Report to / Rapport au :

1. d’approuver et d’adopter une modification au Plan officiel de l’ancienne Ville de Gloucester de façon à ce que le terrain situé au 1298, chemin Ogilvie, porte la désignation Secteur résidentiel plutôt que Grande aire libre, ainsi que le précise le document 1;

2. d’approuver la demande visant à modifier le règlement municipal de zonage 333 de 1999 de l’ancienne Ville de Gloucester de façon à faire passer le zonage du terrain situé au 1298, chemin Ogilvie, de Zone de maisons groupées (Rr1) et secteur Gouvernemental institutionnel (Ig) à Zone d’appartements à moyenne densité - zone d’exception Ra2, qui autorise une densité minimale de 50 logements par hectare.

BACKGROUND

Site Location

The owner of the property at 1298 Ogilvie Road has applied for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to allow for the residential development.

The site is located on the south side of Ogilvie Road adjacent to the Church of the Epiphany, which was established in 1999. The site is bounded by a townhouse condominium development to the east and north, to the south by a portion of the Hydro One transmission corridor and to the west by the Aviation Parkway, which connects to Highway 174. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) Stormwater retention pond is located to the south of the Hydro Corridor and does not abut the site. The site was previously owned by the National Capital Commission (NCC) and was sold to Richcraft Homes in the Spring of 2002.

Description of Site/Area and Surroundings

The site is currently vacant and has an irregular shape with a total land area of 1.4851 hectares. The northern half of the site is relatively flat then slopes down towards its southern boundary. Approximately 70% of the site is fairly densely wooded; the remainder of the site is an open meadow. The woodlot is composed of a mix of mature and sub-mature trees along the northern and eastern edge of the property. Several trees were damaged during the 1998 ice storm and have not been remediated. Along the southern edge of the site, the woodlot then falls away steeply to a swale with abundant shrub and small trees, along with buckthorn.

The residents of the adjacent condominium development use an informal trail cutting through the southeast portion of the woodlot to gain access to the Hydro One transmission corridor. The Hydro One corridor contains a pathway, which is used mainly by dog walkers and connects to City Centre Park. The CMHC stormwater retention pond is located to the south of the site and will not be affected by the developer’s proposal. A detailed Location Map is attached in Document 4.

Purpose of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Proposals

The applicant is proposing to build 88 stacked townhome units along a private road connecting to Ogilvie Road. The entrance to the site would be shared with the adjacent Church of the Epiphany. A total of 138 parking spaces are proposed to serve the site, with amenity areas provided according to the requirements of the Gloucester Zoning By-law. The proposed Site Plan is attached (Document 6) for information purposes only.

Concurrent Applications

A Site Plan Control Application, as well as an application for Plan of Condominium have been submitted by the applicant in support of this proposal. These plans continue to be under review.

CURRENT OFFICIAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING

Current Regional Official Plan (ROP) Designation

The former Region’s Official Plan (ROP) designates the property as General Urban Area, which allows for a mix of uses, such as residential commercial and recreational uses. This proposal does not require an amendment to the ROP and is consistent with the policies and objectives contained within the document.

Schedule I (Regional Open Space Network) of the ROP does indicate that the pathway located within the Hydro One Corridor is part of the Regional Recreational Pathway System. This proposal will not affect the integrity of this pathway.

Current Local Official Plan Designation – Former City of Gloucester

The former City of Gloucester Official Plan designates the majority of the area as Open Space. The Open Space designation is usually reserved for the variety of parks and open spaces, which exist throughout a city. This designation was put in place to reflect the fact that the majority of the area was formerly owned by the NCC and would likely remain as Open Space. The Open Space designation also includes the Hydro One corridor and the CMHC stormwater retention pond located to the south of the site.

Current Zoning

According to Zoning By-law 333 of 1999 of the former City of Gloucester, the site is zoned Rr1 and Ig. The southeast portion of the site is designated Rr1, Row Dwelling Zone. The Rr1 Zone primarily allows row dwellings at a maximum density of 60 units per hectare. The Rr1 Zone includes both condominium developments located to the north and east of the development.

The remainder of the site is located in the Ig – Institutional Government Zone. The Ig zone generally permits agriculture and passive recreational uses, as well as uses that are owned and operated by the Federal, Provincial, Regional or Municipal Government. As currently shown in the Gloucester Zoning By-law, the Ig Zone generally reflects lands owned by the NCC along Aviation Parkway.

REQUESTED OFFICIAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING

Requested Official Plan designation

The applicant is requesting to amend the former City of Gloucester Official Plan (GOP) to extend the existing Residential designation across the entire site in order to accommodate the proposed stacked townhome development. The amendment would change that part of the Open Space designation located to the north of the Hydro One transmission corridor as shown in Document 1.

Requested Zoning By-law amendment

The requested Zoning By-law amendment proposes to change part of the Ig Zone (Institutional Governmental) and part of the Rr1 Zone (Row Dwelling) to an Ra2 Zone (Medium Density Apartment Zone). The Ra2 zone allows a minimum density of 60 units per hectare and also allows stacked townhomes units, which are considered ‘apartments’ in the Gloucester Zoning By-law.

DISCUSSION

Recommendation 1 – Official Plan Amendment

The applicant is requesting to amend the designation of the Gloucester Official Plan (GOP) for a portion of this site from an Open Space designation to a Residential designation. The amendment affects only a portion of the site located just north of the Hydro One corridor. In fact, approximately 30% of the site is already designated Residential in the GOP, while the remainder of the site falls under the Open Space designation.

The proposed development does not require an amendment to the Regional Official Plan. The development it is considered consistent with the goals, policies and objectives contained within. The key objectives of the ROP and its Regional Development Strategy advocate growth inside the Greenbelt, a balance of jobs and housing and cost-effective servicing.

More specifically, the ROP advocates policies for Urban Communities which include requiring local municipalities to permit, where appropriate, infill and redevelopment, along roads with all day, frequent transit service and in residential areas adjacent to roads with all-day, frequent transit service. The proposed development is located along Ogilvie Road, which is considered an arterial road with all day traffic and well served by an all-day bus route and in proximity to the Cyrville Transitway station.

Furthermore, the Community and Built Environment section of the ROP contains objectives for healthy communities. These objectives include creating compact communities that make efficient use of land, infrastructure and public facilities, provision of housing options and amenities in all communities. The proposed amendment to the GOP would provide for the creation of additional housing units in a compact built form, where services are currently available, located on an arterial roadway served by transit, within walking distance of a Primary Employment Centre, adjacent to a portion of the Recreational Pathway System and close to several large City Parks. Therefore, the proposed amendment to the GOP is consistent and fulfills the objectives of the ROP.

The amendment to the Open Space designation of the Local Official is also consistent with the Residential and Housing policies of the GOP. The Housing objectives of the GOP (Section 6.5.2 g) state that policies should support and promote the creation of additional units through various means of residential intensification where services are available and the demand and physical potential exist. The creation of additional units includes development on vacant lots or underdeveloped lots in a developed area to create additional units. The proposed Residential designation of the lands would provide for a more efficient use of underutilized vacant land located in a developed area, adjacent to municipal services.

