2.         OFFICIAL PLAN - 2233 Mer bleue Road, 2168 and 2370 tenth line road


plan officiel - 2233, chemin mer bleue, 2168 et 2370, chemin tenth line






That Council:


1.                  Approve the request for 2233 Mer Bleue Road and 2168 and 2370 Tenth Line Road to amend the City Council Approved Official Plan from Employment Area to General Urban Area and Mixed Use Centre, and to amend the Regional Official Plan and Cumberland Official Plan as may be deemed necessary.


2.                  Direct staff to prepare a detailed Community Design Plan.


3.                  Direct staff to prepare a report that provides for incentives for the establishment of commercial and industrial development in the east of the City (outside the Greenbelt).





Que le Conseil :


1.         Approuve la demande pour le 2233, chemin Mer Bleue et les 2168 et 2370, chemin Tenth Line afin de modifier, dans le Plan directeur approuvé par le Conseil municipal, la désignation « aire d’emploi » à « aire urbaine générale » et « Centre polyvalent », et de modifier le Plan directeur régional et le Plan directeur de Cumberland au besoin.


2.         Ordonne au personnel de préparer un Plan de conception communautaire détaillé.


3.         Ordonne au personnel de préparer un rapport présentant des incitations à l’établissement du développement commercial et industriel dans l’est de la Ville (à l’extérieur de la ceinture verte).





1.         Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management report dated 12 August 2005 (ACS2005-PGM-APR-0163).


2.         Extract of Draft Minutes, 23 August 2005.

Report to/Rapport au :


Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement


and Council / et au Conseil


12 August 2005 / le 12 août 2005


Submitted by/Soumis par : Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint,

Planning and Growth Management / Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance 


Contact Person/Personne ressource : Karen Currie, Manager / Gestionnaire

Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement

(613) 580-2424 x28310, Karen.Currie@ottawa.ca


Cumberland (19)

Ref N°: ACS2005-PGM-APR-0163




OFFICIAL PLAN - 2233 Mer bleue Road, 2168 and 2370 tenth line road (FILE NO. d01-01-05-0011)




plan officiel – 2233, chemin mer bleue, 2168 et 2370, chemin tenth line





That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council refuse the request to amend the City Council Approved Official Plan.





Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil municipal de rejeter la demande de modification au Plan officiel approuvé par ce dernier.





The lands that are the subject of this report are located within the southern-most extent of the East Urban Community and total approximately 150 hectares in area.  They are bounded by Mer Bleue Road on the west, Tenth Line Road on the east, the Hydro One utility corridor on the north, and on the south by the City’s urban boundary (see Document 1).  A few existing residential properties are captured within the described boundary, but are not part of the subject lands.

The subject lands form part of the area referred to as the Orléans Expansion Area, which was brought into the urban area in the early 1990s by amendments to the 1988 Regional Official Plan and former Cumberland Official Plan, and were designated as employment lands.  The lands remain designated as “Employment Area” in the City Council Approved Official Plan (Document 2).  The lands were once farmed, but are no longer.  They now lie undeveloped and partially overgrown.  The surrounding lands within the urban area are also largely vacant, but are either developing or slated for future development.  The lands west of Mer Bleue Road designated as “Developing Community” are currently the subject of a Community Design Plan that, when completed, will accommodate a range of residential dwelling types and densities as well as a mixed-use centre.  To the north of the hydro corridor is the partially developed Orléans Industrial Park, which contains light industrial, warehouse and retail uses.  To the east of Tenth Line Road is the developing residential community known locally as Avalon.


The consortium of owners of the subject lands is of the opinion that, given the future surrounding uses in the urban area and the inactivity over the past decade respecting the development of the lands for employment purposes, it would be more appropriate if the subject lands were developed as a mixed-use community comprising residential and employment uses.  Consequently, the application under consideration proposes to redesignate the subject lands from “Employment Area” to “General Urban Area” and to expand the area of the existing “Mixed-use Centre” designation.




The application proposes that the subject lands be redesignated to permit a mixed-use community that would yield over 3,000 residential units and 4,700 jobs.  Justification for such position was provided in the form of a general concept plan (Document 3) and several supporting documents that are referenced below.


The main arguments offered in support of the application are summarized in the applicant’s report entitled, Planning Rationale, April 2005, by FoTenn Consultants Inc. (FoTenn Report).  First, the applicant suggests that there are enough employment lands for the next 20 years and, according to the City’s Inventory of Vacant Industrial Land and Business Park Lands (December 2003), there are sufficient larger sites available elsewhere in the city to accommodate a low-density employment use or a large manufacturing plant, the types of uses for which the subject lands are best suited. 


It is further suggested that the conversion of 150 hectares from low-density employment to mixed use, high-density employment and residential will not compromise the employment prospects for Orléans.  At least the same number of jobs as is currently projected for the subject lands can be accommodated, since the proposed mixed-use community will act as a catalyst to attract higher density jobs in the surrounding employment lands. 


As well, the applicant asserts that the proposal does not violate the Provincial Policy Statement.  The amendment encourages increased employment density, mixed uses and more efficient use of land and infrastructure, and the documents submitted in support of the proposal satisfy the requirement for a comprehensive review. 

Finally, the applicant also asserts that the proposal supports the policies of the City Council Approved Official Plan, since the growth projections for jobs contained in Figure 2.2 of the Plan will not be jeopardized.  Other policies of the Plan, in particular the requirement for higher density development at transit stations, also will be realized as a result of the proposal.


While the proposal submitted is thorough and comprehensive in its examination of the issues, the Department is recommending that the proposed amendment to the City Council Approved Official Plan be denied for reasons set out below.




Staff evaluated the proposed Official Plan amendment and supporting reports and disagree with the conclusions.  It is the opinion of staff that the subject employment lands are needed to achieve the long-term development strategies of the City Council Approved Official Plan.  In addition, the proposal fails to clearly demonstrate that the subject lands are not required for employment purposes and that their conversion from employment to residential and mixed use is needed.  In this regard, staff find that the proposed amendment is neither consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement nor in conformity with the City Council Approved Official Plan.


Consistency with Provincial Policy Statement:


The new Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) came into effect on 1 March 2005, as did the Strong Communities Act, 2004, which introduced several amendments to the Planning Act, 1990.  One such amendment now requires that planning decisions concerning applications that are subject to the PPS “shall be consistent with” the new policies.  Prior to this amendment, applications were required only to “have regard to” the relevant policies.


