2.             ZONING - 1105 NORMANDY CRESCENT





Committee recommendation


(This matter is subject to Bill 51)


That Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 1105 Normandy Crescent from R1FF, Residential First Density Zone to R2M [xxx] S xxx, Residential Second Density Exception Zone, as shown on Document 1, and as detailed in Documents 2 and 3.



Recommandation DU Comité


(Cette question est assujettie au Règlement 51)


Que le Conseil approuve une modification au Règlement de zonage no 2008-250 afin de changer le zonage de la propriété située au 1105, croissant Normandy, de R1FF, Zone résidentielle de densité 1, à R2M [xxx] S xxx, Zone résidentielle de densité 2, assortie d’une exception, comme le montre le document 1 et l’expliquent les documents 2 et 3.






1.                  Deputy City Manager's report Planning, Transit and the Environment dated 25 February 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0056).


2.                  Extract of Draft Minutes, 13 April 2010.


Report to/Rapport au :


Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement


and Council / et au Conseil


25 February 2010 / le 25 février 2010


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 : Michael Wildman, Manager/Gestionnaire, Development Review-Suburban Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services suburbains,

Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424, 27811  Mike.Wildman@ottawa.ca


Knoxdale-Merivale (9)

Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0056




ZONING - 1105 Normandy Crescent (FILE NO. D02-02-09-0099)




ZONAGE - 1105, croissant normandy





That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 1105 Normandy Crescent from R1FF, Residential First Density Zone to R2M [xxx] S xxx, Residential Second Density Exception Zone, as shown on Document 1, and as detailed in Documents 2 and 3.




Que le Comité de  recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage no 2008-250 afin de changer le zonage de la propriété située au 1105, croissant Normandy, de R1FF, Zone résidentielle de densité 1, à R2M [xxx] S xxx, Zone résidentielle de densité 2, assortie d’une exception, comme le montre le document 1 et l’expliquent les documents 2 et 3.





The subject property is located west of Fisher Avenue where Normandy Crescent and Inverness Avenue intersect.  Currently the site is occupied by a single detached dwelling on what is a through corner lot having frontages on Normandy Crescent and Inverness Avenue. 


The property is accessed from Normandy Crescent and is orientated towards that street.  The property has a frontage of 27.43 metre on Normandy Crescent and a 47.40 metre frontage on Inverness Avenue.  The lot depth varies from 22.177 metres to 54.199 metres with an approximate lot area of 1144 square metres.  The property is vegetated with trees along Inverness Avenue.  This vegetation extends eastward 37 metres into an untravelled triangular portion of the right-of-way where Inverness Avenue and Normandy Crescent intersect. 


The surrounding area primarily consists of detached dwellings zoned R1FF interspersed with lands zoned R2M, developed with detached or semi-detached buildings.  In addition, there are a number of institutional uses peripheral to the neighbourhood on the west side of Fisher Avenue.  Fisher Avenue is designated as an arterial roadway and is approximately 145 metres from the subject property. 


Generally the neighbourhood known as Carleton Heights, which is bounded by Fisher Avenue to the east, Wigan Drive to the north, Benson Street to the west and Argue Drive to the south, can be characterized as an area undergoing a degree of transformation due to the existence of a significant number of oversized lots within the area.  The regular shaped lots have an average width of as much as 28 metres in width by 80 metres in depth.  Two trends seem to be occurring since the establishment of the original neighbourhood.  The oversized lots have been severed into two or three lots while still maintaining the minimum lot width and area of the R1FF zoning.  The second trend is for properties to be rezoned to a R2M zone designation and subsequently severed. 


Existing Zoning


Currently the subject property is zone R1FF, which is a Residential First Density Zone designation.  This zone restricts development to a detached dwelling building form.  In addition to a detached dwelling, this zone designation conditionally permits a diplomatic mission, group home, home-based business, community garden, converted retirement home and a secondary dwelling.


Proposed Zoning


The applicant proposes to rezone the property to R2M, with an exception to accommodate the property’s redevelopment.  The proposed redevelopment will consist of a semi-detached dwelling and a detached dwelling that will be severed at a future date.  In addition to those uses permitted in the R1FFzone, the R2M zone designation permits a linked-detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling and a park.  The zoning exception is to accommodate reductions in the minimum side and rear yard building setback requirements as detailed Document 3 and an increase to the building height limit.



