4. Zoning – 5832 Bank Street

Zonage – 5832, rue Bank

Committee Recommendation

That Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Osgoode’s Zoning By-law pertaining to 5832 Bank Street, to change the permitted use under the C2-2: Highway Commercial Zone - Special Provisions, from a public garage to only allow a business office and related interior storage space.

Recommandation Du Comité

Que le Conseil approuve une modification au règlement sur le zonage de l’ancien Canton d’Osgoode relativement au 5832, rue Bank, afin de changer l’utilisation permise actuellement en vertu de la désignation C2-2, Zone commerciale routière, Dispositions particulières, en l’occurrence un garage public, de façon à ne permettre qu’un bureau d’affaires et l’espace d’entreposage intérieur connexe.

Documentation

1. Development Services Department General Manager’s report dated 23 July 2002 is immediately attached (ACS2002-DEV-APR-0173).

2. An Extract of Draft Minutes, 29 August 2002, immediately follows the report and includes the voting record.

Report to / Rapport au:

Planning and Development Committee /

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement

and Council / et au Conseil

23July 2002 / le 23 juillet 2002

Submitted by / Soumis par: Ned Lathrop, General Manager / Directeur général

Development Services Department / Services d’aménagement

Contact / Personne-ressource: Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals /

Gestionnaire, Approbation des demandes d’aménagement

580-2424 ext. 28310, karen.currie@ottawa.ca

Ref N°: ACS2002-DEV-APR-0173

SUBJECT: ZONING – 5832 BANK STREET

OBJET: ZONAGE – 5832, RUE BANK

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Osgoode’s Zoning By-law pertaining to 5832 Bank Street, to change the permitted use under the C2-2: Highway Commercial Zone - Special Provisions, from a public garage to only allow a business office and related interior storage space.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au règlement sur le zonage de l’ancien Canton d’Osgoode relativement au 5832, rue Bank, afin de changer l’utilisation permise actuellement en vertu de la désignation C2-2, Zone commerciale routière, Dispositions particulières, en l’occurrence un garage public, de façon à ne permettre qu’un bureau d’affaires et l’espace d’entreposage intérieur connexe.

BACKGROUND

The subject property is located on the west side of Bank Street, south of Mitch Owens Drive and north of Apple Orchard Drive. The site is occupied by one building housing an office with interior storage use. It is surrounded on the south by a single residence and vacant lands to the north. The subject property is within the Village of Greely in the former Township of Osgoode.

DISCUSSION

Under the former Osgoode Zoning By-law the site is zoned C2-2: Commercial Highway Zone, Special Provision C2-2. The special provision was introduced in 1988 to permit only an automobile repair facility for this property. This provision further establishes site specific performance standards relating to Lot Area, Lot Frontage, Front Yard and Interior Side Yard. All of these standards are greater than the minimum required by the parent C2: Commercial Highway Zone, with the exception of the interior side yard which is at 1.2 metres to reflect the existing building setback from the side lot line.

The proposed zoning amendment applies to the Special Provisions under the C2: Highway Commercial Zone, to change the permitted uses for this property to allow only a business office and related interior storage space for the construction company operated by the applicant.

The property was previously used by an automobile repair facility and the change to a business office is an improvement in terms compatibility with adjacent land uses and reduces the potential for conflicts with existing uses. The applicant will be required to file a site plan amendment application in order to address any operational concerns associated with the proposed use. There is an existing site plan agreement registered on title which does not allow any outside storage and regulates the access points, parking, lighting and signage on the property.

The proposed rezoning will specifically amend Section 9.3.3.2 Special Provisions to the Commercial Highway Zone, to delete any reference to a public garage and in its place insert that only a business office and related interior storage will be permitted on this property. All other provisions of Section 9.3.2: Zone Provisions will apply except for the following, which are spelled out in Special Provision 9.3.3.2 and remain unchanged. These provisions are specific to this site:

· Lot Area (minimum) 1,500 sq.m,

· Lot Frontage(minimum) 25 metres

· Front Yard(minimum) 13 metres

· Interior Side Yard(minimum) 1.2 metres

Staff supports approval of this amendment for the following reasons. The use is more compatible with the surrounding land uses than the previous automobile repair garage. There are adequate controls in the existing site plan agreement to control any nuisance effects that could arise from the operation. Additional issues can be dealt with through an amended site plan, which the applicant will be filing shortly. The existing performance standards relating to Lot Area, Lot frontage and Front Yard are over and above the minimum required for the Commercial Highway Zone.

CONSULTATION

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Policy. Information signs were also posted on-site indicating the nature of the application.

At the time of writing of this report, staff had received one letter of objection from a resident off Bank Street (see Document 2 for Consultation Details).

The Ward Councillor is aware of the application

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

The application was processed within the timeframe established for the processing of Zoning Amendment applications.

ATTACHMENTS

Document 1 – Location Plan

Document 2 – Consultation Details

DISPOSITION

Development Services Department to forward the implementing by-law to City Council and undertake required Planning Act notification.

Location Plan Document 1

CONSULTATION DETAILS Document 2

NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS

Notification and consultation procedure carried out in accordance with the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Policy.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

One letter of objection from a resident on Collier Street off Bank Street was received. The issues raised are discussed below with a staff response.

Concern:

The current operation (public garage) was allowed through an exception to the zone. Further expansion will deteriorate the character of the area.

