7.                   ZONING – 1100 OLD CARP ROAD

 

ZONAGE – 1100, CHEMIN OLD CARP

 

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

 

That Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 74-79 of the former City of Kanata to re-zone the lands situated at 1100 Old Carp Road from Estate Residential (ER), to Institutional (I), Open Space - Special Exception 1 (OS-1), Residential Type 1B - Special Exception 3 (R1B-3), Residential Type 1B - Special Exception 5 (R1B-5), Residential Type 3A (R3A), Residential Type 3A – Special Exception 2 (R3A-2), and Residential Type 3A – Special Exception 3 (R3A-3) as shown on Document 2, subject to the following amendments:

 

1.         That staff be directed to bring forward two separate implementing Zoning By-laws for this application, one for the new school site and adjoining townhouse parcel to the east (required for servicing) and one for the balance of the parcel.

 

2.         Whereas the rural residents of Old Carp Road were promised a buffer between rural and urban through the lengthy planning process for the Kanata North Urban Expansion;

 

Resolved that the “Buffering and Landscaped Open Space” of 6.3 metres be amended to require restorative replanting and reforesting (to the satisfaction of the City) if existing vegetation is destroyed during the development process; and,

 

Further that the subdivision agreement include mechanisms to protect the 6.3 metres no-build strip in perpetuity.

 

3.         That the Zoning be amended to reinstate the seven lots on Street 6 subject to commensurate Open Space being contributed by the landowner elsewhere in the area to the City’s satisfaction.

 

4.         And that no further notice be given pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

 

 


RECOMMANDATIONS MODIFIÉES DU COMITÉ

 

Que le Conseil municipal approuve une modification au Règlement municipal de zonage 74-79 de l’ancienne Ville de Kanata en vue de modifier le zonage des terrains situés au 1100, chemin Old Carp, de zone de domaines résidentiels (ER) à zone d’institutions (I), à zone spéciale d’aire ouverte – exception 1 (OS-1), à zone spéciale résidentielle de type 1B – exception 3 (R1B-3), à zone spéciale résidentielle de type 1B – exception 5 (R1B-5), à zone résidentielle de type 3A (R3A), à zone spéciale résidentielle de type 3A – exception 2 (R3A-2) et à zone spéciale résidentielle de type 3A – exception 3 (R3A-3) comme le précise le document 2, sous réserve des modifications suivantes :

 

1.         Que le personnel présente deux règlements de zonage de mise en œuvre distincts pour cette demande, un pour l’emplacement de la nouvelle école et la parcelle adjacente de maisons en rangée à l’est (nécessaire pour la viabilisation), et un pour le reste de la parcelle de terrain.

 

2.         Attendu qu’on a promis aux résidants du secteur rural du chemin Old Carp une zone tampon entre les milieux rural et urbain dans le cadre du long processus de planification pour l’expansion urbaine de Kanata Nord.

 

Il est résolu que la disposition relative à la zone tampon et à l’aire ouverte de 6,3 mètres est modifiée afin d’exiger la plantation et le reboisement (à la satisfaction de la Ville) si la végétation existante est détruite au cours du processus d’aménagement.

 

Il est en outre résolu que l’accord de lotissement comprendra des mécanismes visant à protéger la bande sans construction de 6,3 mètres de façon permanente.

 

3.         Que le zonage soit modifié de façon à rétablir les sept lots de la rue 6, à condition que l’aire ouverte correspondante soit aménagée par le propriétaire à un autre endroit dans la zone, à la satisfaction de la Ville.

 

4.         Et qu’aucun autre avis ne soit émis en vertu de la section 34 (17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.

 

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.         Development Services Department General Manager’s report dated 12 May 2003 (ACS2003-DEV-APR-0121).

 

2.         Extract of Draft Minutes, 22 May 2003.


Report to/Rapport au:

Planning and Development Committee /

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement

 

and Council/et au Conseil

 

12 May 2003 / le 12 mai 2003

 

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

Development Services Department / Services d’aménagement

 

Contact/Personne-ressource:  Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals / Gestionnaire, Approbation des demandes d’aménagement

580-2424 ext. 13242, grant.lindsay@ottawa.ca

 

 

Ref N°:   ACS2003-DEV-APR-0121

 

 

SUBJECT:     ZONING  - 1100 OLD CARP ROAD

 

OBJET:          ZONAGE – 1100, CHEMIN OLD CARP

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 74-79 of the former City of Kanata to re-zone the lands situated at 1100 Old Carp Road from Estate Residential (ER), to Institutional (I), Open Space - Special Exception 1 (OS-1), Residential Type 1B - Special Exception 3 (R1B-3), Residential Type 1B - Special Exception 5 (R1B-5), Residential Type 3A (R3A), Residential Type 3A – Special Exception 2 (R3A-2), and Residential Type 3A – Special Exception 3 (R3A-3) as shown on Document 2.

