3.             ZONING – 337 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE






Committee recommendation



That Council approve an amendment to Zoning By‑law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 337 Sunnyside Avenue from Residential Third Density Subzone Q (R3Q[487]) to Residential Fourth Density, Subzone V, Exception [xxxx] (R4V[xxxx]), as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.



Recommandation DU Comité


Que le Conseil approuve une modification du Règlement de zonage 2008-250 qui ferait passer le zonage au 337 de l'avenue Sunnyside de « zone résidentielle de densité 3, sous-zone Q » (R3Q[487]) à « zone résidentielle de densité 4, sous-zone V, avec exception [xxxx] » (R4V[xxxx]), tel que le montre le document 1 et que le fait voir en détail le document 2.





1.                  Deputy City Manager's report, Planning and Infrastructure, dated 15 March 2012 (ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0083).


2.         Extract of Draft Minutes, Planning Committee meeting of 10 April 2012.

Report to/Rapport au:


Planning Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme


and Council / et au Conseil


15 March 2012 / le 15 mars 2012


Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe, Planning and Infrastructure/Urbanisme et Infrastructure


Contact Person/Personne-ressource: John Smit, Manager/Gestionnaire, Development Review - Urban Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains

Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424, 13866  John.Smit@ottawa.ca



Capital Ward (Ward 17)

Ref N°: ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0083




ZONING – 337 sunnyside avenue




ZONAGE – 337, avenue sunnyside





That the Planning Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning By‑law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 337 Sunnyside Avenue from Residential Third Density Subzone Q (R3Q[487]) to Residential Fourth Density, Subzone V, Exception [xxxx] (R4V[xxxx]), as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.





Que le Comité de l'urbanisme recommande au Conseil d'adopter une modification du Règlement de zonage 2008-250 qui ferait passer le zonage au 337 de l'avenue Sunnyside de « zone résidentielle de densité 3, sous-zone Q » (R3Q[487]) à « zone résidentielle de densité 4, sous-zone V, avec exception [xxxx] » (R4V[xxxx]), tel que le montre le document 1 et que le fait voir en détail le document 2.





The site is located at 337 Sunnyside Avenue, on the north side of Sunnyside Avenue between Grosvenor Avenue to the west and Bank Street to the east, and is 457 square metres in area.

The site is a residential through-lot with frontage on both Sunnyside Avenue and Woodbine Place and is currently occupied by a detached dwelling.  The site is surrounded by low- to medium‑density residential uses ranging from single detached dwellings to low-rise apartment buildings to the east along the Bank Street traditional mainstreet. Additionally, there is a retirement home one block to the north on Aylmer Avenue, an elementary school on the south side of Sunnyside to the east of the site, and a place of worship on the corner of Sunnyside and Grosvenor Avenues to the west.


Proposed Development


The proposed development on the site involves the demolition of the existing detached dwelling and development of a three-storey six-unit low-rise apartment building with underground parking for seven vehicles. Vehicular access to the underground parking garage is to be provided from Sunnyside Avenue with pedestrian entrances provided from both Sunnyside Avenue and Woodbine Place. Additionally, a rooftop patio is proposed as a component of this development.


Purpose of Zoning Amendment


The purpose of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is to facilitate the development of the proposed low-rise apartment building on the site.


Existing Zoning


The existing zoning of the property is Residential Third Density, Subzone Q, Exception 487. The R3Q zone permits a mix of residential building forms including detached, multi-attached dwellings and converted dwellings; however, Exception 487 prohibits planned unit development. Furthermore, the R3 zone does not permit low-rise apartment buildings.


Details of Proposed Zoning


While converted dwellings containing a maximum of four units are permitted within the current R3Q zone, the applicant felt that redeveloping the site in its entirety would allow for better integration with the surrounding neighbourhood by enabling vehicular access to be relocated from Woodbine Place to Sunnyside Avenue and providing a parking garage with a space for each dwelling unit.


Since the proposed low-rise apartment building is not a permitted use within the R3Q zone, an amendment to the Zoning By-law has been requested. Specifically, an amendment has been requested to rezone the site to Residential Fourth Density, Subzone V (R4V) with site-specific performance standards to reduce interior side yard setbacks, reduce the required amount of landscaping on site, permit hard landscaping to be located in the front yard, reduce the required driveway width, and permit increased projections into yards. Additionally, in keeping with existing Exception 487, it is proposed that planned unit development uses not be permitted in the proposed R4V[xxxx] zoning for the site.




Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement


Within Section 2 of the Planning Act, the provision of orderly and safe communities and the appropriate location of growth and development, among others, are identified as matters of provincial interest. Furthermore, the Planning Act requires that all planning decisions made by a municipality are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). As the guiding policy document for land use within the province, policies for the development of liveable communities and efficient use of land and resources are identified within the PPS.


The Department is of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment is consistent with the matters of provincial interest as outlined in the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement, which promotes efficient land use and development patterns to support strong, liveable and healthy communities. The proposal is an appropriate use of land that makes use of existing infrastructure and serves to increase housing options within the community.


Official Plan


The site is designated as General Urban Area within the Official Plan. This land use designation permits the development of a range and choice of housing types in combination with conveniently located service, cultural and institutional uses to facilitate the development of complete and sustainable communities. The proposed Zoning By-law amendment responds to the policies for the General Urban Area by allowing for the redevelopment of an existing residential property within an established neighbourhood. The site is located within walking distance of the services and amenities provided along the Bank Street traditional mainstreet, as well as transit routes and local institutional uses.


The General Urban Area designation requires that development have regard for the compatibility criteria found in Section 2.5.1 of the Official Plan. This section sets broad design objectives on how the City will influence the evolution of the built environment.  These objectives are focused on enhancing the sense of community and maintaining places with their own distinct identity; providing quality public and private spaces through development; creating places that are safe, accessible and are easy to get to and move through; ensuring that new development respects the character of existing areas; and creating places that can adapt easily and evolve over time. Design principles further describe how each of the design objectives may be achieved.


The proposed development achieves the design principles of complementary massing, encouraging a continuity of street frontages, and a more compact urban form by maintaining similar setbacks of the dwellings to the west along the Sunnyside Avenue and Woodbine Place street frontages, and continuing the three-storey pattern from the west. The proposed development also provides a more compact urban form through the redevelopment of a residential through-lot currently containing a single detached dwelling.

In conjunction with the compatibility criteria found in Section 2.5.1 of the Official Plan, development applications must also be reviewed and evaluated in the context of Section 4.11. The following is an analysis of the applicable criteria in Section 4.11 of the Official Plan, as well as the City’s Urban Design Guidelines.


Height, Massing and Neighbourhood Context


New development is to have regard to the area context, massing and height of adjacent buildings. The surrounding residential neighbourhood is characterized by a mixture of low-density residential development ranging from two- to three-storey single-detached, duplex and multiple‑attached dwelling units. The proposed Zoning By-law amendment is in keeping with the existing policy and neighbourhood context for height and massing by providing a built form that is similar to what is currently permitted for the highest density use within the current zoning (multiple-attached dwellings). Specifically, the zoning regulations under the existing R3Q zone for multiple-attached dwellings that are to be maintained within the proposed R4V[xxxx] zone include a minimum front yard setback of 3 metres; a maximum height of 11 metres; a minimum interior side yard of 1.2 metres (proposed on east side); permitted projections of balconies and cornices into front yards; and permitted projections of rooftop patios and stairwells above the maximum permitted height.


Vehicular Access and Parking


The proposed development will maintain vehicular access from Sunnyside Avenue, which is an existing collector road and addresses the criteria to orient access and egress to reduce the impact of noise and maintain safety. Additionally, the parking garage will provide parking for seven vehicles, which exceeds the minimum requirement of three spaces and will allow each of the dwelling units to have one dedicated parking space as well as an additional space for visitor parking or units with more than one vehicle.


Outdoor Amenity Areas


Outdoor amenity areas for the proposed development are provided via balconies and a rooftop patio. Privacy to adjacent properties is maintained as balconies face the street frontages and the rooftop patio has been located in the middle of the roof with a solid rail to restrict views and noise. Existing fencing along the interior side yards is to be maintained.




New development should minimize shadowing on adjacent properties through the siting of the building or other design measures. A shadow study submitted by the applicant shows that the impact is minimal during the spring, summer and fall seasons, with the property directly east of the site most affected during the winter season.


Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing


The proposed Zoning By-law amendment and development have been reviewed in context of the above Council approved design guidelines. Based on this review, staff have concluded that the proposed development has addressed the planning principles and design objectives. This has been achieved by providing a landscaped area and main pedestrian entranceway off of Sunnyside Avenue that blends with the surrounding context, enhancing the pedestrian environment along Woodbine Place by removing vehicular access from this street frontage, and maintaining compatible building setbacks on both street frontages. The impact of traffic and a new vehicular access on Sunnyside Avenue is mitigated by minimizing the driveway width and providing sufficient parking for all units within the parking garage. The grade increase from west to east along Sunnyside Avenue allows for an appropriate and compatible transition from the existing three-storey building on the west to the two-storey building to the east of the site. Finally, architectural details and materials serve to provide differentiation along both main façades while also serving to complement materials currently used within the neighbourhood.




Staff are satisfied that the proposed change of 337 Sunnyside Avenue is consistent with the policies of the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan.  Therefore, the requested Zoning By-law amendment is recommended for approval.


Concurrent Application


A Site Plan Control application (file number D07-12-11-0213) is being reviewed concurrently for the development as described herein.




There are no rural implications associated with this report.




Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Policy. Responses from residents and the Community Association indicated concerns with the neighbourhood context, height, rooftop patio, traffic and setbacks.


Further details and responses to responses are available in Document 3.




Councillor Chernushenko is aware of the application.




Should this matter be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, it is anticipated that a three day hearing would result. In the event the recommendation is adopted, the hearing could be conducted within staff resources. If the application is refused, reasons must be provided. An outside planner would need to be retained at an estimated cost of $25,000 to $30,000.




There are no direct risk management implications associated with this report.




There are no direct financial implications. In the event of an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, staff resources will be utilized to defend Council’s positions.

Should the recommendation not be carried, rationale must be provided and an outside planner would need to be retained at an estimated cost of $25,000 to $30,000. Funds are not available within existing resources, and this expense would impact Planning and Growth Management’s operating status.




There are no direct accessibility implications associated with this report.




There are no environmental implications associated with this report.




There are no direct technical implications associated with this report.




This report impacts the following priorities within the City’s Strategic Plan:

-          Long-Term Sustainability Goals: Housing

-          GP3     Make sustainable choices




The application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendments due to resolving issues identified during the circulation period.




Document 1    Location Map

Document 2    Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 3    Consultation Details

Document 4    Concept Plans

Document 5    Proposed Site Plan




City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the owner, applicant, OttawaScene Canada Signs, 1565 Chatelain Avenue, Ottawa, ON  K1Z 8B5, 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


1.         Rezone the property as shown on Document 1 from R3Q[487] to R4V[xxxx].

2.         Add an exception to Section 239, for the property including the following:

a)         In Column II, the text R4V[xxxx];

b)         In Column IV, the text “planned unit development”; and

c)         In Column V; the text:

·               Minimum interior side yard setback of 1.2 metres on the east side of the property

·               Minimum interior side yard setback of 0.41 metres on the west side of the property

·               A cornice may project no closer than 0.149 metres from the west lot line

·               A cornice may project 0.61 m into a required front yard setback

·               26% of the lot area must be provided as landscaped area

·               Section 109(11)(a) does not apply

·               Minimum driveway aisle width of 3.05 metres





CONSULTATION DETAILS                                                                               DOCUMENT 3




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.





I am writing to you to convey the comments of OSWatch concerning the proposed rezoning of 337 Sunnyside Avenue. OSWatch is the planning and development committee of the Old Ottawa South Community Association, OSCA.


There are a number of planning and technical concerns that have been raised by neighbours which, in OSWatch’s view, must be dealt with by City Staff before any decision is made on the proposed re-zoning. These concerns include clarifying both: a) the required setbacks from the utility pole on Woodbine, and b) the required setbacks from all other neighbouring properties. In general OSCA expects the proposed development to respect all existing R3 side and front yard setbacks on the lot, and also and the R3 height limit of 11 Meters.


OSWatch and the OSCA Board has been on the record for some time that it feels strongly that spot zoning is an inappropriate planning tool to be used in dealing with the issue of intensification in neighbourhoods in the urban core such as Old Ottawa South. Rather, if there are to be changes to the zoning it should be done as part of a CDP. We would again ask for a CDP to be implemented in Old Ottawa South covering both the Main Street (Bank) and the adjacent residential areas. We also wish to repeat our concern to Planning Committee and City Planning Staff that the height, massing and setbacks of residential infill as presently allowed is not in keeping with the community character.