The “Building Strong Communities” policies of the PPS are most relevant to the subject application.  This set of policies recognizes that efficient land use and development patterns have beneficial effects on a community’s growth, environmental health and social well-being.  The PPS therefore directs that such efficiencies be achieved through various actions, including “accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential, employment (including industrial, commercial and institutional uses), recreational and open space uses to meet long-term needs” (Policy 1.1.1b).  The proposed concept plan (Document 3) provides for such a range and mix of low and medium density residential uses (29 units per net hectare) and community uses over the majority of the subject lands, and high density residential uses (125 units per net hectare) closer to the future transitway.  Employment and mixed uses (75 per cent office/commercial, 25 per cent residential) are focused around the future transitway stations and along the arterial roads.  Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with the PPS in this regard.


The PPS also directs that municipalities provide for an appropriate mix and range of employment uses, as well as plan for, protect and preserve employment areas for current and future uses (Policy 1.3.1).  This directive does not preclude the conversion of employment lands to non-employment uses.  Policy 1.3.2 directs that such conversions may be permitted provided a comprehensive review is undertaken, but “only where it has been demonstrated that the land is not required for employment purposes over the long term and that there is a need for the conversion.”  To address this policy, the applicant prepared two reports: Employment Land Needs Assessment, Oct 2004, by Malone Given Parsons (Parsons Report), and Market Demand Study, May 2004, by Market Research Corporation (MRC Report).   


The Parsons Report addresses the specific question whether there is sufficient employment land available in the East Urban Community (Orléans) to accommodate expected demand to 2021 and to enable the City to meet its employment targets if 135 net hectares of employment land is removed from the current inventory, as is proposed.  Following a thorough analysis of employment growth and land absorption projections, the report deduces that, while the vacant employment land in the Orléans area was estimated to be 425 net hectares in 2001, the demand for employment land in Orléans to 2021 is projected to be only 240 net hectares, leaving a surplus of 185 net hectares.  The report therefore draws the conclusion that the surplus is sufficient to withstand the proposed removal of approximately 135 net hectares of employment land from the vacant employment land supply (leaving a remainder of 50 net hectares), thereby demonstrating that the subject land is not required for employment purposes over the long term.


Staff dispute some of the fundamental arguments and assertions that the Parsons Report makes.  First, the report estimates that 40 per cent of total projected job growth for Orléans to 2021 will occur in the land use-based employment category referred to by the consultants as “Medium Density Population Serving Employment” (MDPSE).  This category refers to employment that is dependant upon population growth and generally includes retail, service and institutional sector jobs that are typically concentrated in retail centres adjacent to major roads or close to their customer base.  MDPSE has tended not to locate in designated employment lands, which are typically better suited for non-population serving employment, such as office and industrial uses.  The report estimates that MDPSE in Orléans will grow in absolute terms by 12 000 new jobs between 2001 and 2021, which represents a disproportionate rate of increase 2.4 times that of the population growth projections for Orléans during the same period.  The report suggests that such MDPSE growth in Orléans will occur in the art, entertainment, recreation, and accommodation and food services categories.  While some expansion in these categories can be expected, it is staff’s opinion that the forecast for citywide per capita growth is minimal and the present reality is that such activities are strongly focused inside the Greenbelt.  In recent years, the Orléans area has seen little employment momentum in these categories.  Moreover, given its distance from the Highway 417 corridor, Orléans is not well situated to attract significant employment that is typical of these categories, such as hotels.  Therefore, staff conclude that the estimated increase of 12 000 jobs in the MDPSE category is inflated, and that such bias has the effect of underestimating the expected growth in non-population serving employment and, in turn, the demand for designated employment land.


Second, while the Parsons Report notes that MDPSE typically concentrates in retail centres along arterial roads or close to its customer base, it assumes that 20 per cent of new MDPSE will locate on designated employment lands throughout the Orléans area.  However, staff find the report underestimates the consumption of designated employment land by MDPSE sector jobs.  Recent trends have demonstrated that the retail sector is increasingly seeking out desirable sites within the City’s designated business and industrial parks.  For instance, there are several retail developments currently underway or proposed on employment lands in the Orléans area, which will consume approximately 26 hectares.  There is also a strong likelihood that additional retail development will occur on the south side of Innes Road (Orléans Industrial Park), which will consume even more employment land.  Given these recent trends and local retail development patterns, it is therefore suggested that the consumption of employment land by MDPSE will exceed 20 per cent.


Official Plan Amendment No. 28, adopted by Council on 13 July 2005, is a comprehensive response to appeals against the City Council Approved Official Plan filed by members of the retail and commercial land development industry.  A major thrust of the Amendment was the protection of some lands primarily for employment use in order that they remain affordable for employment purposes and so that they can develop over time without conflict from competing land uses.  The Employment Area that is the subject of this application was an area that was deemed to be important in this regard.  In order to recognize current trends, the Amendment redesignates the portion of the Employment Area abutting the south side of Innes Road, between Tenth Line Road and the southerly projection of Belcourt Boulevard, from Employment Area to Arterial Mainstreet, thereby allowing a full range of retail and MDPSE-type uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject lands.  The Amendment also clarifies that the Employment Area designation is meant to accommodate places of business and economic activity, predominantly supported by uses such as offices, manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, research and development facilities and utilities.  The MDPSE category of employment is encouraged to locate within land use designations such as Mainstreets and the General Urban Area near the residential areas they serve in order to contribute to and become part of complete communities, consistent with the principles set out in Ottawa 20/20.


Finally, in addition to underestimating the demand for and consumption of employment land, staff find that the Parsons Report overestimates the supply of this land.  As noted above, the report estimates that there would be a surplus of approximately 50 net hectares of employment land should the proposed amendment be adopted.  However, this estimate does not account for the future consumption of about 12 net hectares in the Cumberland North Business Sector for residential use (the decision to redesignate these lands to General Urban Area was based on an assessment that the remaining adjacent employment lands could make up the loss through higher employment densities).  Therefore, the loss of these 12 hectares, combined with the loss of 26 hectares mentioned above, significantly diminishes the estimated surplus of employment land in the Orléans area.


The MRC Report assesses the market demand for a mixed-use development on the subject lands and, in particular, addresses the question of need for the conversion of the lands from employment to primarily residential.  The report’s analysis, which assumes higher population projections and rates of growth than those contained in the City Council Approved Official Plan, deduces that an estimated 22 684 additional dwelling units will be required to respond to projected future growth in the Orléans area to 2022.  An approximate 782 net hectares of land (average of 29 units/net ha) would be required to accommodate this housing need.  Quoting the City’s own Vacant Urban Residential Land Survey, 2003, the report states that there is a potential residential yield of only 15 216 units in the Orléans area, based on the available supply (as of 2003) of 538 net hectares of vacant residential land.  The report author therefore concludes that there is a severe shortfall of vacant residential land, ranging from 244 to 370 net hectares, to meet the future needs to 2022, and recommends that 101 gross hectares of the subject lands be redesignated for residential purposes to accommodate approximately 2 400 dwelling units at a density of 29 units per net hectare. 


