|
3. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
BY-LAW 2008-250: APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD (SIXTH REPORT) - 2485
CARP ROAD RÈGLEMENT
GÉNÉRAL DE ZONAGE 2008-250 : APPEL À
LA COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES MUNICIPALES DE L’ONTARIO (SIXIÈME RAPPORT) - 2485,
CHEMIN CARP |
Committee
Recommendation
That Council
approve the amendment as described in the Details of Recommended Zoning in
Document 1, to resolve an appeal to By-law 2008-250, and forward a by-law
incorporating the required amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Recommandation du Comité
Que le Conseil approuve la modification, telle qu’elle est décrite
dans les Détails du zonage recommandé dans le Document 1, afin de résoudre
l’appel du Règlement 2008-250 et de transmettre un règlement incorporant la
modification exigée à la Commission des affaires municipales.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability
dated 27 May 2009 (ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0109).
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/
Directrice
municipale adjointe,
Infrastructure Services and
Community Sustainability/
Services d’infrastructure et
Viabilité des collectivités
Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Manager/Gestionnaire,
Policy Development and Urban Design/Élaboration de la politique et conception urbaine, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
Élaboration de la politique et conception urbaine
(613)
580-2424 x 22653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
That Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend that Council approve the amendment as described in the Details of Recommended Zoning in Document 1, to resolve an appeal to By-law 2008-250, and forward a by-law incorporating the required amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Que le Comité
de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales recommande au Conseil d’approuver la
modification, telle qu’elle est décrite dans les Détails du zonage recommandé
dans le Document 1, afin de résoudre l’appel du Règlement 2008-250 et de
transmettre un règlement incorporant la modification exigée à la Commission des
affaires municipales.
On
June 25, 2008 City Council adopted the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2008-250
that affects all properties within the City of Ottawa. A total of 76 appeals were received, however
16 were disqualified, as the appellants had not made any submissions on
the Comprehensive Zoning By-law prior to its adoption.
One
of the appeals, made by Mrs. M. Marshall and Gary Marshall DATA Ltd., was made
on July 17, 2008, and was deemed by the Ontario Municipal Board to be a bona
fide appeal at its first pre-hearing conference held from October 20 to 23,
2008. At the pre-hearing, the Board
Chair requested that the City meet with each appellant to narrow the issues
under appeal. Staff met with the
appellant's agent and the Ward Councillor in July 2008, as well as with the
appellant and agent on May 14, 2009 wherein agreement was reached in regards to
the zoning of the property at 2485 Carp
Road in former West Carleton.
DISCUSSION
This
appeal was made to various sections of Zoning By-law 2008-250, as they affect
2485 Carp Road. City Council has
adopted two zoning by-law amendments in response to portions of the appeal,
including a rezoning, of a portion of the lands at the northwestern area of the
lot, south of Richardson Side Road, to RC7 through the site-specific Zoning
By-law 2009-97; and a rezoning of the remainder of 2485 Carp Road, through the
site-specific Zoning By-law 2008-457, to RG5[275r]-h to permit additional uses
until the holding provision has been removed.
Staff
met recently with the appellant and agent, in the attempt to resolve the
remaining issues of the appeal against Zoning By-law 2008-250. More specifically, all of Section 127 -
Home-Based Business regulations affecting urban and village residential zones
was included in the appeal. The chief
concerns were with the maximum number of only one non-resident on-site employee
per principal dwelling unit, despite the fact that any number of home-based
businesses are permitted, as well as the maximum of one client or customer who
may be attended or served on-site at any one time by any home-based business.
Of
significance, is that while Section 127 of the Zoning By-law 2008-250 is under
appeal, the City's newly developed Home-Based Business Handbook may not be
released, because all reference to zoning regulations affecting home-based
businesses are not yet in force, as Section 127 will not come into effect until
this appeal is resolved. Unfortunately,
the old zoning regulations affecting home-based businesses in the former
municipalities' zoning by-laws are generally more restrictive than the new ones
of Section 127 at a time when the establishment of home-based businesses should
be promoted.
