Planning and Development Committee

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement

Minutes 57 / Procès-verbal 57

Thursday, 24 July 2003 9 30 a.m.

le jeudi 24 juillet 2003 9 h 30

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

Present / Présent : Councillor / Conseiller G. Hunter (Chair / Président)

Councillor / Conseillère J. Stavinga (Vice-Chair / Vice-présidente)

Councillors / Conseillers E. Arnold, M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, D. Eastman, J. Harder, P. Hume, S. Little, A. Munter

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

No declarations of interest were filed.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ratification dES procÈs-verbaUX

Minutes 56 of the Planning and Development Committee meeting held on Thursday, 26 June 2003 were confirmed.

At the outset of the Meeting Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments listed as Items 3 – 23 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.

DEFERRALS

REPORTS

1. EXEMPTION TO THE RESIDENTIAL FENCE BY-LAW (FORMER

GLOUCESTER) - 3051 APPLE HILL DRIVE

DÉROGATION AU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL SUR LES CLÔTURES DANS LES SECTEURS RÉSIDENTIELS (ANCIENNE VILLE DE GLOUCESTER) - 3051, PROMENADE APPLE HILL

ACS2003-DEV-BLD-0029 Gloucester-southgate (10)

Arlene Gregoire, Director, Building Services, provided a brief presentation and was available to respond to any questions on departmental report dated 10 April 2003. An e-mail dated 21 July 2003 was received from Doug and Maryann Hodges.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Connie Chary advised that the major concern with the Fence By-Law was safety. In their case, the retaining wall was not very stable. The existing fence is very close to the retaining wall and affects its stability. The City should bear in mind factors such as weight, wind resistance or offset from the wall when considering an exemption for a high fence. She hopes the City recommends a suitable height for a fence.

Chair Hunter noted the photographs in the report illustrated a built retaining wall, fence and established gardens. He surmised the fence was not recent and was informed by Ms. Chary that she was on the Sable Ridge Drive side (the lower side). The retaining wall was located on her property and the fence belonged to her neighbour. The opinion was that the height of the fence was impacting the retaining wall, but it was not known to what degree.

Diane Deans, the Ward Councillor, provided clarification to the Committee. The retaining wall was constructed by Minto when the homes were built and has given way twice. The City will not release the $340,000 security until such as time as it is satisfied of the safety factor. There are other complicating issues such as the ownership of the wall, which should have been on the high side, not the low side. She walked along the top of the retaining wall, which has a steep drop and is unsafe without a fence. Other than formalizing the fence on the wall, there was the issue of the safety of the wall and fence combination and whether that structure will give way. Negotiations with Minto between this meeting and when the matter rises to Council anticipate a conclusion that will ensure the safety factor to the satisfaction of the City. Today, the Committee is being asked to approve the fence, but if an agreement cannot be reached, Council may be asked to return the matter to Committee.

Xiu-Cheng Wang believed the impact of the six-metre fence on the four-foot retaining wall was not properly assessed, as Councillor Deans outlined. The stability of the wall is already in question. He needs engineering assurance the height of the fence will not have a negative impact on the stability of the wall for the long term.

Councillor Cullen noted the concerns raised with respect to the stability of the wall, which was not addressed in the report. In response to a question on staff’s assessment of the retaining wall, Ms. Gregoire advised this issue arose unbeknownst to staff who prepared the report. The wall needs to be built properly and the City will require that as part of the Development Agreement. As the Councillor noted, staff will be meeting with the builder to ensure the retaining wall, when rebuilt, will be designed to support the fences and hedges so as not to undermine its structural stability. Councillor Cullen suggested that a condition be placed on approval being conditional upon the rebuilding of the retaining wall to the City’s satisfaction. Ms. Gregoire responded that in principle there was no problem, but added that it was not up to a fence by-law, which is designed to deal with properly installed fences and retaining walls. She was not sure it could be enforced. Responding to a suggestion by Councillor Cullen that since the retaining wall was a condition of Site Plan, the City grant approval pending the Site Plan condition being met to the satisfaction of the City, Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Development Law, advised that since the Subdivision was registered, there was no ability to amend conditions. Ms. Gregoire further clarified that the fences were already in place and could legally remain up to .5 metre in height. The exemption provided for the additional .5 metre. Councillor Cullen indicated he would draft a Motion for Mr. Marc to review.

Don Leblanc pointed out that the as built grading is different from that originally approved in the Development Agreement, which is another issue staff would be looking into and needs to be addressed. This is a liability issue in his mind. He wanted to ensure the City was placed in the position so that Minto could not say that since the fences were approved by the City, the City would need to rebuild the wall. Ms. Gregoire confirmed that staff was investigating the movement of the retaining wall from its original position, which was part and parcel of the discussions with Minto.