 

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement recommande au Conseil municipal d’approuver une modification au Règlement municipal de zonage 74-79 de l’ancienne Ville de Kanata en vue de modifier le zonage des terrains situés au 1100, chemin Old Carp, de zone de domaines résidentiels (ER) à zone d’institutions (I), à zone spéciale d’aire ouverte – exception 1 (OS-1), à zone spéciale résidentielle de type 1B – exception 3 (R1B-3), à zone spéciale résidentielle de type 1B – exception 5 (R1B-5), à zone résidentielle de type 3A (R3A), à zone spéciale résidentielle de type 3A – exception 2 (R3A-2) et à zone spéciale résidentielle de type 3A – exception 3 (R3A-3) comme le précise le document 2.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The subject lands consist of 29.5 hectares in the northern most portion of the South March Community and form part of a residential development known as Morgan’s Grant.

 

The area is bounded by the northern limit of the Kanata North Expansion Area, the existing Morgan’s Grant Community to the south, March Road to the east and Second Line Road to the west (see Document 1).  The Hydro Corridor cuts through the subject lands in a south-easterly direction near the western edge.  The proponent has submitted development plans on all of the land holdings within the South March Community, with the subject lands being one of the final parcels needing approval (Phase 12).

 

The subject lands are designated “Kanata North Expansion Area” in the former Regional Official Plan and are designated “General Urban Area” in the recently adopted City of Ottawa Official Plan.  Within the “General Urban Area”, all types of residential densities, parks and natural areas and institutional uses are allowed.

 

The lands are designated “Low Density Residential” and “Open Space” in the former City of Kanata’s Official Plan.  Permitted uses within the Residential designation include fully detached, semi-detached and multiply attached dwelling units.

 

The property is currently zoned “Estate Residential” (ER) by the March Rural Zoning By-law (74-79).  Permitted uses in this zone include fully detached units and various agricultural uses.  Although residential uses are permitted under the current zoning, the provisions and standards pertain to developments within a rural setting.  The proposed amendment reflects that these lands are now within the urban area of the City and will be developed on full municipal services.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The proposed amendment reflects that these lands are now within the urban area of the City and will be developed to urban densities.  The lands are proposed to be re-zoned to a “Residential Type 1B - Special Exception 3”, (R1B-3), “Residential Type 1B - Special Exception 5” (R1B-5), “Residential Type 3A” (R3A), “Residential Type 3A – Special Exception 2” (R3A-2), and “Residential Type 3A – Special Exception 3” (R3A-3).  One parcel will be zoned “Institutional” for a public elementary school and 3 parcels will be zoned “Open Space” for park purposes (see Document 2).

 

Staff, the applicant and the community have participated in extensive discussions regarding the development of this phase.  Of particular concern is the requirement for the school site.  The Ottawa-Carleton District School Board is in urgent need of a site in order to have a new school serving the Community for the fall of 2004.  In order for this to occur, planning approvals must be in place as soon as possible.


 

There has also been extensive communications with the residents of this area, in particular, the residents of Old Carp Road.  When the urban boundary was extended to its current location through ROPA 8 and LOPA 58, there were significant concerns raised by these residents about having a buffer between the urban and rural lands.

 

The City of Kanata approved LOPA No. 58 on November 9, 2000.  This amendment established the definition of “Buffers” as it relates to the rural residences south of Old Carp Road.  It states:

 

A buffer for the northern edge of the Urban Residential Area bordering onto the back of properties in the Rural Area fronting on the south side of Old Carp Road and for the northern edge of the Urban Restricted Industrial Area east of march Road is required.

 

This buffer can take many forms including, but not limited to, extra lot depth with landscaping and fencing, a pedestrian/cycling path, a linear park, a watercourse or drainage channel or a passive open area.  The form and extent of the buffer can vary with its location and shall be determined at the time of the plan of subdivision of the area containing the rural/urban buffer.  Generally, the buffer located west of March Road should be wider to accommodate existing tree cover where possible.