In the case of 337 Sunnyside we are prepared to refrain from formally objecting to the proposed re-zoning conditional on the roof top patio being removed from the design and site plan. A roof top patio is contrary to the character of the neighbourhood, it is invasive to the neighbouring properties’ privacy and is a potential source of noise. We suggest if the developer wants more amenity space that the size of the building be reduced and the space be created on the ground, a type of amenity space which is in keeping with the neighbourhood character.




1.         Neighbourhood Context:

Concerns and comments as follows:

a)         Compatibility of the proposed building with that of local vocabulary is questionable.

b)         There are no examples of monolithic apartment structures of such massing or proximity to the street situated between and around other smaller residential buildings in the neighbourhood.

c)         The proposed building is in stark contrast with the surrounding buildings in its general appearance, coupled with its looming and imposing presence.

d)        Privacy and noise concerns as the proposed paved walkway going from Sunnyside Avenue to Woodbine Place is feared to attract an inordinate amount or undesired pedestrian traffic, which would either be trying to access the proposed building or take a “shortcut” between these two streets.

e)         The proposed plans do not fit with the neighbourhood and go against City of Ottawa's own guidelines.

f)          It is out of character with the surrounding structures which are all single or semi-detached structures. 

g)         We are not opposed to the development of this property but within the existing zoning. A two storey building would be a better fit with the community and especially the neighbouring dwellings along Woodbine.

h)         Building an underground parking garage is not acceptable in this neighbourhood. In this neighbourhood garages are located either at the back of the property or there are no garages.  

i)           Six units is too dense and would create additional traffic and noise as well as create a visual eyesore along both Sunnyside and Woodbine Place.

j)           Propose that the building should have 4 apartments rather than 6.

k)         From a neighbourhood perspective, the proposed plans are too large and would not fit into the low density residential area.  All houses on similar size lots in the area have a maximum of 3 to 4 units. 

l)           The proposal is suggesting making an apartment building in an area of well established residential homes. This will not been seen as an enhancement to the community especially for those whom may be considering selling their home.

m)       The proposed balconies on both the north and south side of the building remove privacy to the neighbours in the area, this is not just one deck, but many, and then, to add to that, another larger deck is proposed. 

n)         Do not support creating multiple apartments in what is currently a single family home.  If the project were to be a free hold condominium, it would be preferable.

o)         Too massive for the property in footprint.

p)         The proposed plan does not provide a transition regarding the built form since the massing, character and setbacks proposed are quite different than that of surrounding properties.

q)         The balconies project too close to the streets on both Woodbine and Sunnyside and make the structure seem even larger.

r)          The garage will have the effect of visually adding another half storey.

s)          I am in support of the development as:

·         it has only one driveway;

·         in other development options, the side yard setbacks could be as little as 2 feet and this proposal has greater side yard setbacks;

·         the same number and size of dwelling units could be achieved without the zoning change;

·         two duplexes could be built, which could then be converted to triplexes, and all 6 units with a condominium title;

·         condominium property ownership of the 6 individual units is beneficial to the social fabric of the neighbourhood, as opposed to more rental units;

·         underground parking keeps all the cars out of sight and limits the amount of cars per unit to one;

·         six unit buildings are a manageable size and are consistent with the neighbourhood – duplexes and triplexes on 25' lots are abundant, and these are the same density as the proposal.


Response to Neighbourhood Context Concerns:

The current zoning on the site permits the development of multi-attached dwellings, which is a higher density than is currently on the site. The proposed development of a low-rise apartment building maintains a number of the current zoning provisions for multi-attached dwellings, including front yard setback, maximum height limit, side yard setback along the east side, and provision of a rooftop patio. The proposed development has also been modified to provide smaller balconies along Sunnyside Avenue, reduce the impact of the rooftop stairwell, and create a larger front entranceway along Sunnyside Avenue to be more in keeping with the surrounding context.


2.         Traffic and Parking:

Concerns and comments as follows:

a)         Increased resident and visitor traffic and lack of available on-street parking for this increased traffic.

b)         Concerns if Woodbine Place is used for access or parking for the development. Also concerns that this is a 90 degree turn (Woodbine/Barton) and is difficult to navigate.

c)         Increased traffic flow right in front of a school, with children being dropped off and picked up. 

d)        Having underground parking very close to a school constitutes a safety issue. 

e)         Increased traffic from development in conjunction with expected increase of vehicular traffic flow from the Lansdowne Park redevelopment and existing traffic from Shoppers and their parking lot. 

f)          The efforts made to confine the parking area entrance to a single opening on Sunnyside are appreciated and it has been noted that, as has been done on Ralph Street, it is possible to have a single garage access in a townhouse model.