Chair Hunter inquired if there was any urgency in approving the report before Committee and opined it was somewhat premature. Ms. Gregoire responded that ideally the exemption should be approved and enacted prior to the enactment of the new Fence By-Law since the height of the retaining wall is not factored into the final height of a fence. Staff was merely trying to time this report for approval prior to the new Fence By-Law, which has already been delayed to accommodate deferral of this item. The Development Agreement is quite clear in that the retaining wall needs to meet a certain specification or not be approved. There are securities in place to address the matter if the builder refuses to build the wall appropriately. Staff is confident it can resolve the issue of the structural stability in the proper construction of the retaining wall such that it is a separate issue to the Fence By-Law.

Councillor Stavinga inquired if there was a mechanism to ensure the matter was advanced in a timely manner. Ms. Gregoire responded that staff was planning to meet with Minto within the next two weeks and obtain a commitment. There is no commitment as yet since Minto recently received the report that speaks to the structural instability of the retaining wall, as did the City, and is meeting with their lawyers, contractors, etc.

Councillor Deans was not comfortable with Council passing the recommendation without a firm commitment and asked for clarification on the need to approve the exemption in advance of the Fence By-Law. She was not opposed to the Motion proposed by Councillor Cullen since her intent was to return the matter to Committee if the necessary agreement is not secured. Ms. Gregoire explained that the Fence By-Law to be considered later in the Agenda repeals the former Gloucester Fence By-Law.

Chair Hunter received confirmation the new Fence By-Law makes this issue redundant in that it does not factor in the height of a retaining wall in the calculation of the height of the fence where a retaining wall is put in place as a result of a subdivision agreement or a site plan agreement.

Councillor Cullen posited the rationale for his Motion was to elucidate to residents the retaining wall would be rebuilt and the fence can only follow from a retaining wall built to the City’s satisfaction. Councillor Harder averred that Mr. Marc opined Councillor Cullen’s Motion was not required and assured residents their concerns would be addressed prior to Council and if not, Council would be informed regardless of whether the Motion was approved or not.

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

That this approval be conditional on the subdivision condition for the construction of the retaining wall be to the satisfaction of the City.

CARRIED

YEAS (5): Councillors Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume

NAYS (3): Councillors Harder, Eastman, Hunter

The recommendation was approved as amended.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an exemption to the Residential Fence By-law 81 of 1998 (former City of Gloucester) for sections of fencing located along the rear yard at 3045, 3047, 3049, 3051, 3053, 3055 and 3057 Apple Hill Drive, as detailed in Document 1; and,

That this approval be conditional on the subdivision condition for the construction of the retaining wall be to the satisfaction of the City.

CARRIED as amended

2. SITE PLAN - 1091 ST. LAURENT BOULEVARD

PLAN D’IMPLANTATION - 1091, BOULEVARD SAINT-LAURENT

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0109 rideau-rockcliffe (13)

DEFERRED May 22, 2003 MEETING

John Smit, Program Manager, Development Review, provided a brief presentation as an aide memoire and was available to respond to any questions on departmental report dated
9 May 2003. Chair Hunter brought to the Committee’s attention a Motion by Councillor Bellemare that proposed changes to the staff recommendation and asked that it be kept in mind during the discussion of the matter.

Councillor Legendre thanked staff for the overview and site visit during which it was pointed out that should the right-in entrance be allowed, some existing infrastructure would need to be moved, making it effectively a very expensive entrance to implement. Mr. Smit responded that there would be a cost associated with the relocation of a hydro vault.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Leonard Poole, President, Board of Directors, Commaunity Council of Overbrook, provided a detailed written submission, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Poole advised that the Council voted unanimously to support the staff position before Committee. It is clear that staff understands this property currently has sufficient vehicular access. To allow a fully developed truck access to be constructed at 1091 St. Laurent Boulevard is not in the best interests of the Overbrook community and not in compliance with the newly adopted OP. As Councillor Stavinga pointed out at the 22 May meeting, the site needed to be reviewed comprehensively, not piecemeal. At that meeting, the developer presented a site plan for the entire property, which, if fully developed, would more than double the amount of retail space. The entrance currently being discussed would have trucks drive down the middle of the mall, constantly conflicting with pedestrians and private vehicles. As Councillor Harder observed on 22 May, the best way to have truck access to a mall is from either end, with trucks travelling to the back to complete deliveries away from automobiles and pedestrians. The Committee has a responsibility to ensure that all development is in accordance with the OP and to do otherwise would set a bad precedence. This City did not endure a multi-year process to prepare a long term vision of the City to have it disregarded when it impacts someone’s private lease agreement. Accepting the staff proposal will have long term beneficial effect not only for the City and area residents, but also very clearly for the developer. He urged them to consider the facts that a comprehensive pedestrian and customer-friendly mall is very much in their best interests. He emphasized that he did want to see development and embraced the concepts of intensification. In conclusion, he submitted the Committee was the defender of the OP. Decisions that are not in keeping with that document can be appealed to the OMB, which is costly and time-consuming.