Furthermore, one of the primary objectives of the Residential designation is to designate lands, where possible, to provide for housing consistent with the requirements of the Housing policies of this plan. The proposed amendment would serve to designate lands to allow residential development, which is consistent with the Housing policies of the GOP. For example, the proposed stacked townhome units are considered a form of affordable ownership housing, therefore contributing to the stock of affordable housing in the community.

The GOP Residential objectives also state that medium and high density residential uses will be encouraged to locate along arterial and major collector roads, and in proximity to shopping and community facilities. The proposed medium density residential development is considered consistent with the Residential objectives of the ROP since it is a form of residential intensification located along an existing Arterial Road, where bus service is available, within proximity to the Cyrville Transitway Station and within walking distance of the City Centre shopping area. Therefore, the proposed amendment is considered consistent with the Housing and Residential policies of the GOP.

Although the proposal is consistent with the Residential and Housing policies of the GOP, the development does require the removal of the majority of the woodlot currently located on site. Section 7.1.3 (s) of the GOP does require that “within wooded areas which have been designated for residential purposes, that Council shall encourage preservation of existing vegetation to the extent practicable”. The policy goes on to state that within such areas, a vegetation assessment report is required as part of the subdivision application, which will recommend measures to encourage the preservation of vegetation.

Woodlot Assessment

Although this development does not require a subdivision application, the applicant has submitted a Tree Preservation Plan and Woodlot Assessment report in support of their application. The report is based on an inventory of the site completed in order to assess the general condition of the woodlot, as well as identify any possible specimen trees. The Report notes that this woodlot was originally part of a larger forested area which has declined in stocking and character through the development of the lands to the north and west and the installation of the Hydro Corridor. This woodlot is therefore considered a remnant of the original forest, what is described as forest edges created through the clearing of surrounding lands.

The report does identify six specimen trees within the entire woodlot that were considered significant as defined by one or a combination of species, size, growth form and/or age. These six specimen trees are located within either the building footprint or the roadway of the proposed development. Given this development will require a significant amount of regrading to raise the site to accommodate services and surface drainage, it would not be practicable to preserve these trees. The Report notes that even if one or more of these six trees had been positioned away from the direct impact of construction, the chance of their long-term survival would be minimal given the amount of regrading required to develop the site. However, the Tree Preservation does show that certain trees will be preserved at the entrance of the site and that measures will be taken to ensure the health of trees located on the adjacent condominium development.

Recommendation 2 – Zoning By-law Amendment

Recommendation 2 recommends the rezoning of the lands from Rr1 (Row Dwelling) and Ig (Institutional Government) to an Ra2 Zone. The Ra2 Zone is a medium density apartment zone, which allows a minimum density of 60 units per hectare and also allows stacked townhome units, which are considered ‘apartments’ per the Gloucester Zoning By-law. As proposed, the development contains 88 stacked townhome units on a 1.46-hectare site, yielding a density of approximately 60 units per hectare.

The Development Services Department is recommending that an exception zone be created as part of the Ra2 zone proposed by the applicant. The exception zone would introduce a new minimum density, slightly below that permitted in the Ra2 Zone, but still higher than the minimum density permitted in the Ra1 Zone. Since the proposed development is currently at the minimum density permitted in the Ra2 (60 units per hectare), the new minimum density will allow some degree of flexibility during the Site Plan review process. By allowing this flexibility, there may be additional opportunities to increase the number of trees preserved and potentially allow for a more suitable site layout if needed. The new zoning would be created as an exception Zone to the Ra2 Zone. The exception would allow a minimum density of 50 units per hectare, while preserving the maximum density of 120 units per hectare.

The recommended Ra2 (exception) Zone, Medium Density Apartment Zone fulfills the proposed Gloucester Official Plan Residential designation and will implement the intent and objectives of the Regional Official Plan’s General Urban Area designation.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

The applicant submitted a Tree Preservation Plan and a Woodlot Assessment Report in support removing trees as identified in the Site Plan. The report notes that there will be a loss of vegetative cover due to the nature of the proposed development and requirements to re-grade the site to accommodate buildings, roads and services.

CONSULTATION

Public notification was provided by the posting of an on-site information sign and mailing out of a public notice to all surrounding property owners. There were 24 written responses to the notification, of which one was in support and the remainder opposed. A Community Meeting was held on September 5^th, 2002, attended by 64 surrounding residents. At this Community Meeting, a petition signed by 154 surrounding residents was submitted opposing the application. The primary concerns cited by the public focused on the loss of green space, traffic impacts and the mandate of the National Capital Commission. (The comments received are described and addressed in detail in Document 5.)

In selling the land the NCC placed certain restrictive covenants, which state that, among other things, the NCC reserves the right to review and approve both the site plan and landscape plan for any proposed development of the lands. The NCC has provided comments through the City’s technical review process, however, at this time the site plan and landscape plan have not been approved by the NCC.

The application was also reviewed by the Ottawa Forests Advisory Committee (EAC) and the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC). Their comments are summarized in Document 5. Most of the comments and concerns raised by both Advisory Committees will be addressed during the more detailed Site Plan review process.

Ward Councillor Michel Bellemare was notified and is aware of this application.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

ATTACHMENTS

Document 1 Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Document 2 Explanatory Note

Document 3 Location Map – Proposed Zoning

Document 4 Area Location Map

Document 5 Consultation Details

Document 6 Proposed Site Plan (information purposes only)

DISPOSITION

City Clerk to notify owners (Richcraft Homes, 2280 St. Laurent Blvd., Suite 201, Ottawa, Ontario, K1G 4K1), the Manager of Assessment, Corporate Services Department of City Council’s Decision.

Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-laws to City Council.

Department of Development Services to:

i) Prepare the implementing amendments to the Zoning by-law 333 of 1999 of the former City of Gloucester Zoning By-law; and

ii) Prepare and circulate the notice of adoption of the Official Plan Amendment to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and to those persons and public bodies who requested notification.

Proposed Official Plan Amendment Document 1

AMENDMENT NUMBER 41

TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE FORMER CITY OF GLOUCESTER

Part A – THE PREAMBLE

PURPOSE

The purpose of this amendment is to redesignate a portion of the property from ‘Open Space’ to ‘Residential’.

LOCATION

The lands affected by this amendment are part of the east half of Lot 25, Concession 2 (Ottawa Front); located near the southeast corner of the intersection of Ogilvie Road and Aviation Parkway.

BASIS

The proposal to redesignate the subject lands from ‘Open Space’ to ‘Residential’ is required in order to allow the property to be developed for residential purposes. The proposed land use is consistent with the institutional and residential development of the area.

Part B – THE AMENDMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

All of this portion of the document entitled Part B- The Amendment, and attached map designated Schedule ‘A’ constitutes Amendment Number 41 to the Official Plan of the former City of Gloucester.