Staff fundamentally disagree with the assumptions and analyses contained in the MRC Report.  In particular, the population and housing projections used in the report ignore those contained in the City Council Approved Official Plan (Figure 2.2) and are inflated.  For comparison, the report uses a population projection for Orléans of 151 000 persons by 2022, while the Plan projects a population of 131 000 persons by 2021.  Furthermore, the report uses a projected average annual growth rate to 2022 of 1 428 households, while the Plan’s projections are based upon the average growth rate of 1 050 households per year to 2021.  These and other biases exist throughout the report and, consequently, staff cannot support the land supply and demand analysis and conclusions. 


Staff therefore conclude that the Parsons Report fails to clearly demonstrate that the subject lands are not required for employment purposes, and the MRC Report fails to establish a need for the conversion of employment lands to residential and mixed use.  Consequently, it is staff’s opinion that the proposed amendment is not consistent with Policy 1.3.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement.


Conformity with City Council Approved Official Plan:


When considering an amendment to the City Council Approved Official Plan, staff are to have regard to, and consideration for, among other matters, the impact of the proposed change on the achievement of the policies expressed in the Plan, whether there is a need to add the subject lands to the lands already designated for the proposed use, and the effect of the proposed change on the need for water, wastewater and transportation services.


Impact of Proposed Change on Achievement of Official Plan Policies:


Perhaps the greatest impact on the achievement of the Plan policies is the proposal to redesignate the subject lands for residential purposes.  One of the long-term development strategies of the City Council Approved Official Plan (Policy requires that sufficient land be designated to provide a balance of employment and housing opportunities.  In this regard, the Plan requires that employment opportunities be provided at a rate of at least 1.3 jobs per household in each of the three major urban communities outside the Greenbelt, including Orléans, which as of 2001 had a ratio of jobs to households of only 0.5 (with 14 500 jobs and 29 000 households, the deficit was about 23 000 jobs).  To address this deficit, the Plan assumes that new jobs in Orléans would be created at about 1.4 jobs per household after 2001, which is a slightly higher rate than the stated objective, but still not sufficient to erase the deficit by 2021.  The Plan forecasts that, by 2021, the ratio of jobs to households will have increased to 0.9, which is a substantial improvement, but only half way to achieving the objective of 1.3 jobs per household.  Nonetheless the Plan requires that the stated objective be met.  Redesignating the subject land to mostly General Urban Area, as is proposed, would further skew the balance in favour of housing opportunities by reducing employment opportunities and increasing housing potential.  Therefore, it is staff’s opinion that the proposed amendment would not achieve this Council-approved long-term development strategy.

Need for Change:


As discussed above in the context of the Provincial Policy Statement, it is staff’s opinion that the proposal not only fails to clearly demonstrate that the subject lands are surplus to the employment needs, it also does not establish a need for the conversion of employment lands to residential and mixed use.  Therefore, the proposed amendment fails to satisfy the City Council Approved Official Plan’s requirement to establish a need for the proposed change in land use designation.


Effect of Proposal on Need for Services:


The proposed amendment is supported by two technical reports: Serviceability Report, December 2004, by Cumming Cockburn Limited (CCL Report), and Transportation Overview, December 2004, by Cumming Cockburn Limited and IBI (CCL/IBI Report).  Staff find that the transportation infrastructure proposed in support of the change of use on the subject lands is consistent with that contained in the Transportation Master Plan.  Therefore, the proposed development would be expected to have little effect on transportation services.  However, with respect to the proposed underground servicing for the subject lands, staff find that the CCL Report does not adequately demonstrate how the design of the required sewage pumping station will address the proposed change of use, or how the MOE requirement to provide an emergency overflow is to be adequately addressed.  The sewage pumping station and emergency overflow have been designed based on the requirements of the currently permitted employment uses.  However, the current design does not meet the servicing requirements of a typical residential subdivision development for emergency overflow purposes on the subject lands.  Therefore, at this time, without having received a clear demonstration that the above-noted requirements can be adequately addressed, it is staff’s opinion under the current servicing strategy that the proposed amendment would have negative effects on the future wastewater infrastructure needs.  Further study is required in order to demonstrate how residential development can be accommodated for sanitary servicing purposes.




It is staff’s opinion that the subject proposal to amend the Council Approved Official Plan fails to clearly demonstrate that the subject employment lands are not needed in order to achieve the Plan’s long-term development strategies and that their conversion from employment to residential and mixed use is needed.  Consequently, the proposed amendment is neither consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement nor in conformity with the City Council Approved Official Plan.




Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Policy.  The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation.  The City received comments regarding the subject application, as outlined in Document 4.







The application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Official Plan Amendments due to the complexity of the issues associated with it.



Document 1      Location Map

Document 2      Excerpt of Schedule “B” of City Council Approved Official Plan

Document 3      Proposed Concept Plan

Document 4      Consultation Details




Department of Corporate Services, Secretariat Services to notify the owner (Mr. Chris Fleming, C. Fleming Developments Ltd., 700-2081 Merivale Road, Ottawa, ON K2G 1G6), applicant/agent (Pamela Sweet, FoTenn Consultants Inc., 223 McLeod Street, Ottawa, ON K2P 0Z8), and All Signs, 8692 Russell Road, Navan, ON K4B 1J1, of City Council’s decision.

LOCATION MAP                                                                                                         Document 1


EXCERPT OF OFFICIAL PLAN SCHEDULE “B”                                                   Document 2



PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT                                                                Document 3


CONSULTATION DETAILS                                                                                       Document 4


Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Official Plan Amendments.  The following comments were received from the general public, public agencies and community organizations in response to the City’s technical and public circulations concerning the proposed amendment.




Two members of the general public verbally expressed their support for the proposed Official Plan Amendment application.  The comments were of a general nature and concurred with the proposed change of land use designation.


One member of the public




Councillor Jellett reviewed the subject proposal and gave his full support to the subject application.





The Innes Re-Zoning and Development Group submitted the following comment in support of the subject Official Plan Amendment application:


From our community perspective, we see this proposal as a positive step in the development of a complete community.