Responding to a question by Chair Hunter, Mr. Poole explained that the best interest of the community is to enhance the pedestrian liveability of the community, which is the main thrust of his argument. He urged the developer to recognize that a development is not just about truck access, but to encourage residents to walk as well as drive. Chair Hunter pointed out the issue was the right-in access, which he hoped would not just be limited to trucks and questioned how that threatened the pedestrian liveability of the Overbrook community on the other side of St. Laurent. Mr. Poole maintained that, recognizing
St. Laurent is the commercial main street, an additional truck entrance makes it that much more difficult for a pedestrian to negotiate. Chair Hunter then referred to trucks travelling down the centre of the mall and posited the staff position would have all trucks and vehicles utilizing a single access from St. Laurent down the centre of the mall parking with trucks travelling farther through the mall. Mr. Poole understood trucks would access from Donald and added that there was a vacant portion on the other side that could provide access.

Stefan Savelli, Director of Development, Trinity Development Group, and Ron Jack, Delcan Corporation. Mr. Savelli provided a comprehensive written presentation, with photographs and diagrams, which was distributed and held on file with the City Clerk. The matter was down to two issues; one, dealing with pedestrian access from PartSource and the second being the right-in only truck vehicular access from St. Laurent. On the matter of the pedestrian access, as shown on the overhead and handout, a secondary access into the PartSource retail via St. Laurent has been incorporated, resolving that issue. The remaining issue is the right-in only access and he provided rationale and historical data in support of their position as outlined in the written submission.

Mr. Jack elaborated upon the design. It was suggested that the majority of traffic would be regular vehicles and a two-tiered approach was proposed. The main driveway would be 7.5 metres, which would accommodate cars turning in, with normal asphalt and the sidewalk continuous across the length of the driveway dropped down to the same level of the roadway. The hatched portion outlined in the diagram presented would be depressed concrete slightly above the level of the asphalt, allowing trucks to easily access the entrance with their rear wheels mounting the depressed concrete. Cars would use only the asphalt portion. Pedestrians would only need to deal with 7.5 metres of vehicular traffic, except for those 7-10 occasions. This approach has been used on medians across the City to accommodate the odd truck movement, but still delineate the road properly for cars and pedestrians. It was determined a good solution to deal with the width of the entrance, pedestrian movement and still accommodate truck access to these pods fronting on the street, which is an appropriate urban design that still requires truck access, as opposed to trucks traversing the entire parking lot to access these locations.

In summary, through consultation with staff, a number of initiatives were taken in keeping with the OP; the building was pushed to the street frontage to provide for streetscape articulation; the façades are enhanced through increased glazing, cornice details and feature lighting along both the St. Laurent and parking lot façade; and, pedestrian access is provided from St. Laurent to both future retail units. Regarding the removal of the truck access, Trinity could not support staff’s request for the reasons stated.

Councillor Stavinga received confirmation Mr. Savelli agreed there could be conflicts between regular vehicles and truck traffic and that it was best to have a designated route for truck deliveries and to minimize those conflicts to the greatest extent possible. However, when Mr. Jacks spoke of the secondary entrance and the 7-10 vehicles daily, he stated the major traffic would be regular vehicles and thus the depressed curb was to be installed to focus vehicles within that particular channel. Therefore, in essence, he contradicted the previous comment with regard to minimizing conflicts between trucks and regular vehicles. Mr. Jacks clarified that may be the case in words, but not in reality in this situation. The existing access is well used by trucks delivering to Zeller’s, Boston Pizza traffic and a good portion of the traffic travelling to the south end of the existing mall. The proposal will close four incidental accesses along the site frontages and rebuilt this access as “in only”, removing half the volume, for continued use by both trucks and cars. Trucks cannot utilize the vacant land to the south since it will be redeveloped and unavailable. The applicant was simply asking to keep the existing function, shifted 10 feet to the south, tighten it up, remove half the lanes and allow trucks to access the site efficiently; all the pedestrian / vehicle activity is currently along the front of the building. It provides a very good solution to minimize conflicts and allow continuous access when the site is redeveloped. Truck access can be revisited when the south site plan is presented.

Councillor Legendre re-introduced a topic not covered today, which is Special Condition 1. The Minutes of the 22 May meeting refer to a Motion prepared, assisted by Mr. Marc, that says “Resolved that the following be added to Special Condition 1 – after the second sentence: The widening taken pursuant to this condition shall only be utilized for enhanced streetscaping and improving the pedestrian environment and not for additional traffic or turning lanes.” It was also noted Trinity did not have any difficulty with that Motion, which Mr. Savelli confirmed since Trinity was deeding the land to the municipality. Councillor Legendre requested a member of the Committee to move that Motion on his behalf.

Having heard from representative of the Overbrook-Forbes Community Association, Councillor Bellemare received confirmation Trinity believed it was addressing pedestrian safety concerns with the reconfigured secondary entrance and proposed improvements.
Mr. Jack also reiterated the redevelopment of the site allows for five existing accesses to be closed and one new main access to be reduced in half, which is the best solution in keeping with the new OP. The accesses from St. Laurent were being reduced from four to 1.5, given the secondary entrance is strictly right in only. Mr. Savelli asserted that Article 21 of an existing lease required that access and removal could cause Trinity financial penalties. He also confirmed that through previous discussions, Trinity will fund the installation of the traffic signal along Donald Street, at the main entrance. Mr. Jack added that counts were conducted, both weekday and Saturday, by the City in May, indicating that traffic signal warrants were met. Finally, Councillor Bellemare noted that another application was in process for 2004 to redevelop the portion fronting on Cyville and received confirmation of the intention to deal with the entire site comprehensively, including the possibility of closing that secondary entrance, if a better truck route system could be achieved for the site.

