DEFERRALS
1. ZONING – 572 MOODIE DRIVE
ZONAGE – 572,
PROMENADE MOODIE
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0217 Bell-South Nepean / Bell-Nepean sud (3)
deferred
from 27 November 2002 council meeting
Chair Hunter began by
reading a statement required under the Planning
Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning
By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their
objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to
the amendment being adopted by City Council.
Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the
OMB.
Dhenashwar
Neermul reminded the Committee of its previous consideration on 14 November
2002 at which time the Committee recommended approval of the departmental
recommendation contained in report dated 29 October 2002, subject to a “H”
symbol to allow neighbourhood concerns to be addressed before any development
proposal could proceed on the lands and the Site Plan approved. The recommendation was carried forward to
Council on 27 November 2002, at which time a motion to refer the matter back to
Committee for consideration and provide the community additional opportunities
for public meeting was approved. He
provided an overview of the meetings and action that transpired in the
interim. The outcome of the most recent
meeting was a resolution that would see the proposal conform to all provisions
of the Institutional Zone with no exceptions and impose a cap on the building
height of 15 m or 50’, excluding the dome; the third condition would impose an
“H” symbol, similar to the November meeting, which would be lifted subject to
the following being completed: a traffic study; a parking utilization study for
the mosque; and, a Site Plan to the satisfaction of the City. Some community members indicated these did
not satisfy their concerns and would make presentation in that regard to the
Committee. Staff was satisfied the
resolutions adequately addressed community concerns and posited that the
amended Committee recommendations be further amended to include the
aforementioned conditions.
Chair Hunter
called upon the following delegations.
Jane
Ironside, J. G. Ironside Consultating, spoke primarily at Councillor Harder’s request
to provide background information with regard to previous zoning applications
on the site. Ms. Ironside also attended
the public meetings and assisted Councillor Harder in resolving the issue with
two conflicting community interests. A
written summation of Ms. Ironside’s presentation related to the chronology was
contained in a document distributed by Councillor Harder entitled “Rezoning
Application – 572 Moodie Drive”, and on file with the City Clerk.
Ms. Ironside
noted some of the issues that had come about through discussion with the
community related partially to how this property had historically been treated
by Nepean Council in limiting the Church to the existing building. She reviewed the issues to assist the
Committee in understanding the rationale for the additional recommendations, a
summary of which was also contained in the documentation distributed.
As a result of
the traffic and land use study for the triangle, there was an understanding
that any redevelopment should be done in a comprehensive manner since there was
a requirement to focus access to specific locations rather than developing
individual properties with accesses onto Moodie Drive or similarly onto
Richmond Road. A comprehensive study
should be conducted to ensure access was generally focused in areas Ms.
Ironside demonstrated on the plan. As
the lands redevelop in the future, access may have to be achieved through the
property; and, one important reason to have a Site Plan prior to removing the
“H” symbol. Secondly, new traffic
patterns might be created in the area.
The intent was to have the current access from Moodie Drive closed and
re-oriented to Richmond Road, as demonstrated on the map. She referred the Committee to the larger
plan and provided the rationale for the traffic study before the “H” provision
was lifted to understand the potential implications with cut-through traffic.
The third issue
was the scale of the proposal. In the
existing R3 zone, the maximum height limit was 30 feet; and, in a standard Institutional
Zone the maximum height limit was 80 feet.
It was opined to scale the potential height of any building to be more
compatible with the surrounding area since any architectural features such as a
church steeple or dome could exceed the 80 feet height limit. With the land use study completed, medium
density residential was deemed appropriate for the triangle, which was opined
to be at a 40-50 foot height range.
That was the rationale for the Institutional Zone with an exception to
cap the height at 50 feet excluding the dome or architectural feature. Another issue revolved around the setbacks
with the original setback at 9 m. Since
the height of the building was unknown, it was appropriate to maintain the
standard ratio provided in the zoning rather than reducing the setback when the
effect on abutting properties was not known.
There was also
discussion on funeral related use, which the community would be
addressing. When the building permit to
allow expansion of the house on the property was issued in 1997,
body-preparation activities associated with the Mosque were recognized on the
Building Permit Plans and permitted to take place, based on the approved
plans. She opined comments would be
forthcoming that the use be eliminated, but the position from the Legal
Department indicated that would be difficult, given the history of approving it
on previous building permits and the 1997 Building Permit.
Lastly, the
issue of Site Plan and proposed parking.
The conceptual plan indicated the building would be in the neighbourhood
of 70,000 square feet or 6,858 square metres, with 173 parking spaces. For comparison purposes, she looked at
previous zoning by-laws from other municipalities to give a better indication
of parking ratios for a Place of Worship.
In the existing Nepean By-Law, the parking ratio was 1:5 persons. So, unless one knew the number to be
accommodated, one could not determine the required parking. The Mosque said 40% coverage would allow a
6,858 square metre building and proposed 173 spaces resulting in 1:40 square
metres. Other By-Laws, e.g. former City
of Ottawa, required 10:100 square meters - 686 parking spaces; Gloucester
By-Law required 1:12 square metres - 572; Cumberland - 343 spaces; Kanata 1:10
square metres - 549 spaces; and, in the former Osgoode By-Law - 762
spaces. There was a concern with the
scale of the proposed building. Given
that it was conceptual, there might not be sufficient land to provide adequate
parking; and, that was the reason for a parking study prior to lifting the “H”
zone. This would assure the scale of
the development and size of the property were sufficient to provide adequate
parking for the use.
James
Gazzard, Executive Committee, Arbeathea Park Property Owners’ Association, provided a written
submission (in opposition to the rezoning application), which was distributed
and on file with the City Clerk.
Councillor
Munter received confirmation the Association and most of the residents Mr.
Gazzard represented were east of Moodie Drive; Mr. Gazzard added that the
western boundary was Richmond Road, with very few houses on that side. Councillor Munter noted the application shut
off access on Moodie Drive and that access would be from Richmond Road, which
Mr. Gazzard acknowledged was a positive aspect of the Plan, but the main issue
was that the proposed 173 spaces weren’t adequate for current traffic on the
site. Residents counted more than 200
cars on Fridays. The community posited
it would not solve the problem and vehicles would still park on Moodie Drive
and Arnold once the lot was full since they couldn’t park on Seyton or
Richmond. Councillor Munter suggested
streets could be signed as “no parking”.