We can appreciate the need to preserve existing industrial lands for future use in Orléans.  However, we observe that several large tracks of lands in the East End, set aside for this purpose, are as yet not fully developed.  We would like to point out that the previous cities of Gloucester and Cumberland had completed Economic Development Plans, which, to this date, have not achieved their goals.  The Orléans Industrial Park (OIP), immediately adjacent to the properties in question, has failed to attract any solid industrial development in the approximate quarter century since its re-zoning from agricultural.  It would appear that the south of Orléans has more than sufficient land set-aside for future industrial usage.


The proposal allowing for a change of designation to “General Urban Area” and “Mixed Use Centre” will help promote and sustain an industrial base within the OIP.  If the lands in question remain as designated, we fear that the result will be the status quo: two empty “Industrial Parks” side by side.  It is apparent that there is currently no line up of industrial developers eager to proceed!


Therefore, we are in support of the proposed Amendment to the Official Plan to change the current land use designations for these properties.”


Staff Response:


As outlined in the Discussion, it is staff’s opinion that the subject employment lands are needed in order to achieve the long-term development strategies of the City Council Approved Official Plan, regardless of the duration that the lands have remained vacant.  The proposal fails to clearly demonstrate that the subject lands are not required for employment purposes and that their conversion from employment to residential and mixed use is needed.  In this regard, the proposed amendment is not consistent with Policy 1.3.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement.



OFFICIAL PLAN - 2233 Mer bleue Road, 2168 and 2370 tenth line road

plan officiel - 2233, chemin mer bleue, 2168 et 2370, chemin tenth line

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0163                                                            cumberland (19)


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


N. Lathrop, John Moser, Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals, Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals, Larry Morrison, Manager, Development Approvals, Ian Cross, Program Manager, Community Planning and Design, and Danny Page, Program Manager, Development Review, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 13 August 2005.  Mr. Page provided a detailed PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk, and highlighted the applicant submitted the lands are more appropriately developed as mixed use/residential given the surrounding and projected uses that will make more efficient use of the transit corridor and services; there are sufficient employment lands to satisfy employment needs for the next 20 years; and, it does not violate the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and City OP.  The applicant provided comprehensive supporting studies:  Concept Plan; Planning Rationale Study (FoTenn); Employment Needs Assessment (MGP); Market Demand Study (MRG); Serviceability Report (CCL); Transportation Overview (CCL/IBI).  Staff undertook a thorough review of the supporting documentation and is unable to support the proposal citing: lands are needed for future employment and not for projected residential growth to 2021; and, it is not consistent with the 2005 PPS and not in conformity with the City OP.  In conclusion, the proposal fails to demonstrate the subject lands are not needed to achieve the long term employment opportunities in the east and fails to clearly demonstrate the conversion of land is needed.


The Committee heard from the following delegations:


Sharon Lawrence and Pierrette Woods, Co-Chairs, Innes Re-zoning and Development Group (IRDG), provided a detailed written presentation in support of the application and in opposition to the staff recommendation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.  The main points are summarized below:

·        Appreciate the need to preserve existing industrial lands for future use in Orléans, which has been the focus of the IRDG, especially as it pertains to the Orléans Industrial Park (OIP) that has failed to attract any solid industrial development in the 25 years since its re-zoning from “Agricultural”.  In the four years of their involvement, no planning application has been submitted for “Industrial” purposes.

·        The question is not whether to retain more land for future employment opportunities, but why choose a property next to the OIP, which is only 15-18% developed?  It is inaccessible and cannot be made accessible because there are no monies to extend the Blackburn By-pass and Transitway to create a link to the Airport or to establish a corridor to Montréal.  It is time to pursue solid industry and create substantial career oriented jobs in the remainder of this Industrial Park.

·        This new residential development will complete the circle around the Park, thereby increasing the potential pool of skilled employees to sustain an industrial base within the OIP, making it more attractive for industry to locate there.  These residents will be able to work, shop and access services, all within their own community.

·        This land can essentially be developed immediately, generate development fees, establish a tax base to support and sustain the necessary transportation system.

·        Several large tracks of land in the Orléans area are set aside for employment purposes:

·        21 acres around the former Cumberland Town Hall on Centrum Blvd.

·        Youville Business Park is 18.5% vacant.

·        Taylor & Cardinal Creek Business Parks are 73.3% vacant.

·        Land is available north of Highway 174.

·        Smaller parcels of land for in-fill business development are available in the Villages of Cumberland, Navan, Vars and Sarsfield.

·        Planners work on formulas and established planning principles based on historical data and scientific projections; however, this can sometimes result in adherence to a plan conceived under different circumstances.  There is currently no line up of industrial developers eager to proceed at either location!

·        The proposal will generate immediate funding for the Transitway and extension of the Blackburn By-pass, a pre-requisite to the industrial development of the Park and economic growth.  The combination of industrial and commercial land surrounded by residential projects will result in the creation of an all-inclusive community.  A more appropriately situated parcel of land could be retained elsewhere within the eastern City boundaries for future industrial development.


Ms. Wood added some personal comments that are summarized below (and on file):

·        Through volunteer work, she has sat on many Planning Committees over the years.  Plans require several components to be successful.  Flexibility must be built in and the end results must have measurable, achievable goals.

·        When plans were conceived for the Taylor & Cardinal Creek Business Park 20 years ago, the need to reserve this land for future employment needs was articulated, yet has not fully materialized to this day.  One plan does not fit all.  A plan beyond a five-year projection time frame is not realistic.  Residents would rather see a well-planned fully developed Residential and Mixed Use Center.


Following the presentation, members of Committee and Councillor Bloess submitted questions to the delegation and staff, respectively.  The following summarizes the main points or responses thereto:

·        Residents definitely did want a balanced community in Orleans where people can live, work and play in that community.  OIP has sat for 25 years with very little developed except for some retail along the perimeter.

·        Jobs are needed now and further land can be set aside for 20 years hence.  Land could be found further out within the eastern boundary and not all in one big splotch.  The lands in question and the OIP is a massive area.  Avalon Community has expanded.  Residents would like to see something that would stimulate building in the OIP.

·        By surrounding OIP with residential development, a circle is created that increases the potential for residents to be able to work within the OIP and make it more attractive for developers or government departments to locate there.

·        This is a golden opportunity to have residential development mixed with an employment centre; there is a potential for 4,700.

·        This could be the catalyst to move the balance of the remaining lands and there is adequate land to achieve that objective.  There is a need for additional residential construction for the tax base and development fees to provide essential transportation.

