1. OFFICIAL PLAN - 2911 PRINCE OF WALES DRIVE PLAN OFFICIEL - 2911, PROMENADE PRINCE OF WALES |
(This
application is subject to Bill 51)
That Council refuse an
amendment to the Official Plan, to allow noise-sensitive land-uses within the
Ottawa Airport Operating Influence Zone (AOIZ), for 2911 Prince of Wales Drive.
Recommandation du Comité
(Cette demande est assujettie au Règlement
51)
Que le
Conseil refuse une modification au Plan officiel visant à permettre des
utilisations de terrains sensibles au bruit dans la Zone d’influence
d’exploitation de l’aéroport (ZIEA),
concernant le 2911, promenade Prince of Wales.
Documentation
1.
Deputy City
Manager, Planning, Transit and the Environment report dated 30 July 2008 (ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0138).
2. Extract of
Draft Minutes, 9 September 2008.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
30 July 2008 / le 30 julliet 2008
Submitted by/Soumis par Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Planning, Transit and the Environment
Urbanisme, Transport en commun et
Environnement
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Karen Currie,
Manager/Gestionnaire, Development Approvals/Approbation des demandes
d'aménagement,
Planning Branch/Direction de
l'urbanisme
(613) 580-2424, 28310 Karen.Currie@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT: |
OFFICIAL PLAN - 2911 Prince of Wales
Drive (FILE
NO. D01-01-08-0004) |
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council refuse an amendment to the Official
Plan, to allow noise-sensitive land-uses within the Ottawa Airport Operating
Influence Zone (AOIZ), for 2911 Prince of Wales Drive.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le
Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil de refuser
une modification au Plan officiel visant à permettre des utilisations de
terrains sensibles au bruit dans la Zone d’influence d’exploitation de
l’aéroport (ZIEA), concernant le
2911, promenade Prince of Wales.
The subject property, 2911 Prince of Wales Drive, is located on the east side of Prince of Wales Drive, just north of the intersection with Merivale Road and is flanked on the east by the Rideau River. The lands are approximately 2.5 hectares in size with 274 metres of frontage on Prince of Wales Drive and 168 metres of frontage on the Rideau River. The site is at the end of Rideau Glen Drive, which is occupied by single detached dwellings on private services, but within the General Urban Area.
Purpose of Official Plan
Amendment:
The applicant seeks to develop an undetermined number of residential lots on the subject lands through a plan of subdivision. Residential development is a noise-sensitive land use and is generally not permitted with the Airport Operating Influence Zone. Only minor residential infill is permitted in the Airport Operating Influence Zone (AOIZ), however, the Official Plan specifically prohibits development by means of subdivision. An amendment to the Official Plan would be necessary to allow the residential uses in this area.
Existing Official Plan Designation:
These lands are designated as
General Urban Area in Schedule B of the Official Plan. Development of the lands
is also governed by the Airport Operating Influence Zone identified in Schedule
K – Environmental Constraints. The latter designation is intended to protect
noise-sensitive land uses from aircraft noise and protect the economic
potential of the airport. Under the AOIZ, residential development is only permitted
through infill situations and minor redevelopment. The policies of the Official
Plan, specifically Policy 4.8.7.5, do not permit development if it requires a
plan of subdivision, a Zoning By-law amendment or an amendment to the Official
Plan.
The Secondary Plan for Areas 1, 2 and 3 designates the site as Private
Service Residential, which permits single detached dwelling units, home based
businesses and accessory apartments and garden suites. The policies allow for
limited infill on the basis on private services and encourage existing lots to
connect to full municipal services if and when they are made available.
An Official Plan amendment is being sought by the applicant to permit the development of a number of single residential lots through a plan of subdivision. The Official Plan amendment therefore, is for a site-specific exception to be created for 2911 Prince of Wales Drive, notwithstanding Policy 4.8.7.5 a) which states that no redevelopment will be supported in the AOIZ if it requires a plan of subdivision.
Proposed Official Plan Amendment:
The applicant is seeking the addition of the following clause to the Section 4.8.7.5 a) and b) “That the property known municipally as 2911 Prince of Wales Drive in the City of Ottawa is exempted from the provisions of Section 4.8.7.5(a) and (b) of the Official Plan providing no zoning change is required.”
The subject lands are currently zoned R1E – Residential First Density Subzone E in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and R1A - Residential Private Services Zone in the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law. The R1A and R1E zones generally apply to lands located in the urban area, but serviced through on-site private services. The applicant is not proposing a change to the zoning and intends to develop the uses on full municipal services.