Having heard from all the delegations, the matter returned to Committee.

Responding to a question of clarification by Councillor Stavinga, Mr. Smit advised that staff was of the opinion there were other options that could be explored and during the walk-about came away resolved that this access should not be constructed, even on a temporary basis. PartSource and Zeller’s can be serviced, if need be, off Donald Street. There is an entire parking lot to the south of the building not used for parking that could effectively be used for truck turnaround once the lands to the south are developed. In the interim, there is an opportunity to provide access off Cyrville Road through the site that would remove truck traffic from all on site circulation for pedestrians and customer vehicles and focus it to where the access and servicing locations would be for all of the commercial facilities located within that site. With respect to the signalization on Donald Street, the City’s traffic operations staff indicated a signal cannot be located at that intersection due to its proximity to the St. Laurent / Donald intersection. A more viable alternative would have full access at the main St. Laurent access point to the site, which could relieve some of the pressure from the Donald Street access point and would entail opening the median, allowing an all movement access and signalization at this location. That signal would be equally distant between two existing signals and within the range of separation distances. Councillor Stavinga noted the correspondence provided by the applicant from the City’s Infrastructure Approvals with respect to that secondary access point and possibilities in terms of depressed curbs. Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, responded that the correspondence contains comments provided to the planner in an internal memo while processing the application.

Councillor Eastman received confirmation there was some discussion of the potential for trucks to use the access off Cyrville at some point and commented on the difficulty for an 18-wheeler coming off the Queensway to use that particular access. Mr. Smit suggested they would need to exit via Blair.

In that view, Councillor Harder submitted the likelihood of trucks exiting at Blair to return to the entrance referred to was slim to non-existent. She understood Mr. Smit to say there is no reason for trucks to back up behind Zeller’s or Loeb’s since they could use the turnaround, but when this matter was last discussed by Committee, it was clear the developer is investing time and money to change the look of the mall. Mr. Smit confirmed the developer indicated that at the next juncture the mall would be looked at comprehensively and there may be an ability to revisit this developer-proposed access off St. Laurent. To commence that process the principles and policies of the OP had to be adhered to. The provision of the temporary access was not in keeping with that general thrust and in terms of accommodating truck traffic he would shudder to think cities were designed to accommodate truck movement patterns within the City. They are designated to truck routes and typically deliveries move from one end of the city to the other end. So, it was not beyond reason, from a staff perspective, to have a truck commence a route at the east end and work its way west as opposed to vice versa. Councillor Harder suggested this discussion would be better served at a Transportation and Transit Committee (TTC) meeting.

Councillor Legendre commenced by congratulating the proponents, Messrs. Savelli and Jack, who made a very strong argument, but in his opinion Trinity was driven by the lease. To say the entrance will be revisited in the future is disingenuous in the extreme since it is costly and secondly, the prime reason would not have disappeared. If the City is serious about its Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and OP, the Committee had to support staff. He drew the Committee’s attention to the shopping centre across Donald, which contributes to the difficulty alluded to in the Motion from Councillor Bellemare on signalization. There are other solutions for that intersection and he was pleased to hear staff say the major entrance point from St. Laurent would be looked at, which would reduce the problem at the Donald intersection. But, with respect to that other shopping centre, it is currently in terms of built form and development slightly more built-up and has no entrances from St. Laurent Blvd. Other than the problematic entrance, it is not a dysfunctional shopping centre. This shopping centre will eventually have three accesses from major arterials servicing the site. In terms of servicing the two stores, it can very easily be accomplished from Cyrville now at almost no cost to the proponent. That makes economic and planning sense and he recommended that course of action.

Councillor Bellemare was surprised at the contortions of logic to avoid truck access from St. Laurent Blvd. He was taken aback by the statement the City was not being designed for trucks, but contrary to that the OP is aimed at the effective movement of goods throughout the City with an hierarchy of roads. To divert traffic from St. Laurent, which is a major arterial, to Cyrville did not make sense, due to the angle that had to be negotiated. Although the warrants are met for traffic signals on Donald, he was surprised that staff would not recommend traffic signals due to its propinquity to the St. Laurent Blvd. intersection. Over the years, a number of traffic signals were installed in proximity to other traffic signals, frequently recommended by staff. The Donald Street entrance is critical and the City should take action to have signals paid for and installed by the developer to improve pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It is unreasonable to expect truck traffic to exit at Blair Road and backtrack. There are a number of entrances because this site does front on three streets. From a planning and transportation perspective, it makes sense to have one main truck access off St. Laurent Blvd. and the suggestion the City should re-design the main access and entrance, would simply further encourage co-mingling of vehicular and pedestrian traffic with large trucks through the centre of the development. This entrance pulls truck traffic to the periphery of the development and is a much more logical configuration.

