivisions
·
Part
lot control should take place simultaneously with site plan control or
subsequent to site plan control approval
·
Committee
report should be available at least two Fridays before the meeting and be
placed on the web site at this time
·
Associated
report such as traffic studies etc should be available as well, on request
·
The
community (i.e. respondents to public notification) should receive a copy of
the draft report for review at the same time as the Ward Councillor and
developer prior to staff approval to allow for withdrawal of delegated
authority
·
Staff
should encourage community groups to register for participation in
pre-consultation
·
Community
groups appreciate the heads up phone call, fax or e-mail
·
In
addition City’s web site should show all applications received by ward and with
contact information
·
Circulation
to community groups should include a list of all studies submitted with
application and listing of what is still to be submitted and how these can be
viewed
·
A 30
day comment period is better than a 21 day period, even with pre-consultation
·
Sending
a notice to abutting landowners in addition to sign should be done, especially
in large areas or rural areas
·
Reports
should include comments of community organization in its entity
·
As
soon as the report is prepared by planner, it should be posted on web site
·
The
Committee chair should verbally acknowledge written submissions received by the
Committee
·
For
plan of subdivision, notice should be sent to adjacent owners and advertised in
local paper
·
Major
revisions to a plan of subdivision should go through public process
Hintonburg Community Association/Association
Communautaire
(received by e-mail May 18, 2001)
·
The
routine implementation of pre-consultation with community associations was
spearheaded by Hintonburg Community association and has been extremely
successful, support incorporation of this in new City of Ottawa in strongest
possible terms
·
Approvals
timelines should take longer if pre-consultation not undertaken
·
Former
Ottawa required site plan control approval for triplexes and multiple
dwellings, special needs housing and planned unit developments, strongly
opposed to planned unit developments of singles, semis, duplexes and triplexes
or special needs housing being exempted from site plan control approval as they
have very significant impacts on a community
·
Triplexes
should not be exempt from approval, especially in infill situations, the siting
of driveways and parking spaces major concern to neighbours
·
Concerned
public notification to be reduced from previous 30 days in former Ottawa to 21
days, if e-mail is instituted, it might be possible to accommodate this and
date of e-mail sent would start the first day of comment period and this should
be co-ordinated with on-site sign
·
Notices
to public should clearly indicate how to request that delegation of authority
be lifted as this is not understood by the public
·
There
is still a lack of a mechanism for response by the public to the report written
by staff, particularly where reports minimize or misunderstand concerns
expressed by the public, there needs to be a way for those who commented to
respond to staff
David Gladstone (facsimile received May 18, 2001)
·
Emphasis
on broad consultation is strongly supported, support proposed policies with the
exception of proposed broad exemptions for site plan control
·
There
should be linkage between variance and site plan applications, should be
circulated within same timeframe
·
Building
permit requests for properties in heritage conservation districts should be
circulated to the public
·
All
site plans should be circulated to the public with sufficient time (2 weeks)
allowed to have delegated authority withdrawn
·
Only
small scale residential warrant exemption from site plan control
·
Infill,
bed and breakfast, special needs housing and planned unit developments require
community input
·
Changes
in zoning by-law-defined (changes of use) must require site plan
·
The
Official Plans and Zoning By-laws must be available for consultation at library
branches and City Hall
·
Policies
should deal with cash-in-lieu of parking requests and should be circulated with
site plans
Ottawa Cycling Committee (e-mail received May 18, 2001)
·
The
new City of Ottawa Cycling Advisory Committee must continue to be circulated in
a timely manner and have adequate opportunity to review and provide comments
·
Desirable
to use City’s web site to share circulation amongst Committee members
·
Urge
that Ottawa Cycling Committee be included in pre-consultation on relevant
projects
·
25
days notice between technical circulation and last day for comments not enough
given Committee meetings are once a month
·
would
be useful to have advance agenda of items going to Committee like Councillors
·
under
Roles and Responsibilities, Advisory Committees should be under new separate
section
·
given
the amount of development taking place, will not be able to review every plan,
need to clearly define what to circulate to OAC
·
concerned
too much authority given to Ward Councillor
·
plan
of subdivision should not be delegated to staff because too important
·
a list
of studies submitted with the application should be included in circulation
·
name
and address of applicant should be on circulation
·
sometimes
concerns raised by public have been treated dismissively, and even inaccurately
in report, thus requiring rebuttal at Committee meeting
·
former
Region had policy of including comments from its Advisory group in
transportation reports, either the comments or a statement that they did not
comment, urge that this practice continue
Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital (e-mail received May 19, 2001)
·
pleased
to see so much of the Better Way policy of former City of Ottawa adopted, in
particular emphasis on pre-consultation and roles of all parties
·
the
comparative charts on proposed and previous practices provided with the
information package were also much appreciated
·
regret
not more effort spent on a round tables with stakeholders
·
many
of comments reflect those of Barbara Barr, a
member of our group, as we endorse them, they are repeated here
·
staff
should encourage early contact with communities
·
contact
list of community groups should be updated on continuing basis
·
property
owners within 120 m from subject lands should always be notified
·
all
information about application should be posted on City’s web site, list of
studies submitted should be provided
·
not
acceptable that report posting on Web site is delayed till the Monday prior to
the Thursday meeting
·
should
be a thirty day comment period , not 21 days
·
notice
should be advertised not one but two weeks prior to meeting
·
availability
of reports just 7 days before Committee meeting remains a serious problem,
there is not enough time to assess staff’s final recommendations and prepare an
intervention at Committee, two week interval would be better
·
should
be meticulous feedback on written comments submitted at all stages,
Departmental report should address all comments
·
if
meeting with stakeholders, minutes of meeting should be available
·
copies
of written submissions received by a Committee should accompany that Committee’s
report on the item to Council, important that intervenors be able to readily
proved that they have raised an issue before Committee and Council
·
approval
authority for plans of subdivision should not be delegated to staff
·
if
part lot control application is in whole or in part used as alternative to
applying for a plan of subdivision, then should not be granted or subject to
same notification process as plan of subdivision
·
should
delegation to staff continue, then public must be given an opportunity to
review draft Departmental decisions, if only to correct errors and
misunderstandings
·
the
time period for withdrawal of delegated authority should be up to a specified
number of days or weeks after public meeting/community information session
·
any
Councillor, not just Ward Councillor should be able to request un-delegation,
three days for Councillor to review draft conditions prior to approval of plan
of subdivision not enough for Councillor to consult with community
·
Plans
of Subdivision should lapse after a certain period, 15 years
·
Planned
unit developments and change of use should not be exempt from spc approval
·
Letters
of undertaking should not be permitted as an alternative to agreements, time
should be allowed for consultation before an agreement is released
·
Agree
that road openings and closings be delegated to staff but on-site sign should
be posted in addition to written notice, road allowance may be used as
pedestrian route
·
Propose
changes to roles and responsibilities
-
last
bullet under Community Representatives, delete words “and to recognize that
communities performs a broader regional function”
-
last
bullet under Ward Councillor changed to read “to recognize and accept that not
all proposals may be intrinsically “Ward issues” but may rather require broader
civic consideration”
-
third
bullet under responsibilities of the Department change to read “To ensure early
information exchange”
Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Citizens’
Associations/Fédération des associations civiques d’Ottawa-Carleton (e-mail received May 22, 2001)
·
Written
notice to property owners within 120 metres of site for OPA’s and zoning
amendments must continue
·
Strongly
support use of Mandatory Information Exchange
·
Should
be made explicit that approvals process will take longer if preconsultation not
done, faster approval should be explicit reward for preconsultation
·
Community
groups who have signed up for pre-consultation should be notified at the same
time as technical circulation
·
A 28
rather than a 21 day period should be provided for comments, the 28 day period
should start when notice is received
·
On-site
signs should be placed on day one of comment period
·
On-site
signs should be used for road closures
·
For
Community Information Session, community groups may decide to hold a meeting in
the community
·
How
will it be determined who to notify for CIS, what criteria?