Lastly, Councillor Munter was intrigued by the second-last sentence “the
proposed zoning application would create permanent, unsolvable problems between
the two communities”? Mr. Gazzard
responded that the problems mainly focussed on safety issues and convenience of
parking. Having said that, the
community was happy with their neighbours in the Mosque.
Don Davidson,
Lynwood Village,
provided a model of the mosque and surrounding community. He illustrated to the Committee how to
access the Mosque from the Queensway through the community, providing points of
reference along the way as well as size comparisons using existing
buildings. He opined it was important
to protect the children, with a sidewalk from Stinson along Ridgefield to
Arnold and pointed out the area schools.
He lived in the area since 1963 and his children attended the area schools. The first speaker addressed to a great
extent the major problems, but he reviewed many of the earlier Minutes over the
years. It seemed that nothing was
resolved. First, they talked about low
density, then medium density; with this triangle of land always in limbo. Then it was decided there should be small
businesses, which was sidetracked; then there was the bible school; now there
was the Mosque. He referred to the model
presented. The mosque was 150 x 150
feet; the shape was optimized to make the best use of the area; and, provide
the best return for the money. There
was nothing wrong with the design; but, considering the lot size; there would
be horrendous problems managing the parking.
What about the odd bus? The
property was 2.5 acres, with the mosque occupying .5 acres and the rest
parking. Where do the people go? Was it environmentally friendly? Previous minutes put traffic lights on
Seyton Drive and the safe passage for children to school, which was never
done. The community was still at a
roadblock. He provided several examples
of good planning - the First Unitarian Church, also on Richmond Road and
Unitarian House had ample parking, with lots of space for people. It was people friendly, which was important
in a community. Arnold was not people
friendly; it was dangerous. The
Stillwater Creek Retirement home, near Bell’s Corners was well planned; and
other examples. There was more to an
establishment than a building and parking; there was also landscaping, which
was important.
Tony Brown was a resident of the Arbeatha Park
Community for 28 years. He provided a
written submission (in opposition to the rezoning application), which was
distributed and on file with the City Clerk.
Ingrid de
Buda a provided a
detailed written submission (in opposition to the rezoning application), which
was distributed and on file with the City Clerk. Concerns not included in
Ms. de Buda's written submission specifically include: concerns regarding the failure to permit
proper public input (she indicated she was not permitted to speak at the Public
consultation meeting) and Nepean Zoning By-Law requirements, in particular the
need to require all parking as needed on site not just the 1:5 ratio. Ms. de Buda did not make any reference to
funeral use.
Councillor
Harder noted that the matter of body preparation had arisen a number of times
and would again. Her staff conducted an
extensive cross-Canada investigation into other major municipalities and
received comment from Legal staff. It
was never made crystal clear; but she provided the answers she had. She asked that at some point Legal provide
information. Given the current zoning
and proposed changes, Hana Nader-Merhi, Legal Counsel, advised that Legal did
look into two questions relating to the body preparation activities proposed
for the Mosque or that currently take place.
One, the Zoning By-Law of the former City of Nepean defined Place of
Worship to include Secondary Uses; and, it was determined by Legal that would
include body preparation activities.
There was no violation in terms of the current definition of Place of
Worship in the current by-law as it stood today. The second aspect was whether there was a violation outside the
Zoning By-Law and in relation to the Funeral Director’s Act; and, the
legal opinion given, “uncontradicted”, was that there was no violation and any
issue dealing with that aspect of matters was a Provincial matter and not a
Zoning or City matter. Councillor
Harder received confirmation both opinions were given on the general basis of
religious activities and not focussed on this particular faith.
Councillor
Stavinga referred to comments made by the previous delegation and the land use
study conducted by the former municipality of Nepean. There appeared to be a very strong difference of opinion. Staff indicated in the report that approval
of the re-zoning would not impede the re-development of the area and was in
keeping with the Land Use Study undertaken; yet, Ms. De Buda specifically had a
very different opinion; that the re-zoning would indeed affect opportunities in
the future for re-development. She
asked for clarification. Mr. Neermul
responded that the Special Study conducted in 1995 was in response to an
application for Re-Zoning of the Mosque, which prompted the overall Planning
Study. In looking at the appropriate
mix of land use in the triangle, it was determined that medium density
residential was appropriate, not low density currently on the site or in the triangle. The overall policies of the OP for former
Nepean allow institutional uses within residential designations with no special
designation set aside for institutional areas.
This was an existing institutional use and the proposal before Committee
was an expansion in compliance with the OP, Zoning By-Law and the special
study. Staff did not see it as
incompatible with the outcome of that Special Study and the general residential
policies in the OP. Institutional Use
was an integral part of a residential community and the proposal would fit
within those policy parameters.
Councillor
Harder observed the 1997 Land Use Study and comments made regarding the
entrance to the property for future development. One was definitely Seyton and Richmond Road since there was an
intersection there. Would staff look at
safeguarding access to the northern part as was done in some of the newer
developments through the Site Plan process?
Mr. Neermul responded that shared access would be a consideration for
the overall development.
Attilla Danko pointed out one of the important
things about living in Canada was that people from different religions believe
they belong together. The Mosque began
with a congregation of 50 and judging from the traffic expanded to approximately
200. This was was not a coincidence. Mr. Malam had a vision to bring together
congregations from Kanata and Barrhaven originating from different ethnic
communities. The community should
expect the congregation to continue to grow because of that personal
objective. It was a very honourable
vision and Council and Committee should support it; however, he wanted to speak
against the zoning. He did not believe
it was an inconsistent position. He
moved to Arbeatha Park because it was a very nice bedroom community. He had concerns with any organization
planning to put a 70,000 square foot facility on the site with the specific
intention of attracting traffic from Barrhaven, Kanata and other points; simply
because he did not believe Arbeatha Park was a Regional centre for anything. The congregation required a major regional
religious institute and if one looked at the mere technical details of the
application, there was sufficient case for stating this was a major
institution; and, therefore major institution rules should be applied to it.
He did not
support the re-zoning application, but there was a larger challenge present,
which might not be in the Committee’s job description. But, they may be the only ones capable of
solving the problem. The Ottawa Islamic
Community deserved a place where Mr. Malam’s vision could be realized. The Triangle was not the appropriate place
and the fact there was R3 residential land available for sale did not make it
appropriate. He supported the vision,
but not this application.