2.0 DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT

The Official Plan is amended as follows:

A portion of the site fronting on Ogilvie Road, to the north of the Hydro One corridor and to the east of the lands currently owned by the National Capital Commission adjacent to the Aviation Parkway, is proposed to be redesignated from ‘Open Space’ to ‘Residential’.

3.0 IMPLEMENTATION

This Amendment shall be implemented by the powers conferred upon the City of Ottawa by The Planning Act, The Municipal Act, or any other statutes which may apply.

4.0 INTERPRETATION

The provision of Section 11.2.4 of the Official Plan of the former City of Gloucester shall apply.

Schedule ‘A’

Explanatory Note Document 2

THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXPLANATORY NOTE TO BY-LAW NUMBER 2002-

By-law Number 2002- amends By-law Number 333 of 1999, the former City of Gloucester Zoning By-law. The amendment affects the property known as 1298 Ogilvie Road. The site has a land area of 1.46 hectares and is located on the south side of Ogilvie Road, to the east of the Aviation Parkway. The property is currently vacant and partially wooded. Excluding the adjacent church, the surrounding area is predominantly comprised of low profile residential development. The purpose of the amendment is to permit the development of residential units

CURRENT ZONING

The current zoning for the subject lands is Rr1 and Ig. The Rr1 zone permits row dwellings with a maximum density of 60 units per hectare. The Rr1 does not permit stacked townhome units, considered apartments in the Gloucester Zoning By-law. The Ig Zone generally permits institutional uses and was likely put in place to reflect the previous ownership of the lands by the NCC.

REQUESTED AND PROPOSED ZONING

The proposed zoning is to have the entire property as a new Ra2 (exception) Zone, Medium Density Apartment Zone. The Ra2 Zone allows stacked townhome and townhome units.

The new zoning would be created as an exception zone to the Ra2 Zone. The exception zone will permit a minimum density of 50 units per hectare, instead of 60 units per hectare. The maximum density of 120 units per hectare still applies to this zone.

Should you require further information regarding the amendment, please call Dennis Gratton at 580-2424, extension 27890.

Location Map – Proposed Zoning Document 3

Area Location Map Document 4

Consultation Details Document 5

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT:

Public comments regarding the proposed amendments are described and addressed as follows:

1. Comment: The NCC has sold the land to a developer without regard for the citizens of Ottawa. Can the City look in to buying the land back from the developer and maintain it as wooded parkland.

Response: The contractual and real estate business procedures of the NCC, or any other private landowner, dealing with their own property are not within the jurisdiction of the City. At this time, the City has not considering purchasing the land. There are two parks (Palmerston Park and City Centre Park) close to the site, which the City already maintains.

Comment: The proposed development will be taking the last wildlife refuge in the area which will have both great impact on the animals concerned and people who enjoy these areas for recreation and family outings.

Response: The site is designated as General Urban Area in the Regional Official Plan (ROP). The site has not been identified in the ROP as a significant natural area or as part of the Regional Open Space Network (as identified in Schedule I). Schedule I of the ROP, does indicate a Recreational Pathway just south of the site. The proposed development will not hinder the implementation of this Recreational Pathway, but may even facilitate it, by potentially accommodating the Pathway through the proposed development. This aspect of the development will be formalized during the Site Plan review process. Furthermore, the pathway located within the Hydro One corridor will remain in its existing location and will not be affected by the proposed development.

Comment: The proposed development will cause an increase in traffic, which will mean an unreasonable amount of traffic making u-turns at the intersection of Palmerston and Ogilvie Road.

Response: The applicant has submitted a traffic impact study in support of the application indicating that intersections of Ogilvie Road and Palmerston Drive and Ogilvie Road and Aviation Parkway are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service. The study identifies measures to provide possible improvements to the operation of Ogilvie Road. The measures will be examined more closely as part of the Site Plan review process.

4. Comment: The developer is not providing adequate open space, parks or play structures for the children to play within the proposed development.

Response: The Gloucester Zoning By-law requires that all new residential development provide both private and public amenity area to support their development. The site plan currently on file with the City indicates that these amenity areas are being provided, per the Zoning By-law. In the case of this proposal, the City has decided to collect Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland, instead of having a portion of the site dedicated as Public Park. In making this decision, the City considered the relative size of the site and the fact that 5% land area of the site would only yield a 0.07 hectare park. That size of park is considered too small to support as a public park and would likely only the serve the needs of the immediate residents. Cash-in-lieu of parkland will be collected instead and will be used to provide additional park facilities as needed for the community.

Comment: Fences should be built to protect the children from this area. The fences should be built within the confines of their land and not on the land surrounding the project.

Response: The conditions of site plan approval will address concerns regarding the type, height and location of fencing. Fences will be installed where required and in consultation with the affected property owners.

Comment: The proposed homes are stacked townhomes and will be higher than the existing adjacent 2-storey townhomes.

Response: Although the developer had indicated that the proposed stacked townhome units would not be higher than the existing two-storey townhome, the latest profile provided by the developer indicates that the units will be at most half a storey higher than the existing units. The height of the proposed units meets the requirements of the Ra2 Zone.

Comment: The proposed development would fill in one of the streams, cut down all the trees in a buffering strip of forestland, and replace them with roads, townhouses and asphalt. All to add a very few more houses and a small amount of profit to the developer.

Response: The proposal is to add 88 units to a 1.4581 hectares vacant site, contributing to the affordable housing stock within the City’s Greenbelt.

Comment: Both the need to erect ‘stacked townhouses; and infringe on church land for access in and out of this complex suggest that Richcraft is ‘scrunching’ this development to fit the space available.

Response: The proposed development will share access to the site with the existing Church of the Epiphany. The need for having only one driveway stems from the fact that it would be unsafe to have a second driveway access in close proximity to the intersection of Ogilvie Road and Aviation Parkway. The Traffic Impact Study addresses required improvements to the approach to this driveway in order to accommodate the increase in traffic.

Comment: There is a creek back there, which feeds, into a swamp across Ogilvie Road, and this will be destroyed if Richcraft has its way.

Response: The creek and swamp are part of a larger stormwater management system, which serves the area. The CMHC stormwater retention pond and the associated streams will not be destroyed as a consequence of the proposed development. In fact, the developer will be required to adapt the development to meet the requirements of the Stormwater Management Plan for the area.

Comment: The subdivision is too close to the Hydro transmission line.

Response: The Hydro Transmission lines are located within a corridor, which in some cases can have a width of over 100 metres. The Hydro One corridor easement provides the required distance separation between the transmission lines and surrounding uses.

Ottawa Forests Advisory Committee – Summary of Comments

The Ottawa Forests Advisory Committee provided comments related to this development proposal. The comments stem from observations made during site recognizance, review of the Tree Preservation Plan submitted by the applicant and policies of the draft Official Plan.

Their comments described existing conditions and highlighted the impact of development on the natural environment within and surrounding the subject site. The Committee specifically addressed the functional qualities of the wooded area and other important natural features. Recommendations were advanced to mitigate impacts of the development on the natural environment by minimizing the loss of mature and sub-mature trees and to encourage indigenous vegetation to enhance site aesthetics and the natural value of the development.