The
City has given a flexible interpretation with respect to the restriction to one
customer or client being served on-site at any one time. Section 16 of the Zoning By-law 2008-250
reads: "This by-law is to be read and applied in a way that will ensure
the effective implementation of its provisions and intent." The intent of the limit on the number of
clients, is to ensure against too many non-residents being on-site on either a
frequent basis or for lengthy periods of time on an on-going basis.
The
clause is intended to focus on the fact that one client may mean more than one
individual, based on the type of home-based business. For example, in the case of a family therapist, any and all
members of a family should be permitted to attend a session at the same time,
otherwise the home-based business would not be able to be successfully
practiced. Home-based business zoning
regulations affecting residentially-zoned lots are intended to enable businesses
to be developed, or permit telework or telecommuting, while recognizing that the businesses must be clearly secondary
to the principal residential use on the lot, as well as to its surroundings
within a residential neighborhood.
These types of regulations are only enforced through complaint, so it is
in the interests of the home-based business operator to comply with the
regulations. Where, for example, a
home-based business requires numerous employees on-site, outside storage, or
numerous customers being served on-site, then such business should relocate to
an appropriate non-residential zone, and be subject to commercial taxes as are
other businesses.
The
requirement of a maximum of one on-site non-resident employee merely limits the
number permitted on-site. It does not
limit, in any way, businesses that employ staff who work off-site. Clearly, where work is undertaken off-site,
the number of employees is not relevant in terms of any negative land use
impact, such as increased traffic and demand for on-street parking. Indeed, where employees might attend at the
principal dwelling unit on an occasional basis, if there results an ongoing
concern, a zoning complaint may be lodged against the home-based business, and
the business would be required to comply, and in some circumstances, would have
to relocate.
The
appellant and agent made a case for the property to be better suited to Section
128 - Home-Based Businesses in the RU and AG Zones, rather than to Section 127
which applies to residential uses on smaller lots within the urban and village
residential zones. The property at 2485
Carp Road is 40 hectares in size, and although not in the RU or AG Zone, is in
a rural General Industrial Zone (RG5).
The
appellant's request, was to permit a maximum of five on-site non-resident
employees, an increase from the maximum three non-resident employees permitted
under Section 128. Staff agreed that
the property is large and rural in nature, and recommend that the property's
current exception zone [275r]-h be amended to extend the rural-related zoning
provisions affecting home-based businesses on the property, including the
permission for a maximum of three on-site, non-resident employees per principal
dwelling unit.
The appellants agreed that this recommended strategy will satisfy their appeal. Following consideration before Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and City Council on June 24, it is expected that the appellant will agree to withdraw the appeal at the next Ontario Municipal Board Pre-Hearing Conference on June 26, 2009. Document 1 provides the details of recommended zoning.
The appellants affected by the change noted in Document 1 have been notified of the public meeting.
This recommendation, if carried, will allow the resolution of one appeal currently before the Ontario Municipal Board, and further, will enable the distribution of the City's Home-Based Business Information Handbook to be undertaken.
Document 1 Details of Recommended Zoning
Planning
and Growth Management Department to prepare the implementing by-law and forward
to City Manager’s Office, Legal Services.
Legal
Services to bring forward report and by-law to the Ontario Municipal Board at
the June 26, 2009 pre-hearing conference.
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 1
1.Amend
Part 15 – Exceptions – [275r]-h as follows:
a) amend
Column II – Applicable Zones, to replace the reference of RC9-h, with
RC9[275r]-h
b) amend
Column III – to change the verb “is” to its plural form “are” in the first
sentence, so that it will read: “the
following interim uses are permitted until the holding symbol is removed:”
c) amend
Column V – Provisions, to add the following regulation immediately following
the first provision:
“
Despite the wording of Section 128 that restricts the regulations therein to
being applicable only on lots zoned RU –Rural Countryside or AG – Agriculture,
any home-based business located at 2485 Carp Road, is subject to the
regulations of Section 128.”