 

These buffers for rural/urban separation may also be provided in the zoning by-law.

 

On May 10 2001, the new City of Ottawa considered LOPA 58.  Planning and Development Committee recommended that Council recommend that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing approve the amendment with modifications.  One of the modifications was:  “ No trees will be cut down on lands within 20 metres of the rear lot lines of the homes on Old Carp Road until the approval of a Plan of Subdivision application which will address landscaping and buffering issues.” 

 

However, that same day Minto acknowledged in a memo to the March Rural Association and City staff that tree cutting in this area had already begun and that it may have extended within the 20 metres referred to by Council.

 

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing approved LOPA No. 58 of the City of Kanata on October 30, 2001.  This approval included a modification that exactly reflected the motion passed by Council of the City of Ottawa.

 

On April 23, 2003, the City Forester undertook a preliminary assessment of the status of the remaining trees along the rear lot lines of the homes on Old Carp Road.  He was unable to walk the site since permission to enter the land had not been received, but his observation was that there appeared to be less than 20 metres of trees left abutting these properties.


 

City staff have had extensive discussions with Minto on ways to achieve the buffer.  They include:  deeper lots for the properties abutting those on Old Carp Road, retaining the remaining tree cover to the extent possible given servicing and grading constraints and the viability of the remaining trees, covenants on title and restricting development in the rear yards of these lots.  If all of these measures are implemented, staff are satisfied that an effective buffer between the rural and urban lands can be achieved.

 

The pedestrian/cycling path, linear park and passive open area options as types of buffers were also examined.  It was determined that this was not the most appropriate location for the parkland dedication requirements.  The dedication to the City of a long linear corridor of open space between the existing properties on Old Carp Road and the new subdivision would have limited benefit to the community at large.  Concern was also expressed about the impacts of a pathway adjacent to the Old Carp Road properties.

 

The Open Space block at the western edge of the subject lands is also a matter of discussion.  Staff are recommending that this parkland block be enlarged, as shown on Document 2, encompassing the adjacent 7 single lots, fronting onto the street that intersects with Second Line Road.  This would enable a larger portion of the woodland to be preserved as an entrance feature and/or a passive park parcel into the subdivision.  This area was identified as a high quality representative Forest area and is proximate to the South March Highlands Wetland Complex.  Staff are recommending the removal of these lots to enlarge the park block based on environmental, community design and supply of required open space objectives.  The amount of parkland that needs to be dedicated to the City in terms of Planning Act requirements would easily accommodate this enlargement.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The western portion of this property is within 120 metres of the South March Highlands Wetlands Complex, a Provincially Significant Wetland complex.  In order to address this area of Provincial interest, a Wetland Impact Study was prepared.  The recommendations of this study as they apply to Phase 12, will be implemented through the Plan of Subdivision process.

 

A Tree Conservation Plan was also prepared as part of this proposal.  The Plan noted a significant stand of trees in the area proposed to be re-zoned OS-1.  Staff’s proposal to enlarge the area would support and enhance this woodland feature.

 

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Residents on Old Carp Road have noted water quality and quantity regarding existing wells as a concern.  City staff, in accordance with a council motion passed in May 2001, are investigating this matter.  The outcome of this investigation will be available prior to the consideration of a subdivision for these lands in accordance with Council’s direction.


 

CONSULTATION

 

The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the South March and the March Rural Community Associations were notified.  Further, this application was discussed at public meetings held on the following dates:  June 13, 2001, 26 June 2001, October 25, 2001 and April 9, 2003.

 

The residents’ concerns and the staff response are outlined in Document 4.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

 

This application was not processed within the recommended timelines.  It was placed on hold until the accompanying plan subdivision was revised and recirculated to include a school site and respond to comments received on the initial circulation.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Document 1– Location Plan

Document 2 Zoning Map

Document 3 Details of Proposed Zoning

Document 4 Consultation

 

DISPOSITION

 

Department of Corporate Services, Secretariat Services to notify the owner Minto Developments Inc. c/o Marcel Dénommé, 427 Laurier Avenue West, Suite 300, Ottawa, ON  K1R 7Y2,  and the Manager of Assessment, Department of Corporate Services of City Council’s decision.

