Summary of Public Submissions Post March 7th, 2008 to April 4th, 2008
|
Address and Ward Number (Name) |
Description |
Discussion |
Staff Recommendation |
|
City Wide Definition of Shopping Centre (TDL Group) (North
American Property Group, First Capital Realty, Brigil Homes and Elk Property
Management) |
Revise definition of shopping centre to accommodate the
variety of types of ownership and tenancy arrangements and parking
arrangements.
Revise definition of shopping centre or else put “one lot for zoning by-law purposes” to deal with multiple ownerships. |
Concur- suggested wording accommodates concerns of
retail sector while addressing planning concerns. Revised version would read:
Shopping centre means a group of predominantly
commercial and service occupancies that: (a) is designed, developed and managed as a unit
whether by a single owner or a group of owners or tenants acting in
collaboration; (b) is either in a single building or in multiple
buildings on the same lot or abutting lots and may, but shall not be required
to, be considered as one lot for zoning purposes; (c) is made up entirely of uses permitted or lawful
non-conforming on the site; (d) has a minimum size greater than a cumulative total
of 2,000 square metres of gross leasable floor area; and has either (i) a common parking lot or parking garage or a
combination thereof; or (ii) a group of parking lots or parking garages or a
combination thereof which are managed as a unit by the same owner,
owners or tenants of the commercial and service occupancies required in
subparagraph (a) above, and are on the same lot or lots as the commercial and
service occupancies required in subparagraph (a) above. |
Change definition of shopping centre |
|
City Wide Section 70 (International Airport Authority) |
Section 70, subsection 2 should be modified to delete the reference to Carp and Rockcliffe airports as subsection 3 already acknowledges the applicability of TP312 in both cases. Schedule 6 reflects development restrictions imposed by the noise contours and the Airport Zoning Regulations presented on Schedule K in the Official Plan. Some modifications are required. Also, the legend should me modified. |
Concur . Schedule K in the Official Plan before modifying Schedule 6. Concur to modify legend to read as follows: “Ottawa International Airport – Air Vicinity Development Zone; Ottawa International Airport – Air Operating Influence Zone.” |
Delete reference to Carp and Rockcliffe Airports in Section 70(2) Do not support change at this time Make change to legend on Schedule 6 |
|
City Wide (Conservation Partners) |
Amend definition of “Accessory” to include the word ‘detached’. It is the experience of the
CA’s that without the additional criteria of “detached” that exemptions to
the intended provisions of an “accessory” are avoided by way of breezeways or
shared walls.
|
Accessory can include uses within or attached to a principal
building (e.g. storage area within a retail store; private garage attached to
a dwelling). Changing the definition would create significant non-conformity.
|
Do not support change
|
|
City Wide (Conservation Partners) |
Add word “Normal Highwater Mark” with description. Normal High Water Mark: means the
mark made by the action of water under natural conditions on the shore or
bank of a watercourse or waterbody which action has been so common or usual
or so long continued that it has created a distinction in the general terrestrial vegetation, in
changes in soil characteristics or by the edge of some embankment
particularly scored by the action of water. It is a variable line in
characteristic indicators and distinctiveness, and it is identified by the
consideration of all visible evidence, not alone by one indicator, as located
by an Ontario Land Surveyor. |
Concur- adding definition would provide clarification to
the terminology.
|
Add a definition for “normal high water mark” as noted
|
|
City Wide Section 54 - Definitions (Conservation Partners) |
Add word “setback” with description. Setback: means the least horizontal
distance measured between any building, structure, development or
excavation on the lot and
the closest boundary of the constraint. |
Concur – modify the yard setback definition for the
purposes of applying Section 69, Setbacks from Watercourses, since the
setback is from the constraint and not necessarily the lot line.
|
Modify the yard setback definitions to indicate a
setback applies as noted.
|
|
City Wide Section 54 - Definitions (Conservation Partners) |
Add word “Top of Bank” with description. Top of bank means “a boundary where
a majority of normal discharges and channel forming activities takes place.
The top of bank boundary will contain the active stream channel, active
floodplain, and their associated banks”. |
Concur – adding a definition fro Top of the Bank makes
it clearer as to where the setback from watercourses contained in Section 69
is measured.
|
Add definition as noted.
|
|
City Wide Section 54 - Definitions (Conservation Partners) |
Add word “watercourse” with description. Should be same as
in OP. Prefer to see use of definition from CA Act, however will wait for OP
review opportunity to keep both consistent. Watercourse: “means a naturally occurring drainage channel which
includes rivers, streams and creeks”. |
Concur – this makes it clearer as to where Section 69
applies and is consistent with definition in Official Plan.
|
Add definition as noted.
|
|
City Wide Section 54 – Defintion (Conservation Partners) |
Add word “waterbody” with description. Waterbody: “means a lake or pond”. |
Concur – this makes it clearer as to where Section 69
applies.
|
Add definition as noted.
|
|
City Wide (Conservation Partners) |
Rename the zone to reflect the hazardous nature of the
constraint. Recommend “Floodplain Hazard
Overlay”
Amend the first sentence to include other provisions in the bylaw; for example secondary dwelling units. Remove the reference to the Conservation Authorities Act from Section (2). It is covered in the NOTE at the bottom of the section. Also, zoning cannot be tied to approval by a regulatory agency. Exempt secondary dwelling units from provision 2.c). Add the words “except for a secondary dwelling”. Add to uses not permitted: 1. A storm water management pond unless approved under the Environmental Assessment Act. 2. A Nursing home: this term is not used anywhere in the ZBL, though anything equivalent to a nursing home doesn’t seem to appear on the list of prohibited uses. We require clarification on whether a nursing home is captured under one of the terms already listed and/or whether a “residential care facility” would include a nursing home type facility and should be included in this list. |
Concur, the Provincial Policy Statement does consider
these areas as “Natural Hazards”.