·        Ms. Currie advised that within the Orleans urban boundary, as depicted on the overhead, is a large yellow designation.  That land, with the exception of a small portion, is currently subject to development applications.  The small section not yet subject to development applications is within the developing communities section of former Gloucester, near Notre Dames des Champs that is still held in individual ownerships.

·        The developing community area to the west recently received Community Design Plan (CDP) approval that covers 50% of that land and is subject to development applications.  There is no location where the City could find an additional 150ha and designate it employment.  There must be assurance of a supply of land to provide for employment.

·        Formerly Cumberland and Gloucester worked jointly to attract development to the east, which is still an interest to the current City since it is critically important to achieve jobs and housing.  The transportation system that links the east is known to be problematic.

·        There is no proactive work by the City to point development where the City would like it to establish.  The principle has been to be very strategic and ensure there is a good economic climate and environment, but there is no promotional, bonusing, etc., which would point any group in one direction or another.

·        There was a competitive process in the former municipalities, with everyone competing for jobs and industrial development and respective business parks searching for business.  The new City is not in the search mode, but in a facilitation, assistance mode with a very active group that does research and provides support for targeted industries.  The City has targeted the biosciences, life sciences and certain basic industries, but has not actually done anything at the warehousing end.  It would be within the City’s ability to look at bonusing if it wanted to provide incentives to businesses in the east end.

·        Growth of the City’s economic health has always been assumed to be based on equal development in the growth areas.  To the extent the City has held this land in reserve preserves that availability.  There was a big flurry about five years ago with finding a chip fabrication plant site, with only three sites available of the scale and size, next to hydro power, servicing and transportation.  One of them was this site.  The others were in Kanata and Nepean.  This is the only one left in terms of the original three.

·        The City has always recognized existing vacant land inventory must be filled, especially within the existing former City of Ottawa, before spilling out into the growth areas.  The question is whether the City is at a point where it will need this land for less dense, more warehousing type of development.  It is the City’s view there is too much ambiguity to give this land away at this time.  The land use should be retained until the OP review in 2008 to make the assessment at that time.

·        If directed, staff could bring forward a report on incentives for the development of commercial lands in the east end.


Ted Phillips, Taggart Group, Lee Parsons, Malone, Given, Parsons (MGP), Pamela Sweet, FoTenn Consultants, and Bob Wingate, Cumming Cobourn (CCL/IBI Group), addressed PEC on behalf of the proponent and provided a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  The application was put forward by the Taggart Group, C. Fleming Developments and Shenkman Corporation.  Briefly, Mr. Phillips explained the Taggart Group and C. Fleming Developments acquired an interest in 100 acres in this area.  Two years ago they met with staff to determine what kind of application would be appropriate on these lands and determined in May 2004 they had a complete package to bring forward for staff to consider.  Subsequently, they were asked to conduct further studies and in the fall of 2004 were prepared to put together an application for staff to consider and ultimately PEC and Council.  Following on comments made by Councillor Holmes, Shenkman is very committed to this piece of land and to the east.  Shenkman owned 250 acres immediately adjacent to the site that has been held for several years and been very aggressive in trying to market those lands recently to DND and other government agencies.   Last fall they were requested to hold back on their application because there was an interest by east end Councillors and the Mayor to ensure the east was given priority and acquiesced to allow the Mayor and Councillors to investigate several opportunities as thoroughly as possible.  It is important to realize no one is giving up on the east and they are very committed to ensure there are sufficient employment and housing opportunities that utilize the best opportunities to promote both industrial and residential compatible uses and communities.


Mr. Parsons followed on Mr. Phillips, with the main points summarized below:

·        Basic questions that need to be answered:  Will there be sufficient employment land in the East Urban Centre (EUC) in the future?  Is there a need for residential?  And does this proposal represent good planning?

·        They were asked to provide a comprehensive analysis of the balance of land; the supply and demand of land in the entire city with a focus on the EUC.  The analysis was based on information from the City.  The areas focused on were the employment lands.

·        The existing level of employment was analyzed and the employment growth as anticipated by the OP.  In 2001 there were approximately 15,000 jobs in the EUC, increasing by 30,000 (2021), which is an ambitious growth target outlined in the OP.

·        One of the questions that arose in the staff report was that of population serving employment and whether that was over-estimated.  A slide illustrated the amount of employment in population serving categories per capita; in the West Urban Centre (WUC) it is .15 and in the EUC it is .12, which is slightly less than the others but relatively similar to the WUC, but much less than inside the greenbelt.

·        They analyzed how they expected that particular employment category to grow over time as population grew.  In the WUC it was expected to grow to.18 jobs per capita, similarly in the EUC and the South Urban Centre (SUC), with slight variations.  If there is going to be less of this type of employment in the EUC, the implication is that the level of service to the population would somehow be less.  They did not believe that was the OP intent; it was believed the intent is that the EUC be equally well serviced.

·        The reality is that over the last 10 years, the total amount of employment land absorbed in the EUC for use is only 29 ha. (less than 3 ha./year), with 504 ha. available in 2001.

·        Although they have been focusing on the amount of employment land necessary to retain in the future, there are many other designations where employment takes place.

·        Bottom line, the subject site encompasses an area of 135 net ha.  185 net ha is identified to be surplus in the EUC in 2021.  If the 135 was not employment and was matched against the 185, there would be 50 ha remaining (OPA 28 reduces the 185 to 173).  There will likely be more employment on the site with this type of development than would otherwise be the case.  The average employment densities are 21 employees per net ha; they are assuming 40 employees per net ha., which is believed to be achievable.

·        It is not a residential project, but a mixed-use project.  By definition, the project itself is balanced in terms of residential and employment and represents a better way to utilize transit.  The number of jobs that would occur on this site without a planned overall mixed-use development would be less than 4,700 jobs.  This represents good planning and smart growth from an employment perspective for the City, the EUC and the site.


Ms. Sweet elaborated on the planning component.  The main points are summarized below:

·        How does this amendment achieve the objectives of the OP?  It continues to preserve the opportunity for 4-5,000 jobs through the Mixed-Use Area (MUA).  They want to maximize the LRT transit corridor; placing low-density warehouse-type employment in this area will not do that.  It supports the OP residential targets and provides a mix of uses with densities of at least 29 units/net ha.

·        The other issue in the staff report was that of 1.3 jobs per household.  This is a red herring in that the potential amendment actually shows the same number of jobs in the developed area as if it would be within the employment area.  In addition, the OP is projecting 0.9 jobs per household by 2021.  This amendment does not impact the target of 1.3 jobs per household.