Specifically, the Committee referred to the difficulty in saving trees situated within the site because of the proposed grade elevation to accommodate development. The Committee suggests that trees be retained along the chain link fence located adjacent to the condominium.

The committee does not support the rezoning until an appropriate revised Tree Preservation Plan and Landscape Plan is produced for approval. A number of recommendations have been submitted related to tree planting practices; naturalization principles that are less evasive to the existing state of the woodlot; location and function of the retaining wall adjacent to the condominium; and, improving planting buffers.

The Committee also encourages the implementation of a comprehensive forest plan that promotes preservation of trees and forested areas within the urban area so that development proposals are required to address mitigation of loss of green space.

The City of Ottawa has requested the proponent to submit revised Site Plan and Landscape Plan to address concerns related to the technical and public circulation of this application. The Site Plan will be dealt with upon approval of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

Environmental Advisory Committee

The Environmental Advisory Committee was included in the Technical Circulation of the Development Applications associated with this proposal and provided comments.

Their response related to environmental issues dealt with background studies and information, natural environmental impacts, environmental and human health hazards and social/recreational impacts. Comments on the development proposal were coordinated with the Ottawa Forests Advisory Committee.

Specific issues related to the Site Plan submission include the protection of trees located adjacent to the condominium, the lack of tree preservation measures throughout and directly adjacent to the site, the need to propose planting indigenous species rather that exotic varieties.

Proposed Site Plan (Information Purposes Only) Document 6

OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT– 1298 OGILVIE ROAD

MODIFICATION DU PLAN DIRECTEUR ET DU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL DE ZONAGE – 1298, CHEMIN OGILVIE

ACS2002-DEV-APR-0200

Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Official Plan and 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.

Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals, advised that Dennis Gratton would provide a brief presentation, with overheads, and was available to answer any questions related to the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 3 October 2002.

Councillor Bellemare received the current use of the particular property conforms with the Regional OP [OP], which designates it general urban area and allows among other things recreational uses. The Gloucester OP, which was more specific designated the area open space, permitted open space and parks; and, reflected the long time ownership by the NCC and the likelihood that it would remain Open Space. On the zoning about 30%, specifically the south east portioned zoned RR1, he asked if it was a conscious decision on the part of Gloucester planners to have that land locked parcel developed in that way or was it fair to conclude it was simply the extension of a zoning boundary that began at Ogilvie Road, incorporates the Perez and Palmerston residential development continuing to the Hydro corridor. It was a practical way to establish a zoning boundary without any forethought. Ms. Currie could not speak to the intent of Gloucester when it drafted the By-Law, but Gloucester Zoning By-Laws were very specific and the boundaries were dimensioned in terms of the number of feet and exact location. The boundary designated and zoned for residential was not random boundary because it followed the back of that residential development and jogged. There had to have been some conscious decision making at that time. Responding to further questions, she was not aware if the zoning decision predated the Perez and Palmerston developments or when the property was originally zoned. The remainder of the property was zoned Ig (Institutional Government), which generally reflected lands owned by the NCC along the Aviation Parkway, consistent with the Gloucester plan to zone all lands held by the Federal Government Ig throughout the Greenbelt in its Comprehensive Zoning By-Law. Mr. Gratton confirmed that although the Committee was not specifically dealing with the site plan, the applicant did submit a site plan that was presented to the community at an open house in September. The NCC was provided a copy of the site plan with a number of supporting studies, but had not as yet provided their comments.

Councillor Bellemare raised the matter of the site plan since a restrictive covenant was contained in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale requiring the site plan be submitted to the Transferor (NCC) for review and approval prior to submission to the relevant municipal authority. Mr. Gratton replied that Richcraft submitted the site plan to the NCC and the City, relatively at the same time. The City cooperated with the NCC to circulate the application and conduct the technical review, which the NCC would require before advancing any approval. In that regard, it was a cooperative venture as opposed to submitting the plan directly to the NCC.

Councillor Bellemare stated the applicant’s tree preservation plan concluded that given the present site layout and road alignments it was not possible to preserve a single tree. Mr. Gratton had mentioned a new tree preservation plan that identified a couple of trees might be preserved. But, according to the experts hired by the applicant there was a need for “a drastic regrading of this property” to accommodate the development, making it impossible to save any trees. Mr. Gratton responded that looking at the site plan there was a small buffer strip that would skirt the existing townhouse development, but with the regrading of the site and the form of development there was a negligible amount of trees that would be preserved. Any mature specimens would probably be destroyed. Finally, Councillor Bellemare noted the Ottawa Forestry Advisory Committee reviewed the application and the tree preservation plan and did not recommend a change in the zoning from greenspace to residential; that a change in zoning only be considered when a better plan was prepared.

Councillor Munter referred to the Area B lands designated residential and commented that much of the surrounding land was high-density development in terms of condominium townhouse development. He commented that he always questioned why developers spread their density out and not up. Having said that, he asked whether the proponent considered a more intense use of the Area B lands. Mr. Gratton did not believe it was, but the proponent could respond.

Chair Hunter noted for the record the following correspondence received on the issue:

· E-mail dated 14 October from Nicole Williams and Albert Groulx

· E-mail dated 14 October from Ray Oldland

· E-mail dated 14 October from residents of 1470 Perez Crescent

· E-mail dated 14 October from the Crawfords

· E-mail dated 16 October from Mike Ligeza

· E-mail dated 18 October from Lindsay Arnold

· E-mail dated 21 October from Bob Boisvert

· E-mail from Jane Webster

The Committee then heard from the following public delegations on the item.

Edgar Millette, President, CCC 162 on Perez Crescent, represented 123 homeowners who were officially opposed to the proposed development at 1298 Ogilvie Road by Richcraft Homes. On August 19^th there was an informal meeting with Richcraft representatives, with no commitments made at that time. However, the next day Richcraft sent a letter, cc’d to Councillor Bellemare, and Miriam Lynch from the City. He quoted one small section from the letter, “We are pleased to note that the Perez Condominium Board is open to cooperation with Richcraft Homes in order to develop the community.” They did not agree to anything with Richcraft. It was a tactic by Richcraft to convince the Committee the community was in favour, but they were completely opposed to the development and other members of the Perez Action Committee would be speaking.

Doris Graham, Coordinator, Palmerston and Perez Action Committee. The community was again fighting for what little greenspace was left in the area. The City of Ottawa was very well known for its open space/greenspace and parks, drawing many tourists to what many of us have taken for granted. The NCC broke promises when the Epiphany Church was built three years ago. She attended a meeting on behalf of Perez Crescent residents at the then Gloucester City Hall. The residents wished to express their opposition to the Richcraft proposal for 1298 Ogilvie Road. Richcraft proposes to ignore the open space and recreational uses set in the Regional and former Gloucester OP. The land was mixed zoning for a reason. The rezoning to Rr1 and Ra2 permits a minimum 50 units, but the maximum, of 120 was not mentioned. Richcraft proposed 88-stacked homes instead of 94. She reviewed the plans Richcraft presented and the most recent one contained 88-stacked homes, with very little change in the plans. There was no tree preservation. The community wanted to address the overcrowding, the infringing on people’s privacy and the enjoyment of life and property. Richcraft and the NCC will have their pockets lined with green and the community will not have any greenspace. The development portrayed by Richcraft as affordable house would not be affordable to low-income households.