Councillor Cullen received confirmation that staff did not support recommendations 1 and 3 in Councillor Bellemare’s Motion. Responding to a further question by Councillor Cullen, Mr. Smit advised that recommendations 2 and 4 – 6 appeared to be in order, but added that 6 made reference to 1, and staff would not support the latter part. As a result of staff responses, Councillor Cullen requested that recommendations 1 and 3 be separated.

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

That the following be added to Special Condition 1 after the second sentence:

The widening taken pursuant to this condition shall only be utilized for enhanced streetscaping and improving the pedestrian environment and not for additional traffic or turning lanes.

CARRIED

Councillors Eastman and Bellemare dissented.

Moved by Councillor M. Bellemare:

That the Planning and Development Committee approve the Site Plan Control application submitted by Holzman Consultants Inc. on behalf of Riokim Holdings Inc. for 1091 St. Laurent Boulevard as shown on the plans included as Document 2 - 6 inclusive, and subject to:

1. The site plan be revised to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to include a proposed secondary right in only entrance from St. Laurent Boulevard with enhanced pedestrian safety measures such as a depressed concrete sidewalk and depressed concrete to visually reduce the turning radius for passenger vehicles;

CARRIED

YEAS (6): Councillors Harder, Eastman, Bellemare, Little, Hume, Hunter

NAYS (4): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Cullen, Arnold

2. The site plan be revised to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to include pedestrian entrances for both retail units fronting onto St. Laurent Boulevard;

3. That the Owner pay for the installation of traffic control signals at the existing private approach to the site on Donald Street;

CARRIED

Councillors Cullen and Arnold dissented.

4. That the Owner provide additional landscaping within the existing parking lot to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals;

5. That the Owner enter into a Site Plan Control Agreement including all standard and special conditions, financial or otherwise, as required by the City and as detailed in Document 1. In the event that the Owner fails to sign the required agreement and complete the conditions to be satisfied prior to the signing of the agreement within one year of the Site Plan Control Approval, the approval will lapse;

6. That future development of any part of the Owner’s property fronting on St. Laurent Boulevard, Cyrville Road or Donald Street will include a review of truck access throughout the entire site and the need for the secondary entrance from St. Laurent Boulevard.

CARRIED

The departmental report was approved as amended.

2. The site plan be revised to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to include pedestrian entrances for both retail units fronting onto St. Laurent Boulevard;

3. That the Owner pay for the installation of traffic control signals at the existing private approach to the site on Donald Street;

4. That the Owner provide additional landscaping within the existing parking lot to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals;

7. That the following be added to Special Condition 1 after the second sentence:

The widening taken pursuant to this condition shall only be utilized for enhanced streetscaping and improving the pedestrian environment and not for additional traffic or turning lanes.

CARRIED as amended

3. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING - 7 DEAKIN STREET

PLAN OFFICIEL ET ZONAGE - 7, RUE DEAKIN

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0139 BELL-SOUTH NEPEAN/BELL-NEPEAN SUD (3)

DEFERRED June 26, 2003 MEETING

Chair Hunter requested Vice-Chair Stavinga to assume the Chair for this item.

Mark Martynyshyn provided a brief presentation and was available to respond to any questions on departmental report dated 6 June 2003.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Annette Nicholson, General Counsel, Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority, provided a written presentation of her presentation in opposition to the application before Committee, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Harder had anticipated more technical reasons for not supporting the application as opposed to the more social and personal reasons. In response to a query by the Councillor, Ms. Nicholson advised that the church would be slightly west of the flight path for Runway 1432, which is the long Runway. Responding further, Ms. Nicholson explained that Runway 725 was the most heavily use, depending upon the winds, known as the Barrhaven Runway. Councillor Harder asked if it was possible for a covenant to be placed in the Agreement with the Church. Danny Page, Program Manager, Development Review, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals, responded that it could be incorporated at the time of the Site Plan Agreement, but undeniably it did not change the fact there would be noise and patrons of the Place of Worship may not be aware of those covenants. On the part of the Airport, Ms. Nicholson responded that unfortunately it would not alleviate the Authority’s concerns since it is one of the weakest mechanisms to protect an airport. There is absolutely nothing that would stop a congregant, whether aware or not of the covenant, from being offended and making a complaint. Councillor Harder returned to arguments with Paul Benoit, at Nepean 6 years earlier, during the expansion of the Airport, who informed her that the actual noise from the Airport would diminish over the years. As planes change, etc. Ms. Nicholson responded it was certainly the expectation that aircraft would be modernized and quieter, but the number of movements would increase. On the number of flights, Ms. Nicholson could advise that this related to flights taking off to the north, so when there are north winds, generally speaking that runway would be used and it would also be used whenever there are heavily loaded aircraft that require a longer runway (as well as older aircraft).