Concur, it is not just the provisions of the underlying zone, but other provisions such as general provisions. Concur, this is redundant. A secondary dwelling unit, unless created
through an addition, is not considered to be 1) development; 2) site
alteration; or 3) change of use, and because it does not fall under any one
of these Provincial Policy Statement or Planning Act definitions, there is no
authority to require that the City prohibit this secondary use under any
conditions, as the policy is to permit them wherever a dwelling is
permitted. However, staff concur that
a secondary dwelling unit, where partially or wholly located in a basement,
could result in safety risks if flooding occurs. Therefore, staff recommend a modification, that partially
responds to the Conservations Partner’s concern by exempting those units
below grade, but which permits this secondary use at and above grade. Concur for 1. and 2. Note a nursing
home falls under the term “Residential Care Facilities”. |
Change name of Section 58“Floodplain Overlay” to
“Floodplain Hazard Overlay”
Change wording to add after “underlying zone”, the
words “or other provisions of the Zoning By-law” Change Section 58(2) by deleting the words “following
submission and approval of an application under the Conservation Authorities
Act” Modify Section 58(2) to add a new clause “(e), as
follows: “(e) for a secondary dwelling unit that is neither
partially nor fully located below grade. Add the two uses in the list of uses prohibited in the
floodplain. |
|
City Wide Section 65 – Permitted Projections into Required Yards (Conservation Partners) |
Exclude (6) from Table 65 from projecting into watercourse setbacks. |
Concur – since according to the Official Plan, development is to be setback from watercourses and waterbodies, this should also include projections such as balconies, decks etc. into the setback where development should not occur. Note that for existing development, the provisions regarding non-complying uses apply to additions, but should be extended to projections into yards as well, to allow some flexibility in the application of the new provisions for existing development. |
Add in Section 65, a (d) which would exclude feature
(6) contained in Table 65. Modify Section 3.(7)(b) and (b)(ii) add the words “and a permitted projection into a yard” after the word “addition”. |
|
City Wide Section 69 – Setbacks from Waterways and Flood and Control Works (Conservation Partners) |
The term “waterway” is not defined. Replace section title with “Setbacks from Watercourses and Waterbodies” Recommended definition wording: Despite provision of
the underlying zone, the following minimum setbacks must be provided to
protect the environmental quality of watercourses and waterbodies: Except for flood or erosion control works, or a public bridge or a marine facility, no development, including a building or structure, access road, pool or any part of a septic system, shall be located closer than 30 metres to the normal highwater mark of any watercourse or waterbody, or 15 metres to the top of bank of any watercourse of waterbody, whichever is greater. Setbacks are not implemented through an OP, for example, zoning examiners do not look at the OP, they look at the zoning By-laws. Exceptions in subwatershed studies may be out-of date and can be used to support a Minor Variance, if required. Purpose of the MV is to provide for consideration of an exemption to the ZBL. Zoning is not designed to implement exceptions. The Conservation Partners have provided wording for the watercourse setback provisions consistent with the 2003 Official Plan which does not provide for exceptions to be made for certain types of applications. At this time, we have not received the requested confirmation in the form of a legal opinion from the City that the city’s proposed wording is legally acceptable. At this time, we are undertaking to seek an independent legal opinion on the exemptions proposed in the city’s current wording and will communicate the outcome to the city as soon as it is available. |
Concur, change wording to be consistent.
Do not agree to change the wording of the section other than adding the words “or waterbody” after “watercourses”. The wording of the section has been developed to implement the City’s desired approach to implementing the setbacks required in the Official Plan. The approach that the City proposes to implement the setback from watercourses and waterbodies contained in the Official Plan, is to require through the zoning by-law the setbacks for those developments that do not go through a planning approval process and are reviewed through the building permit process only (ie. plan examiners). For development that requires a planning approval, the planners would be required to ensure the implementation of the Official Plan policies through those application processes. Zoning Plan examiners must then ensure that building permits comply with approved Site Plan Control, rezoning or plan of subdivision approval. This is preferable than requiring exceptions to go to the minor variance process for reductions from the setbacks. The wording in Section 69 has been developed in conjunction with the City’s Legal Services Branch. |
Change title of Section 69 to “Setbacks from
Watercourses and Waterbodies”
Do not support change No change required |
|
City Wide O1 zone (Conservation Partners) |
The O1 zone (no subzone) should apply to all
Conservation Areas as identified in documentation previously provided by
RVCA, SNC. Amend zoning maps to identify Conservation Authority owned
Conservation Areas as O1 zone (no permissive subzone).
|
Concur, changes have been previously made. Waiting for
specific additional sites identified by RVCA and SNC.
|
No changes required at this time
|
|
City Wide EP zone (Conservation Partners) |
The EP zone (no subzone) should apply to all PSW lands
owned by the Conservation Authorities as identified in previous documentation provided by RVCA, SNC. Amend
zoning maps to identify PSW’s owned by the Conservation Authorities as EP
zone (no permissive
subzone).
Provincially Significant Wetlands need to be consistent with protection provided in the PPS and CA regulations. We will accept the EP3 zoning on PSW’s until the OP review bring s it into conformity with the 2005 PPS, EXCEPT for Conservation Authority owned land. |
Concur, EP3 subzone generally used in rural area and
greenbelt to identify wetlands but allow existing detached dwellings to
remain conforming. However, staff will accommodate any property owner that
wishes to have an EP zone instead that does not permit detached dwellings.
Note OP policy does not allow new severances in these designations.
|
Concur, change for South Nation Conservation Authority
already recommended. For Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, list of sites
not provided.
|
|
City Wide (Monarch) |
Recommends a modification to the rear yard setback of a PUD when
abutting a vacant lot Concerns with projections in general and specifically with regard to
exceptions1311, 673 and 1469. Also requesting that air conditioner units be prohibited from corner
side yards. Requesting that end unit
town homes be exempted due to limited space in rear yard and to limit impact
on amenity space. |
Staff concur.