She had a major concern with the amount of traffic for an area already. Between 7 and 9, traffic was lined up from Palmerston to Silver City, Monday to Friday. Traffic spotters checked traffic, but one was conducted on the August long weekend, which could not provide an accurate reading. A second was conducted two weeks later with many people still on holidays. With the driveway shared with the church, residents would be put in harms way. Cars coming off the Aviation Parkway northbound turning onto Ogilvie Road would share the lane with buses running every 15 minutes during peak hours. The driveway from the Church was less that 25 feet from the bus stop and it would be suicide for travelers on the road with people attempting U-turns at the Aviation Parkway. Wildlife chased from Matheson and the Aviation Parkway were living in a safe haven and would be forced to escape to the 417 split or the Aviation Parkway. There were ducks, blue herons, rabbits and other wildlife. Where else in the City can this be explored? Richcraft stated the pathway and pond would not be affected by the development, which was incorrect. The pond and ravine would become a snow dumping ground, contaminating the creek and pond, poisoning the beavers who built a dam by the salt and sand dumped into that ravine. There was the question of caution for children playing and cars parked within feet of the hydro power lines. If there were another ice storm and the hydro lines snapped, where would Richcraft and NCC be?

She would literally be within 10-15 feet from the highway Richcraft proposed, with between 134 and 141 cars lined up within 15 feet of her back door, to get to Ogilvie Road, with the inherent fumes, summer and winter. The Perez and Palmerston residents have lived in the community for over 20 years and want to maintain their privacy and touch of country. She implored for careful consideration of the proposal since between 500 and 800 new homes were built in the area over the last five years. Typically, Richcraft did not build a park area in its developments, but provided funds to the City to choose the appropriate park location. There was currently insufficient park space in the area to accommodate the children using those parks.

Councillor Bellemare thanked Ms. Graham, who mentioned the Church of the Epiphany, which wasn’t raised in terms of history in the area. A few years ago, an application to redesignate part of the NCC lands to permit construction of a church initially called for clear cutting the area of all trees. Only after fierce opposition did the NCC finally approve a plan that ensured a good tree buffering around the church and elaborated on that process. Ms. Graham added that the church was also opposed to the development and regardless of what Richcraft suggested it was not supported by anyone in the area. The Epiphany Church would also be terribly affected by this with ongoing traffic making it difficult to exit their driveway. She understood the NCC had leased the land to the Epiphany Church for 49 years and questioned how it could still own the driveway and sell it to Richcraft. Responding to that question by Councillor Bellemare, Ms. Currie advised that ownership of the land rested with the NCC and sold it with the easement in place, which gives the church access.

In response to a question by Councillor Bellemare, Ms. Graham visualized the land being left as open space, in keeping with the OP of the Region and the former City of Gloucester for the enjoyment of all.

Barbara Barr, representing the Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital, noted that the qualities of the property appear to be such that had it been in the former City of Ottawa and analyzed as part of the City’s Natural and Open Spaces Study [NOSS], it surely would have been recommended for preservation. The feasibility of protecting it would have been high since, until this year, it was publicly owned by the NCC.

In the opinion of the Greenspace Alliance, the report appears to selectively address the aspects of the former Region’s OP which substantiate the staff recommendation for residential infill while remaining silent on other aspects, which do not. Staff maintained the proposal did not require an amendment to the Regional OP and was consistent with the policies and objectives contained within the Plan. Section 5.1, Objectives, of the Natural Environmental chapter of the OP, Objective 4 was, “To increase forest cover in woodlands in Ottawa-Carleton to 30 percent. Development of a site 70% of which was wooded was inconsistent with that objective. Objective 4 was “To protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat”. The proposals were inconsistent with that objective. Objective 2 was, “To maintain and enhance a representative mix of natural areas and species in Ottawa-Carleton.” The proposals were inconsistent with that objective. Nowhere in the report was any element of the environmental section of the Region’s OP mentioned. Environmental aspects, especially when the loss of Greenspace was involved, should always be presented in detail so decision-makers will be fully informed when making decisions.

With respect to maintaining a representative mix of natural areas, one of the great concerns of the Greenspace Alliance was that natural areas within the urban area of Ottawa were rapidly disappearing. These areas were very important to communities, and important to maintaining the “green image” of Ottawa, something the NCC had not realized in its shortsighted approach to the preservation of the lands it owned.

They asked for clarification of the zoning map, which appeared to show that part of the hydro corridor was zoned for residential development. If this site was developed, City was prepared to accept cash–in-lieu of parkland for the site. The Greenspace Alliance opines cash-in-lieu of parkland was a bad policy in principle, and should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances. The Committee should instruct staff to reject cash-in-lieu for the site because a development of this size deserved to have at least a small park. If 5% would only yield a .07-hectare park, then consideration must be given to requiring more than 5%. Even a passive, pocket-sized park with a bench and some trees would enhance the site and was preferable to provide enjoyment if the development proceeds. If the City did accept cash, on what basis would the value of the cash-in-lieu be calculated? On a built residential property value or bushes-and-woods value? And, what would the monies be used for? In the former City of Ottawa, cash-in-lieu was never used to purchase land. Could the Committee instruct staff the monies to purchase land?

While delighted to see the Ottawa Forests Advisory Committee [OFAC] and the Environmental Advisory Committee [EAC] being asked to provide comment on development applications, the staff consideration of those comments should be improved since the section summarizing the comments was abstracted and difficult to comprehend. The environmental aspects of staff reports continue to need improvement.

Councillor Stavinga followed up on Ms. Barr’s comment regarding environmental management of lands and asked by it was absent from the report. Ms. Currie referenced that environmental policies in the plan as applied to such things as increasing green cover city-wide were not raised as issues specific to this location. Typically, those policies were applied more in a rural context in trying to protect large tree cover with environmental parcels in rural area woodlots, etc. It was not generally applied to urban residential development. OFAC comments were 6-7 pages long, and could have been appended to the report, but that issue was raised by that group and while they provided detailed comments on the woodlot, the quality of the woodlot, one of the issues raised and one of the reasons they recommended a revision to the study was that they felt there was a need to look at woodlots within the urban context in a consistent format. They were reviewing and addressing it on the basis of the policies of the new draft OP and felt they had made a recommendation in their comments. That a strategy needed to be developed for the protection of woodlots and implementation of environmental policies in the urban area. That recommendation would come through in the new OP and not in today’s documentation. The Gloucester OP did not provide for that.

Responding to a request for clarification, Ms. Currie pointed out the policies in the current Regional OP were fairly general and this was designate general urban area, which allows for a range of urban development type of activity and the zoning allowed for residential; and, the Gloucester Plan did not have detailed tree preservation policies in place. From a policy perspective, the department felt the framework existed to permit development on the parcel, with no tree protection environmental policy in place that would result in the protection of the parcel.