·        There is still a large parcel of over 500 acres that will continue to be available should a large employer present itself.  Plus, there are other locations, certainly in the SUC and in the west, as well as an ideal location at the 416; as well the rural area has over 2,200 net acres of vacant land.  Those lands are ideal for the kind of industrial uses being discussed.  Ms. Sweet presented an old map completed by the former City of Cumberland when it was looking at the Frank Kenny Road extension.  The emphasis was on getting the connections along Frank Kenny down to the 417 where there are industrial parks at the Vars intersection and a potential for long term future possible employment lands.  The subject lands are not in an ideal location for truck-type employment lands; they should be used to more adequately take advantage of the transitway.

·        The site is surrounded by residential and is ideally located as a residential and mixed use community and in terms of the employment areas remaining to the north, that will not change.  Future transit (LRT) and stations will be the focus of any community concept planning for this site.

·        Finally, on the issue of consistency with the PPS; there are three points in the PPS one has to recognize.  One, is that a thorough and comprehensive study is completed – that was undertaken by Lee Parsons’ report.  It looked not only at Orleans, but the entire City and is a very thorough and consistent analysis as recognized by staff in the report.  In addition, the PPS wants to make clear these lands are not needed for employment; (they will remain as partially employment as indicated earlier) and that the alternative use is also needed.  The residential use is also needed in this community.

·        The application conforms to the OP; this may be somewhat interpretive, but it is opined it meets the conditions of the Plan and many of the Smart Growth Principles.  In summary, this is good planning and provides the City with the opportunity for more up to date and current thinking for the subject lands without jeopardizing the long term future, economic opportunities and live/work balance in Orleans.


Mr. Wingate added that with respect to infrastructure, a serviceability report was prepared that demonstrates neighbourhood 5 can be developed as General Urban with the same infrastructure currently proposed for the employment status of the site.  However, the staff report raises a concern that did not come forward until the serviceability report was prepared.  Briefly, the concern is the pumping station located on the southeast corner of neighbourhood 5 has been designed with an overflow for emergency purposes in the case of total failure that would not accommodate basements.  When they became aware, they immediately reinitiated a review of the conceptual servicing design and concluded that concern can be resolved with the installation of another overflow as part of the design for neighbourhood 5 into the new pond proposed for neighbourhood 5 and that will provide the protection necessary for basements.


Mr. Phillips closed by thanking staff for their promptness and the proponent was very pleased staff dealt with the matter expeditiously, while not happy with the findings.  Lastly, if PEC is in support of the application, Mr. Phillips referred to the matter identified in the staff report relative to sewers and the pumping stations.  The pumping station has been designed and put out to tender, as he understood it, and staff is in a position to award the tender.  There was a minor concern with respect to being able to ensure the outlet is located appropriately and discussions with staff up to this day have confirmed that while the design does need to be changed, they wanted to ensure that if PEC is supportive of the application, it is passed through to staff rather quickly and if approved today, it would rise to Council tomorrow.  That would permit that prior to awarding the contract for the pumping station, the appropriate outlet can be looked at so that it does not result in a situation with a contract awarded prior to Council giving consideration to the subject application.


As a result of the presentation, PEC members and Councillor Bloess questioned the delegation and the following summarizes the issues raised:

·        If the application is not approved, in all likelihood the land will sit as it is for possibly another 10-15 years or (worse case) it will be whittled away by small warehouse-type operations, low density/low employment.  It will not add anything to the community.

·        If this application proceeds, it will not negate any major opportunity lurking on the horizon.  This area is over 500 acres and there is considerable vacant land ready to be serviced with excellent access to the transit LRT system.  Many opportunities can be accommodated and there are vacancies within other industrial parks in Orleans.

·        Kevin McCrann, Shenkman Corporation, advised they have owned this land for five years.  During the high tech expansion, the land was aggressively marketed as a high tech business park.  A concept plan depicted 4 Million feet2 of space on the site.  At that time, Innes was a two-lane road off the Blackburn Hamlet Bypass.  Several large high tech users were shown the land and it was difficult to market a Greenfield development that had no infrastructure.  They are not looking to sell the remaining lands as self-storage or auto dealerships and have discussed the possibility with staff of placing a development hold, waiting for a larger user to come forward.  They met with the Mayor and were presented offers for three or four self-storage facilities, which do not meet the objectives and are not economically beneficial in their view; and, they are not taking those offers seriously.  They would prefer to look at a larger user; the remaining lands can certainly house 4 or 5 Million feet2 with any kind of density.  There has been no communication with OCRI relative to the east end; it is very hard to promote; they have never been able to respond to an RFI for anything proposed beyond Blair Road.

·        If these lands are re-designated, Mr. McCrann responded that 260 acres will be retained for commercial development.

·        With respect to the 4-5,000 jobs, Ms. Sweet advised that under the current employment designation it would develop at lower densities in terms of number of employees per use.  However, if you evaluate the concept plan, with the mixed use at higher densities, there would be the same number or possibly higher; 4,700 could result and therefore there is no net loss in jobs.

·        On the sensitivity regarding timing because of capital infrastructure work the City may be on the verge of tendering, Mr. Phillips explained it is an elevation concern, not a capacity concern.


Councillor Kreling advised that based on the presentation to this point he would be submitting an amending Motion to the staff recommendation.


Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter returned to Committee.


Staff responded to questions from Councillor Cullen with the following clarifications:

·        The job target for this site was in the neighbourhood of 5-6,000 jobs and the application would result in a net loss of job potential if approvced.  Mr. Cross also pointed out the opportunity does exist to provide higher density employment around the transitway addressed by the proponent as well as preserving the supply of land for “traditional” industrial uses to the south.  Ms. Currie addressed the eastern station at Tenth Line and advised that while the current OP does show it as employment area, that does not preclude higher density employment and the former Cumberland Plan and the Regional Plan (ROP) did reflect that as a Secondary Employment Area.  Therefore, other development proposals occurring in that location have taken that into account.

·        1.3 jobs/resident OP target – Ms. Currie submitted the current projections to 2021 allows for .9 jobs/household, which is already deficient relative to the 1.3.  The land holding was designed to accommodate a higher ratio of employment than .9 and therefore the land is needed to ultimately provide for the ability to move towards 1.3 jobs/household.  Removing land will continue to retain the range of .85 to .9 jobs/household, but there will no longer be additional land to move towards the 1.3 that Orleans is currently challenged to meet.  It will not only reduce the potential, but increase the number of households thereby exacerbating the imbalance.