A regulation permitting a 2.5 m projection has been carried forward within exception [1311] as noted in the Nepean exception specifically, although the requirement limiting a porch to within 1 m of a side lot line was missed; and exceptions [673] and [1469] do not carry forward the old Nepean general rule – will add clauses within the exceptions to ensure a 2.5m projection is permitted, while also limiting the location of a porch to within 1 m of a side lot line. Exception [1311] will be modified to recognize the current permission to be treated as one lot for by-law purposes. Table 65 requires that air conditioners not be permitted in the required front yards and required corner side yards. Therefore, should one wish to place an air conditioner in the corner side yard, such yard would need to be slightly larger than the required minimum corner side yard. This is considered a reasonable regulation. Should the development be built out to the maximum, air conditioners would need to be placed in the rear yard. Prohibitions on these structures in front and corner side yards are standard in terms of maintaining reasonable standards along street frontages. |
Revise Table 160B, Endnote 1 (c); Table 162B, Endnote
1(c); and 164B Endnote 3 (c) to require that in the case of an abutting
vacant lot, a minimum required interior side yard of 1.8m, and the minimum
required rear yard setback for the dwelling type proposed to be located
within the PD adjacent to the rear lot line..
Add that a maximum projection of 2.5 m into the side
yard is permitted, provided it does not exceed a height greater than the horizontal distance to the side lot line; and a porch
must not be located closer than 1m to the side lot line. within [673] and
[1469]. Further modify Exception [1311] to add that the lands
may be treated as one lot for by-law purposes. Do not agree with change (air conditioner setbacks) |
|
City wide Section 65 (Richcraft) |
Concern relates to Feature #1 (Chimney, Chimney Box, Fire
Place Box) on Table 65 in regards to the allowable maximum projection. The
1m, but no closer than 0.6m to a lot line should be changed to allow 1 m, but
no closer than 0.5m. Concerned that the minimum required space rates for residential “stacked dwellings” is excessive. Concerned that the required rate of bicycle parking for Stacked Dwelling Units is excessive. Due to the Front Yard Maximum provisions ‘pie-shaped’ lots and corner lots present positioning problems and should be allowed to exceed/or be exempt from the maximum Front Yard Setbacks. City Staff acted on the above recommendation from our previous concerns but instead of increasing the Front Yard Setback above 6m, the setback was decreased to allow a variable range of 4.5m to 6.0m. Recommend increasing the allowable variable range of Front
Yard Setback from 4.5m to No Maximum for pie-shaped lots. |
New development should be able to comply with the difference of 0.1
metres is to allow adequate space to access through the yard. (standard is
typically a 1.2 m for providing access from one yard to another, ie. 0.6 on
each side yard between two buildings) The minimum required space rates for residential “stacked
dwellings” will actually be increased to 1.1 per unit. Please see Item
(c) in Document 1 of the PEC report for a detailed discussion of this issue. This requirement is considered appropriate. Concur – the maximum front yard setback provision of 6 m is too
restrictive as it relates to pie-shaped lots. A provision will be added to
exception 720 to exempt “pie-shaped” lots from this provision. |
Do not support change
Do not
support change Do not
support change Revise exception 720 to exempt “pie-shaped” lots
from the maximum front yard setback of 6 m. |
|
City Wide Section 120 -
Accessory Satellite Dish or Accessory Tower Antenna in Residential Zones (Raymond Perrin) |
Industry Canada has released new antenna siting and
approval procedures entitled “CPC-2-0-03 Radio-communication and Broadcasting
Antenna Systems, Issue 4.” These new procedures aim at ensuring greater
community consultation and continued deployment of radio-communication
systems across Canada. These new procedures (effective Jan 1, 2008) apply to more antennas than the City's draft By-law in that they also apply to antennas associated with utilities. While the new procedures of Industry Canada may not be exactly what you want, I would hope that they would be sufficient to address the City's reasonable concerns, thus nullifying the need for any requirements in a City By-law controlling amateur-radio antennas. |
Staff have recently met with Industry Canada
representatives and they advised that although Federal protocol establishes
the basic approval procedure and construction standards, they support and
recommend that local municipalities develop and apply their own land use
regulations and review process to address these structures. Provided the
local regulations are not less restrictive than Federal standards and
provided the local provisions do not prohibit the development of these
antennae, they support the use of zoning to address the land use impact of
these antennae. Staff is confident that the proposed regulations are fair and
reasonable
|
Do not support change
|
|
City Wide Section 103 Maximum Limit on Number of Parking
spaces Near Rapid Transit Stations (North American Property Group, First Capital Realty, Brigil Homes and
Elk Property Management) |
Three Concerns
relating to the imposition of maximum parking rates for sites located within
600 metres of existing and proposed transit stations. First problem is
that the cap is too restrictive. The
proposed maximum is 3.8 spaces per 100 square metres of GFA, whereas
as an example, one of the affected sites, which is an existing developed
site, now undergoing intensification, was developed
with a minimum of 5 spaces per 100 square metres GFA, which is what
the industry generally supports in a suburban situation. We’d like to have this maximum removed
from the by-law. Two, at the very least there should be some differentiation between
existing and proposed transit stations, since it is impossible to measure
600m from the platform of an unlocated, undesigned and non-existent transit
station, particularly since there is no guarantee that it will ever be built.
Further, until it is built there is no justification for restricting the
amount of parking. Three, the interpretation that if any portion of a property falls
within the 600m of the transit platform, the entire property is subject to
this restriction. This is overly punitive, since the far end of the site
could be well beyond convenient walking distance of the transit station. These restrictions will serve to prevent rather
than attract development within 600m of the transit stations. I have heard
one of the major commercial developers in town say that they have a new
policy of specifically not locating adjacent to transit stations for these
reasons. |
The maximum parking rates for retail are proposed to be
changed, from 3.8 to 3.6 for Area B (Inner City) and 3.8 to 4 for Area C
(Suburban) to reflect new information available to the City as a result of
recent surveys. A figure above this number is considered not appropriate in order
to meet the intent of the Official Plan policies limiting parking near rapid
transit stations.