Provincial Policy Statement


The Provincial Policy Statement provides policy direction on matters of Provincial Interest related to land-use planning and development by promoting efficient land use patterns that support development of viable liveable communities. 

Contained within the policy statement is an explicit policy objective to promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where there is the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure to accommodate projected needs for intensification.


In this circumstance there exists an opportunity to redevelop an existing underutilized parcel of land.  The applicant is proposing demolition of an existing older one-storey bungalow and constructing three new dwelling units comprised of two, two-storey semi-detached dwellings and a one-storey detached dwelling that can be accommodated on existing services.  This modest proposal for intensification is consistent with the Province’s policy objectives for intensification.


Official Plan


The Official Plan designates this property as General Urban Area on Schedule “B”.  This designation permits a full range and choice of housing types to meet the needs of all ages, incomes and life circumstances.  It also permits conveniently located employment, retail, service, cultural, leisure, entertainment and institutional uses with the goal to attain complete and sustainable communities. 


In terms of this proposal, the introduction of semi-detached dwellings adds more choices for housing types.  The proposed rezoning is also consistent within this area as there exists numerous R2M zone designations where semi-detached units have been constructed.


In addition to the foregoing, the Official Plan also contains the following policies to guide in determining the appropriateness of intensification proposals.


Managing Growth


The majority of growth in housing is to be accommodated within areas designated within the Urban Boundary where there exists land that is serviced with major roads, transit and piped sewer and water services.


To ensure that land uses are appropriate where proposed, the Official Plan contains additional polices indicating that development should form an integral part of the community and be compatible with surrounding neighbourhood uses.  To achieve this, the amendments to the Zoning By-law will regulate the location, scale and type of land uses.  The Strategic Directions Section of the Official Plan provides direction to create liveable communities that have a balance of housing forms.



Building Massing and Height


Over time, this neighbourhood has undergone redevelopment in numerous forms.  This has resulted in changes from its originally established neighbourhood character, which primarily consisted of single-storey detached dwellings.  One particular trend is the redevelopment of existing lots with higher density housing or the severing of these lots into two to three lots.  The redevelopment trend for these existing or newly established lots is the construction of two-storey detached dwellings having a significantly larger building footprints, resulting in detached dwellings of significantly greater massing compared to the existing housing stock.  By contrast, the proposed zoning amendment will enable redevelopment in a more compact form with a smaller building mass. This alternative building form can be viewed as being a more compatible building option that is more sensitive and better blends in with the original built form of the neighbourhood.  With respect to a moderate increase to the height limit from 9.5 metres to 10.5 metres, the height increase is considered to be minor due to the compact building form being proposed.  The overall building mass, including height, and roof treatment, would be considerably less than what is currently occurring with the more recently established two-storey detached building stock.




It is generally recognized that infill intensification may not be similar in use and size with adjacent uses. However, in order to achieve the Official Plan’s strategic directions for managing growth, other considerations may apply, such as intensification occurring with proximity of major roads or on the periphery of established neighbourhoods. In this case, an increase in height and density may be appropriate. 


For this particular zoning application, the property under consideration is within 145 metres of an arterial roadway.  Along this arterial roadway there is a mix of institutional and medium density residential uses to the north.  This forms the edge for the lower density neighbourhood to the west.  It is therefore appropriate in this circumstance to establish transitional residential housing forms of moderate increases in density.  This is further supported by the existence of a semi-detached dwelling on the southwest side of Normandy Crescent, opposite to 1105 Normandy Crescent.  There are also examples of semi-detached development occurring throughout the Carleton Heights community. 


With respect to the reductions in yard requirements, these reductions are seen as appropriate primarily due to the irregular shape of the lot where the average building setbacks along Inverness Avenue will exceed the minimum requirement.  The easterly reduction in the minimum building setback can be supported because it abuts a large triangular road allowance with is untraveled and vegetated.


In summary, staff are satisfied that the proposal to change the zoning to permit development of two semi-detached dwellings and a detached dwelling at 1105 Normandy Crescent is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan.  Therefore, the requested Zoning By-law amendment is recommended for approval.








Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy.  Details of the public consultation can be seen in Document 4.




The Ward Councillor is aware of this application.