Response to Traffic and Parking Concerns:

Pursuant to the Zoning By-law, the required number of parking spaces is three spaces for the proposed six units. As Sunnyside Avenue is a collector road, the City is supportive of providing access from Sunnyside Avenue to a parking garage that provides more parking spaces than are required. Additionally, as the proposed number of parking spaces is seven, one additional space will be available for residents who have more than one vehicle or for visitor parking.

The City is confident that the addition of six units along an existing collector road will not increase traffic or cause new safety concerns.


3.         Green Space and Landscaping:

Concerns and comments as follows:

a)         Work on the property will damage the root system of the tree in the back corner of 335 Sunnyside Avenue, possibly killing the tree.

b)         The removal of the small trees and shrubbery that line the eastern perimeter of the subject site will remove a privacy screen and what would amount to a vegetation buffer between the neighbour at 335 Sunnyside and the subject site.

c)         The shadowing on affected neighbours has a significant impact on their recreational activities, such as gardening, which will be negatively impacted due to the lack of sunlight reaching the rear yards and their associated flower beds.

d)        Shadowing to neighbouring properties will negatively impact the microclimate of surrounding properties, especially during winter months due to increased energy demands caused by loss of natural light as well as solar heat.

e)         The limited space available for trees or plant could not really be called landscaping.

f)          The property at the south end of Barton holds a place of prominence at the end of this short street and could with proper sizing and landscape make a significant contribution to the streetscape.


Response to Green Space and Landscaping Concerns:

As part of the Site Plan Control process, tree protection measures will be required for impacted trees on adjacent properties. Also through this process, the landscaping of the site will be finalized, which proposes to include planters with shrubs and one tree along the Sunnyside Avenue frontage.



4.         Height:

Concerns and comments as follows:

a)         Limits sunlight available for neighbouring backyards, as it is too large, too high and extends to the edges of property lines.

b)         The structure required to provide rooftop access adds additional height to the building and creates a further screen from sunlight for adjacent properties to the east.

c)         Overbuilding and overshadowing over adjacent properties due to its height and proximity to neighbouring properties will create visual intrusion from occupant’s windows and balconies that overlook gardens and patios, thereby undermining privacy and heightening feelings of vulnerability due to ‘overexposure’.

d)        Will impose on light and privacy of the surrounding structures.

e)         Too massive for the property in height.


Response to Height Concerns:

The current zoning on the site permits a height of 11 metres, which is maintained by the proposed zoning. Additionally, pursuant to the Zoning By-law, maximum height limits do not apply to rooftop stairwells.


5.         Rooftop Patio:

Concerns and comments as follows:

a)         Noise due to residents using the patio.

b)         Noise due to six roof-top air condition units.

c)         Privacy to adjacent properties.

d)        Feel that it is unnecessary as all units have balconies.

e)         Feel that it is not in keeping with the architectural features of the neighbourhood.


Response to Rooftop Patio Concerns:

The Zoning By-law currently permits rooftop patios in all residential zones.


6.         Zoning Provisions/Requirements:

Concerns and comments as follows:

a)         The subject site cannot be considered a “through-lot” as a portion of it abuts the rear yard of 46 Euclid Avenue to the North and therefore, must be considered to have a front yard on Sunnyside Avenue and a rear yard on Woodbine Place.

b)         Misleading information was provided about previous variances granted that are no longer applicable as a building permit was not issued.

c)         Consideration for required clearance for existing pole-mounted Ottawa Hydro power lines on the North end of the property has not been shown in the plans in regards to setbacks.

d)        Spot zoning of properties and setting a precedent for other locations in the community of Old Ottawa South.

e)         Before approving structures such as this, prefer if the community had the chance to proceed with the Community Design Plan to ensure that all residents’ viewpoints are considered before approving development. 

f)          The existing zoning of the site does not permit the proposed development of a low-rise apartment building, therefore, the City should enforce its own bylaws and not permit the building of this apartment building.