David Major provided a written submission (in
opposition to the rezoning application), which was distributed and on file with
the City Clerk.
Dr. Misbah
Islam lived in the
community for 18 years. The community encompassed recent
immigrants; Ingrid De Buda; Attilla Danko; etc. When
defining the community, they were all part of the community. There was no us and them, which he
emphasized. They were looking at a
coordinated approach to solve the problem the Canadian way, which was
compromise, negotiate, etc. There was a
need for attitudinal changes and did not want the NIMBY paradigm here. The Mosque developed over the last ten years
and provided an excellent service to the Muslim community and the community at
large. Arbeatha, Lynwood, etc. did not
realize the advantages this development would bring to them in that it will
enable interaction, coordination and understanding with Youth Services, Women
Services, etc. As far as the
insurmountable problems referred to, there could not be any permanent
unsolvable problems; they had to be solved and could be. As far as traffic and parking were
concerned, there were imaginative ways to solve them. For example, in Windsor and London, there were similar problems
that were solved. When one identified a
1-1½ hour problem on Fridays only, that was a fact. There could be a special dispensation with posted signs allowing
1½ hour parking on Fridays only, which could be enforced. As far as the integration of institutional
and residential buildings, it was fact that wherever there were people there
were institutions, be it a Church, shopping mall, playground. There cannot be a boundary line between
residential and non-residential use. As
an engineer, he was aware of that. The
application should be approved and would provide many benefits to the
community.
Robert Smolka was present, in opposition, but had
to leave.
Craig Ritchie provided a written submission (in
opposition to the rezoning application), which was distributed and on file with
the City Clerk.
Councillor
Harder noted most of Mr. Ritchie’s concerns revolved around traffic, safety and
parking and asked if those could be addressed in the proposed Motion. Mr. Neermul responded that lifting the “H”
was subject to parking utilization and traffic studies, which were intended to
address those issues. Responding to
whether there was any impediment to restricting parking, Mr. Neermul advised
that from a staff perspective, he did not foresee it would be a problem and
would require further input from the community.
Councillor
Stavinga noted the original staff report had not put forward the need for a
traffic study, but suggested the need to investigate access restrictions, etc.,
and had not determined it would be an issue.
To what extent would the proposed parking requirements deal with not
just the cars that overflow onto existing neighbourhood streets, but the
expansion of the congregation? Mr.
Neermul responded that in terms of the original staff report, the Site Plan
Application was intended to address all the issues related to parking in
association with the Mosque. If the
parking utilization study revealed there was a problem, solutions would be
sought through that study. Councillor
Stavinga suggested that if the study identified off street was a problem and
had to be accommodated on site, she understood the building envelope would need
to be reduced to accommodate the additional parking on site? Mr. Neermul confirmed that was correct and
as an earlier speaker pointed out these were minimum requirements; however, if
the parking utilization study concluded additional spaces were needed over the
minimum by-law requirement the applicant would need to address that.
Chair Hunter
noted the issue of traffic and parking was fairly addressed and acknowledged by
all sides as a problem. He asked that
future speakers abridge their comments on that issue. There were other issues of concern and he welcomed those to be
addressed, but traffic and parking were an recognized problem as in many parts
of the City.
Diane Major provided a written submission (in
opposition to the rezoning application), which was distributed and on file with
the City Clerk.
Cindy Helman had lived on Moodie Drive for 15
years and noted as did the last speaker that there were many issues and most
were already addressed. She was pleased
the setback restriction was removed since it would be very difficult for her
family to live with such a large facility 9 m from their back fence. She would like to see the zoning remain
as. The congregation were good
neighbours and they as well were good neighbours. They were very patient with the parking situation and wanted some
relief in that regard, if possible. The
facility would only continue to grow.
The scale itself was very imposing to those in the area, at 150 x 150
feet. It would totally cover her back
yard, depriving them of the sun (pool), affect their property values and
quality of life every day, not just one hour per week. When the community was first informed Mr.
Malam had bought the property and would put in parking, the community was very
pleased. When they heard a Mosque would
be built they adopted a wait and see attitude, but it was a huge facility,
which in her mind could only triple in size with the same issues continuing.
Brad Watt was present, in support, but had to
leave.
Margaret
Lodge provided a
written submission (in opposition to the rezoning application), which was
distributed and on file with the City Clerk.
Councillor
Harder referred to page 6 of Ms. Lodge’s submission and asked for staff comment
on the ability under the “H” designation to add the wording provided by Mrs.
Lodge related to completion of a Registration / Licensing By-law report
since she understood the Mosque currently had a license from the Province. Ms. Nader-Merhi responded that in terms of
the Licensing By-Law, particularly if it was a Provincial matter, it would not
be appropriate to put it in as a condition of the “H’ symbol. The Councillor had a further question
related to the 2. the total zoning should be done in two sections, Zoning
Limitations, page 6, and asked if it could be done in two sections in this
case. Mr. Neermul commented that it was
an approach that could be taken, but he was not sure how it would benefit the
Site Plan. It would be easier to
enforce a Site Plan with a consistent zoning across the site, rather than
across two different zones.
Atique Siddiqui provided a written submission (in
support of the expansion of the Mosque – member of the Congregation), which was
distributed and on file with the City Clerk.
Anvar Malam, as Imam of the Mosque, on behalf of the congregation,
wanted to assure neighbours and area residents they would address all the
concerns and issues through participation in the traffic study, parking study
and Site Plan development. They would
do everything possible to minimize any impact on the quality of life of
neighbourhood residents. The Mosque
wanted to work together to develop the community in the most suitable and
optimum manner; and, wanted area residents to be part of their community by
participating in their joint programmes; having the Mosque facility would not
only meet the need of the Muslim community, but also accommodate needs of the
neighbourhood through youth and inter-faith programmes and dialogue. When the site was developed and the
facilities built, it would enhance the current perspective of the area. If they worked as a team to address the
concerns and needs of both memberships, he posited they would find mutually
acceptable solutions. No one would
disagree that having proper parking facilities would alleviate some of the
present concerns on Friday noon hour.
From a neighbourhood perspective it was preferred that they park on
their property as opposed to neighbouring streets. Through the efforts of Councillor Harder and the neighbourhood
associations there was tremendous participation and discussion on the
project. The motion put forward by the
Councillor was acceptable to the Mosque and he requested the Committee to
assess the proposal on its own merit without giving in to undue pressure from
fringe elements in the neighbourhood.