Lindsay Arnold, of the Perez Action Committee, observed that at one time Ottawa housing developments were planned and built taking into consideration the surrounding trees and nature to ensure the new project had little or no impact upon those living in those areas. That resulted in neighbourhoods with mature trees, space between and around the houses, preserving the nature around the new development as possible. Care was taken to ensure new projects blended into the surrounding areas. Recently these appear to be abandoned to clear-cut and jam in as many houses as the space can support with little or no regard to the impact on the surrounding area, the environment or current residents.

These policies have created housing developments overcrowded into small areas with little regard for mature trees, greenspace and blending into the surrounding area. The question was whether to allow the area to be rezoned to allow such a development. Residents of Palmerston and Perez opined the area was not suitable for the Richcraft proposal. Some identified this land as the left over of a forest and give little or no worth to it in the grand scheme of things, but to the local community the land has great value. Unfortunately though this was not always a key factor in the decision making process. He wanted to point out four main problems in allowing the development; many of which were covered in e-mails sent to the Committee. A brief summary of his concerns was listed below. His written brief was circulated and on file with the City Clerk.

1. Traffic:

Adding more cars onto an already overburdened Ogilvie Road and only one entrance/exit to this project would result in people leaving the development only able to proceed east down Ogilvie. As a result vehicles heading downtown would have to make a U turn at the corner of Ogilvie and Palmerston to proceed west. This corner was incredibly busy, especially at rush hour, due to increased development over the last five years. There was also the issue of more children taking the bus because of changes implemented by the Ottawa School Board, which no longer provided buses for grades 7 & 8 as well and residents who normally take the bus to get to work to cross Ogilvie to the bus stop, placing a lot of pedestrian traffic at the crosswalk each morning. Installing a turn light will not help those making the U turn since traffic is backed up and will not permit such a turn. This will also lead to further delays in traffic movement during the morning rush-hour. Turning off Palmerston onto Ogilvie can be very difficult due to traffic volume.

2. Safety of the Children living in the development.

Richcraft admitted at its meeting of September 5^th that to make the development profitable as many houses as possible had to be constructed, with all the woods and greenspace sacrificed leaving nowhere for children to play. That brought up the issue of younger children, between the ages of 1–12. The front doors of these houses would be on the south side and extremely close to many areas, that if accompanied by an adult would not pose a great threat, but for a child alone could be very dangerous or in some cases deadly.

He referred to the gravel bike path on the other side of the parking lot and south there was a hill that leads down to the creek. Some houses would be in very close proximity to the Queensway off ramp and the road leading to the Aviation Parkway. There were the hydro towers, the pond and wooded areas that were easily only a minute or two to the east. It was argued that they faced the same problem, but the difference was that both the Perez and Palmerston condos had open greenspace around their houses for the children to play. Also Perez had it’s own small park. With an absence of greenspace around their houses or a park, this area would become a magnet since it was directly outside their front doors and the only greenspace available. It was also argued the units did have backyards, but only the lower units of the stackable townhomes had use of the area. The upper units only had balconies and no direct access to the backyard.

3. Impact on the environment:

One key concern was the loss of animal habitat if the area was rezoned. There were over 30 species of birds and numerous varieties of animals in these woods. Over the years more habitat has been destroyed in the area and animals were forced into making their homes in the last remaining wooded areas. Many birds and animals have also disappeared completely as their habitat was destroyed and the remaining areas were not able to support the wildlife. Further destruction of their habitat would result in a greater loss of wildlife. The woods also act as a sound barrier for the area and help clear the air of pollutants from surrounding major roadways. Finally, there was the snow removal issue and possible hazard to the environment. The only place to dump snow was along the south edge of the parking lot, placing snow piles along the edge of the hill leading to the creek. Spring runoff from melting snow, with road salt and chemicals, would flow into the creek causing an environmental hazard to wildlife.

4. Impact on the surrounding area.

There would be increased noise levels from the units as development would require very condensed housing as previously expressed. The loss of the wooded area surrounding Perez and Palmerston would also be a key issue and the houses would tower over and be in very close proximity to the existing houses, within four feet of the property line. Current residents would lose privacy and restricted enjoyment their property. This area was a form of sanctuary for the houses that face the forested area providing peace, tranquility and a small piece of nature in the city. There was the issue of the access road for the new development being in very close proximity to the backyards of many existing.

In closing, he touched briefly on four key issues, but there were still numerous issues and problems the development area would create. The area to be rezoned was not suitable for the development of any type of housing, especially one similar to the proposed development.

The area between Cyrville, Blair, Montreal Road and the Queensway has seen almost all it’s wooded area bought and developed by Richcraft and others for housing, stores, restaurants and theatres. Most of the major plots of open land were either already developed or about to be, with the small greenspaces and wooded areas left under attack. Whether the development was appropriate for the area or caused problems with no solutions did not seem to matter. He hoped the residents were able to demonstrate both today and through emails that the area should not be rezoned as any development would have a very negative impact on the environment and surrounding communities.

Councillor Bellemare received confirmation Mr. Arnold participated in developing a petition with approximately 205 names. Responding to a question on the measure of community opposition to the re-designation of the property, Mr. Arnold indicated that while carrying out the petition of the 123 units on Perez Crescent, they were able to contact 87 units who signed the petition. These represented 70% of the project, 84 signed opposing and 3 in support. The shared feeling of the majority of both the Perez and Palmerston area was that nothing should be built since it was not an appropriate area. 99.5% of the petitioners were opposed to any development in this area.

Akash Sinha, Planner, and Lewis Kruger, Director of Development, Richcraft Homes. Mr. Kruger advised that also in attendance was Christine Burton, solicitor for Richcraft and Andrew Boyd, a forester and arborist, Integrated Forestry Services. He wished to make some comments before opening the floor to answer questions. The NCC sold the land for the purpose of developing it for residential purposes for the 3½-storey style of building proposed for this site. They did require that Richcraft advise them of the design prior to its submission. Unfortunately, the information was sent to them at the time it was submitted to the City. They did not indicate any concern or problem with respect to the design, but indicated they would provide comments after the City dealt with it.

Councillor Munter had inquired about high-rise. It was opined that what was proposed was an appropriate planning solution for development of these lands. A high-rise would have resulted in stronger opposition. Richcraft saw this as an appropriate treatment for the lands in question. Traffic concerns were raised. A traffic study was undertaken and provided to the City. It was their understanding in consultation with the City that although there were issues, those could be addressed through the site plan process. There appeared to be two primary concerns. One was that no development take place, which they could comment upon since they agree with the staff report. It was an appropriate form of intensification in accordance with the City’s objectives and guidelines. The other major issue related to trees. Mr. Boyd could provide technical input in that regard. He read a portion from the report. “The creation for a forest edges through the clearing of lands has left trees on the periphery of the woodlot prone to wind throw and breakage and has lead to growth of shade intolerant short-lived topless species. Advanced growth of buckthorn and an incipient growth of highly invasive Norway Maple from seeds produced by trees planted on the condominium property, within the woodlot, are also direct results of adjacent development and will result in a significant decline in both composition and character of this remnant stand. Both the under storey Buckthorn and the over storey Norway Maple will eventually out compete only to vegetation and will come to dominate their respective vegetative layers. In fact. Buckthorn has already taken over much of the under storey of this woodlot making many areas difficult to traverse”. That was the finding of their consultant. The vegetation was not particularly desirable. In fact there were elements prohibited by the City and the City Standard Subdivision Agreement. When consideration is given to the maintenance of this vegetation that should be taken in context.

