9. ROAD
CLOSURE - 227 GRANDVIEW ROAD FERMETURE DE RUE - 227,
CHEMIN GRANDVIEW |
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED
That Council approve the application to close a
portion of Grandview Road as detailed in Document 1 and as shown on Document 3,
and that staff prepare a report for Committee on the re-designation of the
road allowance accesses from Grandview Road and Nesbitt Street to the Ottawa
River as parkland.
RECOMMANDATION MODIFIée DU COMITÉ
Que le Conseil approuve la
demande de fermeture d'une partie du chemin Grandview, comme le précise le
document 1 et le montre le document 3, et que le personnel rédige un rapport
adressé au Comité sur le reclassement à titre de terres à parcs des emprises
routières entre, d’une part, le chemin Grandview et la rue Nesbitt et, d’autre
part, la rivière des Outaouais.
Documentation
1. Development Services Department General
Manager’s report dated 24 September 2003 (ACS2003-DEV-APR-0204).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 23 October 2003.
Report to/Rapport
au :
Planning and Development Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'aménagement
and Council / et au Conseil
24 September 2003 / le 24
septembre 2003
Submitted by/Soumis par : Ned Lathrop, General
Manager/Directeur général,
Development Services/Services d'aménagement
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Grant Lindsay,
Manager / Gestionnaire
Development
Approvals / Approbation des demandes d’aménagement
(613) 580-2424
x13242, grant.lindsay@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning and
Development Committee recommend Council approve the application to close a
portion of Grandview Road as detailed in Document 1 and as shown on Document 3.
RECOMMENDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'aménagement recommande au Conseil
d'approuver la demande de fermeture d'une partie du chemin Grandview, comme le
précise le document 1 et le montre le document 3.
BACKGROUND
An application has been
submitted to close a portion of the Grandview Road Right-Of-Way. The subject lands are irregular in shape and
are located adjacent on the southwestern edge of the property known as 227
Grandview Road, as shown on Document 3.
The subject lands are a remnant piece of property that once formed a
larger surplus part of the Right-Of-Way for Grandview Road, which was closed by
the former City of Nepean in 1993. The
portion of Grandview Road to be closed is untravelled, it is mostly vacant with
a portion of a shed occupying the northeast corner.
Grandview Road runs parallel to the Ottawa River and was created
as part of a subdivision in 1944. At
that time, the subject portion of the Grandview Road Allowance abutted the
Ottawa River. However, over the years,
land between the high and low water mark was sold by private companies to
adjacent lot owners and lots were created or extended into the Ottawa
River. The property at 227 Grandview
was one of the lots that was increased in size. Today, the subject portion of Road Allowance no longer leads to
the water's edge. While still owned by
the City, it functionally forms part of the property at 227 Grandview
Road. This application will formalize
the use of the subject land for private purposes.
This application was
received by the Development Services Department and was recommended for
approval under delegated authority.
When the notice of intent to close was advertised in accordance with the
requirements of the Municipal Act, 14 telephone calls and nine written comments
in objection were received, necessitating this submission to Planning and
Development Committee.
DISCUSSION
The Department is
recommending closure of this portion of Grandview Road for the following
reasons.
1. ROAD ALLOWANCE NOT REQUIRED
The subject parcel of land
is a remnant piece of road allowance which is not required for the functioning
of Grandview Road. While it once
provided access to the waterfront, this is no longer the case. The property owner at 227 Grandview Road is
the legal owner of the land between the high and low water mark. Consequently, closure of this portion of the
Road Allowance will not deny public access to the waterfront. As well, there are no services located
under the subject lands.
2. VEHICULAR ACCESS NOT DENIED
This land, if removed from
the Right-of-Way, will not deny vehicular access from a public street to any
private property. No properties abut
the Right of Way that require the Right-of-Way to gain access to the property.
3. BENEFITS OF CLOSURE
Closing the subject portion
of land will benefit the abutting land owner by enlarging their property. As well, the subject land has functionally
formed a portion of their property for many years. Closing this component of the street will formalize that
relationship.
REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
The major concern over the
proposed closure of this portion of road allowance is the loss of public access to the river and the precedent
it would create for further applications.
The Department believes it is important to reiterate that the part of
the Grandview Right-of-Way to be closed does not in any way provide access to
the Ottawa River. Furthermore, this
application will not set a precedent for the approval of further Road Allowance
Closures, as each application is evaluated on its own merits. Finally, the Department recognizes the
importance of public access points to the river and understands that these are
limited and should be maintained.
Municipal access points along Grandview Road include Nesbitt Street,
Arden Avenue, Jay Street, and Grandview Road at Hastings Street.
CONSULTATION
No comments were received
from the public as a result of the public notification process when the
application was received. Following
advertising of the proposed Road Closure in the local Community Newspaper, as
required by the Municipal Act, 14 calls and nine written comments were
received, all voicing concerns regarding the proposed closure. These concerns centred around the loss of
access to the Ottawa River, both at this location and creating a precedent
whereby other access points will be removed.
A public meeting was also held in the community by the Ward Councillor
on June 25, 2003. Thirty-five people
attended this meeting. These people
echoed the same concern.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
N/A
APPLICATION PROCAESS TIMELINES
STATUS
This application was not
processed within the time frame established for road closing applications due
to the need to hold a public meeting to address public concerns and bring the
application to Planning and Development Committee and Council for a decision.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 - Conditions of
Approval
Document 2 - Location Map
Document 3 - Consultation
Details/Summary of Formal Objections - Municipal Act
DISPOSITION
Department of Corporate
Services, Secretariat Services Branch to notify the agent (Frank MacMillan,
Barrister and Solicitor, 146 Richmond Road, Ottawa, K1Z 6W2) and the applicant
(Hugette Copeland, 227 Grandview Road, Ottawa, K2H 8B9) of City Council's
decision.