Response:

The amendment is to remove the public garage use and replace it with a business office and related interior storage space, not add to the existing use. Additionally, an office use is more desirable from the point of compatibility with the adjacent uses than a repair garage. Furthermore, the parent C2: Commercial Highway Zone does permit uses similar in nature to that being proposed. Specifically, a building material sales centre, lumber dealer, warehouse and wholesale use can be considered comparable uses.

Concern:

Changing the zoning after someone has purchased the lot and started construction contrary to the zoning is bad policy and unfair.

Response:

Staff acknowledges that the applicant proceeded with work on the site contrary to the local zoning by-law and building code requirements. However, the city has followed up on this contravention and is requiring that the applicant follow routine procedures to legalize the use. This zoning application is being be processed in order to address these issues.

Concern:

Noise and traffic related to the operation are a concern.

Response:

The construction business that the applicant operates undertakes most work off-site as a result the potential for noise is minimal and can only be expected when equipment enters and leaves the premises. In terms of traffic impacts, the operation is not one that caters to drop in traffic and therefore any noise related to this issue could occur when trucks depart during the morning for job sites and when returning during the evening. It is staff position that the new use is more compatible and desirable than that of the repair garage and in order to ensure this, a site plan amendment will also be required.

ZONING – 5832 BANK STREET

ZONAGE – 5832, RUE BANK

ACS2002-DEV-APR-0173

Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.

Mr. Dhaneshwar Neermul provided a brief presentation and was available to answer any questions related to the recommendation contained in the departmental report dated 23 July 2002.

Mr. Paul Morse raised the matter of principle regarding the rezoning. The applicant commenced work contrary to the zoning by-law and applied for a zoning change after the contravention was discovered. The City’s position, which requires the applicant to legalize the use acquiesces to the applicant and sets a bad example from a public policy perspective by rewarding someone who broke the law and was unfair to someone who would like to have built, but was deterred by the existing zoning.

The only reasons to allow a change are: a) A clear and overwhelming benefit to the public due to the zoning change; or b) An error on the part of the City in informing the owner of the correct zoning. Neither reason was evident in this case. As well, the character of the zone will likely deteriorate. The City maintains that an office building for a construction company and the related internal storage area will enhance the character of the zone. He had severe reservations that the related uses referred to were to the construction business, not the paperwork produced by the office. There could be storage of heavy equipment such as front-end loaders, excavators, forklifts, trucks etc. that could create a high noise level as they move in and around the yard. “Related” storage could entail the storage of hazardous waste or materials. The area depends on underground wells for its water. If there was an accident in the storage area, it could poison the water supply for a long period of time.

Reference was made to “adequate controls in the existing site plan agreement” and a “site plan amendment will also be required” in the discussion section of the report and in response to public comments. That does not provide much consolation since the applicant has already demonstrated he could not be trusted to follow the rules. As a resident he had no confidence in the existing site plan agreement, the proposed amendment or the City’s enforcement capability. He did not believe the City could properly enforce any agreement in the current tight economic climate and asked for statistics on the resources devoted to such enforcement and the number of successful prosecutions in 2001 related to such enforcement. Although the property was zoned for a garage, he was not aware of a garage operating on the property making it difficult for the City to maintain a change in zoning would be an improvement. No details were provided in the report to substantiate a garage was less desirable than a storage area for a construction company. He specifically requested that serious consideration be given to his objections.

Councillor Cullen received confirmation Mr. Morse was a neighbour and if the application were refused, he would be content to have the public garage use continue.

Councillor Thompson wanted to recognize that the particular location was an operating garage a few years ago and one of the owners was illegally taking parts from cars and selling them. By-law staff regularly visited the location. It was a terrible eyesore located on Highway 31. He appreciated it was close to a subdivision and there was no issue with an automobile repair. The current owner occupied the building with an office and wanted to renovate the outside. He was contacted and asked to exert some influence on the application, but he encouraged the owner to allow the process to proceed. With due respect to the delegation, the application was more aesthetically pleasing than an automobile repair shop. Other residents in the immediate vicinity were notified of the application and did not have issues with the application. As the Ward Councillor, he did not have a problem with the application.

Responding to a question by Councillor Cullen on potential storage on the site, Mr. Neermul advised that the applicant indicated the only type of storage would be mobile construction sheds that are used on site. The Councillor further questioned whether there was anything in the proposed by-law that would prohibit the storage of construction materials/vehicles/equipment. Mr. Neermul responded that the manner in which the by-law is being designed would allow interior storage only. The parking of the construction trailers and service vehicles would be part and parcel of the business operation. There is an existing Site Plan Agreement on file for the property, which prohibits exterior storage to the rear of the property of any construction vehicles. There were garage bays and a shed on site for interior storage. The Councillor questioned what constraints were in place to ensure there would only be an office and storage since there would clearly be an impact on the neighbourhood. Mr. Neermul responded that the zoning was designed to permit an office with interior storage only, which means no outside storage of construction material. Councillor Cullen commented that the interior storage could include equipment/material, etc.

Councillor Thompson noted that one needed to be cognizant that the area was very small and the lot 1,500 square metres. The building did not have a large storage capacity.

Councillor Cullen recognized the report was supported by staff and the Ward Councillor and understood the frustration expressed by the neighbour on the legalization of an illegal use, having recently dealt with a request to change a residential, which was opposed. Clearly the construction operation on a site could be expanded within the current boundaries of the property, which concerned him and should concern the Committee. He was uncomfortable with the after the fact legalization and was at a loss on how to deal with that regardless of whether it was a legitimate use. The General Manager advised that the application fee for re-zoning was $3,000, which was a burden.

Moved by Councillor A. Munter:

CARRIED