Councillor Bellemare received confirmation Richcraft bought the property from the NCC knowing it’s current OP designation, zoning and neighbourhood history. Councillor Bellemare related that another developer attempted to purchase the property. That developer looked at the physical limitations, assessed the community opposition and did not pursue its conclusion, deeming it not feasible to develop. Mr. Kruger was not aware, but acknowledged that he would not be surprised other developers looked at the property and reached different conclusions. Councillor Bellemare observed the proposed development consisted of approximately 90-stacked town houses and questioned the rationale for so many units. Mr. Kruger responded that generally developers try to maximize their land development in an appropriate fashion. The design for these lands started at 94 units. Through consultation with the City it was reduced to 88. There was significant grading required to address concerns from the adjacent neighbours, but these were not drastic. The proposal was to bring the buildings down so the upper storeys were in line with the upper storey of the adjacent properties to minimize the impact. Otherwise it was economic development. The Councillor Bellemare countered that although Mr. Kruger did not deem the regrading to be drastic that was the opinion of his consultant Intergraded Forestry Inc. P. 2 of the report mentioned, “the amount of regrading required prior to construction is drastic. Changes to grade whether an increase or decrease is the most common cause of tree mortality on construction sites”. Mr. Kruger anticipated in the context of tree preservation it was drastic. If there was regrading, there would be damage to trees and their root system, so it was drastic to that extent. The engineering consultants would not suggest this was drastic.

Councillor Bellemare asked if Richcraft presented any alternate development plan that would significantly reduce density. Mr. Kruger replied that they maintained the model type, having looked at different configurations. The parcel of land was L-shaped, thin and linear. When taking that into consideration and the services required to develop the parcel, it was determined the proposal was the most appropriate style of product. The proponent could have taken Councillor Munter’s suggested route of a high-rise, or mid-rise, but did not feel it was appropriate in this location.

Councillor Bellemare noted staff recommended the zoning density be changed to reflect a minimum of 50 units, but also a maximum of 120. The proponent had settled at a 90-unit range and didn’t see it leaning towards 50, because of the physical limitations of the property; e. g., the narrowness, etc., all of which increase the cost and the need to yield as many units as possible. Mr. Kruger reiterated that when services were brought into a property, there was a cost to the services and the land, which needs to be addressed with the product placed on the site. Reducing the density to substantially less than that proposed would cause the developer concern from an economic viewpoint. Councillor Bellemare received confirmation the density on the table was the density the community could expect from this project.

Councillor Stavinga received confirmation from Mr. Kruger that Richcraft was prepared to have an amendment that would establish an upper limit that would not be 120, but 88 units, as the City has established in other circumstances. Councillor Stavinga pointed out the configuration of units and roadways, with units fronting and backing on a roadway, which was originally open space. As well, she commented on the joint access with the Church; all of which contributed to maximizing the economic potential of the property. She was concerned with the crunching for an economic return. There was a conflict inherent in a design that took a current access road to residential homes, which will front onto other residents’ rear yards, in her view. Mr. Kruger clarified that Richcraft purchased the land with the Church’s easement. He described the road and building configuration, which was the only way it was conceived it be laid out. Councillor Stavinga received confirmation that Richcraft purchased open space.

Councillor Arnold questioned the rezoning of Area A, which was the open space, since Area B was going from a lower to higher residential density. She questioned whether Richcraft considered in its scenarios only looking at Area B in terms of building residential, since she understood it was basically land-locked. Why did Richcraft want to pursue re-zoning open space to residential, which was completely different from changing the density on land zoned residential. Had Richcraft considered another option that would have preserved the open space and increased density on the residentially zoned land? Mr. Kruger responded that truthfully the land was purchased for development. As for retention of open space, he reiterated that species of vegetation currently on the site was such that the City would not want to retain it as open space. Councillor Arnold countered that the former Gloucester Council viewed it differently when it zoned the land Open Space. She received confirmed the developer would not entertain other alternatives that would preserve the Open Space land. The Councillor inquired about providing access to Area B without re-zoning from Open Space to Residential. Mr. Gratton responded that access could be obtained from Ogilvie Road to Area B with an access road and corrected that the area was Zoned Institutional, not Open Space, with other built forms possible on the site.

Councillor Hume was informed that for Area B, 28-stacked townhouses, producing 56 units, were contemplated from the 88 proposed. The balance was contained in the area to be rezoned, also stacked.

Chair Hunter was puzzled about Area B, which was designated Open Space in the Gloucester OP, but was zoned residential similar to Palmerston and Perez Court. Normally, the more prescriptive document, the Zoning By-Law, conformed to the OP. He questioned how it came to have residential zoning, but Open Space designation in the local OP. Mr. Kruger could not answer except to say the land was purchased for development and not analyzed as to the evolution of the zoning designation. The Chair inquired if staff was aware since historically zoning conformed to the local OP, which conformed to upper tier OP. Something had gone awry and led to different expectations, one by the neighbouring community that the land be preserved Open Space, as in the OP; and, the other by the development interest noting the residential zoning. Ms. Currie could not speak to the exact details, except that in the latter years of the City of Gloucester, as it headed into amalgamation process following the last Regional OP preparation, all municipalities had the same discussion, whether to update their OP or their Zoning By-Laws. Gloucester conducted a Comprehensive Zoning By-Law review and adopted a new Zoning By-Law, since it was not in a position to update both. Decisions were made that were reflective of the Council of the time and perhaps not of the old Policies of the OP, which was a few years old. Chair Hunter determined from the Zoning Key Map that the zoning was put in place at the same time as that for the Perez Crescent lands, being contiguous, using the centre of the Hydro Corridor as boundary; and, in fact, before Perez Crescent was developed the lands probably had the same tree cover. Ms. Currie was unable to comment on the City of Gloucester Zoning By-Law prior to the 1999 comprehensive review and the boundaries. The Chair commented it was problematic from a decision-making point of view. What were the rights of the landowner through the current OP and Zoning designations? The OP designated Open Space, which indicated the developer bought Open Space, so it should be left as such. The Zoning did not allow for the zoning requested, which had to be considered on its merits. But, it allowed for the zoning in place on Perez Court and a large part of Palmerston.

Chair Hunter thanked the delegation and the Committee returned to matter.