The transit stations depicted on Schedule 2A and 2B included transit stations that are planned for the near future. Given that buildings are built for many years, it is important for any new buildings to be developed in a transit-oriented manner. The zoning by-law requirements are requirements that would apply in most circumstances, if there are situations of very large properties being developed as one lot, variances could be considered through the Committee of Adjustment for those buildings located much further away than the 600 m distance. |
Do not support change
|
|
Citywide Section 111 Bicycle Parking Requirements for Schools (Tom Trottier) |
The staff rationale was that the
bicycle parking requirements are consistent with the Victoria Transport
Policy Institute recommendations - but they are not. The school bicycle space
surveys showed that the bylaw requirement was insufficient for many schools
for the existing number of bikes parked, let alone if you want to actually
encourage more cycling to school for health and environmental reasons. The
bike parking requirements of the bylaw are adequate for other establishments,
but not for schools. The City has a policy to encourage cycling. The
current floor space ratio is inadequate, school enrollment and employees are
easily counted as a matter of public record. Alter the bylaw for schools to
match or exceed the VTPI "minimal" recommendation.
|
-ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) rates
that were used as background for bicycle parking at primary and
secondary schools are 1 space for 10% of the number of students and 3% of the
number of employees and VTPI (Victoria Transport Policy Institute) rates
are identical to ITE rates -Both are determined by number of students/staff which
is not necessarily the best way to measure this since attendence and hence
staff fluctuate over time. The supply should be adequate for an average
number of persons needing to travel to the land use over time. The
Zoning By-law measures parking rates by gross floor area and not by number of
persons and compliance with parking requirements is verified at the building
permit stage through building plan review. -In a practical sense, it is much more difficult
and time-consuming (and therefore more costly) to find out the number of
staff and students at any particular school, or for that matter the number of
employees at a particular office complex, than it is to obtain
the measurements on floor areas. -The draft Ottawa Zoning By Law bicycle parking
requirements are based on floor areas for all of the different land uses
and the school bicycle parking rates were designed to fit into the format of
the text and tables. -To find a rate that reflects the rates suggested by
ITE and VTPI (and also in consideration of other contemporary rates around
North America), data from Ottawa school boards was obtained that
indicated floor areas and student/staff bodies at existing Ottawa primary and
secondary schools. That inforamtion was used to compare the number
of bicycle parking spaces that would need to be provided based on the
proposed rate of 1 space per 100 m2 versus the ITE/VTPI rates per
student/staff body. Data on 19 schools was used, but only 4 provided
floor areas so admittedly the sample size was small. - At 2 schools the proposed rate would require more bicycle parking than ITE/VTPI, at the other 2 the proposed rate would provide less. Based on this comparison using the only available data, it is recommended that we keep the 1 bicycle parking space per 100 m2. -The former City of Ottawa Zoning By Law required 1
bicycle parking space for every 250 m2, so the proposed rate increases the
requirement by 250% and extends it far beyond the borders of the former City
of Ottawa, which should be considered a significant improvement overall. |
Do not support change
|
|
City Wide Schedule 9 (North American Property Group, First Capital Realty, Brigil Homes and Elk Property Management) |
We had requested
the deletion of Schedule 9, which illustrates how a parking lot could be
developed, accommodating 15% landscaping. This is a site plan issue, and
really adds nothing to the by-law, except the danger that staff could
interpret it as being prescriptive, since it is in the by-law. The addition
of the wording “For illustration purposes only”, while helpful, does not
alleviate the concern, as an example, that landscaped islands are required between nose to nose parking
spaces. We ask again that Schedule 9 be deleted. |
Concur – Schedule 9 was developed for the first draft
of the Zoning By-law to illustrate the provisions of Section 110 in the
Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Since then, Council has approved a set of design
guildelines which reflect the intent of Schedule 9 and provide additional
visual material (ie. pictures) and specifications (type of vegetation). |
Eliminate Schedule 9
|
|
City wide (Richcraft) |
Reiteration of concerns regarding projections, minimum parking for
stacked units, and bicycle parking provision. New corner with pie-shaped lots and max front yard setback in Deer
Run Village. |
These issues are the same as previously expressed. No additional
changes proposed. |
Do not support change
|
|
City wide (Loblaw Properties ltd.) |
Request that the proposed wording of the Expropriation definition be
changed as follows: “Expropriation means conveyances to and expropriation by the City or any other authority having the power of expropriation, and includes the taking or receiving of land by the City of Ottawa or any other authority having the power of expropriation, either in satisfaction of a condition imposed on a consent to a severance by the Committee of Adjustment or as a condition of the City of Ottawa's site plan control approval process, or any other process allowing the City of Ottawa or any other expropriation authority having jurisdiction, the right to require such a conveyance.” Also request that the wording for the expropriation provision in Section 4 be changed to: “For the purposes of determining compliance with the regulations of this by-law, in the event of an expropriation of a part of a lot is expropriated by the City of Ottawa or any other authority having the power of expropriation, the lot or the building or the use, as the case may be, will not be found to be in conflict with the provisions of this by-law by reason only of that expropriation.” |
Changes to the definition were made in the March release
of the by-law in accordance with the previous submission, however additional
changes are proposed here. Staff has no objections to these changes to the
definition or to the proposed revisions to Section 4 as they help to further
clarify the intent. |
Revise the definition of “expropriation” to state as
follows: “Expropriation means
conveyances to and expropriation by the City or any other authority having
the power of expropriation, and includes the taking or receiving of land by the City of Ottawa or any other authority having the power of expropriation, either in satisfaction of a condition
imposed on a consent to a severance by the Committee of Adjustment or as a
condition of the City of Ottawa's site plan control approval process, or any
other process allowing the City of Ottawa or any other expropriation
authority having jurisdiction, the right to require such a conveyance.”