Further to Councillor Harder’s question, Acting Chair Stavinga referred to the covenant and a memo circulated by Councillor Harder that stated the Church conceded to include various materials in the construction to soundproof the structure. She acknowledged that would not deal with outside concerns, but if that was a condition of Site Plan, would it somewhat alleviate the Authority’s concerns. Ms. Nicholson reiterated that it was possible to make the indoor environment better, but there was no control on the outdoor. The Authority’s issue was not whether it was prepared to entertain 55 complaints, it was looking at no complaints; and, there are no complaints from industrial parks. Complaints arise from noise sensitive uses because residents can legitimately expect not to be interrupted.

Councillor Harder was informed that 75% of the flights take place on the main runway every day. Ms. Nicholson added the Airport could not make any promises for the future. Even 25% use of the north runway was a significant disruption. In response to a question on the airport expansion, Ms. Nicholson noted there was no increase in land mass and at this point, it is constructing a new terminal building on an existing serviced site. Councillor Harder noted plans included another runway, but it will be south of the current east/west runway and in the 20-year plan.

Councillor Hunter concluded the Airport’s opposition was on the grounds of potential complaints. As such, he inquired how many complaints were received and how those were dealt with in terms of airport operations. Ms. Nicholson explained that the Airport Authority avoids making changes to its operations. Generally speaking, runway choices and flight paths are made on the basis of safety; and, those choices are generally made by Nav Canada. When a complaint is received, the Airport Authority attempts to pinpoint the time, date and flight and whether or not the aircraft followed appropriate procedure. Councillor Hunter pointed out that whether the Metropolitan Bible Church complained or not, it would not affect operations. Ms. Nicholson maintained it did to some degree in that if there are many complaints considerable pressure is placed on the Minister of Transport to make changes. The Minister of Transport is sensitive to these issues and could result in pressures to make changes the Authority opines are detrimental to the airport and safety. Councillor Hunter referred to another, even larger, place of worship within one kilometre of the proposed development and more directly under the airport runway and inquired if the Authority received any complaints from that location. Ms. Nicholson was not aware of any.

Alan Cohen, Peter Peacock, Lou Ranahan and Brian Howe, for the Metropolitan Bible Church.

Peter Peacock represented the Metropolitan Bible Church Property Corporation on the application before Committee. He provided a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk. The Church had looked at 60 potential sites over 6-7 years.

Brian Howe, an acoustical consultant with HGC Engineering, provided technical information. His firm was involved with the design of buildings near airports and he was the City of Mississauga’s representative to the Mississauga Noise Management Authority and the Greater Toronto Airport’s Authority Noise Management Authority. In terms of the location of the Church in relation to noise from the airport, the term used to describe that is the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) and the Noise Exposure Projections (NEP). Currently, the airport operating zone is trying to approximate NEF 30. He provided a zoomed version of the noise exposure contours, the proposed location of the church and the two runways at the airport. The NEF lines follow the runway pattern. In terms of the NEF, he pointed out NEF 35 and NEF 40 (closer to the runway), NEF 30 and then it was quieter further out. He provided a diagram that depicted all the NEF’s, runways and flight paths based on current operations as of 1994. It is used by Transport Canada for planning what is known as the NEP curve, which is very similar to the NEF, except that it brings into account additional parameters; namely, changes in operations and projected runways and the fact that planes are quieter. With respect to the NEP for 2014, the Church would be in a range of NEP 25-28. In terms of the current NEP, they are in the range of 30 and 35. This is only a projection, but it is heading towards a quieter airport. Typically, for planning, one would use the maximum of the NEF and NEP (NEF 30-35). The Airport is trying to give a hard and fast line on a planning map. It is a method of finalizing the zone to be protected, but the idea or principles come from Transport Canada’s document and that is also referenced in the City’s planning guidelines for land use planning.

He displayed an excerpt from Transport Canada’s noise plan for land use guides, which clearly differentiate schools, churches and residences in greater detail than just a noise sensitive use. The Transport Canada Guide still states that above NEF 30, residences are not an appropriate use, but schools, churches, hospitals, nursing homes would be acceptable uses with the proviso that architectural controls for the interior noise are put in place; and, it is certainly technically possible to design the church without elaborate constructions to maintain acceptable interior noise levels. Interestingly funerals were mentioned, but cemeteries are not one of the uses known to have a dramatic concern, not only for the use, but the services. Also, the other document referred to in the OP is the Ministry of Environment’s (MOE) land use planning guidelines; and, in that regard, their policy for churches, institutions and other residences is to maintain an appropriate interior noise level of NEF 5. MOE states that these institutional can be placed in whatever NEF so long as the adequate interior NEF level is maintained.