 

Development Services Department to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services Branch and undertake the statutory notification.

 

Department of Corporate Services, Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.

 

 


LOCATION PLAN                                                                                                         Document 1

 


ZONING MAP                                                                                                                Document 2

 


DETAILS OF PROPOSED ZONING                                                                           Document 3

 

 

Proposed Residential Type 1B – Special Exception 5 (R1B-5) Zone

 

ZONE PROVISIONS:

 

lot area

330.0 square metres

lot frontage

11.0 metres

front yard depth

4.5 metres

rear yard depth

6.0 metres

buffering and landscaped open space

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b), no buildings or structures, with the exception of fences shall be permitted within 6.3 metres from the rear lot line.


CONSULTATION                                                                                                          Document 4

 

Residents have expressed concerns with buffer zone, the school site, well water safety, appropriate zoning of the lands, and transportation, particularly with the intersections of the internal roads with March Road.  Most of these issues were addressed in the report.  The remaining issues are discussed below.

 

Zoning:  The residents are concerned that densities other than those required by fully detached homes will be permitted on lots abutting the properties fronting on Old Carp Road.  With the approval of these zones as proposed and Minto’s ambitious development timeframe, this issue should be adequately addressed.

 

Transportation:   The residents are concerned with the impacts of increased traffic at the intersections of Old Carp Road and March Road and Klondike Road and March Road.  This issue can be addressed through the subdivision process as conditions of approval.

 

Drainage:  They are also concerned with drainage from the properties on Old Carp Road onto Minto’s lands.  The residents have experienced flooding in the past.  The drainage issues will be addressed as part of the subdivision process.

 


ZONING – 1100 OLD CARP ROAD

ZONAGE – 1100, CHEMIN OLD CARP

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0121                                                                      KANATA (4)

 

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. Lindsay advised that Pat MacMillan, Planner, would provide a brief presentation and was available to respond to any questions.

 

Councillor Munter brought to the Committee’s attention the school site, which would be the first English language public elementary school built north of the Queensway in Kanata, in 25 years; and, as such there was a concern by the School Board, given the contentious nature of the application, that it did not become bogged in the contention.  He asked Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Development Law, if two zoning by-laws could be passed in the event there was an appeal of the zoning, to separate the school site.  Mr. Marc responded that he was not aware of any such difficulty.  The Councillor noted from the issue, as summarized by Ms. MacMillan, the biggest concern was the question of the buffer (“no go” zone), since this was where the rural area meets the urban area.  He noticed the “no go” zone of 6.3m from the rear lot line.  On the vegetation, the Councillor received confirmation from Ms. MacMillan that a replanting scheme could be suggested.  The City Forester conducted a cursory review of the site and identified that, given the activity that occurred, some of the remaining trees might not survive; and those remaining might not survive because of the development.  Mr. Lindsay added that these types of concerns could be addressed through the Subdivision Agreement.  The Councillor acknowledged that a number of the issues raised were clearly Subdivision issues, but there was a cascading problem through a series planning processes over the years, with residents negatively impacted.  It was in everyone’s interest to avoid protracted processes on the Subdivision and one method was to put the question of vegetation in the zoning, but he would await the comments from the delegations.

 

On the question of further erosion of the buffer, Ms. MacMillan added that when staff put together the departmental report, Minto was looking at a particular model and style of home for those houses that abut the houses on Old Carp Road.  Since then, there was a shift to make these their premier homes and Minto asked for a 7.5m rear yard setback; therefore the 6.3m would be further reduced to 4.8m, which Minto could elaborate upon.  Responding to a query from Chair Hunter on those seven (7) single lots, Ms. MacMillan pointed out the seven lots at the entrance from Second Line Road into the yet unnamed street, north side.  Staff suggested that the parkland dedication be extended to the road and developed as an entranceway feature, similar to Katimavik; and, the calculation was that there was some parkland owing to the City as well.


Following on that, Councillor Munter noted the original discussion had been around the excess parkland dedication required being contributed further south in another phase of the subdivision.  Ms. MacMillan responded that her understanding was that regardless, there was still some leftover land required in Phase 11 and 12.

 

The Committee heard from the following delegations.

 

Marie E. Cook provided a written presentation, which was distributed and held on file with the City Clerk.  Ms. Cook agreed with the proposal by Councillor Munter to separate the zoning by-laws because of the need for the school.  She added there were still outstanding issues that had to be resolved.