·
During
Issue Resolution stage, planner should work will all community groups
·
In the
Committee report or staff-delegated memo, the planner must detail and respond
to the comments received from the public (and attach their responses verbatim
in an appendix)
·
Advertisement
of the public meeting should be at least ten working days before the meeting
and should additionally be in The Sun
·
All
community groups should receive report, not just respondent community groups at
least five working days before Committee
·
The
report should be available on the City’s web site five working days before the
Committee meeting
·
Notice
of the Plan of Subdivision meeting should be advertised in all three dailies
·
A
notice of the public meeting should be sent to all community groups
·
Notice
of decision for staff-delegated approvals should be sent at the same time to
community groups as Ward Councillors
·
Circulations
should be sent to community groups in addition to Ward Councillors for road
openings, lifting of 30 cm reserves and part lot control liftings
·
Very
concerned that Site Plan Control approval process has been dangerously altered
that will not result in the appropriate development or use of lands, proposed
changes are drastic, there needs to be serious discussion with staff, the
public and the development industry on the subject of Site Plan Control before
reaching Committee, we concur with comments from Hintonburg Community
Association
·
In
absence of deferral of deliberation of the proposed changes to Site Plan
Control approval at Committee, the FCA recommends that the only exemptions to
Site Plan Control approval be:
-
a
building or structure used for agricultural and forestry uses that is less than
1000m2
-
the
making of an alteration to a building (a change of use)
-
all
revisions to approved site plans involving residential swimming pools, decks,
landscaping and site works including driveways, outdoor recreational structures
and revisions to provide for handicapped access
·
Letters
of Undertaking should not be an option to registered Site Plan Control
agreements
·
In
regards to the policy for releasing agreements, this should only take place
after consultation with the Ward Councillor, abutting property owners and
affected community groups, further the site plan must be in compliance, not
generally in compliance
Building Owners and Managers Association (e-mail received May 23, 2001)
·
Generally
supportive of the process and timelines in preliminary report
·
Concerned
that in order to meet the timeline, planner will have to play more proactive
role in issue resolution, including among the internal technical staff, and
ensuring the process moves according to the proposed benchmarks
Kanata Council of Community Associations (facsimile dated May 30, 2001)
·
The
document is very comprehensive and thorough
·
City
advertising of development applications should be placed in community
newspapers where they exist
·
Need
strict criteria in policy for placing ads in community newspapers
·
Circulating
to community associations with delay of almost a week after technical
circulations not appropriate, delay may result in missing monthly community
association meeting and requiring phone calls and special meetings
·
Kanata
community associations receive technical circulations and works well
·
Do not
support proposal to have site plans excluded from public consultation, there
may be specific community concerns at the specific site plan
Departmental
Response to Feedback
An attempt has been made to provide a response
to the feedback received and it has been divided by subject area, since many of
the concerns were similar.
Targeted
Timelines
·
A
deadline of 21 days will be provided for the technical circulation
·
The
21-day public comment period has been retained only where pre-consultation with
community groups was undertaken by the proponent prior to application
submission, or where a meeting was arranged with the community groups prior to
circulation of the application
·
A
28-day comment period will now be provided where there has been no
pre-application consultation with community groups. This should provide enough
time for groups which are not familiar with a proposal, and will encourage
developers to pre-consult
·
There
was not a proposal to reduce the comment period to 14 day
·
It is
recognized that a two week period may not be long enough to organize a
Community Information Session, however, if the need for a meeting is identified
early in the process, this will not significantly increase the overall processing
timelines
·
It is
recommended that Ward Councillors make requests to withdraw delegated authority
by the end of the comment period
·
The
three day timeline for Ward Councillors to concur with proposed conditions of
Site Plan Control or Plan of Subdivision conditions has been retained as this
step comes at the end of the process, when Ward Councillors will be aware of
the proposal and any discussions on issues
·
Respondents
to notification of applications will be sent the notice of Committee and copy
of the report at least ten days before the meeting, at the same time as the
Ward Councillor
·
The
timeline of four to five weeks to place a report on Committee agenda is not
anticipated to change in the near future, and it is recognized that this is
“down time” for applicants
·
The
issue resolution period in the targeted timeline charts has been combined with
the preparation of the staff memorandum/report to provide more flexibility and
time in the resolution of issues
·
The
detailed processes will ensure that notice of passage can be prepared ahead of
the Council meeting as much as possible so that there is no delay due to
unforeseen circumstances
·
It has
been clarified in the report that if a decision is not made by the City within
a certain period of time, the applicant can appeal to the Ontario Municipal
Board
Roles
and Responsibilities
·
The
suggested changes have been made to the roles and responsibilities except that
no change was made to the stated responsibility of the community groups to
recognize that communities perform a broader municipal function
Pre-Application
Consultation and Community “Heads Up”
·
There
is no mandatory requirement for proponent to pre-consult community groups or
Ward Councillors, this is encouraged by staff but cannot be required prior to submitting
an application
·
It is
not intended that staff would advise community groups of proposals prior to
submission applications, it is felt that this should be at proponents
discretion
·
The
application forms will be used to provide information to staff whether
pre-application consultation with community groups was undertaken
· Staff
will arrange meetings between proponents and community representatives after
the application has been submitted when requested
Application
Submission
·
Current
submission requirements will be reviewed to ensure that they are not excessive
·
It is
anticipated that there may be a need to review the policy related to the use of
Part lot control by-laws
·
The
City cannot legally limit the number of rezoning applications that are submitted
for a particular property
·
It is
intended that once Site Plan Control approval has been signed-off by the
Director, the applicant would receive a written notice of the conditions of
approval and there would be no further changes requested by the City
Circulations
·
It is
intended that the Department improve methods of consulting with external
agencies
·
It is
intended to review if the technical circulation and notice to community groups
can be combined to save time and to send the circulation to the community
earlier, however this may be difficult given the need to translate the notice
to community groups
·
Advisory
committees will be circulated development applications, however, criteria will
be established in conjunction with the Committees to ensure that they receive
only those applications of interest
·
It is
not always possible to circulate Site Plan Control and minor variance or
Cash-in-lieu of Parking applications at the same time due to set timelines
·
Where
there has already been intensive public participation through the Official Plan
and Secondary Planning process, there will still be a requirement for
notification of subsequent approvals, however, if issue have previously been
resolved, it is anticipated that the staff memorandum or report can be prepared
during circulation of the application
Additional
Notification
·
The
proposed policy is based primarily on on-site sign posting, notice to community