If the recommendation is adopted and the matter is appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, the hearing could be conducted with staff resources.  Should the recommendation not be adopted, reasons would have to be provided.  If the refusal is appealed, a hearing of an estimated two days duration would result and an outside planner will need to be retained at an estimated cost of $15,000 to $20,000.




F-2  Respect the existing urban fabric, neighbourhood form and the limits of existing hard services, so that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities.












The application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendments due to additional public consultation and the complexity of the servicing issues raised by the public.




Document 1    Location Map

Document 2    Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 3    Schedule

Document 4    Consultation Details




City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the owner, applicant, 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 and Growth Management to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services and undertake the statutory notification.


Legal Services to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.

LOCATION MAP                                                                                                DOCUMENT 1

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING                                                    DOCUMENT 2



Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law


The subject lands shown on Document 1 will be rezoned from R1FF, Residential First Density Zone, to R2M [xxx] Sxxx, a Residential Second Density Exception Zone with the following exception to be added to Section 239 - Urban Exceptions that will apply to the R2M [xxxx] zone:


1.         Tables 158 A and B shall not apply for a detached dwelling and the minimum building setback shall be provided in accordance with Sxxx; and

2.         The maximum building height for a residential shall be 10.5 metres.


SCHEDULE                                                                                                          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 Zoning By-law amendments.  Public information meeting was held by Ward Councillor Gord Hunter on January 26, 2010 at the General Burns Community Building.  Comments made by the public during this meeting have been included the summary of public comments received through the public notification of this application.







In support for the proposed zoning amendment:


           The proposal for two semi-detached dwellings and on detached dwelling is more in keeping with the community as opposed to recent redevelopment trend for monster housing within the area.

           A number of residents indicated they understood and supported the proposed exceptions to the zoning, in order to accommodate the development proposal.

           The development represents a moderate infill proposal and will fit in with the existing community, which presently includes a number of semi-detached dwellings.

           The proposal for semi-detached dwellings and a detached dwelling represents an appropriate fit within the community at this location.

           Support was expressed for two dwellings but not a third for reasons expressed below.


Not in support of the proposed zoning amendment:



There are safety concerns regarding additional driveways approaching the blind intersection at Inverness Avenue and Normandy Crescent, which has been further compounded by over grown vegetation within triangular untraveled road allowance at this intersection.



            There are other driveways such as 3 and 5 Inverness Avenue and 114 and 116 Normandy Crescent, which are closer to the intersection of Normandy Crescent and Inverness Avenue.  Adding one more driveway on each road is not considered to significantly affect the sightlines/safety of the road.  In addition, residents indicated, at the pubic information meeting held on January 26, 2010, that the City has been called upon to trim the vegetation at this intersection to improve the corner sightlines.  City forces have been made aware of this concern.



Concerns were expressed over additional traffic on Normandy Crescent resulting from this infill development proposal.



The resulting traffic from the proposed zoning change is negligible.



The introduction of a semi-detached dwelling will result in front yard parking pads.



            The proposal presented one garage parking space and two side-by-side parking spaces in front, leaving an adequate amount of green space for the front yard.



There was an objection to any zoning amendment that permits more that one dwelling per lot.



The Provincial Policy Statement and City of Ottawa Official Plan policies support intensification where appropriate, as outlined in the body of this report.



Concerns were expressed that two additional dwelling units will over tax the sanitary sewer system.



The sanitary service connection for this infill development proposal will be from Normandy Crescent.  This sanitary sewer line was replaced in 1985 and has adequate capacity to accommodate this development proposal.



There were concerns that the weeping tile system from the three dwellings will be connected to the sanitary sewer system or the additional stormwater runoff will be directed towards an over taxed drainage system of ditches within the neighbourhood.



Weeping tile systems are not permitted to be connected to the sanitary sewer.  With respect to the stormwater runoff, on-site drainage is permitted to sheet drain towards the street, however, the amount resulting from this development is considered to have a negligible impact on the capacity of the neighbouring ditches in handling stormwater flows.



This zoning amendment will reduce property value and enjoyment of their property.



Changes in property values are not a criteria in applications under the Planning Act.



There was one additional concern about the expressed capacity of utilities, such as hydro, bell and cable to accommodate the proposal, as well as the negative effects the proposal will have on snow clearing and street lighting.



Staff has not received any comment from internal or internal technical agencies that would support these concerns





ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0056                                                 knoxdale-merivale (9)


(This matter is subject to Bill 51)


Prescott McDonald, Planner, provided a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the application and staff’s recommendations, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. 