Councillor Bellemare indicated he would present a motion “that recommendations 1 and 2 be amended to replace the word “approve” with the word “reject”.” He remarked that just because the NCC sold a parcel of land, it meant the City had to amend the OP and Zoning to clear the way for development. The applicant purchased the land knowing its OP designation, Zoning, current use and neighbourhood history, including a previous unsuccessful attempt by another developer to build on the site. Before Committee was an all or nothing proposal, similar to one dealt with by the Committee recently. The developer did not present an alternate plan that would significantly reduce the density of the development. Commercial or residential uses do not make sense on the particular parcel of land, which was an odd shaped, narrow woodlot, sandwiched between the NCC Aviation Parkway, a church and an established residential community that has seen most of the trees in the area disappear over the years. Perhaps a smaller scale, institutional development, like a church, or a seniors’ home, with a much smaller building envelope, could fit into the parcel of land. All the possibilities were not exhausted. But, what has been exhausted was the option of clear-cutting and sandwiching 90 units into this location. There was something inherently unfair to area residents who bought homes next to NCC lands expecting the ownership, designation and zoning would not change drastically overnight. There was no control over ownership, but the City had some control in permitting development, subject to the higher wisdom of the OMB. In his judgement and that of the community, this was residential infill run amuck. It severely impacted the quality of life for area residents and was the first infill project his community rejected since he was on Council. This was not rejected lightly. He elaborated on the many infill projects the community had accommodated, many of which were excellent examples of Smart Growth; two of which were from Richcraft. Some of those developments involved considerable debate and compromise on both sides, with options presented. There did not appear to be any compromise with this particular parcel of land. This particular neighbourhood has reached the saturation point and to push it may jeopardize future infill projects, both in the area and in general. The City must consider the impact of development on the quality of life to adjacent neighbourhoods. Other objectives must be considered in Ops; such as increasing the forest cover in the region; enhancing and preserving wildlife habitats, etc. Rejecting the application was completely consistent with the objectives of the OP; and, therefore, he urged the Committee to reject the application.

Chair Hunter indicated he would meet the Councillor halfway on the matter. On the issue of Recommendation 1, the redesignation from Open Space to Residential, it was clear when property was designated Open Space, it had to be in a public agencies hands to protect that and in Ottawa, if it was not the NCC it was left to the City of Ottawa to own the property. He did not want to be in the position of maintaining a designation that prohibits development and being required to purchase it, which has been the result in previous OMB decisions. So, he would allow the designation to Residential. Having said that, the applicant purchased the property with a majority zoned Rr1 (Row Dwelling) and the Ig (Institutional Government) Zone on the balance. That was the zoning in place on the neighbouring property on Perez Court and he saw no compelling reason presented to change the zoning of that particular parcel to Ra2 (Medium Density Apartment) Zone. He would support the change from Open Space to Residential, but not support the change in zoning. If the developer wanted to build houses it would built with the current zone in place.

Councillor Stavinga would be supporting Councillor Bellemare. What became evident was the aspect of how to preserve areas of local significance to local neighbourhoods. That direction was not reflected in the Regional OP; however, it was to be reflected within the local OPs and Gloucester identified it as Open Space, which was intended to be reserved for a variety of parks and open spaces. Something greater than this particular neighbourhood was at stake. It went back to the issue of Moffatt Farm. If the NCC in its process of trying to generate additional revenues was conducting a wholesale selling of its lands, which were integrated in the community’s urban forests/open space, there had to be open dialogue between the City and the NCC to prevent dealing with these on a piecemeal basis. There was an expectation that the NCC’s presence was beneficial to the community’s quality of life. The piecemeal selling off was not helpful in the discussion of the City’s urban forest. Until such time as there was such discussion and policies put in place, she would continue to reject such applications and would encourage her colleagues to do so.

Councillor Hume referred to Area A, which was the Ig Zone and Area B, which was the Rr1 zone; that zoning allows development. Could the applicant not develop on the land now as of right? He understood the conflict between the OP designation of open space, yet the zoning allows development. In response to a question, Ms. Currie advised that he had a right to develop the Rr1 and within the Ig uses that would comply with that zone, despite the fact it had an Open Space OP designation. The Councillor observed that the developer had development rights to the lands, so the community could expect development on Area A. The decision to reject on the Area B would not prohibit residential on that site. He received confirmation that the applicant would only require Site Plan Approval for the Area B if he re-filed. On the Ig, the applicant could develop based on that zoning. To accomplish what the residents wanted, the Committee would need to eliminate the zoning on both sites since development rights currently exist on the site. Rejection of the applicant because it was inappropriate would not give the residents what they want, which was wholesale preservation of the property as a woodlot, greenspace, open space. A middle ground was needed since development may occur and not be of the scale and scope the community sought, which it has not grasped. It may not be at the density recommended, but it will certainly be on the residential portion.

Councillor Bellemare responded that Councillor Hume had a valid point, but the only portion zoned residential was the southeast portion, which was the landlocked 30% portion of the property. The proposal before Committee was to develop not only that portion, but also the entire parcel of land. If the objective was to require the developer to return with a different plan that would see development on that portion of the property, rejection of the application for the entire development would accomplish that. Councillor Hume countered that rejecting the proposal before Committee would send it to the OMB, since the applicant has the right of appeal and rather than negotiating a better proposal for the community, there would be a hearing before the OMB. It was a matter of weighing those risks. He determined it was better to find some common ground before rejecting an application outright because in the end the community will be very likely be unhappy with the result from OMB.

Councillor Arnold did not disagree with Councillor Hume, but when asked the applicant indicated an unwillingness to look at another proposal. Unfortunately, the Committee could either approve the re-zoning, which she opined was not the best solution or refuse it in the hope the developer would subsequently consider the area already zoned residential and negotiate for access and perhaps there would be an institutional use less damaging to the open space. Because the City wants infill did not mean the Committee had to approve every increase in density. It must be smart and sensitive infill. If the City wanted the community to buy into the OP goals, it needed to ensure that infill were reasonable and provided an incremental change and did not simply cater to the fact that the NCC or any other landowner sold a parcel of land; or, that any landowner used this as an opportunity to maximize profits on their land. Infill was about trying to meet all the OP goals in a manner that was sensitive and compatible with adjacent communities. She was disappointed the applicant was not willing to pursue a better option. The Committee should support the Ward Councillor and reject the application and hope something more acceptable would come forward in the near future.

Chair Hunter indicated he would be splitting Councillor Bellemare’s motion.

Moved by Councillor Bellemare

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council:

1. Reject the application to amend the Official Plan of the former City of Gloucester to redesignate 1298 Ogilvie Road from Open Space to Residential, as detailed in Document 1.

CARRIED

YEAS (3): Councillors Bellemare, Arnold, Councillor Stavinga

NAYS (2): Councillors Hume, Hunter

2. Reject an amendment to Zoning By-law 333 of 1999 of the former City of Gloucester to change the zoning of 1298 Ogilvie Road from an Rr1 (Row Dwelling) Zone and Ig (Institutional Governmental) Zone to an Ra2 (Medium Density Apartment) Exception Zone, which permits a minimum density of 50 units per hectare.