associations and advertising rather than mail notice to abutting owners and it
is recognized that if property owners are away for an extended period of time
they may not be aware of changes being considered – future use of web site may
provide some long distance opportunities for notice
·
The
notification to the public will identify any supporting studies that were
submitted with the application
·
The
policy provides flexibility to the planner to initiate an enhanced notification
of applications where appropriate, such as in rural areas where there are few
properties within 400 feet
·
Notification
to the public of new communication towers is not proposed
·
The
Department will review the possibilities of posting the list of applications on
the City’s web site, and including the information by Ward and with contact
information
·
The
staff report cannot be posted on the Web site as soon as it is finished because
it must be first processed through the Secretariat Services Branch
·
For
Plan of Subdivision, notice will be sent to owners and advertised in the local
paper where possible
·
Major
revisions to Plan of Subdivisions will go through public notification where
required under the Planning Act, that is the City will give notice of any major
changes to conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision approval to those persons
and public bodies who requested to be notified
·
Planning
staff cannot be available to attend all community association meetings due to
the cost involved
·
Notification
of a Community Information Session will be determined by the planner in liaison
with the Ward Councillor’s office
·
It is
intended that community group comments will be included in their entirety in
staff memorandums and reports
·
There
will be notification of Part Lot Control applications where there has been no
previous notification of the proposed development through previous
applications, as well notice will be given for older rental buildings that have
not previously been subject to Site Plan Control approval, provided the
application is for the conveyance of more than four units
·
Staff
will be accurately incorporate comments of the public and Advisory Committees
in reports and respond appropriately
·
Requests
for alterations in a Heritage District are circulated to abutting owners and
community groups
·
Staff
will consider the availability of Official Plans and Zoning By-laws in library
branches and City Hall
·
It is
not recommended that the public be notified of releases of Site Plan Control
agreements as these would not be released by staff unless they meet the
criteria established by City Council to allow the release, if they didn’t, the
application would have to proceed to Planning and Development Committee
On-site
Sign
·
The
design of the on-site sign is based on the use of plain language and can
accommodate the addition of information for a public meeting
·
While
currently applicant can choose a signs company, it is felt that there are
potential advantages to the City to contract the work
·
The
posting of on-site signs for Road Closures and Road Openings is not
recommended, instead abutting owners will be notified, for any concerns related
to pedestrian walkways, it is assumed that community groups will identify such
concerns
Advertising
in Newspapers
·
The
report contains an initial listing of which community newspapers serve each
ward, the Department will liaise with the Corporate Communications Branch to
further refine the geographic areas of distribution and to ensure the listings
are up to date
·
Advertising
in the newspaper will be more than the minimum five days specified in the
Official Plan
·
Advertisement
for Committee meetings will be placed in the newspaper seven days prior to the
Thursday meeting, to place an advertisement ten days before would require a
change to the current advertising or it would require additional advertising at
a significant cost
·
Notification
in local newspapers is not recommended to be mandatory because of the legal and
financial implications detailed in the report
Site Plan Control Approval
·
It is
not proposed to provide for notification of changes of use, as well, changes of
use are not proposed to be subject to Site Plan Control approval
·
It is
not proposed to notify the public of minor site plan revisions, however the
Ward Councillor will be notified of these applications
·
It is
not proposed to circulate site plans to abutting owners, only site plans which
meet the criteria for public notification will require the posting of an
on-site sign and notice to community groups, however in unique circumstances
where this method is not appropriate, there is flexibility for the planner to
send a written notice to abutting owners
·
The
term “temporary” in the Site Plan Control By-law is intended to be the same
requirement as for a temporary permit under the Building Code
·
Portable
classrooms will be subject to Site Plan Control approval
·
An
exemption has been provided for accessory buildings, such as pump houses for
golf courses, provided they are no greater than 100m2
·
It is
not recommended that single detached dwellings be subject to Site Plan Control
approval, even though this was the case in previous municipalities such as
Rockcliffe Park, and is not considered necessary in Heritage Districts because
of existing zoning regulations
·
A
change to the original proposal has been made such that planned unit
developments will require Site Plan Control approval
·
It is
difficult to require Part Lot Control approval at the same time as Site Plan
Control approval since conveyance of lands usually occurs later in the
construction period and may not be able to be finalized until buildings are
constructed and surveys can accurately identify the lot lines
·
Former
City of Ottawa Site Plan Control By-law does not require approval for triplexes
and special needs housing because the Zoning By-law provides adequate
regulations
Delegation
of Authority
·
It is
not recommended that agreement by all parties be required or else the
application would have to go to Committee given the volumes of applications
that the Department processes, staff will work to resolve issues and then make
a decision on the basis of planning policies
·
It is
not recommended that Part Lot Control applications located in a Heritage
Conservation District proceed to City Council for a decision on the
application, however, the by-law will have to be approved by Council
·
Notices
to the public will clearly identify if the application is under delegated
authority
·
There
is currently no requirement for the Ward Councillor to provide staff, fellow
Councillors and the applicant detailed reasons for the removal of delegated
authority and this is not proposed to change in this report
Service
·
Internal
Departmental practices will ensure that planning staff have a cover-off when
they are away on holidays, who can answer questions on the application
·
It is
intended that planners be responsible for more of the approvals process
including preparation of standard and draft agreements
Concurrence
with Decision
·
There
is currently a requirement for the Ward Councillor (and the applicant as well)
to concur with the conditions of Site Plan Control approval, and changes could
be made prior to sign-off. The change contained in this report is that this
concurrence would not be required for applications under the delegated
authority of the Assigned Planner (minor revisions to existing Site Plan
Control approvals)
·
It is
not recommended that the community group respondents receive a copy of staff
delegated memorandum prior to sign-off or that all community groups receive
copies of the memo or report if they have not provided comments on the proposal
Post
Approval Process
·
The
new process provides for an expanded use of Letters of Undertaking as an
alternative to agreements where appropriate
·
The
process of review and approval of engineering design, site-servicing and
preparation of development agreements will be review some time after approval
of this report
Community
Groups Registration
·
Community
groups registered to be notified must be established organizations who truly
represent the community
·
Once
the registry for community groups is established, it will be updated when the
information is provided by the community group
·
All
community groups will be registered for pre-application consultation, unless
they decline to participate in the activity
Handbook
·
The
suggestion to contract out the proposed handbook for a “plain language” review
will be followed.