Revise Section for to state as follows: “For the purposes of determining compliance with the
regulations of this by-law, in the event of an expropriation of a part of a
lot is expropriated by the City of Ottawa or any other authority having the
power of expropriation, the lot or the building or the use, as the case may
be, will not be found to be in conflict with the provisions of this by-law by
reason only of that expropriation.” |
|
City-wide (P. Brown, G. Ludington) |
The concern is that the proposed definition and regulation
of “linked detached” (two detached dwellings, with a connection solely below
grade) would permit what appear as two detached dwellings but which would be
subject to smaller lot size and lot width requirements than for two
traditional fully detached dwellings, despite the appearance at grade as
being the same. For example, in an R2
subzone that would require a detached dwelling to be developed on a lot width
minimum 15 m; each dwelling unit of a linked-detached would be permitted on a
lot width of 9 metres, despite the fact that the dwellings appear
detached. |
This is not a new dwelling type nor are the regulations new. Former Urban Nepean, Goulbourn, Urban Cumberland and Ottawa permitted two dwelling units, which might have only a vertical attachment below grade, to be subject to the rules applicable to a semi-detached rather than to the traditional detached. The definition of semi-detached in the former zoning by-laws was broad enough (and explicit) as to permit units to be “physically separated or not” above grade, and those types of dwellings were subject to the semi-detached regulations. In old Nepean, the two-unit zone (R4) permitted “two detached dwellings on one lot” subject to the semi-detached rules. In old Ottawa, the linked-detached term permits two dwelling units with “any combination or degree” of vertical or vertical and horizontal attachment, which could be interpreted to mean including those solely linked below grade. While this type of intensification has been permitted throughout many of the residential zones of the former urban municipalities, staff agree with the concerns of the various submittors. The current regulations permit two detached dwellings (that look and function as singles, but which share a common foundation) with a total lot width of a semi-detached (e.g. 15m), in a zone that permits one detached with a minimum lot width of e.g. 18m, meaning to achieve two detached dwellings, a total lot width of 30 is required which is a much higher requirement than for the linked-detached. A common foundation should not enable such a substantial reduction in lot width (from 30m to 15m for e.g.), as that results in both a loophole to the regulations, as well as development that is out of character with the immediate neighbourhood. Staff recommend that linked-detached (to be newly defined with sole connection below grade) should be subject to the detached dwelling regulations. Note that this will result in existing detached dwellings with common foundations to become non-complying with respect to lot width and lot area. Staff also recommend deletion of the Zone provisions indicating that a linked-detached must have a common party wall at the foundation below grade for a certain distance, as this would leave lesser attachments without a representative land use term. In addition, staff recommend a modification to the
semi-detached definition, to ensure that an appropriately-sized connection
must exist in order to be permitted under the semi-detached zoning
rules. Staff recommend modifying the
zone provisions affecting semi-detached dwellings, so that not only must they
have a connection that is 5 metres or more in length (to be changed to depth)
, it must also have a minimum 2.5m height above-grade. Further, the inclusion of the word “party”
within “common party wall” might lead
to misapplication of the rule, and therefore staff recommend the more general
wording of “common wall”. |
Recommend the following changes:
-all linked
detached dwelling subzone provisions in the R2, R3, R4, R5 Zones be moved
into the “Detached” rows of Column IV of the affected Table and revised so as to have the same
provisions as the detached dwellings -the Zone
Provisions Section of the R2, R3, R4 and R5 be revised to delete the clause
requiring a minimum length of common party wall in the case of linked
detached, wherever the clause appears; and - revise the
semi-detached provision so that it will
read: “A semi-detached dwelling must have a vertical common wall that
is 5 metres or more in depth and 2.5 metres or more in height”, wherever the
clause appears. |
|
Ward 2 3868 Innes Road Emparrado Co. |
Objects to the deletion of current uses in the proposed IL4 H(14)-h zone. Requests that all of the uses permitted in the current HMg (former Gloucester) zone be carried forward in the new by-law. |
The Employment Area
designation of the Official Plan prohibits stand-alone retail uses. Note a showroom with a warehouse
use is permitted provided it is within the same building as the use to which
it is accessory and must not exceed 25% of gross floor area. The Staff report recommends that existing permitted service commercial uses will be permitted as ancillary uses in the by-law (recreational and athletic facility, instructional facility, restaurant, animal hospital) subject to the size restrictions in Section 203(2) However, do not object to allowing a landscaping business as it is an industrial use and the use is currently permitted |
Do not support change
Addressed as recommendation in Issue 2 of Document 3 in
Staff report
Revise zoning by adding an exception to permit “ storage
yard limited to a landscaping business” as an additional permitted use
|
|
Ward 2 2305 Page Road Paquette Planning Associates Ltd. |
Reinstate all the uses permitted under the existing Gloucester zoning by-law, including gas bar. The proposed LC Zone does not permit a gas bar. |
Concur- Staff report
recommends that commercial uses that are currently permitted under existing
zoning of the former municipalities be reinstated |
Addressed as recommendation in Issue 5 of Document 3 in
Staff report
|
|
Ward 3 Strandherd & Cobble Hill (Claridge Homes) |
Approved by-law 2006-264 does not show up on the maps. |
Concur – Revise by-law to incorporate By-law 2006-264 affecting the lands known municipally as 2848 Cedarview Road. |
Incorporate By-law 2006-264 affecting
the lands known municipally as 2848 Cedarview Road into the
comprehensive by-law as follows: Area A will become R3Z and Areas B & C
will become O1.