 

Sheila McKee, President, March Rural Association, advised the history on the property went back beyond 18 months.  She submitted the school was good news for Morgan’s Grant and concurred with the idea of separating the two issues since the March Rural Association did not want to put the construction and completion of the school at risk.  The issue of the buffer was partly philosophical.  This was the end of the urban community and the beginning of the rural.  The rural residents, particularly those living on Old Carp Road, chose a certain lifestyle, with wells and septics; forced road, etc.; then there was the urban encroaching from the south with a totally different lifestyle – sidewalks, curbs, full services, street lights, etc.  That led her to the current thrust of the “new” look for Ottawa, with intensification, etc.  This area was a prime example of how that new look can work, blending urban and rural.  The size of the buffer has been going down incrementally over the years; having started as a wide swath (undeveloped, trees, animal, walking space, etc.).  With the passage of time, it was narrowed down to 6.3m, with most of the trees possibly not surviving.  She had discussions with Minto, who was willing to discuss possibilities; although it is very difficult to get total agreement by all residents, since many would like it to return to the way things were, which is impossible.  She wanted further clarification that the 1.5m for the extended rear yard would not come out of the buffer, which might negate her need to make submission to the Committee.  It was absolutely important that a re-planting programme take place to provide some definition between the two separate lifestyles, since the the areas were contiguous and there was a responsibility to make it as easy and pleasant as possible to benefit both sides.  The March Rural Association’s main interest was to provide some protection for both sides on the site.

 

Mike Carson, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, advised that the rezoning includes a site designated for the construction of an elementary school for the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board that would serve students currently housed in Roland Michener, W. Erskine Johnston and Stephen Leacock.  Not only were those schools overcrowded, but they were running out of space for portables on the sites. 


The Board had been working for over two years with the City and the developer to secure a site in the area and while they heard the landowners’ concerns with respect to the recommendation, the Board urgently required access to the school site to open a new school in the 2004 School Year.  The Board asked the City to consider the needs of the students and the Board while deliberations continued on this matter.

 

Rod Price, Jack Stirling, Minto Developments, were present in support of the staff recommendations.  Mr. Stirling advised there were some concerns with respect to some of the recommendations.  He clarified some of the confusion surrounding the buffer.  First, he was only involved in the full history of the site in the last 1½ years.  When Minto was originally looked at subdivision designs for the area, it was driven from the beginning by the need to accommodate the School Board’s requirements and illustrated on the map the lands that were subdivided, zoned and built.  As a result, the subdivision layout was limited to certain access points.  Minto determined how to accommodate the needs of the school for a 7.5-acre site in a fairly rectangular shape with access to major roads and adjacent to the parkland.  The evolution of the subdivision design, recognized access to Carp Road and Second Line Road and their three major points of access and services.  Minto recognized the issue of the buffer and the adjacent residents on the Old Carp Road.  In laying out the subdivision, any surplus land in that area of the subdivision was placed on the lots immediately adjacent to the old Carp Road.  By doing so, Minto created lots that were 36-36.5m deep; e.g. using the numbers on page 57, with 36.5m deep, with a 4.5m front yard, a unit 18m deep left a 14m rear yard, a portion of which will be required under the zoning by-law and a portion as the 6.3m no build.  The depth varies slightly through the area.  Under the proposal on page 57, Minto can accommodate the 6m rear yard required under the zoning by-law and the 6.3m no touch area.  On the no touch area, there needs to be an appreciation of the very delicate balance to other conditions in the area within the community.  One of the larger issues raised by the community was the drainage issues between the two property lines and that the subdivision has to be designed to accommodate their overland flow and maintain the grades of their property.  That would lead to very site-specific grading issues through this no touch zone, which affect vegetation.  Every effort will be made to maintain the no touch zone in a natural buffer area.

 

On another point, there were concerns with the recommendation to remove the seven lots on the westerly edge of the property.  The subdivision lay out extends a public road westerly to the Second Line Road intersection across a hydro easement.  These seven lots are appropriate and Minto would like to see them remain in the plan since they do not impact the natural environmental area to the west. 


Minto has worked with staff on solutions to the parkland dedication issues which should resolve the dedication requirements resulting in a fully dedicated position.  As indicated in writing by the adjacent landowner, removal of the seven lots has implications for the developability of the private landowners to the south, with no need to extend services past this point in the subdivision.  It has a quid pro quo effect with the landowners to the south denied access to the services.