. NEW CITY OF OTTAWA DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS PROCESS – FINAL REPORT /
PROCESSUS D’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES D’AMÉNAGEMENT
DE LA NOUVELLE VILLE D’OTTAWA – RAPPORT FINAL
ACS2001-DEV-APR-0144
John Moser, Director, Development
and Infrastructure Approvals Branch (DIAB) introduced Françoise Jessop, Senior
Planner, DIAB. Mr. Moser then provided
the Committee with an overview of the staff report.
Responding to questions from
Councillor Cullen, Mr. Moser advised that a limited number of municipalities
controlled single-family dwelling units through site plan control (e.g.
Rockcliffe Park and some rural municipalities in certain situations). He noted that there were former
municipalities that had site plan control for beds and breakfasts and group
homes (but not for duplexes, triplexes, etc.).
Councillor Cullen advised he was
experiencing difficulty in the Britannia area of his ward, where there have
been conversions to triplexes and this has created a problem in terms of
parking. Mr. Moser stated in such
cases, illegal parking could be enforced through the zoning by-law. Councillor Cullen felt it would be better to
require site plan control in such instances, thereby eliminating the need to
fix these problems after the fact.
Councillor Munter noted the City of
Kanata did their circulation to community associations at the same time as the
technical circulation. He questioned
why this could not be done in the new City of Ottawa. Mr. Moser advised the proposed short gap between the technical
circulation and circulation to the community associations, was to allow time
for the notice to be translated. He
said staff believe that in time, it will be possible to do both circulations
simultaneously.
Responding to further questions from
the Councillor regarding site plans, subdivision, etc. Mr. Moser advised staff,
when they are ready to approve these development processes, would provide the
Ward Councillor with the conditions and seek their concurrence on
approval. He noted three days are being
proposed for the Councillor’s concurrence and if no response is received, it
will be presumed that the Councillor concurs.
Councillor Munter indicated he would be putting forward a motion to
change this.
With respect to the advertisement
policy, Councillor Munter expressed concern that the emphasis is being placed
on the daily newspapers as opposed to the community newspapers. He noted that many of the former
municipalities used community newspapers.
Ms. Jessop advised it would be possible (under the Planning Act) to use
community newspapers, however, all of the Official Plans of the former
municipalities would have to be amended to allow for this.
Councillor Arnold expressed concern
with the proposed timeline for a Councillor to lift delegated authority on a
site plan (i.e. prior to the draft conditions). Mr. Moser explained the opportunity to lift delegated authority
would exist right up until the Ward Councillor gives his/her concurrence for
approval.
Speaking to the issue of the three
days being proposed for the Ward Councillor to provide concurrence on a
development application, Councillor Arnold stated this would not always be
feasible. She felt the options should
be either no response would be deemed as a “no” or an extension of the
timeline. Mr. Moser stated if there
were issues surrounding a development application, the responsible planner
would sit down first with the Ward Councillor and then the applicant, in an
attempt to resolve them. If the matter
could not be resolved, it would then be brought forward to the Committee for
resolution. However, if he were given
only the two choices, Mr. Moser stated his preference would be the extended
timeline.
Councillor Arnold then had questions
with regard to what is and what is not included under site plans. She noted one of the concerns she had was the
issue of heritage districts, and that by not having site plans the ability to
protect the character of the heritage neighbourhood, is diminished. She asked for staff comment on adding the
requirement for site plans to heritage districts. Mr. Moser noted that in terms of current practise, the only
former municipality that requires site plans for singles in a heritage
district, is Rockcliffe Park. He noted
it really was a question of resources being able to apply to it. He agreed that the requirement for site
plans for singles in a heritage district could result in value being added, but
noted that anything that needs to be altered in such a district needs to go
through the City’s process, LACAC, Planning and Development Committee and
Council.
Councillor Eastman noted the
preconsultation process with the public appears to be based on the theory that
there are organized community groups.
He said in many of the rural areas this is not the case, noting the
community associations in his ward are responsible for running the recreation
complexes and are not interested in planning matters. He asked for staff comment.
Mr. Moser noted the planner would be encouraged to speak with the Ward
Councillor, who may suggest some informal groups or neighbouring individual
property owners.
The Councillor then expressed
agreement with Councillor Munter concerning the use of advertisement through
community newspapers and noted he would estimate that fewer than 50% of the
residents in his ward receive a daily paper.
Councillor Eastman questioned the possibility of the City having its own
weekly flyer. Mr. Moser stated he would
expect there would be some people that would not even bother to read the flyer. However, he noted there is discussion
corporate-wide with regard to a policy for advertisement and he said this
suggestion could be looked at in this larger context.
Responding to further questions from
Councillor Eastman, Mr. Moser advised it was the Department’s intent to
continue to advertise community information meetings in the appropriate
community newspapers. He noted that
anyone who had commented on an application would receive an individual notice
with regard to the public meeting.
Councillor Bellemare raised concerns
about the procedures for on-site signs for development applications and noted
the sample signs (on page 164 of the Agenda) contained numerous errors in the
French version. Ms. Jessop assured the
Councillor when further work is done on the exact format for the signs, the
correct translation would be used. She
also noted the community has indicated they want to see the signs kept as
simple and straightforward as possible.