|
|
Ward 4 555 and 591 March Road (555 March Road Inc.) |
Rezone the lands in question to
IG4 to better reflect the Employment Area Official Plan designation, while
continuing to allow range of commercial uses permitted under existing by-law
|
Concur- an IG4 Zone is more
compatible with both the Official Plan designation and the zoning of the
surround lands than the currently proposed GM-General Mixed Use. However,
agree to add an exception to permit the commercial uses currently permitted
and exempt them from the maximum floor area provision
|
Rezone
both lands to IG4 H(12) retaining the currently proposed exception numbers
[1149] and [1084]. Amend
exception [1149] to add the following additional permitted uses: Amend
exception [1084] to add the following permitted uses: 4.Amend
both exceptions [1149] and [1084] to exempt these lands from Section
199(2)(c) (maximum 300 square metres of gross floor area for each
use) and Section 199(4) (accessory display and sales area size limit) |
|
2 Iber Road Ward 6 (Paul Robinson) |
The
staff report proposes to change this site from AM to IL. We request that the
site specific setbacks and performance standards that were approved by
Council in 2002, (see attached original Staff Report, Council decision and
minutes of the original decision from 2002) carry forward for the final
version of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Also,
we want it to be explicit that the only thing that is being proposed to be
changed is removing the retail uses and that the site specific setbacks, GFA,
coverage that were approved in 2002 will remain. |
Agreed – Staff will create an exception in order to maintain the site-specific setbacks and
performance standards currently contained in the Goulbourn MBP-1-h zone. |
Create an exception for the proposed IL
zone affecting 2 Iber Road in order to maintain the site-specific setbacks and performance standards
currently contained in the Goulbourn MBP-1-h zone. |
|
Ward 7 Westboro Beach Neighbourhood (Westboro Beach Community Association) |
Questions the height limit of 11 m for the area bounded by Churchill North, Workman, Duchess, Kirchoffer, Atlantis and Selby, noting that the height limit for surrounding communities of Westboro and Champlain Park is 8 metres. Concern is with development of new houses overshadowing existing homes. Requesting height limit be lowered to 8 metres. |
This area, north of Scott Street and west of Island Park Drive, has been subject to a maximum height limit of 10.7 metres since the previous old Ottawa Zoning By-law Z-2K (1984), as reflected in the current Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98; and as translated into 11 m in the Draft R3E zone affecting the area. The area is located within By-law 93-98 Area A Schedule 1, where maximum height for the uses permitted in the current R3C zone is limited to 10.7 metres. The lower height limit of 8 metres, applies to lands south of Scott Street, west of Island Park Drive. The Draft Zoning By-law carries forward the existing height limits, and has replaced the 93-98 Schedule 1 with the same height limits noted in the residential subzone Tables. As part of the harmonization process, existing regulations have been carried forward, as there is no specific direction in the OP or in any recent studies or amendments to indicate a change in height limit is required. Moreover, the area consists of a mix of one-, two-, and three-storey dwellings, and because of this mix, it is reasonable to continue to permit dwellings to be built up to a height of 11 m. |
Do not support change
|
|
Ward 7 Riddell Avenue North |
Based on a recent OMB case in this area regarding a minor variance increase in resident size from 8 to 10 in a proposed group home and a reduced parking requirement. Objects to increase in density to 10 residents in the new Zoning By-law, citing density increases, and resulting parking increases on narrow street, causing traffic and parking disruptions. Increase in potential residents, could result in safety risks on a street with no sidewalk; creation of a group home could lead to a requirement for a sidewalk, costs of which existing residents would be required to pay. Cites the future closure of the Rideau Regional Centre and the possibility of relocating its residents to group homes in Ottawa, many of which may have problems beyond capacity to be dealt with in a group home in a residential environment. |
The draft Zoning By-law has carried forward the general standard size limit of a group home as being 10 residents that currently exists in all former municipalities other than Ottawa and Vanier. This 10 resident cap comes from the Provincial definition of group home which was adopted throughout the municipalities across the Province, including in all former municipalities other than Ottawa and Vanier. The latter two municipalities permitted a range of sizes of group homes, or special needs housing, from 8 to 15 in Vanier, and from 8, to 12, to 30 to no cap in old Ottawa. This different approach was so that land uses other than the typical group home, including residential care facilities, nursing homes, and homeless shelters would be included within the umbrella “special needs housing” term. The new zoning by-law has capped the size limit at 10 residents, so as to distinguish between a group home, a shelter, a residential care facility and a retirement home. Moreover, prior to the 1990 special needs housing zoning study in old Ottawa that increased the sizes, also lowered the minimum size from 10 to 8, the maximum limit in old Ottawa was 10. In addition, both provincial and City policies indicate that this use must be permitted across the city wherever a dwelling is permitted, and it is Council’s request that the use be regulated the same across the urban neighbourhoods. There are various criteria that are used to determine the needs of the different types of residents, with those needing more care sent to types of facilities other than group homes, such as residential care facilities. Residential care facilities are not permitted in most residential zones. |
Do not support change
|
|
Ward 8 1900-1980 Baseline Road (College Square Dev.) |
Concerns with the non-complying and non-conforming provisions and definitions to clarify the intent of the terms in the context of the Planning Act. |
Concur- staff has no objection to the proposed
changes as it will help to bring the terminology more in line with the
Planning Act.
|
1.Revise Section 3(7)(b)(ii) by adding the words “that
proposes to expand the existing non-complying footprint…” following the word
“building”.
2. Revise the definition of “non-complying” to state as
follows “Non-complying means a use of land that is listed as a permitted use in the zone in which it is located, but which enjoys a limited immunity from the regulatory provisions of the by-law because the law analogous to Section 34.(9), Planning Act (R.S.O. 1990) but applicable to the regulation of site conditions rather than use protects the existing site conditions as long as those site conditions are not changed.” 3. Revise the definition of “non-complying” to state as follows: “Non-conforming means a use of land that is not
listed as a permitted use in the zone in which it is located but which is
tolerated because Section 34.(9), Planning Act (R.S.O. 1990) allows it
to continue so long as the use is not changed or discontinued from the
date when the zoning by-law was passed.” |
|
Ward 9 1872 Merivale Road (Kau and Associates Limited Partnership) |
Restore existing parking rate of
1 space per 65m2 for showroom space.