Department of Corporate
Services, Real Property and Asset Management to prepare and forward a report to
the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and City Council
recommending approval of the disposal of the subject lands.
Department of Corporate
Services, Legal Services Branch to prepare and forward the Road Closure By-law
to City Council in accordance with the Conditions of Approval set out in
Document 1.
CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL Document
1
This ROAD CLOSING
APPLICATION submitted by Frank MacMillan, is APPROVED.
Subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the closing be undertaken by By-law,
2. That prior to enactment of the closing by-law, the applicant
shall provide the following materials to the satisfaction of the City
Solicitor:
a) a plan of survey showing the portion of the roadway to be
closed and the lands to be conveyed to all parties, as well as any easements to
be registered on the lands;
b) draft deed(s) of conveyance of all lands to be conveyed,
ready for execution by the Mayor and City Clerk on behalf of the City;
c) registration of all documents and the costs thereof.
3. That the closing by-law not be forwarded to Council unless
and until the property owner eligible to acquire that portion of the street to
be closed files a letter with the City Solicitor acknowledging that any zoning
violation, which may result from the closure, will be the affected property
owner's responsibility to remedy,
4. That the portion of the road to be closed be offered to the
abutting owner(s) at a price to be established by the Corporate Services
Department and approved by City Council,
5. That the closing of the street be contingent upon acceptance
by the abutting property Owner(s) of the price approved by City Council,
6. Should the conditions of this report not be fulfilled within
one year of its approval, the recommendations contained here within shall be
null and void,
7. That prior to the passage of the required street closure
by-law; the applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs for the
advertising of the proposed closure as per the requirements of the Municipal
Act.
LOCATION MAP Document
2
CONSULTATION
DETAILS/
SUMMARY OF FORMAL
OBJECTIONS – MUNICIPAL ACT Document
3
NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS
Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with
the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council
for Road and Lane Closure Applications.
No comments were received as a result of the early notification
circulation to abutting land owners.
Fourteen telephone calls and nine written responses were received as a
result of the notice of intent to close the subject portion of road allowance
that was provided in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal
Act. Each of these people had concerns
regarding the proposed closure. A
public meeting was also held in the community by the Ward Councillor on June
25, 2003. Thirty-five people attended
this meeting. A summary of comments
received from the notice of intent to close the subject road allowance and a
response to these comments are presented below. Comments raised at the public meeting echoed those received
through the Municipal Act Advertising
SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS/CONCERNS
1. I am afraid that if
this piece of Road Allowance is closed, it will result in a loss of access to
the river front.
Response
The section of the Grandview Road Allowance proposed to be closed does
not have public access to the riverfront.
Consequently, closing this property will not deny any access rights.
2. I am afraid that if
this piece of Road Allowance is closed it will set a precedent whereby other
access points to the water will be lost and there are pressures being put on
these access points by adjacent land uses.
Response
The Department is aware of the importance of publicly owned access
points, as they provide the only opportunity for those who do not front the
river, to gain access. Consequently, the Department would have a difficult time
recommending that these access points be reduced. As well, each application to close a portion of a road allowance
across the City is evaluated on its own merits, so there is no ability to set a
precedent.
3. If the City sells the
land, it will enable property owners to make large lots and sever them into two
smaller lots. The resulting lot pattern
will not be in conformity with the existing properties.
Response
Any attempt to sever land will require an application to the Committee
of Adjustment, which is a public process.
People will have the opportunity to make comments to the Committee of
Adjustment and the application will be evaluated on its merits, including its
conformity to existing lot patterns.
4. There is no good reason why this Road Allowance should be
closed and sold to the abutting land
owner.
Response
It is the Department's recommendation that it is appropriate to close
this portion of the Grandview Road Allowance for the reasons that are contained
in this submission.
5. I am against this
sudden grab of land by property owners.
This will encourage squatters to take over the road allowance for their
own purposes and this has happened in the community.
Response
Any portion of the road allowance that is encroached upon by adjacent
uses, is still a portion of the road allowance. Concerns over encroachment into the road allowance by adjacent
private uses should be addressed to the City's enforcement division.
6. I do not believe that
selling this land to the abutting property owner will net the City a
significant amount of tax revenue.
Response
The tax revenue to be generated from the sale of the subject land is
not a consideration of its closure.
7. I feel that over the
years this land has been stolen from the public by the illegal removal of
Riverfront Access. The land has been
illegally backfilled.
Response
The land between the high and low water mark adjacent to the subject
property legally belongs to the owners of 227 Grandview Road.
8. How come no sign was
posted on the property to inform the neighbours.
Response
This application was submitted when initial notification of an
application consisted of providing written letters to adjacent land
owners. Today, this application would
require the posting of an on-site sign.
9. People on the other
side of the street should not be denied access to this property.
Response
This property is not needed for the road allowance nor does it provide
access to the riverfront. Consequently,
it is the Department's position that this is a surplus portion of City property
and should be sold to the abutting neighbour.
10. This access to the
riverfront is needed for emergency purposes.
Response
As the subject land does not have access to the Ottawa River, it can
not provide emergency access. Access to
the river along Grandview Road is provided at other locations, such as at cross
streets including Nesbitt Street, Arden Avenue, Jay Street and the northern end
of Grandview Road at Hastings Street.
11. Why can't the applicant
take some of the road allowance and give the City some private land so there is
access to the water.
Response
The land behind the subject property, extending to the river is private
property. The property owner is not
obliged to provide some of this land, either through sale or through an
easement, for the benefit of other people.
June 25, 2003 - PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS
All the concerns raised at the public meeting were presented and
addressed previously under the summary of public input.
COUNCILLOR'S COMMENTS
Councillor Alex Cullen is aware of this application.