·        The entire premise of balanced growth is the heart of the Smart Growth concept built when the early ROP was first developed.  Balanced growth means maximizing infrastructure, transit, transportation systems and minimizing the number of residents that need to travel within the community.  That has been the heart of planning in the former Region and new City for 30 years.

·        The potential to make up the 23,000 job deficit in the east end other than in the Orleans community is always there, but staff is not convinced, based on the evidence presented, that now is the time to make the decision to take employment lands out of the urban community.  One of the key reasons even Shenkman recognizes, and the kind of interest shown in lands that exist along Innes that Shenkman owns, is that there is some movement outside the Greenbelt for take up on some of these lands, which is why staff is so concerned about releasing/re-designating the land.


The Committee received the following correspondence in support of the application:

·        Letter dated 22 August 2005, from Marcel Bisson.

·        Letter dated 19 August 2005, from Jacques Ouellette and Sylvian Diotte (Ouellette).


Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter returned to Committee.


Chair Hume advised Mr. Marc asked the PEC to move In-Camera to speak to a related issue with regard to a proposed or pending acquisition of land for the purposes of the City.


Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:


That the meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee move In-Camera, pursuant to Section 12 (1)(c) of the Procedure By-law (2003-589), being a proposed or pending acquisition of land for the purposes of the City.




Following the In Camera session, Councillor Kreling spoke to his Motion and stated it recognizes there has been a comprehensive review of the employment lands; there is potential for a similar amount of jobs with or without this amendment; and, it is asking for an appropriate mix of uses including jobs, higher densities next to the LRT and residential.  It could easily be said an extensive review has been conducted to consider whether it is appropriate to leave the lands as currently designated or whether to attempt something different.  He proposed that PEC and Council accept the proponent’s proposal because it has heard very clearly from the proponents as well as similar comments from the community that something different is required rather than to continue to hold onto a wish for the subject lands.  When the Shenkman Corporation acquired substantial acreage in this vicinity a number of years ago, he believed they were the correct partner at the table, as a company knowledgeable and well versed in commercial development and job creation, desperately sought in the eastern communities.  Shenkman is not throwing out the issue of job creation on the site, but suggesting they need extra tools to be more innovative because it is not well suited to simply remain employment land.  His Motion does ask that PEC redesignate, but it is not walking away from substantial employment creation.  It is a substantial change that is not at the expense of the community, but rather will hopefully provide new initiatives and benefits on this site, but also that adjoining employment lands will remain so designated and hopefully benefit from this new initiative.  He asked PEC to favourably consider the amendment placed before it rather than the staff recommendation.


Councillor Feltmate stated she was not a proponent of changing employment lands to residential lands; however, some of the arguments to support this particular site have merit.  In response to the Councillor, Ms. Currie indicated the process to be undertaken with the mixed-use centre is subject to a CDP to be undertaken in the future.  The MUA was located in the kidney-shaped area.  The CDP would take place when the City is closer to a market that is likely to achieve the types of densities, residential and commercial, of employment that mixed-use designation anticipates.  Once that plan is completed it is to be approved as an OPA, so that it will entrench those targets within the OP.  Responding further, Ms. Currie indicated Concept Plans were not the normal process.  Staff has completed CDPs in Riverside South and Leitrim that were presented to PEC, which is the current process.


Councillor Kreling indicated CDPs are traditionally used in larger geographies.  This site is not at all in the same proportion as the Riverside community.  It would perhaps be more expeditiously dealt with as a Concept Plan.  Mr. Lathrop posited the issue is not scale and it would be appropriate to call it a CDP and then task staff to proceed with it.


Councillor Cullen spoke to the Councillor Kreling’s Motion and with regret found the Motion short-sighted and not in the best interest of the Orleans’ community.  To allow an imbalance in communities between work and living, creates bedroom communities that are expensive for the taxpayers to subsidize.  Bedroom communities exit/return to their community in the a.m./p.m. with the inherent traffic congestion that creates a burden on existing infrastructure or creates the need for same.  The City has been promoting balanced communities in the OP long before Smart Growth became the buzzword of the day.  The community has said it is impatient, but the City’s job is to plan for a balanced community.  Currently, there is a 23,000 job deficit in the Orleans community.  How can these jobs be created if employment land is removed and compounded by adding residential?  Councillor Cullen then turned to Kanata, which was strictly a bedroom community and has evolved to become a balanced community over time.  The proposal is short-sighted, provides short term gain for long term pain, violates the principles of Smart Growth that underlie the OP and creates an imbalanced community when the City is trying to develop balanced communities.


Councillor Jellett addressed the question of the CDP versus the Concept Plan and did not see the need for a full CDP.  That will happen in the MUA and the remainder of the area is a small land mass.  As Councillor Kreling rightly pointed out, this is not Riverside South.  In response to Councillor Cullen, of course there must be land available, but according to the inventory of vacant industrial lands and business park lands in the City of Ottawa prepared by the City in July 2004, there are 1,253.5 net acres of vacant land in the Orleans area.  The Councillor was in full support of Councillor Kreling’s Motion and asked his colleagues to vote in favour.


Councillor Bloess commented as the Ward Councillor for the abutting area, that the ultimate irony is that everyone has the same objective, which is to see balanced growth across the City and logical development that will create jobs.  Earlier there was a question of how to promote economic development in the east end and he appreciated Councillor Holmes’ interest just as he shared her interest in the downtown core.  There was reference to Team Ottawa-Orleans earlier, which has representation from all levels of government, community support and a community base that is attempting to create a complete community.  The east end Councillor and community association are in support of the application.  Team Ottawa-Orleans is supportive.  Staff may have valid reasons not to support the application, but those reasons are not strong enough nor overwhelming enough not to support this application.  Councillor Bloess urged PEC to support the application at PEC and at Council


Councillor Holmes agreed with Councillor Bloess that everyone is trying to realize a mixed community in the east end.  Past Councillors and staff are responsible for not moving at a faster pace.  The City could have been much more proactive and hoped it will be in the future to utilize the techniques at its disposal to attain more commercial development in the east end for all the reasons Councillor Cullen raised, mainly economic.  The proposal will result in more bedroom in the bedroom community and she would support the staff recommendation.