There is a differentiation between residential uses and churches, hospitals or schools, with tighter criteria, because of sleep disruption and outdoor use. Both Transport Canada and MOE guidelines differentiate between residences and churches, but the operating zone has combined everything into sensitive uses with no differentiation; therefore, the operating zone is being interpreted in a stricter sense than those Guidelines. In terms of building design the church construction could still be very standard, but would have to avoid large windows. Certainly, it would be designed for the momentary intrusions as opposed to the average level, such that when a plane passed over, it would not disrupt the service; and, in his opinion, from a technical background, that is quite feasible. In terms of warning clauses or covenants, these are common in residential development, even if they are outside the operating zone.

Lou Ranahan provided a comprehensive presentation on the analysis of aircraft noise as it related to the proposed site of the Metropolitan Bible Church, with a written copy on file with the City Clerk. He provided a pie chart of all the take-offs from the Ottawa Airport between November 2001 and February 2002, and November 2002 and February 2003, provided by Nav Canada. These were obtained to satisfy the Church that it was not facing a large problem. Runway 32 impacts the property in question. He elaborated upon the chart information for the Committee’s benefit. He overlaid the different contours to demonstrate the difference between modern vs. older engines. The Airport Master Plan indicates the noise problem caused by aircraft will diminish over time and it relates to the 2014 NEP projection, which has the location in the 25-28 contour, placing this location outside the airport operation influence zone over time.

Mr. Cohen advised that the Metropolitan Bible Church has been operating successfully on Bank Street for 70 years. It expanded in 1967 and is now a victim of its own success. As heard, it has been trying for 7 years to find a replacement site, which will accommodate its facilities, aspirations and parking requirements. It has looked at 60 sites and found a site with no conflict to business and residences and is inherently good for the proposed use and finds itself bumping into policy the Airport Authority and City planners are trying to protect. The benefit of the re-location to the City is that a very prime residential site becomes available and thereby fulfils some of the City’s most important policies. No one wants to be in dispute with the Airport Authority. This city is fortunate with its own local airport authority that has given rise to airport expansion, increased flights, etc. He submitted though, there was a lack of perspective and overprotection. The proposal before Committee was a church, with services on Sunday, youth groups on Friday, to construct to the NEF 5; and, meet federal and provincial requirements, which will serve no prejudice whatsoever to the Airport. He drew the Committee’s attention to “one may construct a hotel within this same zone”, which has happened. One sleeps in a hotel, but the message is don’t come and pray in my church.

In response to a question by Councillor Cullen, Mr. Cohen confirmed that price was an issue, but far from the only issue. Any number of sites could not accommodate their requirements or there were other planning issues. Councillor Cullen acknowledged a number of factors influenced the Church’s decision and recognized the Church had outgrown its present site. But, the underlining issue is the concerns raised by the Airport Authority on the interference of the increasing amount of activities and noise. Mr. Cohen submitted the church is now located at Bank and Gladstone with ambulances, fire and police, Bank Street traffic and a building not built to current standards with no complaints registered by the Church. The inside of the new church will be quieter than the existing church.

Councillor Harder referred to the pie chart with the percentages and inquired if the delegation was aware of the number of flights per day. Mr. Ranahan responded that essentially one Sunday in 10 would have several noisy jets departing on that runway.

Acting Chair Stavinga referred to the uses not solely based upon Sunday; e.g. nursery and pre-school being introduced. Would these be five days per week? Mr. Howe responded that the church did not currently have plans for five days per week, but there are facilities in the Christian Education from nursery through to high school, all indoors. Presently, nothing is projected for outside and, in fact, they want to expand inside facilities with a gym, multi-purpose rooms and meeting rooms. But, it was not currently intended to have a nursery school or outside activities. In fact, the rationale for the amount of land was the parking requirements to meet City guidelines. Currently, Christian education is contained to Sunday and Youth Groups on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday night, all indoors. Acting Chair Stavinga noted that as contained in the memo from Councillor Harder the noise study by the proponent was prepared to take certain acoustical measures. Mr. Howe responded that the Church was of the opinion it was advantageous to build a more efficient building, not only for the sake of noise, but also because of the Ottawa weather.

Having heard from all the delegations, the matter returned to Committee for debate.

Councillor Harder presented a Motion that replaces refuse in recommendations 1 and 2 with approve, after listening to all the comments and taking into consideration the Airport has no choice but to come forward to speak against the application due to policies. The application before the Committee relates to a church and not a 24/7 operation. On sound attenuation, she had considered putting forward a Motion, but if the application is approved, the Site Plan Approval process was the appropriate time to consider those initiatives.

Councillor Munter briefly commented for the record since his comments on this matter in the newspaper may have been misconstrued in that he believed the argument against this use was weak, not the argument in favour. In reading all the documentation, it is a matter of the religion practiced by the Airport Authority that any use within those NEF contours is bad. Like Councillor Harder, he understands why the Airport pursues that position as does everyone, but in the context of this application, it is one of those instances when blind faith is not appropriate and the Committee must use common sense, which would lead it to permit this use for all the reasons outlined by the delegation.