The Councillor went on to note that
the e-mail address used on the signs should either be changed corporately to a
bilingual standard or that both French and English versions be posted on the
sign. As well, Councillor Bellemare had
questions concerning the contacts listed on the signs, one for French and one
for English. He sought assurance that,
if the assigned planner was not bilingual, the French contact would be fully
versed on the application. Ms. Jessop
noted each unilingual planner will have a bilingual cover-off (with their
telephone number noted on the sign) and will be able to respond to any
questions on the application.
Councillor Legendre noted Councillor
Bellemare had spoken to many of the language difficulties that he too had with
the signs. He said he did like the
staff suggestion that the language used on the signs would be simpler. The Councillor felt however, that a deadline
date should be posted on the sign. Ms.
Jessop noted staff had decided not to include a deadline date because the
on-site sign would be posted until the Committee meeting is held. Anyone who sees the sign (even after the
comment period) would still be able to receive information and submit their
comments.
Councillor Legendre also asked that
staff acknowledge that in some instances (e.g. a long, linear lot), one sign on
the property is not sufficient. He said
in such cases, at the request of the Ward Councillor, perhaps more than one
sign should be posted, as well as a circulation of neighbouring property
owners. Mr. Moser advised the process
allows for the planner to use his discretion to have mailed notices in addition
to the sign.
Councillor Legendre also expressed
concern about being notified about applications by e‑mail and would
prefer to be contacted by telephone.
Mr. Moser noted that in terms of applications, the Ward Councillor would
receive the full circulation (i.e. maps, plans, etc.).
A number of the Councillors
expressed concern about receiving numerous calls from planners, regarding
development applications. Mr. Moser
clarified staff would provide the Ward Councillor with a “heads-up” on those
applications for which there has been no pre-consultation. This would be done in the preferred manner
of the Ward Councillor (e.g. by telephone, e-mail, etc.).
Finally, Councillor Legendre sought
assurance that the Ward Councillor would be the first Councillor notified. He related an example where a neighbouring
Councillor was notified first of a planning application in his ward and
modifications were made prior to his seeing it. Mr. Moser agreed the Ward Councillor would be contacted first,
however, for applications that abut another ward, that Councillor will also be
circulated.
Councillor Stavinga had questions
concerning the review of the process and having a much broader participation
than just comments submitted. Mr.
Lathrop noted it was not staff’s intent to go out into the community to gain
feedback on the success or failure of the proposed process. He said staff were envisaging using feedback
from the community associations, the development community and other
stakeholders that the Department has contact with, to gauge the success of the
process. Councillor Stavinga stated
she would prefer to see a much broader, community wide participation process
and would be putting forward a motion to this effect.
Councillor Stavinga made reference
to community information sessions and noted it would be difficult for the Ward
Councillor to chair all of these meetings.
She asked if there was any flexibility in this regard. Mr. Moser stated there would not be a
community information meeting on every application, only the controversial
applications. He said if the Ward
Councillor was not able to attend the meeting, then either they or staff could
delegate someone else to chair the meeting.
Councillor Cullen expressed concern
regarding the proposed reduction of the comment period from 28 days to 21 days,
if the applicant has carried out pre-consultation with the Ward Councillor and
the community. He felt the comment
period should be 28 days, regardless.
Mr. Moser explained the reduced comment period was meant to be an incentive
to the developers to carry out pre-consultation.
Responding to questions from
Councillor Cullen, with respect to notification of property owners within 120
meters of a re-zoning, Mr. Moser advised that only after Council has approved
the zoning by-law, staff send out a notice to the property owners within 120
meters (as is required under the Planning Act). Councillor Cullen indicated he would be putting forward a motion
to deal with this.
Councillor Bellemare referenced page
133 of the Agenda and noted it is proposed that the community group contact
list be updated. He asked if staff
would also be contacting condominium corporations and churches. Ms. Jessop advised it was staff’s intent to
include only those larger community groups involved in the development
approvals process. She said condominium
corporations and churches would rely on the on-site sign posting.
The Councillor then pointed out on
page 200 of the Agenda, the chart setting out the “Cost of Advertising in the
Community Newspapers”, only listed one community newspaper in his ward, when in
fact there are two others. He advised
he would be putting forward a motion to add these two community newspapers.
Councillor Stavinga noted that staff
had indicated, in the case of public meetings, any person who had provided
comments on an application would receive a notice of the public meeting and a
copy of the staff report 10 days prior to the public meeting. The Councillor stated the day the community receives
a copy of the report, so too should the Councillors. Mr. Moser confirmed this was staff’s intention.
Councillor Stavinga referenced page
152 of the Agenda, the 6th bullet under Responsibilities of
Community Group/Advisory Committee representatives, which read in part, “to
recognize that considerations other than their concerns are weighted by
decision-makers…..”. The Councillor
suggested that this statement also be included under the responsibilities of
the applicant.
Councillor
Stavinga then asked if there was a requirement for notification of extensions
of draft plan approvals, referencing a specific example in her ward of a
subdivision that had extensions to their draft approval for over nine
years. Mr. Moser advised there was no
requirement to notify of these extensions.
The Councillor advised she would be submitting a motion to address this
problem.
Councillor Harder had questions
concerning the proposed contract for the posting of signs. Mr. Moser noted that in the former City of
Ottawa, it was left up to the applicant to make arrangements for the sign. The report is proposing that the City will
retain a sign company under contract, the applicant will pay the required sum
to the City up-front and the sign company will be instructed as to the wording
of the sign, when and where it should be posted, and when to take it down. The company’s capability would be monitored
as part of the evaluation of the contract.
The Committee then heard from the
following public delegations.
Peter Marwitz, Action Sandy Hill
(ASH), stated although
he commended staff for the work they had done on this final report, he was
concerned that it had not addressed all of the points ASH had raised in their
report to staff. He then outlined his
three main concerns.
The first concern Mr. Marwitz
addressed dealt with the powers to be assigned to the Ward Councillor. He said ASH is concerned about the amount of
authority the Councillors will be expected to assume. He acknowledged there had been one improvement in this regard,
namely, that community associations will receive notice of applications at the
same time as the Ward Councillor.
However, he felt the allowed reaction time (i.e. three days) is still
much too short.