Revise Section 9 -Transition
Provisions so that all approvals under existing by-laws apply in perpetuity,
and remove three year time limit.
|
Staff is satisfied that the proposed parking rates adequately address
parking demand- the rates for a showroom are the same as the use with which
the showroom is associated (e.g. warehouse, retail store, automobile
dealership). Existing showrooms would not be affected by the change in
parking rate as they would have non-conforming rights protected under the
Planning Act; only new facilities or expansions to existing ones would be
subject to the new rates Has been addressed in December 2007 Council decisions, staff continue
to oppose proposed revision |
Do not support change Do not support change |
|
Ward 12 199 Sussex Drive Aga Khan Foundation Canada |
Exempt site from maximum parking rate as the unique
nature and use of this building is such that more parking is required than
the maximum of 26 spaces allowed (63 are provided). The use will become
non-conforming otherwise.
Reflect approved minor variance to increase height from 11 metres to 13.25 metres Revise Section 9 -Transition Provisions so that all approvals under existing by-laws apply in perpetuity, and remove three year time limit. |
As the site is more than 600 metres away from a rapid transit station
(Rideau Centre is the closest), the maximum parking requirement does not
apply Concur- as site has an 11 metre height suffix yet the minor variance
approved 13.25 metres, revising the suffix to 13.25 metres would eliminate
any possible confusion. Has been addressed in December 2007 Council decisions, staff continue
to oppose proposed revision |
No change required Revise height suffix to state 13.25 metres instead of
11 metres Do not support change |
|
Ward 13 (Lindenlea Community Association) |
Requesting that the current and proposed maximum height
limit of 10.7 m, rounded to 11m in the new ZBL, be lowered to 8 metres for the
area bounded by Springfield Road, Maple Lane, Lambton Avenue and Rideau
Terrace. Surveyed over 100 residents,
with 98% wanting the height lowered to 8m (although the residents were
presented with information that the 11 m would be a newly introduced height
limit rather than a reflection of current longstanding requirement)
Requesting that the open space area north of Lindenlea Avenue at Springfield be rezoned to be included within the L1 Zone. |
A neighbourhood site visit confirmed that the nature of the area
proposed to be zoned R1TT and R1QQ is consistently 2 storey housing on small
lots, despite the fact that the maximum height limit is 10.7 m which permits
3 storey buildings. Although the current
height standard has long existed, this stable 2-storey neighbourhood has
experienced few new developments above two storeys, thus retaining the
historical height character of the area.
In addition, these dwellings are on small lots; adding a third storey
would affect abutting lots given the narrow lot widths. Staff concur that the height limit could be reduced to 8 m for the
areas zoned R1TT and R1QQ, in the area suggested by the Community
Association. However, those lots that
are currently developed above the requested 8 m maximum height limit will be
rezoned to site-specific zoning to ensure those lots legally developed under
the current height limit, to continue to comply with the new zoning by-law. Zone boundary lines follow the centre of a right-of-way, though the
by-law does not actually zone to permit any use on a right-of-way. This area is an opened road allowance, and
as it is technically “open”, it must not be considered land that can be
rezoned to an open space or leisure zone. |
Rezone the R1TT and R1QQ lands to reduce
the height limit in the area bounded by Springfield Road, Maple Lane, Lambton
Avenue and Rideau Terrace. Apply zoning permitting a continued height
limit of 11 m (rounded up from 10.7 m) to the following properties within the
affected R1TT and R1QQ lands in Lindenlea: 5 Middleton, 13 and 35 Rockcliffe Way,1
Elmdale 26 Lambton Do not agree with change |
|
Ward 14 230 Elgin Street (Pizza Pizza) |
Opposed
to proposed change in parking exemption in the TM zone.
|
There have been a number of different parking exemptions proposed for
the TM zone. Currently, existing zoning by-laws do not have an exemption.
Staff are proposing that the exemption be changed from previous proposal and
do not support going back to the previous proposal. The exemption is intended
for small-scale businesses, up to 150 m2, on the ground floor. |
Do not support change. |
|
Ward 15 326 Churchill Avenue (Ravi Shanghavi) |
Would like to have the FSI
removed from the subject site, which is zoned GM1 in the draft by-law.
|
Current and proposed zoning are the same with respect to permitted
fsi |
Do not support change |
|
Ward 19 1980, 1988 St. Joseph Boulevard; 42 Montreal Road (Canadian Petroleum Products Institute) |
Rezone 1980 and 1988 St. Joseph
Boulevard from AM3 to AM to permit automobile-oriented uses
-Permit
drive-through facility and eliminate minimum height restriction at 42
Montreal Road as it is impractical for service stations |
Has been addressed in March 2008 release of by-law; staff continue to
oppose proposed revisions |
Do not support change |
|
Ward 19
8911 North Service Road |
The permitted height is 101mA.S.L. or essentially 46.16
m above finished grade. This should be reflected on the zoning maps.
|
Concur, the actual permitted height should be show on the zoning
maps. |
Indicate a height of 101m A.S.L. and/or
46.16 m on the zoning map so it is clear what the permitted height is. |
|
Ward 19 4825 Innes Road (Redeemer Alliance Church) |
Redeemer Alliance Church currently has a parking lot on the abutting hydro corridor. It
is recognized with an existing exception in the Nepean Zoning By-law (OS X1),
which should be carried forward to the draft by-law
|
Concur- the lands in question are currently zoned OS X1
which permits a parking lot. The parking lot exception should be recognized
in the draft zoning by-law.
|
Revise the zoning of the subject lands to apply an O1
exception to permit a parking lot on the lands currently zoned OS X1
|
|
Ward 19 2301
Tenth Line Road (Shoppers
Drug Mart) |
Eliminate limit in the LC, local commercial zone,
for this property which limits the size of an individual unit of a
development to 900 m2 gross leasable floor area. |
This property is proposed to be zoned LC as this is the equivalent
zone to the former Cumberland neighbourhood commercial zone. However, it is
located at the intersection of one arterial roadway (Tenth Line) and a future
arterial roadway (Blackburn Bypass). Given the location of the property, it
is appropriate to provide more flexibility in terms of the sizes of the
individual units. |
Increase the limit on individual uses for this property
to 1,500m2. |
|
Ward 22 4770 Bank
Street Tartan Homes |
For our
commercial property located at 4770 Bank Street (South west corner of Bank
Street and Findlay Creek Drive), we had zoned the property as Cc1 in the
Gloucester bylaw. The Cc1 zone permits Motor Vehicle Trade uses.