The subject lands lie within the Airport Operating Influence Zone (AOIZ). Residential uses are considered “noise-sensitive land-uses” as defined by Transport Canada and are subject to further land-use restrictions when located within the AOIZ. According to the Official Plan, these restrictions are based on Noise Exposure Forecasts (NEF) and Noise Exposure Projections (NEP), which are used to determine the compatibility of land-uses with the amounts of noise generated from airport operations. The 30 NEF/NEP contour line delineates the AOIZ boundary with the general principle that noise-sensitive developments are not permitted within this area. The greater the NEF/NEP value, the more susceptible the area is to noise-effects. The subject property is located within the AOIZ between the 30 and 35 NEF/NEP contours.
As a result, redevelopment of these lands is subject to the Section 4.8.7, Land-Use Constraints Due to Aircraft Noise, specifically Policy 3, which states that no noise sensitive land-uses will be permitted between the boundaries of the Airport Operating Influence Zone as shown on Schedule K and the 35 NEF/NEP (whichever is more restrictive).
Policy 5 gives no indication that mitigative measures could be used to reduce noise-effects and therefore development of any noise-sensitive use would contravene the Official Plan. Even with mitigative measures, the proximity of the proposed development to the airport may subject the development to high amounts of aircraft noise, which in turn may disrupt associated indoor and outdoor activities. This may lead to future complaints and attempts by the potential new residents to alter the airport operations. Furthermore, allowing this exemption has the potential to result in a precedent being set that would encourage other noise-sensitive land uses and large scale subdivisions to challenge Official Plan policies regarding the Airport Operating Influence Zone.
The current Official Plan and Zoning By-law provisions applicable to the site render it suitable for the development of one potential single detached dwelling unit. The Plan policies do support the creation of more lots through the Committee of Adjustment severance application process for “…redevelopment of existing residential and other noise-sensitive land uses”, and “Infilling of new residential uses”. The creation of these uses is however not supported if the redevelopment requires a plan of subdivision or Zoning By-law amendment. The subject application is in response to this latter restriction.
In the planning rationale submitted by the applicant, arguments have been presented that the proposed subdivision is minor infilling and that a plan of subdivision is a more suitable vehicle for the comprehensive review of the development proposal. It has also been argued that the Committee of Adjustment severance application process will yield a similar number of lots as the subdivision application process. Staff cannot comment on the extent of jurisdiction of the Committee of Adjustment, but agrees that if the development was supported by the Official Plan, the subdivision application process is the preferable process to guide the development given the complexity of planning issues involved.
While the applicant has not provided staff with an indication of the
potential number of lots that are intended through a plan of subdivision, it is
our understanding that Rideau Glen Drive would be extended to obtain
approximately 14 to 17 lots. Through consent, and in accordance with zoning, it
would be reasonable to expect approximately five lots. Thus the Official Plan
amendment could result in three times the number of houses being built.
The lots in this area are currently on private services. In order for further development to occur in this area, the Official Plan requires that new development proceed on the basis of full municipal services. The applicant is proposing to extend services to this subdivision development. There are however, a number of servicing issues associated with the development of this property that would have to be carefully examined with any future development application. Previous studies submitted to the City for the existing Rideau Glen development have identified that servicing by the extension of a gravity sewage system is not feasible, and that a sewage pumping station and forcemain would be required. The construction costs and maintenance costs of a City pumping station for such a small area would be prohibitive to both the developer and the City, therefore a municipally owned sanitary sewage system would likely not be considered. Additionally, with the presence of both a creek crossing through these lands and the Rideau River adjacent to these lands, a detailed slope stability analysis will need to be undertaken to identify exactly how much land could safely be developed outside of the high water mark.
Recommendation
In keeping with the policies set out in the Official Plan and Secondary Plan, staff recommends refusal of the application for Official Plan amendment. It is the Departmental view that policies regarding Airport noise must be upheld to ensure that only limited infill of noise-sensitive land uses should be allowed within the confines of the AOIZ, thus minimizing the potential for future complaints from occupants of these uses. This position is also consistent with the historical application of the AOIZ policies with respect to developments that are defined by the Official Plan as incompatible with the airport operations.