Additionally, staff did an excellent job in scrutinizing every aspect of
the application and supported the application due to its technical merits and
feasibility.
Councillor
Little noted the concerns related to body preparation and asked what that
process entailed. Mr. Malam commented
that the issue was blown out of proportion due to a lack of understanding,
etc. Basically, in every faith,
particularly the Muslim Faith, there was a need to wash the body, prepare the
body, respectfully wrap the body and place the body in a simple coffin,
according to the rules, pray for the person and take the coffin to the
cemetery. He had publicly announced that
because the Mosque was not a commercially operating funeral home, they did not
have the facilities for embalmment, nor do they handle a body, which had a
contagious disease. They can release
someone from hospital based on natural death, sign papers with a doctor. If a post-mortem was performed, they could
not touch the body. In simple terms, if
a person wished to be properly prepared upon death and not want to rest in a
funeral home, the request could be accommodated. He invited his friends and community members to see the
facility. Education was a very
important part of it. Once the
facilities were viewed the feeling of apprehension, etc. would disappear.
Councillor
Cullen received confirmation other Mosques in the City followed the same
practice.
Tim Chadder,
J. L. Richards,
reviewed some of the issues. The 6,000+
square metre facility was based on the maximum coverage permitted by the By-Law
for institutional use. That was
irrespective of what had to be supplied for that use, primarily the
parking. The applicant recognized the
building was conceived as a 150 square foot building, which would supply a
certain amount of parking. The parking,
size of the building, would change. It
would all be subject to a detailed analysis of the parking requirements on the
site. The applicant committed to that
at the last public meeting with Councillor Harder, who had a Motion to further
detail the holding provision. The
traffic and parking issues had to be dealt with to the City’s satisfaction
prior to Site Plan Approval or the lifting of the Holding symbol.
Councillor
Bellemare inquired if Mr. Chadder had explored the possibility of acquiring
additional lands to meet on site parking requirements, which could be as much a
2-3 times or more than the 158 parking spaces envisaged in the concept plan. Councillor Harder responded that she, in
cooperation with the Mayor’s Office, had been doing that and would address
that. Mr. Chadder advised that the
applicant had not as yet conducted a detailed analysis of the parking
requirement. They were currently
approaching it with the land as shown on the hatching and had looked at
acquiring additional land to accommodate a set building size. Responding to questions by Councillor
Bellemare related to the parking issue and City facilitation to acquire
adjacent vacant lands to meet parking requirements through the provisions of
the Expropriations Act, Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals,
advised that the implementation of the Parking Study through the Site Plan
Approval Process to ensure the necessary parking was provided within the bounds
of the property was certainly something staff could accommodate. The acquisition of additional lands to
service private property needs was not something the City could pursue through
an expropriation proceeding. Ms. Nader-Merhi
added that Expropriation must be for municipal purposes. If there was a particular programme that
would assist the association and not violate any other provision of the Municipal
Act could be an indirect manner of assisting.
Lou Reeves lived in Bell’s Corners since 1964,
directly across from the site, on Seyton Drive and had a commitment to the
neighbourhood. Purchasers buy a
property based upon what they see on site when they buy. He always recognized that the existing
property, R3, was residential and had not at any time envisaged it would become
institutional; therefore, he could not support the re-zoning application and
was opposed. But, he was not opposed on
the basis of being anti-development or construction of Mosques. He was strongly in favour of the
Mosque. The proposal was not in harmony
with the existing residential community.
Why must he, his children and grandchildren be faced with something that
he never thought of? Many individuals
he had spoken to had not come forward to voice their “opposition”. There was a small percentage in favour. There was also a small percentage violently
opposed. He could not agree with the
latter group. There was a small group
who were not opposed; but had no interest in the future, since they were
renters and transients. It was a major
concern for long-term residents. He
could have presented a document with 200 signatures; or 500 signatures from the
entire community. He and many in the
community would be supportive of a Mosque, but not there. He would like to see one mosque built in the
general area to meet the expanding needs of the Muslim community and would be
willing to provide financial input to that process.
Chrystal
Duperron lived
beside the existing Mosque. She wanted
to address comments related to traffic on Friday at 1; there was more than
that. There was only 20 feet between
her house and the existing mosque. At 1
a.m. she was awakened by traffic; and, at 4 a.m. in the morning. There was more traffic than during the day
when most people were awake.
Councillor
Harder advised Ms. Duperron that through the Site Plan Process the City
intended to close the access to vehicles.
Ms. Duperron inquired about walk-through because the congregation
arrived at all hours. People come out,
talk and car alarms go off. Councillor
Harder advised that the parking and traffic study would address those concerns
as well as other concerns raised today.
The “H” symbol would not be lifted until that happened. She added there would be many meetings to
obtain input.
Councillor
Munter received confirmation Ms. Duperron did not call about the Noise By-Law
and that cars parked in front of and beside her house because that was where
the current access was.
The Committee
received the following documentation, which was circulated:
·
E-mail
from Councillor Harder, dated 23 January 2003, containing concerns from Robert
Hursti; Doug Watson; Tim Ellis
·
E-mail
from Robert Smolka, dated 22 January 2003, opposed to the proposed re-zoning
Chair Hunter
called the Public Hearing to a closed and the matter returned to Committee.
Councillor Harder thanked everyone for the
opportunity for the Bell’s Corners community and the Mosque congregation to
come forward today. Over the last few
months the community worked very hard and held several small meetings and one
large meeting. Not everyone would be
happy with any decision made today. She
had made a chart of the basic concerns.
There was one on waste water and she reiterated the fact there was
currently a study on the Sanitary Storm Sewer System in Bells’ Corners, which
had been on-going for some time. She
had still not received an update on that matter. The outcome would have an impact on this application and another
one in Bells’ Corners on Tyrell, which many were familiar with. Many talked about parking, traffic, 1997
Study, current 20/20 process, right of the faith to undertake the body
preparation; the information received from legal was the same as she continued
to receive. Two representatives from
the Mayor’s Office were, assisting her, one since early in December, to find
another location that would fit Mr. Malam’s vision for his community. The Mosque would need to grow and grow
quickly. In her mind the current site
was not appropriate for that dream.