Under the Draft Ottawa bylaw, the site is zoned GM(455) which has deleted the
Motor and Vehicle Trade use. I would like to request that motor vehicle
trade uses be permitted under the GM(455) zone to comply with the uses
permitted under the current Cc1 zone. In
addition, the rear yard setback was increased from 6.0m to 7.5m and there is
a decrease in permitted building height when located more than 30m from
residential use (decreased from 22m to 18m). We would like to request
that the zone provisions under the Gloucester Bylaw (7.5m rear yard setback,
22m building height when buildings are located more then 30m from residential
use) be maintained under the new Ottawa bylaw. |
Staff concur that the proposed GM[455] zoning for the subject lands does not permit Motor and Vehicle Trade uses as is currently allowed in the Gloucester Cc1 zone. Staff agree to amend the proposed zoning on this site to include the proposed uses associated with the former Gloucester definition of Motor and Vehicle Trade uses. These uses include: automobile dealership, automobile rental establishment, automobile service station, car wash, and gas bar. These uses will be added to exception [455]. Staff concur that the proposed zoning provisions in the GM
zone regarding rear yard setbacks and building height when located more than 30m from residential use are
more restrictive than the current Gloucester Cc1 zone. Staff agree to amend
the proposed zoning on this site to include a rear yard setback of 6.0 m and a 22m building
height when buildings are located more then 30m from a residential use. |
Revise exception [455] to include the following uses in
Column III: automobile dealership, automobile rental establishment, automobile service
station, car wash, and gas bar.
Add
the following provisions to exception [455]: -rear
yard setback is 6.0 m -maximum
building height when located 30 m from a residential use is 22 m |
|
Ward 22 South Merivale Business Park (Zena-Kinder Holdings Ltd) |
Lands to the east of Merivale Road should be changed to reflect a
commercial designation. This issue was not resolved with City of Nepean prior
to amalgamation and should be resolved now. |
The area is designated Employment Area in the Official Plan and in the Secondary Policy Plan for Longfields/Davidson Heights/South Merivale Business Park, the lands are designated Prestige Business Park. Through the Official Plan process, staff indicated that a site specific Official Plan amendment and rezoning would be required to change the designation from Employment Area to General Urban to permit the commercial development contemplated. |
Do not support change
|
|
Ward 23 460-480 Brigitta Street (Claridge Homes) |
Amending By-law 2007-386 has not
been completely translated into the new Zoning By-law; would like to retain
permissions approved by Council in the amending by-laws applicable to the
site and surrounding areas |
1. Staff concur that an omission occurred in translating the amending by-law and will include a provision in exception [1449], applicable to the land covered under 2007-386, to permit a shuttle bus serving the residents of the residential care facility and retirement home to locate in a front or corner side yard. 2. Staff recommend modification to outdated term “lodging room” in exception [1449] The stakeholder has also requested an exemption from the locational requirements associated with loading spaces, although it would appear from the site plan, that the loading space would be beyond the required corner side yard, and therefore no change is necessary in this case. By-law 2007-386 permits “coffee shop” as an ancillary
use permitted in conjunction with the operation of an apartment, residential
care facility and retirement home. To
implement this provision more precisely, staff recommend that the term
“restaurant” be modified to read “restaurant, limited to a coffee shop” in
exception [1449].
|
Modify exception [1449] Column V as follows: 1. add the following phrase at the end of the
Column: “-despite Section 126, one shuttle bus is permitted in
the corner side yard.” 2. replace the term “lodging room” with “rooming unit” in the bullet dealing with Section 101 No change required 3. modify the term “restaurant” as
it appears in the list of permitted ancillary uses to be “restaurant, limited
to a coffee shop” |
|
Ward 23 20 Frank Nighbor Place (Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd.) |
By-law 2007-424 permits general
retail on the subject lands. The proposed IL6[1414] H(30)-h zone limits
retail to home renovation types of uses. The zoning should be revised to
allow general retail as does the existing by-law.
|
Concur- the draft by-law reflects the previous zoning
and should be amended to implement amending By-law 2007-424 by adding “retail
store” as an additional permitted use. The property is designated as an
Employment Area in the Official Plan, but has a site –specific policy to
permit retail uses despite the general prohibition of retail in this
designation.
|
Revise Exception [1414] to permit “retail store” as an
additional permitted use
|
|
Ward 23 75 Scissons Road (Muirfield Homes) |
Request that an additional provision be added to
exception 938 to allow parking on a private way that is 7.0 m wide as opposed
to the 8.5 m requirement listed in table 131 (6). Exception
938 references an outdated "R4A" Zone that should be
deleted. It appears to reference a zone from the old Kanata
By-law. It should say R3X[938] instead. The
original By-law included a minimum building separation of main buildings as
1.2 m on side and 2.4 m on the other side. In reality, it turned
out that the separation was 1.8 metres on one side rather than 2.4.
We sought
and obtained variances to go to 1.2 m on one side and 1.8 metres on the
other. The 2.4 should ideally be changed to 1.8 in Exception 938. |
Table 131 (6) deals with required visitor parking, which, given that this is development is comprised solely of single detached units, is not required. As such, relief from Table 131 (6) is not necessary. Informal visitor parking can be accommodated in the 6.0 m required setback between the garage and private way in needed. Column II refers to R3X[938], not R4A as suggested. In regards to variances previously granted by the Committee of Adjustment, the zoning by-law does not reflect minor variances. This is a separate process through the Committee of Adjustment. Approved minor variances supersede the provisions of the zoning by-law. |
Do not support change. No change required Do not support change. |