With respect to the length of the
consultation period, Mr. Marwitz noted in the first proposal ASH and most other
community associations had advocated a four week (28 day) period. The report is proposing a 21-day
consultation period where there has been pre-consultation and 28 days
otherwise. The speaker felt this to be
an artificial distinction, which could cause more difficulties than it actually
solves. He felt the consultation period
should be 28 days regardless of whether or not there is pre-consultation.
The final issue addressed by Mr.
Marwitz concerned the delegated staff authority. He acknowledged the new City of Ottawa was under pressure to
streamline its processes to be more efficient and to save money. However, this should not be used as an excuse
to curtail public input into the planning process. He felt, in the draft policy recommendation regarding the
development process, far too many issues have been delegated to staff. This is particularly true when it comes to
the site plan control approval process in the inner-City.
In conclusion, Mr. Marwitz expressed
ASH’s support for the Federation of Citizens’ Association position with respect
to site plan control and for the positions of the Rockcliffe Park Residents’
Association, Centretown Community Association and the Old Ottawa South
Community Association.
Anthony Keith, Vice-President,
Rockcliffe Park Residents’ Association, submitted a letter to the Committee outlining
the Association’s concerns (held on file with the City Clerk). Mr. Keith explained his Association’s main
concern had to do with site plan control. He noted the staff report proposed exempting from site plan
control virtually all of the buildings in the Village of Rockcliffe Park. He requested that the new site plan control
by-law specify that site-plan control approval be required for all development
in the Village of Rockcliffe Park, Heritage Conservation District. He noted this would simply continue the
existing practise. Site plan control
agreements have provided the means to control landscape alterations in the
greenspace between buildings, the primary feature of this heritage
district. The Heritage Act does not
provide any control over landscape alterations.
Mr. Keith felt the requirement for
site plan control in Rockcliffe Park would add value to the process and would
not place an onerous burden on City staff (i.e. there is an average of 3.6 site
plans per year for Rockcliffe Park). He
stated the Residents’ Association commits to assisting City staff by providing
expert and timely advise on development proposals.
Jane Dobell, President, Rockcliffe
Park Residents’ Association, expressed support for the comments made by Mr. Keith. She noted the Rockcliffe Park
Residents’ Association Committee is made up of architects, planners and experts
in the heritage field, who have signified they would be willing to continue on
in an advisory capacity. Ms. Dobell
felt it important to recognize how difficult it was for the Village of
Rockcliffe Park to attain the Heritage District designation because its significance
is different than any other designated area in the Province. Almost all the other heritage districts
depend on the significance of their buildings, whereas Rockcliffe Park derives
its primary significance from the landscaped settings.
Ms. Dobell urged the Committee to
retain site plan control for singles not only in Rockcliffe Park but also in
the rest of the City’s heritage areas.
As well, she asked that written notice to property owners within 120
metres of a site continue.
Erwin Dreesson, Chair, Greenspace
Alliance of Canada’s Capital. A copy of Mr. Dreesson’s
presentation is held on file with the City Clerk and some of the points are
summarized as follows:
· supports
Amy Kempster's comment about the process of lifting of holding zones
· would prefer there be no delegated authority for plans of subdivision. If delegation does take place, any Councillor should be able to request lifting of delegated authority
· supports the suggestions by Action Sandy Hill with regard to mediation facilities
· prefers a 4-week comment period for applications. .
· all information about an application should be posted on the City's web site;
· the statutory notice advertised in the print media should go out two weeks before the meeting of Committee
· Committee Agendas (including the staff reports) should be available two weeks in advance of the meeting
· there is no provision for registration of City-wide or other groups (Document 3)
· a change of use (to a restaurant, automobile shop, automobile service station, amusement centre, bingo hall, bowling alley, cinema, library, museum, pool hall, recreation and athletic facility, sports arena or theatre) should not be exempted from site plan control
· a Municipal Environmental Evaluation Checklist and Municipal Environmental Evaluation Report should be required for applications City-wide
· the City should commit to advertising in community newspapers
· should be no exception to the notification of neighbouring properties within 120 metres
· evening hearings should be seriously considered
Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering, observed there were not many representatives of the consultants/development industry present because they were relatively comfortable with the report. Mr. Chown went on to note that the timelines set out in the report, represent a commitment on the part of all the parties (i.e. the applicant, staff, the community, City Council) and all will have to work hard to achieve these timelines.
The speaker sought clarification with regard to the lifting of delegated authority. He felt the report originally circulated, clearly stated that any member of Council (not just the Ward Councillor) could request that delegated authority be lifted on any application, anywhere in the City. Mr. Chown felt this was not clear in the present report and he stated he would have concern if any City Councillor could request delegated authority be lifted in any Ward.
Mr. Chown then went on to address some of his specific concerns. He referred to Document 8 (page 187 of the Agenda) which sets out the uses that would be exempt from site plan control, and in particular, “1. j. building or structure accessory to a commercial, institutional or industrial building or structure if the gross floor area of the accessory building or structure is less that 100 m2 ”. He noted that staff were proposing an amendment to this clause, which addressed the concerns he had about this and he urged the Committee to support it.
In
conclusion, Mr. Chown noted in his original submission he addressed the issue
of pre-consultation with the community and advised his position was that during
the initial consultation period (i.e. either 21 or 28) there is sufficient
opportunity to consult with the community and flesh out any concerns there may
be. He stated his concern was that the
week provided for in the proposed timetable was not sufficient time to schedule
a meeting with community groups.
Lois
K. Smith, submitted
her comments in writing to the Committee (held on file with the City Clerk) and
advised they would be receiving further comments in the near future. Referencing Document 8, Miss Smith noted
there are proposed classes of development to be exempt from site plan control
approval. She suggested some categories
that should be subject to site plan control, for example, a building that would
cause shading for neighbouring properties; instances where drainage patterns
would be altered; or, in certain hazard areas.
Miss
Smith also went on to highlight a few editing points. With respect to Document 8, she felt for consistency, that No. 2
should set out “building or structure accessory to …” as a separate item, as it is in No. 1. Further, throughout the document, Miss Smith felt it would be
better to refer to “old” rather than “former” when speaking of the old
municipalities’ official plans.
Some
of the other concerns raised by Miss Smith included questioning what would
happen, in terms of a Councillor’s concurrence should they be away from the
office for an extended period of time.
She also noted that for large applications (e.g. Central Park), there should
be signs posted on every road that the development abuts. With respect to advertising in community
newspapers, Miss Smith cautioned that these are not always delivered to every
residence and are often delivered after the date of meetings advertised.