Councillor Hunter brought some history to the matter.  Around the Regional Council table in the 1980’s there was an OP review that studied the expansion of the EUC, SUC and WUC.  The boundaries were accepted and the OP underwent public hearings through Planning Committee and Council.  These lands were not discussed and not a part of that OP.  At the last minute, these lands became known as the Amendment 1 Lands, to move them into the urban boundary in an attempt to increase the amount of business park land in the east end with no study, justification or rationale.  Change without study can be just as much right as it can be wrong.  In this case it proves that after 20 years, they were wrong.  The market will decide what goes where.  On the ratio of jobs to households, a number of residents are retiring with good pensions and a household can sustain itself without a job.  Service jobs will create servicing communities that can survive quite well on a lower jobs to household ratio than traditionally found.  He would support the Motion put forth by Councillor Kreling.

In response to Chair Hume, Mr. Moser advised the zoning would come forward to PEC based on the Concept Plan, which does not usually come to Committee.  De facto PEC would see both at the same time.  Mr. Lathrop suggested this development should not be treated any differently than others in the City.  Why not call it a CDP and deal with it as a such?  He understood the developer was concerned with time.  Staff would come forward with a CDP and after approved, the zoning would come forward and if the developer is concerned about speed, it can be worked through in an appropriate time frame.


Following on the Chair’s question, Councillor Harder asked how many additional studies would have to be conducted for a CDP over and above those already completed and paid for.  If PEC supports Councillor Kreling’s Motion, with a detailed Concept Plan, it is brought back at the same time as the zoning.  Mr. Lathrop clarified that in all likelihood there is little difference; PEC should give the benefit of doubt to staff to take the information received and bring it forward to PEC as a CDP.  On timelines between a Concept Plan and a CDP, Mr. Lathrop opined that is subject to a definition issue.  The City will need the same information; servicing information; population, etc. for both.


At the request of Councillor Cullen, Chair Hume ruled the Motion could be divided.


Moved by Councillor H. Kreling:


1.         That whereas a thorough and comprehensive review of employment lands has been undertaken; and


Whereas the subject lands will potentially have the same number of jobs with or without this amendment; and


Whereas the lands are more appropriate for a mix of uses including jobs, higher densities next to the proposed LRT, and residential uses;


Now therefore be it resolved that the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the request for 2233 Mer Bleue Road and 2168 and 2370 Tenth Line Road to amend the City Council Approved Official Plan from Employment Area to General Urban Area and Mixed Use Centre, and to amend the Regional Official Plan and Cumberland Official Plan as may be deemed necessary.


YEAS (6):        Councillors H. Kreling, J. Harder, G. Hunter, M. Bellemere, P. Feltmate, P. Hume

NAYS (2):       Councillors A. Cullen, D. Holmes


Moved by Councillor H. Kreling:


2.         And further that a detailed Concept Plan be prepared.


Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:


That Councillor H. Kreling’s Motion be amended to read as follows:


And further that a detailed Community Design Plan be prepared.




YEAS (5):        Councillors P. Feltmate, A. Cullen, M. Bellemare, D. Holmes, P. Hume

NAYS (3):       Councillors J. Harder, H. Kreling, G. Hunter


On Councillor Kreling’s Motion, as amended.


CARRIED with Councillor J. Harder dissenting.


Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:


That a report be prepared that provides for incentives for the establishment of commercial and industrial development in the east of the City (outside the Greenbelt).


CARRIED with Councillor J. Harder dissenting.


Councillor Jellett thanked Councillor Holmes for putting her Motion forward, which is an important tool for the east end.


Councillor Kreling presented a Motion asking PEC recommend Council approve waiving the rules to permit the recommendation of 2233 Mer Bleue Road and 2370 Tenth Line Road to rise to council on August 24th, 2005.


Councillor Cullen commented it is unusual having received and dealt with the documentation today to ask Council to deal with this item tomorrow while other Councillors will not have had an opportunity to review the material considered.  Having said that, what opened the door to this Motion was the point made by the developer regarding the award of contract on a pumping station.  Would it not be prudent for staff to hold off on awarding that contract until Council has disposed of this item?  Mr. Lathrop agreed with the Councillor and asked Mr. Morrison to respond thereto.  Chair Hume welcomed Mr. Morrison back to the Committee, who confirmed the contract has not been let and could be delayed until such time as Council has dealt with this application in the normal course of events.  Having received that information, Councillor Cullen did not see the need to waive the rules to move this on to Council.  This is not an insignificant planning issue and there are assurances from staff the very reason PEC would want to accelerate have been answered through staff’s commitment to hold off on the contract so he would ask Councillor Kreling to withdraw his Motion.


Chair Hume received confirmation from Mr. Marc a simple majority was needed to approve the Motion and Mr. Marc further clarified there is no requirement to Suspend the Rules at Council since there is a provision in the Procedure By-Law that permits PEC reports to rise to Council in less than the normal time frame provided the report was distributed within a certain time frame to PEC and he was certain this one was.


In response to Councillor Holmes, Mr. Morrison advised the contract is on hold at the moment because it is over budget.  Staff is reviewing the contract to determine if it can be brought within means.  It is being currently reviewed by Public Works and will take longer than the normal time frame to get to Council.


Chair Hume advised that from an administrative perspective he was informed by Mr. Marc that to have this item properly before Council tomorrow, PEC would not only have the report and decision, but also the Minutes ready, before Council for their consideration and quite frankly, 4½ hours of debate would be difficult to undertake.  Chair Hume added that should PEC approve such a Motion, the reality of the situation is that is a direction that the Minutes be prepared.  Mr. Marc confirmed that was correct and for Council to deal with an OPA or a Zoning By-Law, the Minutes by statute, must be at Council with the item.  Councillor Kreling reconsidered, given the information put in front of PEC and Mr. Morrison and Mr. Lathrop’s guarantee the tender can be on hold until this matter is properly seized and considered before Council, he withdrew his Motion.


The Committee approved the recommendations as amended.

1.                  That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the request for 2233 Mer Bleue Road and 2168 and 2370 Tenth Line Road to amend the City Council Approved Official Plan from Employment Area to General Urban Area and Mixed Use Centre, and to amend the Regional Official Plan and Cumberland Official Plan as may be deemed necessary.


2.                  And further that a detailed Community Design Plan be prepared.


3.                  That a report be prepared that provides for incentives for the establishment of commercial and industrial development in the east of the City (outside the Greenbelt).


                                                                                                             CARRIED as amended

 [U1]Site Location and Description (which should include description of site i.e., flat, featureless, no vegetation, grade and drainage, adjacent to…)

 [U2]If there are no objections, use the following


 [U3]Include the documents that are applicable to this report


 [U4]Summarize the public notification and consultation undertaken.

 [U5]Insert Councillor’s comments

 [U6]Insert our response

 [U7]Insert Community Organization Comments

 [U8]Insert our response