In response to questions from Chair Hume, Mr. McDonald explained that for the side yard adjacent to an untraveled and unopened area, staff is allowing for a side yard setback similar to 1.2 metres.  Due to the irregular shape of the lot, the setback at one corner of the building would be shorter, increasing along the property line. The indicated corner area would have a setback reduction from 4.5 metres to 3.5 metres.  He confirmed that the setbacks from the south property line, in Sector B of the Zoning schedule listed as Document 3, would not change.


The committee then heard from the following public delegations.


Garnett Smith and Beverley Cullen, residents of Inverness Avenue, spoke in opposition to the application and the concept as proposed.  Mr. Smith indicated that they had been attracted to the neighbourhood by the large lots, old growth trees, and low-density development.  He noted most of the houses in the immediate neighbourhood were on a 42-foot lot or greater.  He noted that the applicant had explained to the neighbours that his intent was to re-zone the property to allow for two structures on the property; however, the neighbours had not foreseen the request to rezone the property would be redeveloped into two structures with at least three dwellings.  He acknowledged that at a meeting held to discuss the re-zoning issues, they were told that the request for re-zoning was not attached to a site-specific proposal; however, he suggested the current proposal appears to address a specific request to build two structures, one a semi-detached and one a single-family dwelling.  He emphasized they did not opposed the redevelopment of the property to allow for an attractive and innovative development compatible with the neighbourhood; rather, they opposes redevelopment to maximize the amount of residential units on the property and opposed re-zoning of the property to inherently change the character and scale of the neighbourhood. 


Mr. Smith pointed out that, while there are semi-detached dwellings in the neighbourhood, none are as wide as what is proposed.  Although he liked the conceptual drawings he had seen, he felt they did not fit with the general feel of the neighbourhood, which is characterized by large-lot residential homes.  He did not want a precedent to be set for allowing the zoning to be changed so that properties in the neighbourhood could be maximized for square foot land usage.  He indicated his pleasure that the applicant’s plan proposes to preserve as many trees as possible, and that the applicant intended to incorporate Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) objectives into the development of the properties.  He concluded by reiterating his opposition to the proposal, as presented.


Theo Mayer spoke in opposition to the application.  He explained that he was owner of 2 Inverness Avenue, the lot adjacent to the subject property, having moved there in December 2009.  After reviewing the plan, he surmised that the proposed duplex would come within nine feet of his property line.  He explained that he did oppose the redevelopment of the property, and would not mind seeing a duplex on it; however, he thought adding a single family home in addition to the duplex was too much development and was not in keeping with the neighbourhood.  He noted he was attracted to the neighbourhood because of the calibre and scale of the homes being built on existing lots, which differed from what is being proposed for this site. 


Mr. Mayer further pointed out there was an elementary school at the end of the street, and expressed concern that the proposed development could result in an additional vehicular traffic of the street.  Finally, he expressed concern that a professional architect had not been involved with the proposal, as part of an architect’s job would be to design a building that would fit within the neighbourhood.


In response to questions from Chair Hume, Mr. Mayer demonstrated the precise location of his property.  He acknowledged that he did not have any expertise in reading plans and might be incorrect in his assumption about the location of the proposed dwellings in relation to his property. Chair Hume asked staff to compare the current setback with what would exist under the proposed re-zoning.  Mr. McDonald advised that under the existing R1FF zoning the side yard must be set back 2.5 metres on one side and 1 metre on the other, whereas under the proposed R2M zone, the setback would be 0.9 metres on both sides.  He further explained that, because it is a through corner lot, the front and back setbacks would be the same, at 6 metres under the existing zoning and 4.5 metres under the proposed zoning.


In response to questions from Chair Hume, Mr. Mayer confirmed that he was concerned that re-zoning would allow the building to project further into the back yard and closer to his side yard, and requested more information on what would be allowed.  Staff clarified that, per the Schedule listed as Document 3 to the staff report, after the property is re-zoned to R2M, no further variation would be required to “Area B” to allow the development to proceed, whereas “Area A” required further adjustments to the zone. 


When asked for further comment, Mr. Mayer remarked that, aside from concerns about how the proposal would impact directly on his property, his larger concern was that a duplex and a single family home on the relatively small lot was not in keeping with the neighbourhood.  He elaborated that there are developments similar to what is proposed on Fisher Avenue and Ashburn Drive, but none in the immediate neighbourhood.