Having said that, there was an application before Committee that had to
be dealt with. She referred to the
original motion, which did not contain safeguards for the community. Part of the problem with the application was
that there was no Site Plan; there was a Concept Plan. Now there was an “H” symbol, which would not
be lifted until the City approved the Site Plan. If one looked at the other major issues; and, added the transportation,
traffic and parking studies under the “H” symbol and the Site Plan, that should
provide assurance to Bell’s Corners residents.
Committee members were not previously aware of the history and Minutes
prior to 1985, 1985, 1996, 1997. There
was still a long process ahead. She
addressed her proposed Motion as previously explained by staff at the outset of
the meeting. Having said that, this was not the last meeting, but the start of
a series of gatherings on all three issues.
She opined it was a win-win and wanted the public to have confidence
that the Mayor’s Office was continuing to look for approximately a six (6) acre
property where the congregation could see its dream come true. It was important to say that both
communities worked very hard on the application and while there were some in
the community that did not want it, as mentioned by Mr. Reeves, there were many
who would accept it if it worked and fit into the space.
Councillor
Cullen appreciated Councillor Harder’s hard work and inquired if staff was
comfortable with the proposed Motion.
John Moser, Director, Development and Infrastructure Approvals,
responded that it reflected the discussions that took place in terms of the
main issues. It was normal when
Committee/Council imposed an “H” symbol, there be conditions precedent to lift
it and those reflect the issues faced.
Councillor
Little would support Councillor Harder’s motion. Given that he had the Central Mosque in his Ward, he was very
familiar with many of the parking related issues that come into play with
applications for expansion and Councillor Harder’s Motion seemed reasonable.
Responding to
Councillor Little’s reference to a Mosque, Councillor Munter posited there were
a number of churches in Kanata with tremendous overflow and congestion, with
Sunday service at particular points in the morning. If the Committee were talking about an office with cars, people
in and out at the same time as well as residents trying to get in and out of
their homes, go to school at 9 in the morning and afternoon peak hours, there
would be a different discussion. But,
none of the problems he heard today were “unsolvable problems”; they were all
solvable. He would support Councillor
Harder’s Motion since she had put in a tremendous amount of work and hired
outside resources to assist. But, it
was important the community understood that the series of restrictions being
placed on the zoning were unusual and onerous and he was reluctant to support
them on that basis, because he had not seen the Committee go to these lengths
with other applications. But, having
said that he recognized the effort made to get to a win-win situation and would
support the compromise on that basis.
Councillor
Stavinga posited Councillor Harder had shown tremendous leadership in striking
a compromise. It might not be a win-win
in that not everyone had necessarily agreed 100% with the compromise, but it
was one of the better outcomes.
Comments were made today with regard to “I have lived there for… and
never anticipated for the community” and reflected upon a situation in her own
community related to another institutional use, which regrettably ended at the
OMB. But, the issues as the Chair and
Councillor Munter determined were not insurmountable. She knew the challenge to find a site that drew people from a
large community and that community was growing incredibly and she wished them
well. She was prepared to support
Councillor Harder’s Motion and referenced Councillor Munter’s comment these
were onerous and very unusual. The
community had to commit to continuing the discussion with the local Councillor
and was certain Councillor Harder would work with the community.
Councillor
Harder thanked everyone and noted the comments to the onerous restrictions
accepted by the congregation because it was their belief, as explained by Mr.
Malam to work with and become part of the community. She thanked the congregation, the community, the Committee and
especially Mr. Neermul who did a fantastic job assisting her and Ms. Ironside.
Moved by
Councillor J. Harder:
That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law, to
rezone 572 Moodie Drive from Residential Third Density Zone (R3) and
Residential Third Density Zone - Block
2 (R3–Block 2) to Institutional Zone: Block 20 - (I: Block 20) to recognize the
existing use of this site, and permit the development of a new place of worship
as detailed in Document 1, subject to the following amendments:
1.
That Document 1 be amended as
follows:
Item 3) is deleted and replaced with the following:
3) All standard provisions of the
Institutional Zone shall apply except a maximum building height of 15 m
excluding the dome is allowed
2.
And further that an “H” symbol be
imposed with the following conditions being satisfied before the “H” symbol can
be lifted:
·
A traffic study completed to the
satisfaction of the City and implemented through the Site Plan;
·
A parking utilization study to the
satisfaction of the City and implemented through the Site Plan;
·
A Site Plan being approved.
3. That, pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the
Planning Act (RSO 1990), no further notice be given with respect to the subject
by-law.
CARRIED as amended
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SERVICES D’AMÉNAGEMENT
PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH
DIRECTION DE L’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES
D’URBANISME
ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE
2. ZONING
– TECHNICAL CORRECTION AMENDMENT TO THE FORMER CITY OF KANATA ZONING BY-LAWS
ZONAGE
– CORRECTION TECHNIQUE AUX RÈGLEMENTS MUNICIPAUX SUR LE ZONAGE DE L’ANCIENNE
VILLE DE KANATA
ACS2003-DEV-APR-0016 Kanata (4)
Chair Hunter began by
reading a statement required under the Planning
Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning
By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their
objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to
the amendment being adopted by City Council.
Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the
OMB.
The Committee approved the
recommendations contained in departmental report dated 10 January 2003.
That the Planning and
Development Committee recommend Council approve amendments to the former City
of Kanata Zoning By-laws to eliminate and correct anomalies and inconsistencies
as detailed in Document 1.
4. Zoning – 3600 - 3648 Highway # 17
ZONAGE – 3600 – 3648, ROUTE 17
ACS2003-DEV-APR-0017 West Carleton (5)
Chair Hunter began by reading a
statement required under the Planning Act,
which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law
Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their
objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to
the amendment being adopted by City Council.
Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the
OMB.
The Committee approved the
recommendations contained in departmental report dated 3 January 2003.
That Planning
and Development Committee recommend Council approve the following amendments to
the former Township of West Carleton Zoning By-law:
1.
To rezone 3648 Highway No. 17 from “RU” – Rural
to “RU–18” – Rural, Special Exception; and
2.
To rezone lands transferred from 3648 Highway No. 17 to
3600 Highway No. 17, from “RU” – Rural to “CR” – Rural Commercial.
CARRIED
5. ZONING – 135 TANSLEY DRIVE
ZONAGE – 135, PROMENADE TANSLEY
ASC2003-DEV-APR-0007 West
Carleton (5)
Chair Hunter began by
reading a statement required under the Planning
Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning
By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their
objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to
the amendment being adopted by City Council.
Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the
OMB.
Tim Chadder, J.
L. Richards, Agent for the owner, was present and in support of the
recommendation contained in report dated 2 January 2003. The Committee approved the recommendation
contained in the report.
That the
Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve amendments to
Zoning By-Law 266 of 1981 of the former Township of West Carleton to rectify an
error on Schedule “A”
Map 3 of the Zoning By-Law and to change the zoning of 135 Tansley Road, MR-10(x3)(h), Rural
Industrial, Exception Zone x3 with a Holding Provision, as shown in Document 1.
CARRIED
6. ZONING
– TECHNICAL CORRECTION AMENDMENT TO THE FORMER TOWNSHIP OF GOULBOURN ZONING
BY-LAW
ZONAGE – CORRECTION TECHNIQUE AU RÈGLEMENT
MUNICIPAL SUR LE ZONAGE DE L’ANCIEN CANTON DE GOULBOURN
ACS2003-DEV-APR-0015 Goulbourn (6)
Chair Hunter began by reading a
statement required under the Planning Act,
which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law
Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their
objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to
the amendment being adopted by City Council.
Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the
OMB.
Councillor Stavinga advised that
there was an objection raised by Michael O’Rourke received by e-mail dated 22
January 2003 and circulated, since Mr. O’Rourke was unable to attend. The specific concern was with regard to the
definition of frontage, which she explored with staff. It was understood to be a technical
amendment to correct a transcribing error.
She inquired on the impact if the Committee did not correct the error. Mike Russett responded that Councillor
Stavinga was correct in identifying that it was a transcribing error and
through the staff-initiated programme to consolidate all the former
municipalities’ By-Laws this item was identified as a correction. In terms of leaving it as is, the defining
term lot frontage limited the appropriation or location of access in terms of
what was a front lot line and what was a side lot line, specifically on corner
lots. If left as is, staff would be
bound by the defined term within the By-Law.
The proposal to correct it would allow, through the Site Plan Control
process, staff’s best planning judgement, and through negotiations in the Site
Plan process, for TUPW and the Traffic department, to determine what the best
access points were on development sites.
Councillor Stavinga wished to clarify the housekeeping amendment would
ensure the City could apply the OP policies with regard to service roads and
accesses on Section 11.9 appropriately; that because of the transcription error
there was a cause for misrepresentation or with regard to the OP for the
Township of Goulbourn.
Councillor Stavinga wished to put
forward, a definition for frontage and received assistance from staff in
drafting a definition for frontage that would be applied to the By-Law; this
would bring clarity to an issue that was clouded. Ms. Currie advised the Committee that staff would support
Councillor Stavinga’s recommendation.
Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:
That Document 1 be amended by inserting the
following definition of Frontage into Section 2 of By-Law 40-99:
“FRONTAGE means that part of a lot which abuts
a public street.”
CARRIED
The departmental report dated 10
January 2003 was approved as amended.
That the Planning and Development Committee
recommend Council approve amendments to the former Township of Goulbourn Zoning
By-law No. 40/99 to eliminate and correct anomalies and inconsistencies as
detailed in Document 1, subject to the following amendments:
1. That
Document 1 be amended by inserting the following definition of Frontage into
Section 2 of By-Law 40-99:
“FRONTAGE means that part of a lot which abuts
a public street.”
2. That, pursuant to subsection
34(17) of the Planning Act (RSO 1990), no further notice be given with respect
to the subject by-law.
carried as amended
7. ZONING
- 199 SLATER STREET
ZONAGE – 199 RUE, SLATER
ACS2003-DEV-APR-0011 Somerset (14)
Chair Hunter began by
reading a statement required under the Planning
Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB),
must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their
comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in
refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
Janet Bradley,
Gowlings, Agent for the owner, was present and in support of the recommendation
contained in report dated 15 December 2002.
The Committee approved the recommendation contained in the report.
That the
Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve an amendment
to the Zoning By-law, 1998 of the former City of Ottawa to rezone
the property at 199 Slater Street to permit the continuation of a temporary
parking lot for a period of three years from October 27, 2002 to October 26,
2005.
CARRIED
8. ZONING
– 10 DOBBIE STREET
ZONAGE – 10 RUE, DOBBIE
ACS2003-DEV-APR-0006 Kitchissippi (15)
Chair Hunter began by reading a
statement required under the Planning Act,
which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Official Plan
and Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either
voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in
writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in
refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
John Medaglia,
was present and in support of the recommendation contained in report dated 6
January 2003. The Committee approved
the recommendation contained in the report.
That the
Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to
the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 1998 to establish a further exception
to the IG[291] F(1.0) H(10.7) – General Industrial Zone applying to 10 Dobbie
Street to add as a permitted use an automobile dealership.
CARRIED
9. KANATA WEST CONCEPT PLAN
PLAN
CONCEPTUEL DE KANATA-OUEST
ACS2003-DEV-APR-0019 Kanata (5), West Carleton
(5), Goulbourn (6)
Councillor Stavinga advised for the
benefit of those present that staff and Councillors involved had done their
utmost to inform as many as possible that the item would be deferred at the
request of staff, the applicants and in concurrence with Ward Councillors. There were some items that could be resolved
in the interim prior to the deliberations.
Moved by Councillor J.
Stavinga:
That Item 9,
Kanata West Concept Plan, be deferred to the Planning and Development Committee
meeting of February 27th at 1:30 p.m. to allow time to resolve
outstanding concerns.
CARRIED
as amended
10. Site
Plan – 2200 Benjamin Avenue
PLAN D’IMPLANTATION – 2200, AVENUE BENJAMIN
ACS2003-DEV-APR-00020 Bay/Baie (7)
Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, advised that staff
could provide a presentation if the Committee desired or could answer questions
if there were any specific issues that needed to be addressed. Chair Hunter turned the meeting over to
Councillor Cullen since the matter was in his Ward.
Councillor
Cullen proposed that unless there were questions of staff, the Committee listen
to the delegations followed by an opportunity to ask staff questions.
The Committee
heard from the following delegations:
Wendo
Blondeau, President, Glabar Park Community Alliance, provided a written submission (in
opposition to the Site Plan Application), which was distributed and on file
with the Clerk.