Amy
Kempster, provided
members of the Committee with a copy of her comments, which is held on file
with the City Clerk. Ms. Kempster then
addressed two items that were not included in the earlier draft report. The first matter was the lifting of holding
zones and she provided a brief background on the Greenway system of the former
City of Ottawa. Ms. Kempster emphasized
that she felt this land was far too important to allow authority for the
lifting of holding zones on this land, to be delegated to staff. She expressed her strong objection to this
delegation of authority, for anything but very minor changes (e.g. adding small
way-finding signs on NCC land).
Ms.
Kempster’s second point related to the delegation of authority to staff for
cash-in-lieu of parkland. She felt this
process should be treated in a similar fashion to cash-in-lieu of parking for
site plans but should always be examined by the Planning and Development
Committee in the case of subdivisions (as subdivisions should not be delegated). As well, Ms. Kempster stated that a record
of all amounts received as cash-in-lieu of parkland should be kept and a report
made to the relevant Committee at least once a year.
As a result of the delegation’s comments, Councillor Cullen had questions regarding the lifting of holding zones. Mr. Moser stated Ms. Kempster was correct in her explanation of how the former City of Ottawa dealt with the NCC lands with a holding zone. He said it was staff’s intention to continue with the same protocol, namely if there was a site plan or a rezoning on any of the NCC lands that had an “H” zone, the site plan (although delegated authority would not be lifted) would be brought to Planning and Development Committee. As a result of this questioning, Councillor Cullen indicated he would be moving a motion to amend Document 11, Item 10 (i) to add after “Lifting Holding Zones” the words: “where prescribed preconditions are met”.
Brian Tansey, Old Ottawa South
Community Association, referenced his Association’s submission dated 27 June 2001 and held on
file with the City Clerk. Some of the
Association’s main concerns were:
· with respect to site plan control
approval, changes of use will not be subject to notification, nor subject to
Site Plan Control
· sought clarification with regard to
whether or not site plan control would be required for the establishment of
such uses as a restaurant, automobile shop, service station, amusement centre,
bingo hall, etc.
· a quality control process will be
required for the proposed signs contract
· should use community newspapers for
public notices, when time permits.
· supports an evaluation process for
the proposed procedures after the first year
Linda Hoad, Federation of Citizens’
Association asked
that the lifting of delegated authority be allowed by any Councillors, not just
the Ward Councillor. Ms. Hoad
referenced Recommendation 8, namely, “Direct that a Site Plan Control By-law be
brought forward for the classes of development identified in Document 8” and
asked that staff consult with stakeholders before drafting the Site Plan
Control By-law. Finally, Ms. Hoad asked
that Recommendation 9 be deleted.
Barbara Barr began by acknowledging the amount
of work put into the production of this report, however, she expressed concern
about not having an opportunity to review the report after the comments were
submitted, and prior to the report being finalised. Ms. Barr felt that planning issues should be readily available to
the public and suggested that draft reports be posted on the City’s Web
site. With respect to the proposed
process, Ms. Barr felt too much responsibility was being put on Councillors in
terms of reviewing development applications.
Having heard from all public
delegations, the matter returned to Committee and the motions put forward were
considered.
Moved by A. Munter
That
the “Community Information Session” as per the Zoning Amendment Process be
renamed “Community Information and Comment Session” and that comments received
during the session be incorporated into the consideration of the application.
CARRIED
Moved by A. Cullen
That
the comment period for planning matters be 28 days.
CARRIED
(G. Hunter dissented)
Moved by A. Munter
That if a
Councillor does not give his/her consent within three days, the absence of
consent is deemed as a “no”.
CARRIED
(M. Bellemare, D. Eastman and G. Hunter dissented)
Moved by A. Munter
That
the timeline be amended to include circulation to community groups and abutting
owners (as required by the Planning Act), at the same time as the technical
circulation and furthermore, that the circulation list be provided to the Ward
Councillor.
CARRIED
(J. Harder dissented)
Councillor Cullen and Councillor Stavinga both put forward motions concerning the giving of notice to property owners within 120 metres of official plan amendments and zoning applications. Councillor Staving withdrew her motion.
Mr. Lathrop noted implementation of this would cost the City in excess of $500,000 annually. He stressed that site signs and newspaper ads will be utilized and spoke of the difficulty in ensuring the current owner is being provided with the notice.
Moved by A. Cullen
That written
notice to property owners within 120 metres of site-specific Official Plan
Amendments and rezoning applications continue.
LOST
NAYS: D.
Eastman, A. Munter, J. Stavinga and G. Hunter….4
YEAS: E.
Arnold, M. Bellemare and A. Cullen….3
Moved by M. Bellemare
That
condominium boards of directors and churches be included where the Development
Services Department contacts all community groups to explain the proposed
public notification and consultation process for development applications,
confirms whether they wish to participate in the development approvals process,
and determines each group’s geographic area of interest as it relates to the
residents they represent.
CARRIED
(D.
Eastman dissented)
Moved by A. Cullen
That a sign be posted to notify road closure applications for travelled roads.
CARRIED
Moved by J. Stavinga
That staff
be directed to provide notification of applications for extensions to Draft
Plan Approvals.
CARRIED
Councillor Bellemare put forward the following motion: “That a bilingual format of the city’s e-mail addresses and website be formulated and used for advertising purposes including signs; and, That in the meantime both unlingual English and unilingual French be used for advertising purposes including signs.
In addition, Councillor Cullen moved a motion that the advertisement for public meetings be 10 days in advance of the meeting (as opposed to 6).
Councillor Munter also had a motion related to advertising and suggested that Councillor Bellemare’s and Councillor Cullen’s motions, together with his own, be referred to the Marketing and Communications Branch for review.
Councillor Bellemare indicated he would support the referral motion provided the review is done in conjunction with the City Manager’s report on bilingualism. He said in the meantime he was concerned with the signage and would like to see the French and English e-mails on signs. Mr. Moser indicated this request would be accommodated.
Moved by A. Munter
That
the following motions be referred to the Communications and Marketing Division
to be considered as part of the corporate advertising review:
a) That the matter of where and how to
advertise planning notices be referred to Communications and Marketing to be
included in an overall policy on City advertising, to be developed by the end
of September, 2001; and
Further
that staff be directed to focus neighbourhood planning notices on
neighbourhood/community newspapers, based on community expectations and
previous history.
b) That a bilingual format for the City’s
e-mail addresses and Web site be developed and used for advertising purposes,
including signs; and
That,
in the meantime, both unilingual English and French formats be used for
advertising purposes including signs.
c) That the advertisement for a public
meeting under the Planning Act be 10 days before the public meeting.