Environmental Considerations:
The site is adjacent to a former gas station that operated on a portion of the site fronting Prince of Wales Drive. Potential soil contamination issues exist in this regard and would have to be resolved prior to any development of the subject lands, which the applicant has indicated will be done through the filing of a Record of Site Conditions. There is also a drainage watercourse that traverses the site; therefore it is intended that the applicant would work with the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority to address this issue during the development approval process. In addition, the parcel abuts the Rideau River that has been recently designated a World Heritage Site and Canadian Heritage River. As a result, Parks Canada will be involved in the review of a development proposal. Furthermore, any submission will have to address environmental and slope stability issues along the river shoreline.
CONSULTATION
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
Airport Authority strongly opposes this application to amend the Official
Plan. They argue that the policies were
developed to ensure that the public is protected from being unduly impacted by
a large degree of aircraft noise, and to protect the Airport from encroaching
development that could result in complaints and an attempt to limit their
operations. The applicant has met on
several occasions with representatives of the Airport Authority prior to
submission of application to the City, and has been advised that the Airport
Authority would not support the Official Plan amendment.
There
were a few comments from the public to the proposed development. A primary concern was that no
intensification should occur in the area. However, support was indicated for
the potential to connect to municipal infrastructure if it were made available
through this development.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
This application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Official Plan amendments due to issue resolution with the applicant over technical issues.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
DISPOSITION
City Clerk’s Branch, Council and Committee Services to notify the owner, Gerry Lalonde, Spencerdale Properties, 7 Cobb Court, Ottawa. ON. K2J 2K2, OttawaScene.com, 174 Colonnade Road, Unit #33, Ottawa, ON K2E 7J5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code: 26-76) of City Council’s decision.
Planning, Transit and the Environment Department to prepare the by-law adopting the Official Plan Amendment, forward to Legal Services Branch, and undertake the statutory notification.
Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-law to City Council
OFFICIAL PLAN - 2911 PRINCE OF WALES DRIVE
PLAN
OFFICIEL - 2911, PROMENADE PRINCE OF WALES
(This application is subject to Bill 51)
Dhaneshwar
Neermul, Planner II, provided an overview of the departmental report with a
PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Colin White, Program Manager of Development
Review South and Danny Page, Acting Manager of Development Approvals East/South
accompanied him.
In
response to questions from members, Planning staff explained the following:
·
The applicant could apply to the Committee of
Adjustment (COA) for severances; however, numerous applications would require
review and circulation to technical agencies.
·
Severance of numerous lots would be beyond the
legislative authority of the COA and subject to plan of subdivision, which is
prohibited in the Ottawa Airport Operating Influence Zone (AOIZ).
·
Non-sensitive noise uses would include business
park, similar to the South Nepean Business Park, commercial and some
institutional. Residential is
precluded.
·
The site was operated many years ago as a tourism
destination with cabins and a marina.
This use pre-dated the Nepean Zoning By-law that established the zone as
residential.
A
submission was received and is held on file from AJ Preece dated
September 4, 2008.
Ann
Tremblay, Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority (OMCIAA)
outlined concerns with the proposal as it related to the AOIZ. Andrew Pritchard, solicitor for the
OMCIAA, accompanied her. She touched on
the origins of Airports Policy, the establishment of the AOIZ, Provincial
Policy Section 1.6.7.2 regarding airports, the policy context and City Official
Plan (Section 4.8.7, Policies 4 and 5), the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)
decision on the Boyd Property, Part IV of the Planning Act (Subdivision
of Land) and airport economic viability.
Ms.
Tremblay emphasized that the
OMCIAA strongly supported the departmental recommendation to reject the
Official Plan Amendment for the following reasons:
·
It does not constitute good planning and is counter
to the furtherance of the public interest;
·
Is directly in conflict with Section 4.8.7, Policies
4 and 5 of the City Official Plan;
·
Represents piecemeal erosion of the AOIZ and
threatens its effectiveness in protecting airport operations and future home
buyers;
·
Threatens the quality of life of future residents
and the economic viability of the airport; and
·
If supported, it encourages other landowners within
the AOIZ to propose residential development.
In reply
to questions from the Ward Councillor, Ms. Tremblay advised that light
industrial and commercial uses, such as a restaurant, would be appropriate at
this location in the AOIZ. She
reiterated that technical studies would be required.
Councillor
Desroches retorted that light industrial and commercial uses would not be
compatible with the surrounding area, which is residential. He stated that the contour lines of the Noise Exposure Forecasts (NEF) and Noise
Exposure Projections (NEP) have receded over time.