Ms. Blondeau also provided a written
submission from Laurie Tennian (in opposition to the Site Plan Application),
which was distributed and on file with the Clerk.
Councillor Cullen advised that a
public meeting was sponsored with the Community Association last April to deal
with traffic issues on Fairlawn Avenue.
The issue of the sidewalk, parking; control of speed limit; and, traffic
calming were presented. There was no
community consensus on traffic calming issues; there was community consensus on
the sidewalk; and, some form of parking provision? Ms. Blondeau recalled the
only consensus from her door to door survey was either both sides parking, no
sides parking or one side parking. She
asked the Transportation Department to acknowledge there was a problem before
the expansion was allowed to proceed and safety measures put in place. Councillor Cullen pointed out that the
sidewalk was in the priority listing for the Ward; the speed had to go before
the Transportation and Transit Committee; but, the issue of parking was
something he could implement – was there a community consensus on where on
Fairlawn, between Lenester and Benjamin?
Ms. Blondeau did not believe there was a strong consensus, though she
did believe residents would like to have parking on their residential street;
and, one side parking was probably sufficient.
Certainly, both sides parking made it very difficult for anyone to walk
or manoeuvre on the street. Councillor
Cullen commented that the matter was before Committee because the Community
Association asked for the opportunity to speak to Committee on the traffic
issues.
Chair Hunter understood the
delegation had asked that the expansion not be allowed until such time as
traffic issues were addressed.
Councillor Cullen responded that today was the first he had heard the
request to defer the Site Plan and would address that comment.
Diane Reinberger provided a written submission
requesting referral of the Site Plan to the Traffic Department before it was
approved, similar to the Glabar Park Community Association, which was
distributed and on file with the Clerk.
Her three concerns were safety, welfare and the health of the residents
living in the community.
Councillor Cullen received
confirmation Mrs. Reinberger had lived on the street for 30 years. She acknowledged the Church was there when
she moved onto the street and had a good rapport with the Minister of the
time. Unfortunately, the congregation
of the Church grew 100-150%. Councillor
Cullen asked if the cul-de-sac on Benjamin provided access to the Seventh Day
Adventist Church, the Christian School and St. Paul’s Presbyterian. He also asked if there was an overflow
problem from the D. Roy Kennedy School coming onto Fairlawn because of the
congestion. She could not address that
since she no longer had school-age children.
But, she did know there was an overflow access from St. Paul’s
Presbyterian Church, with vehicles whizzing out of the Church on Sunday
mornings. The City did put in a stop
sign at the corner, which was not obeyed; and, she observed children very close
to getting hit. Councillor Cullen
received confirmation that Mrs. Reinberger was unable to attend the meeting he
sponsored in April dealing with the traffic problem, but was aware that a
community consensus could not be arrived at at that time. She had grave concerns since she did not
want to give up her home, but if the situation continued she would not have a
choice.
Councillor Little inquired what time
frame Mrs. Reinberger envisaged for the deferral. Mrs. Reinberger referred to the traffic count conducted outside
her home, but opined the City had not addressed the issue. The cul-de-sac should be closed, with access
from the off ramp on Woodroffe to the Seventh Day Adventist Church, St. Paul’s
Presbyterian Church and D. Roy Kennedy School.
The area could be blocked off, since there were only two houses located
there; and, yet on a Saturday numerous cars drive and do not adhere to the stop
sign.
Chair Hunter and Councillor Harder
inquired if Mrs. Reinberger suggested using the off-ramp as a service road,
which they found incredulous. Mrs.
Reinberger did make it as a suggestion.
The cul-de-sac was only a walkway from Woodroffe Avenue. If it was cut-off, St. Paul’s Presbyterian
could not come through the access, but would use the off-ramp. It would make a big change in the livelihood
of the community. The community was
very large, but had a Church that served the entire City of Ottawa.
Ralph Vandenberg, Architect Inc., on
behalf of the Applicant, Seventh Day Adventist Church, pointed out a number of issues
very briefly. Part of the issue
discussed in relation to parking on Benjamin dealt with the current lay
out. The parking space as currently laid
out had one way in and one way out, with no loop to go in or out. On a Saturday morning after services, if two
or three cars exit at the same time, there was a congestion problem. Many of the congregation simply park on
Benjamin Avenue, making it easier to get in and out. With the expansion shown on the Site Plan, a loop was created
around the Church, with a one way in and the vehicle can circle around and come
out, alleviating the traffic problem in terms of traffic flow. Currently, there were 54 parking spaces on
site to serve 270 seated in the Sanctuary.
The expansion added approximately 100 seats to the Sanctuary, but
increased the parking by 40, to 94 spaces although the By-Law required 77 (16
spaces over). The Church also created a
drop-off area in front for handicapped and elderly accessibility to the
Church. The Church was proud of the
extent to which they placed all the parking internal to the site; and, improved
the in/out access, beyond the By-Law requirements.
In terms of the amount of cars
accessing the street, there had been ongoing discussion on traffic issues in
the area and before the Application was made; the application would not have
come before Committee, if it were not for the greater traffic issue in the
community. He pointed out that most of
the traffic was generated from the Christian School whose only formal access
was from Benjamin Avenue. That was the
high peak traffic volume. High peak
volume was during the week, with daily volumes between 1,400-1,500 in the
neighbourhood. Weekend volumes were at
800, with Church activity taking place o Saturday. The increased volume created by the expansion would not reach
weekday peaks. The elementary school
was a private school and did not provide bussing, with children dropped off and
picked up. There were no objections to
the development from the Councillor, the Community Association and Planning
Staff who were pleased with the plan.
The applicant would not support the idea of deferring the approval
because the issues were greater than the proposal. They were community oriented and existed well before the
application was made.
Responding to a query by Councillor
Cullen, Mr. Venderberg advised they had spoken to the President of the
Community Association who did not have any issue with the development. All the issues focussed around what was
happening on Fairlawn. Councillor
Cullen also received confirmation that the request for deferral was only
presented today as a first time.
E-mail dated 20 January 2003 from
Paul Underhill was circulated and on file with the Clerk.
Councillor Cullen advised that a
Site Plan was circulated for public comment and the Community Association
raised concerns about the street, which was a contributing factor and asked to
lift Delegation of Authority to provide them the opportunity to come to Committee
to present their concerns. The issues
relating to the street were larger than the application, but it was clear the
application would have some impact on Fairlawn Avenue. He had been working with the community in an
attempt to deal with the issues. There
was not only the Seventh Day Adventist Church, but the Christian School and St.