CARRIED
Moved by M. Bellemare
That
the following community newspapers be added to Ward 11 (Document 13) for
advertising purposes:
·
L’Express
·
Orleans Star
CARRIED
Moved by D. Eastman
That Document 8 line 1.(j) be modified to delete the words “commercial, institutional, or industrial building or structure” and replace them with the words “non-residential use”.
CARRIED
Moved by A. Cullen
That
recommendation 8 be amended to include triplex, multiple dwellings and planned
unit developments under site plan control.
CARRIED
Moved by E. Arnold
That Recommendation 8 be amended to recognize the special circumstances of Heritage Conservation Districts (HCDs) as defined under the Heritage Act by retaining Site Plan Control Approval for all residential development (Document 8) within HCDs.
CARRIED
Councillor Cullen then moved the following motion: That site plan control be maintained on lots created by severance which would result in intensification of the urban area. He noted that this provision existed in one of the former cities and would ensure that a severed property meets all of the applicable codes and zoning by-laws.
Responding to questions from Councillor Cullen, Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Development Law advised the Committee of Adjustment has every power on issues of severance under Section 51 of the Planning Act that staff have with regards to subdivisions. They have full authority to impose conditions when dealing with severance. Councillor Cullen then withdrew his motion.
Moved by A. Cullen
That
Document 11, Item 10 (i) be amended by inserting after “Lifting Holding Zones”
the following: “where prescribed preconditions are met”.
CARRIED
Moved by J. Stavinga
That the one year implementation review include feedback from the stakeholders beyond a simple mail out, to also include convening a citywide forum.
CARRIED
The Committee then approved the report as amended.
That
the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve
the objectives, steps and targeted timelines for the new City of Ottawa
development approvals process, as contained in Document 1 as amended by the
following:
a. That the “Community Information Session”
as per the Zoning Amendment Process be renamed “Community Information and
Comment Session” and that comments received during the session be incorporated
into the consideration of the application.
b. That the comment period for planning
matters be 28 days.
c. That if a Councillor does not give his/her
consent within three days, the absence of consent is deemed as a “no”.
d. That the timeline be amended to include
circulation to community groups and abutting owners (as required by the
Planning Act), at the same time as the technical circulation and furthermore,
that the circulation list be provided to the Ward Councillor.
2. Approve
the roles and responsibilities for the various stakeholders in the development
approvals process as contained in Document 2;
3. Approve
the Public Notification and Consultation Policy for Development Applications
identified in Document 3, as amended by the following;
a. That
condominium boards of directors and churches be included where the Development
Services Department contacts all community groups to explain the proposed
public notification and consultation process for development applications,
confirms whether they wish to participate in the development approvals process,
and determines each group’s geographic area of interest as it relates to the
residents they represent.
b. That
a sign be posted to notify road closure applications for traveled roads.
c. That
staff be directed to provide notification of application for extensions to
Draft Plan Approvals.
4. Approve
the On-site Signs Procedures for Development Applications included in Document
4 and direct that the production, installation, maintenance and removal of
on-site signs be contracted to a signs company;
5. Approve
the Newspaper Advertisement Guidelines for Development Applications contained
in Document 5, as amended by the following;
a. That
the following motions be referred to the Communications and Marketing Division
to be considered as part of the corporate advertising review:
i) That the matter of where and how to
advertise planning notices be referred to Communications and Marketing to be
included in an overall policy on City advertising, to be developed by the end
of September, 2001; and
Further
that staff be directed to focus neighbourhood planning notices on
neighbourhood/community newspapers, based on community expectations and previous
history.
ii) That a bilingual format for the City’s
e-mail addresses and Web site be developed and used for advertising purposes,
including signs; and
That,
in the meantime, both unilingual English and French formats be used for
advertising purposes including signs.
iii) That the advertisement for a public meeting
under the Planning Act be 10 days before the public meeting.
b. That the following community newspapers be
added to Ward 11 (Document 13) for advertising purposes:
·
L’Express
·
Orleans Star
6. Approve
an amendment to all existing Official Plans within the new City of Ottawa, to
adopt alternative measures for the required notice of the public meeting for
Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and for Community Improvement Plans,
as included in Document 6;
7. Approve
an amendment to Official Plans of former local municipalities to allow for Site
Plan Control approval for all lands within the City of Ottawa, as included in
Document 7;
8. Direct
that a Site Plan Control By-law be brought forward for the classes of
development identified in Document 8, as amended by the following;
a. That Document 8, line 1.j. be modified to
delete the words “commercial, institutional or industrial building or
structure” and replace them with the words “non-residential use”.
b. That Recommendation 8 be amended to
include triplexes, multiple dwellings and planned unit developments under site
plan control.
c. That Recommendation 8 be amended to
recognize the special circumstances of Heritage Conservation Districts (HCDs)
as defined under the Heritage Act by retaining Site Plan Control Approval for
all residential development (Document 8) within HCDs.
9. Approve
the use of Letters of Undertaking as an alternative to registered site plan
control agreements generally in the standard format as shown and for
developments meeting the criteria contained, in Document 9;
10. Direct
that a by-law be brought forward specifying the prescribed and other
information required for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and draft
Plan of Subdivision and Condominium as listed in Document 10;
11. Approve
changes to the Delegation of Authority By-law, By-law Number 2001-12 as listed
in Document 11, as amended by the following;
a. That
Document 11, Item 10 (i) be amended by inserting after “Lifting Holding Zones”
the following: “where prescribed preconditions are met”.
12. Direct
the Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department in liaison with the
Development Services Department to review the possibility of extending the use
of the cash-in-lieu of parking provisions of the Planning Act throughout the
new City of Ottawa and to report back to City Council before the end of 2001;
13. Direct
the Corporate Services Department to replace the existing computer application,
of the old City of Ottawa, used to generate community association notification
lists and labels so that this capability is available to planning staff
throughout the City;
14. Direct
the Development Services Department, in consultation with community group
representatives, to prepare a Development Approvals Handbook to assist
community associations and the general public in participating in the
development approvals process, by the end of 2001;
15. Direct
the Development Services Department to prepare an Operations Manual which would
guide staff in the Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch in the
processing of development applications, by the end of 2001;
16. Direct
the Development Services Department to report back to City Council by the end of
October 2002 providing an update on the new development approvals process, as
amended by the following:
a. That the one-year implementation review
include feedback from the stakeholders beyond a simple mail-out, to also
include convening a city-wide forum.
CARRIED as amended