g)         Highest and best use of a property should take into consideration the existing zoning or perhaps return to a lesser density.  The present property is underutilized, yet the proposed amendment and subsequent apartment building swings the pendulum too far to the other side of the spectrum.

h)         An R3 zoning already provides for various development options that would be considered appropriate for the subject site and consistent with the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan which promotes both infilling and intensification, as well as various other guidelines and policies that are at play.

i)           The proposed zoning change to R4 is inconsistent with the zoning of the neighbourhood which consists almost entirely of R3 or lower zoning densities. There are only two small areas with an R4 zoning. These locations are quite different from the subject site of 337 Sunnyside Avenue, which is surrounded on all sides by R3 zoning and is neither on a corner lot nor beside a commercial area.


Response to Zoning Provisions and Requirements Concerns:

The City has confirmed that the site is considered as a through-lot and, thus, has frontage along both Sunnyside Avenue and Woodbine Place. The City has also clarified with the variance process with the applicant and has confirmed that the previously approved variances are no longer applicable as a building permit was not obtained within the required one-year timeframe. Additionally, the applicant has confirmed with Hydro Ottawa that the utility poles are for secondary power only, therefore, a 5 metre setback is not required.


7.         Other Comments:

Concerns and comments as follows:

a)         Due to the age of the foundation of neighbouring 335 Sunnyside Avenue and the foundation type (rubble), there is significant concern about the impact that excavation and construction in such close proximity will have on the structural integrity of this proximal building. 

b)         If this project goes ahead, there needs to be a provision put in place to ensure that any large construction vehicles were required to access the property from Sunnyside, rather than from Woodbine Place.

c)         Drainage is a concern for immediate neighbours.

d)        There is already an overcrowding of new developments in this area.

e)         The building proposal contravenes the City of Ottawa infill housing design guidelines.

f)          The applicant has not met the onus of demonstrating why he should be granted the exception measure of having the subject site rezoned to R4, especially in light of all the surrounding zoning which is R3 and the significant negative impact on neighbouring properties.


Response to Other Concerns:

Details regarding excavation and construction access are finalized through the building permit process and drainage is reviewed through the Site Plan Control process.


CONCEPT PLANS                                                                                                DOCUMENT 4


Proposed Woodbine Place Elevation













































Proposed Sunnyside Avenue Elevation


Proposed Sunnyside Avenue Rendering


PROPOSED SITE PLAN                                                                                      DOCUMENT 5






ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0083                                                   capital / capitale (17)




That the Planning Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning By‑law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 337 Sunnyside Avenue from Residential Third Density Subzone Q (R3Q[487]) to Residential Fourth Density, Subzone V, Exception [xxxx] (R4V[xxxx]), as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.


Kersten Nitsche, Planner, provided an overview of the application and staff’s rationale for recommending approval. A copy of her PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.


Committee received the following written submissions, copies of which are held on file with the City Clerk:

·         Joint letter dated 9 April 2012 from Tawnia Albert and Daphné Lahens; Michael Assal and Gill Alexander-Assal; Shoshana Magnet and Robert Smith; Tim Boreham and Cindy Tutt; Graham and Karen Cowen; Tom Regan

·         Comments dated 10 April 2012 from Brendan McCoy, Old Ottawa South Community Association.


Committee heard from the following public delegations:


Brendan McCoy, Old Ottawa South Community Association* was opposed to the application as proposed.  As outlined in his written comments on file, the community association was prepared to refrain from objecting to the proposal conditional on the roof top patio being removed from the design and site plan; however, with the patio in place they could not support it.  



Michel Assal and Daphne Lehens,* residents of Sunnyside Avenue, spoke on behalf of four other sets of neighbours, as noted above.  They opposed the application as presented. As outlined in greater detail in the comments on file, they opposed the spot-zoning of the site and the proposed through-lot designation of the site, and expressed concerns with Hydro line clearance, massing and shadow casting.


David McNicoll, resident of Sunnyside Avenue, was opposed to the report recommendations as presented.  Specifically, he was opposed to spot-zoning the property to R4, given that the surrounding area is almost exclusively R3. He suggested consideration of R4 Zoning for the area would be best considered as part of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law review.


Vincent Colizza, project architect, was present for the applicant in support of the application.  He indicated that they had stepped back the roof top patio, in addition to providing a landscaped buffer.


            * Comments held on file with the City Clerk


The report recommendations was put to Committee and CARRIED, as presented.