Arun Mhatre, owner and applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He provided a PowerPoint presentation to with respect to his proposal, which included several visual renderings of the site and proposed development.  A copy of his presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.  He explained that he had has lived in the area for 32 years and noted he had an architectural degree and 27 years of experience as an urban planner.  He indicated that, given his professional background, he felt comfortable with preparing his own plan and re-zoning application.  He raised the following points:

·           Carleton Heights is unique because it has larger lots than normally found in the urban area.  Similar urban lots are being re-zoned and modified where moderate development is compatible. 

·           The subject property is at the periphery of a community where there are many tree lines, and the intent is to purse the opportunity to create interesting architectural appeal. 

·           When he moved into the neighbourhood in 1977, there had already been a subdivision of the lot, as 2 Inverness Avenue and 1107 Normandy Crescent were severed. 

·           There are semi-detached homes in front the subject property, and there are smaller lots than what is proposed. 

·           The development would create architectural interest at the entry to the neighbourhood, create some variance from the trend of building large homes that span nearly the entire width of the lots in the area, maintain the scale and rhythm of the neighbourhood, and provide a variety of housing types to attract a younger generation. 

·           The intent is to maintain the tree line. 

·           The revised setbacks in relation to 2 Inverness Avenue property are something that is common to the neighbourhood.

·           The immediate neighbour at 1107 Normandy Crescent, who would be most impacted by the project, has expressed no objection. 

In closing, Mr. Mhatre advised that he had begun the process in consultation with the City planners one year previous, and had taken staff’s advice on re-zoning.  He noted that he had also consulted the ward Councillor, the community association and the neighbourhood at large, and felt that the concerns raised, including measures to avoid sanitary sewer issues, had been addressed. 


Chair Hume inquired if Mr. Mhatre would consider move his building forward on the site to alleviate that concerns about the impact on the rear yard of Mr. Mayer’s property.  Mr. Mhatre replied he had moved the building back so that there would be a gentler slope down to the garage and to create greater architectural appeal; however, he indicated he would have no problem with moving the building two or three feet forward. 


In response to further questions from Chair Hume, Mr. McDonald confirmed that the proposed development would not be subject to a site plan.  The Chair inquired how the Committee could accommodate Mr. Mhatre’s offer to move the building to alleviate some of his neighbour’s concern.  Mr. McDonald explained staff would need to prepare a schedule for approval. 


Councillor Hunter, the Ward Councillor, suggested the matter could be left for further discussion between himself, Mr. Mhatre and Mr. Mayer.  While Chair Hume was satisfied to give direction to staff to investigate and, if appropriate, provide a revised schedule prior to consideration of the matter by Council, Councillor Hunter predicted it would not be appropriate because, although moving the building might alleviate the immediate neighbour’s concerns, it might create a less attractive streetscape for Normandy Crescent and result in much dissatisfaction throughout the community. 


Councillor Holmes inquired whether it would be possible, given there is no site plan requirement, to request that the property have one laneway with a joint garage for the three units, to avoid the visual impact of three garage doors and three driveways.  Carey Thomson, Deputy City Solicitor, did not believe that could be requested in this particular situation.  He added that, even if it could be done, the question remains whether property owners would be interested, or willing to provide mortgage financing, given the fact that one or two driveways could potentially be owned by more than one individual.  Mr. Thomson indicated it would be impossible for the City to impose that condition when the application is not subject to site plan approval.  He further confirmed the Councillor’s speculation that the City’s Site Plan By-law would have to be amended in order to accommodate something of that nature.


Councillor Hunter suggested that the proposed development was offering something better than what Councillor Holmes had proposed, because only two of the driveways would front Normandy Crescent, and the third would be on the opposite side of the building.  He suggested a double driveway would be less visually appealing.  On the issue of moving the building forward, he indicated that he would look at it with the applicant, but emphasized that he did not want Committee to hold out hope that this would be a good solution.


Committee then approved the report, as presented.


That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 1105 Normandy Crescent from R1FF, Residential First Density Zone to R2M [xxx] S xxx, Residential Second Density Exception Zone, as shown on Document 1, and as detailed in Documents 2 and 3.


                                                                                                                      P. Hume dissented