Ms. Tremblay advised that NEF/NEP lines, which
were reduced in 2005, are determined by airport operations and technology. She observed that the Airport Master Plan
has determined a high level of growth over the next five years; thus, a
reduction in contour lines is unlikely.
She also stated that further technological advances to reduce noise
emanating from airplanes would not result in a further reduction, noting
progress has been maxed out in this regard.
Ted
Phillips, Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders Association (OCHBA), recalled
that he worked with a developer a number of years ago with land holdings in the
airport area. He spoke of the need to
respect the AOIZ, which was developed in consultation with the industry. He suggested approval of the amendment would
be precedent setting and could give rise to two or three similar requests.
Councillor
Desroches pointed out that the subject site is zoned residential and the Boyd
property was not. He asked if OCHBA
objected to the development of the Deacon lands in 2003. Mr. Phillips responded that the zoning is
only one factor to consider, noting that the Official Plan is the leading
planning document. He did not recall if
the association objected to the Deacon development.
Councillor
Hunter raised the conundrum of allowing the amendment to ensure the property is
developed through the subdivision process, rather than through severance,
noting the limitations of the latter.
Mr.
Phillips replied that the Committee of Adjustment would not consider multiple
severances beyond one or two. He
reiterated support for the departmental position to ensure the AOIZ is
respected.
C.R. Nixon spoke in
opposition to the requested amendment, referencing arguments put forth in a
written submission dated 1 September 2008, which is held on file. He spoke of the development of land to the
south, which was permitted based on grandfathering clauses. He urged the Committee to not whittle away
the long-term plan set out in the Official Plan, suggesting approval of the
amendment would be precedent setting.
He also discussed noise impacts to the quality of life of
residents. He noted a 35db noise level
would be detrimental to would-be homeowners.
In closing, he suggested the Medical Officer of Health and City
Solicitor be consulted with regard to health effects and placing caveats on
deeds.
Albert
Miller concurred with comments of the previous speaker in opposition. He touched on the impact on adjacent wells
if construction occurred. He also noted
that a subdivision for up to 17 homes with short setbacks would not reflect or
respect the neighbouring residential area in terms of lot size.
Gerry Lalonde, Spencerdale Properties argued in support of his application, noting a plan of subdivision is the best way to develop the land. He noted severances are possible and the land is zoned R1A, as is the surrounding area. He suggested infill residential development is appropriate, noting no plans are currently before the City and no technical studies have been undertaken. He enumerated contentions with sections of the departmental report. He also referenced OMB decision 0411-2005 that ruled new residential development in an existing residential area was not a greater threat to airport operations. He also stated up to nine lots could be severed through Committee of Adjustment. Further, the Environmental Noise Control Guidelines could be used when dealing with issues involving all sources of environmental noise in the planning and development process. In conclusion, Mr. Lalonde stated the application involved a policy decision to allow the development to occur by plan of subdivision. A copy of Mr. Lalonde’s full submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
In response to questions from members, Mr. Lalonde stated the following:
·
The application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and
would not compound further residential concerns in the area due to noise.
·
OMB Decision 0411-2005 relates to an application in the City of Toronto.
·
The property has 600 feet of waterfront and 900 feet of frontage on
Prince of Wales Drive.
·
Plan of subdivision would allow for the proper development of the site
and deal with such issues as contamination, servicing, slope stability and
watercourse restoration.
Mr. Neermul confirmed
the property is zoned R1A and could be connected to City services without a
further zoning amendment. The zone is
applied to residential development on private services on a minimum lot size of
10,000 square feet.
Councillor
Harder recalled that this property previously formed part of her ward and she
touched on work undertaken with regard to extension of services to the
area. She noted the Airport Authority
has opposed all new development in the AOIZ, including the recently constructed
Metropolitan Bible Church. She
indicated residential infill development is appropriate and in keeping with the
area.
Councillor
Desroches indicated he would not support the staff recommendation. He noted the site is unique and plan of
subdivision is the best tool to guide how development would occur. It would lead to the undertaking of the
proper studies and avoid ad hoc development through severance. He suggested residential uses are the most
compatible for the area.
Councillor
Hunter stated his support for the staff recommendation.
That
the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council refuse an amendment to
the Official Plan, to allow noise-sensitive land-uses within the Ottawa Airport
Operating Influence Zone (AOIZ), for 2911 Prince of Wales Drive.
CARRIED
YEAS (7): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, G.
Hunter, S. Qadri, P. Feltmate, P. Hume