Paul’s Presbyterian accessing Fairlawn Avenue and there was an overflow from D.
Roy Kennedy School using Fairlawn Avenue as a pick-up/drop-off for students. As a result, there was congestion, speed and
the perception of safety on the street.
There were curbs, parking and no sidewalks. There were two meetings last spring; a special meeting he sponsored
in coordination with the Community Association and subsequently at the
Community Association AGM. A parking
survey was conducted; a traffic count; the request for a sidewalk was built
into the 2003 Budget. As could be
anticipated when looking at possible solutions, some items had community
consensus; others did not. It was an
ongoing process. The parking would be
addressed and was very close to resolution.
Since the request was made, he was obliged to move deferral on behalf of
the Community Association; although he determined the Committee would suggest
there were other forums to deal with that, it was a legitimate request insofar
as there was a traffic problem in the community and he was prepared to move it
on the community’s behalf.
Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:
That the Site Plan Application for
2200 Benjamin Avenue be deferred pending the development of a Traffic
Management Plan to deal with the traffic safety issues on Fairlawn Avenue
between Lenester Avenue and Benjamin Avenue.
LOST
YEAS (2): Councillors Munter, Cullen
NAYS (6): Councillors Harder, Stavinga, Arnold, Little, Hume, Hunter
The Committee approved the
recommendation contained in departmental report dated 10 January 2003.
That the Planning and Development
Committee approve the Site Plan Control Application, No. OSP2002-0280, for the property at 2200
Benjamin Avenue subject to the owner entering into the City’s Standard Site
Plan Control Agreement and any specific conditions as determined by the
Development Services Department.
CARRIED
11. CUMBERLAND
MILLENNIUM SPORTS PARK – AUTHORITY TO SPEND FOR SERVICING
PARC SPORTIF MILLENIUM DE CUMBERLAND –
AUTORISATION D’ENGAGER DES DÉPENSES POUR LA VIABILISATION
ACS2003-DEV-APR-0026 Cumberland (19)
The Committee approved the
recommendations contained in departmental report dated 10 January 2003.
That the
Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council direct staff to
proceed with tendering and construction of roads and services related to the
Cumberland Millennium Sports Park and new French Public High School and Council
authorize the expenditure of $1,931,453 from Account No. 700245 for these
works.
CARRIED
BUILDING SERVICES
DIRECTION DES SERVICES DU BÂTIMENT
12. PRIVATE ROADWAY DEDICATION –2124 MONTREAL
ROAD
DÉNOMINATION D’UNE RUE PRIVÉE – 2124,
CHEMIN MONTRÉAL
ACS2003-DEV-BLD-0008 Beacon Hill / Cyrille (11)
The Committee approved the
recommendations contained in departmental report dated 3 January 2003.
1.
That the Committee recommend Council approve an
amendment to the City of Ottawa By-law 2002-521, respecting private roadways,
by adding the following street name to Schedule “A” of the by-law when all
conditions have been met:
GATESTONE
PRIVATE
2.
That an agreement be executed between the City and the
property owner as required by and containing all of the standard conditions of
By-law 2002‑521.
CARRIED
MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS
BEEN PREVIOUSLY GIVEN
MOTIONS AYANT FAIT L’OBJET D’UN AVIS PRÉCÉDENT
13. Cash-In-Lieu
Of Parking – 1197 wellington street
RÈGLEMENT FINANCIER DES EXIGENCES
RELATIVES AU STATIONNEMENT – 1197, RUE WELLINGTON
ACS2003-CCS-PDC-0001 Kitchissippi (15)
The Committee approved the motion
contained in Councillor Little’s report dated 9 January 2003.
Moved by Councillor S. Little:
WHEREAS Pizza Pizza Ltd. Received
approval for 12 cash-in-lieu of parking spaces for an expansion of an existing
franchise located at 1197 Wellington Street on October 8, 2002;
AND WHEREAS the amount in question
is $36,240.00;
AND WHEREAS there is a strong desire
in this part of Hintonburg to improve the streetscape along Wellington Street;
AND WHEREAS this business represents
a service that is neighbourhood-related and therefore is not expected to have
any negative impact on traffic generation;
AND WHEREAS the franchise has agreed
to spend up to $7,000 in landscaping and streetscape improvements to the
satisfaction of the Director of the City’s Planning Department and the Ward
Councillor
AND WHEREAS there is widespread
support in the community for this neighbourhood improvement initiative;
AND WHEREAS a similar agreement was
approved by the City for another property located at 1205 – 1207 Wellington
Street;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
cash-in-lieu payment be reduced to $1,000 per space, for a total amount payable
of $12,000 in addition to the improvements to landscaping and streetscaping
improvements as previously outlined.
CARRIED with
Councillor Arnold dissenting.
NOTICE OF MOTION
RESOLUTION
– fEDERATION OF cANADIAN mUNICIPALITIES NATIONAL gUIDE TO SUSTAINABLE
INFRASTRUCTURE
RÉSOLUTION
– GUIDE NATIONAL POUR DES INFRASTRUCTURES DURABLES DE LA FÉDÉRATION CANADIENNE
DES MUNICIPALITÉS
Moved by Councillor E. Arnold:
Whereas the City of Ottawa
spends $147 million annually on the maintenance, rehabilitation and
reconstruction of its water, storm, wastewater and road system infrastructure
and
Whereas the National Guide to
Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure (the Guide) gathers and documents best
practices that reflect proven approaches to deliver sustainable infrastructure
to Canadians in those areas and
Whereas the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities in conjunction with the National Research Council of
Canada is responsible to develop the Guide with Government of Canada funding
and
Whereas appropriate
application of such best practices will save all infrastructure providers money
while delivering infrastructure in a manner that respects the social, economic
and environmental well being of our communities and
Whereas the City of Ottawa
strives to be a leader in ensuring the quality of life of its citizens through
appropriate short and long-term sustainable infrastructure investment
decisions.
Therefore be it resolved that
the City of Ottawa is committed to the adoption and use of the best practices
developed by the Guide and
Be it further resolved that
the City of Ottawa request the Province of Ontario and the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities share this motion with their members and the Federal
and Provincial Governments to encourage ongoing commitment and support for the
Guide.