 

Chair Hunter received confirmation the buffer would remain in the ownership of Minto.  The Chair further clarified there would be a covenant registered on title, that Minto would make homeowners aware of as they purchase.

 

Due to the legitimate concerns by the residents on the buffer, Councillor Munter indicated he would move a Motion to require restorative planting and reforesting if existing vegetation is destroyed during the development process, to the satisfaction of the City.  Mr. Stirling advised that Minto had indicated it would be supportive of the Motion.

 

Responding to a concern by Councillor Harder, Mr. Stirling advised there was a sitnificant amount of work to be done on this buffer in terms of engineering requirements, overland flows and identifying what vegetation can be retained and what will be lost.  In that vein, Minto will need to ensure sales staff understand the implications and will create individual documents that will be part and parcel of the marketing material for these sites to demonstrate to potential purchasers the benefits and advantages of this extra deep lot and natural buffer.  Councillor Harder reinforced the importance of that in the sales office.  Special attention should be given to the species of vegetation, i.e. poison ivy, oak, etc.  The City needs to be cognizant of these residents if it expects them to preserve that kind of a natural buffer.

 

Moved by Councillor A. Munter:

 

That staff be directed to bring forward two separate implementing Zoning By-laws for this application, one for the new school site and adjoining townhouse parcel to the east (required for servicing) and one for the balance of the parcel.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Whereas the rural residents of Old Carp Road were promised a buffer between rural and urban through the lengthy planning process for the Kanata North Urban Expansion;

 

Resolved that the “Buffering and Landscaped Open Space” of 6.3 metres be amended to require restorative replanting and reforesting (to the satisfaction of the City) if existing vegetation is destroyed during the development process; and,

 

Further that the subdivision agreement include mechanisms to protect the 6.3 metre no-build strip in perpetuity.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

That the Zoning be amended to reinstate the seven lots on Street 6 subject to commensurate Open Space being contributed by the landowner elsewhere in the area to the City’s satisfaction.

 

And that no further notice be given pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

For the record, Councillor Munter reminded the Committee of the debate on the Kanata North Urban Expansion, which dealt with whether or not urban and rural can coexist.  This area was placed in the urban envelope by a one-vote margin on Regional Council in 1994 and confirmed in 1995, making debate at this point moot.  He wanted to acknowledge residents’ frustration, which he shared, since there was a different understanding of the nature of the buffer and that over time it has been whittled away from their expectation.  As such, it is important to use whatever levers remained to ensure there are good mechanisms in the subdivision agreement to maintain the forested area and ensure the developer’s cooperation.

 

Chair Hunter pointed out the following written submissions circulated to the Committee:

 

·                    Lucette and Simon Methot

·                    Scott Ramey

·                    Hugo Lama

 

The departmental report was approved as amended.

 

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 74-79 of the former City of Kanata to re-zone the lands situated at 1100 Old Carp Road from Estate Residential (ER), to Institutional (I), Open Space - Special Exception 1 (OS-1), Residential Type 1B - Special Exception 3 (R1B-3), Residential Type 1B - Special Exception 5 (R1B-5), Residential Type 3A (R3A), Residential Type 3A – Special Exception 2 (R3A-2), and Residential Type 3A – Special Exception 3 (R3A-3) as shown on Document 2, subject to the following amendments:


 

1.         That staff be directed to bring forward two separate implementing Zoning By-laws for this application, one for the new school site and adjoining townhouse parcel to the east (required for servicing) and one for the balance of the parcel.

 

2.         Whereas the rural residents of Old Carp Road were promised a buffer between rural and urban through the lengthy planning process for the Kanata North Urban Expansion;

 

Resolved that the “Buffering and Landscaped Open Space” of 6.3 metres be amended to require restorative replanting and reforesting (to the satisfaction of the City) if existing vegetation is destroyed during the development process; and,

 

Further that the subdivision agreement include mechanisms to protect the 6.3 metre no-build strip in perpetuity.

 

1.                  That the Zoning be amended to reinstate the seven lots on Street 6 subject to commensurate Open Space being contributed by the landowner elsewhere in the area to the City’s satisfaction.

 

2.                  And that no further notice be given pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED as amended