Councillor Hunter would also support Councillor Harder’s amendment and was impressed by the applicants’ work on this issue, facing roadblocks and meeting with the community, objectors and City staff repeatedly and presenting their evidence today. It certainly indicates they are coming into this site with their eyes and ears open to what could potentially happen. The church representatives have been at the location at all hours and are aware of the ramifications. He welcomed this vibrant congregation to the traditional area of Nepean and they will be good neighbours to the Sikh Temple and other places of worship in or adjacent to the industrial park. It is a complimentary use and adds a 7^th day of use to an area which is usually quiet at those times and makes better use of the land and road patterns in the area.

Acting Chair Stavinga indicated that although she raised questions she would be supporting the application and echoed comments made by Councillors Munter and Harder on the presence of the Airport Authority. She appreciated the Church’s efforts to find an appropriate home. Staff objected on the basis of the noise as well as a number of reasons, one of which was the employment and industrial area. She opined the City had to work towards integration. People assume services are only on Sunday; but there may be services at other times, with employees from the business community attending. Acting Chair Stavinga advised that staff provided additional wording for Councillor Harder’s Motion.

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve an application to amend the Region of Ottawa-Carleton Official Plan to allow a noise-sensitive land-use within the Ottawa Airport Operating Influence Zone, for 7 Deakin Street and direct staff to prepare such an amendment for adoption.

2. Approve an application to amend the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law to rezone 7 Deakin Street from Industrial Park (MP) to Institutional (I) and revise Sections 13.3.1 and 10.1 to permit a Place of Worship.

3. That no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

CARRIED as amended

Chair Hunter resumed the Chair at the conclusion of this item.

4. ZONING - 3436 PRINCE OF WALES DRIVE

ZONAGE - 3436, PROMENADE PRINCE OF WALES

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0117 BELL-SOUTH NEPEAN/BELL-NEPEAN SUD (3)

DEFERRED June 26, 2003 MEETING

Chair Hunter advised that Councillor Harder was delayed by traffic and had asked that the item be deferred for a time indefinite, which was supported by staff, the owner and the Ward Councillor, J. Harder.

Moved by Councillor S. Little (on behalf of Councillor Harder):

That the item be deferred to a time indefinite.

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

5. ZONING AND OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT - 320 MCLEOD STREET

MODIFICATIONS DU ZONAGE ET DU PLAN DIRECTEUR - 320, RUE MCLEOD

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0138 somerset (14)

John Smit, Program Manager, Development Review, updated the Committee on the application with a detailed presentation on departmental report dated 14 July 2003 and was available to respond to any questions.

For the record, Councillor Arnold presented an amendment to the departmental report that was previously circulated. Essentially it amends Document 4 with the minimum improvement the 320 Task Force would like to see, with two components. The first is that the maximum height of the building be 22.5 or seven stories in height; and, the second introduces the concept of a setback on the two sides of the building next to the neighbours – the non-street facing sides, which will have the most impact on direct neighbours. There would be a requirement for a setback of a minimum of one metre at the height of 10.7 metres along the west and south façades of the building. That would introduce the opportunity for the kind of articulation on the street introduced along the sides that will most directly impact residents. She presented that at this time to allow members of the public and the applicant to address the Motion.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

John Schioler provided a written submission in opposition that was circulated to the Committee and held on file with the City Clerk.

The following delegations addressed the Committee on behalf of the Task Force on 320 McLeod Street and provided a very comprehensive written submission complete with drawings in opposition to the proposal, which was distributed and is held on file with the City Clerk. The Task Force was formed in March 2002 when Ashcroft Developments purchased the property at 320 McLeod, unconditionally, and applied for OP and Zoning By-Law Amendments.

Thomas Lemenchick

Deborah Hanscom

Brant Thompson

Robert Smythe

Mary Jane Lemenchick

Denis Peters

Mr. Lemenchick presented two large depictions prepared by an architect to scale that illustrated the size and its relationship to the surrounding units. He provided a brief history on the Task Force, its role in the various proposals submitted and the process followed.

In closing, the Task Force strongly asked that the 28 m. zoning change be refused unless a better proposal can be tabled.

Councillor Cullen inquired if the proposal tabled by Councillor Arnold was a better proposal. Mr. Lemenchick responded that it was, but some members of the Task Force might like to see something significantly lower. Bearing in mind the intensification feature, but working with the advice of the Councillor and to bring this to fruition, it was felt that to accept Councillor Arnold’s Motion was a wise move at this time.

Deborah Hanscom elaborated upon the documents distributed to Committee; one of which is a summary of the points being made to Committee. She referred specifically to two documents; the 29 September 2002 report by planning staff with respect to the first nine-storey proposal. Also included in the package was an excerpt of the new OP, which is the compatibility test, Section 2.5.1, that sets out the policies the new Plan imposes on staff when it evaluates a development proposal. Ms. Hanscom provided a comparison between the September 2002 and the July 2003 reports and outlined the legislative guidelines used in evaluating the proposal. She highlighted that in the analysis section of the July 2003 report staff states that the proposed building is not significantly different in size from that rejected only 10 months ago. It is impossible to comprehend how staff could possibly change its position, given it is the same size. If the staff recommendation is accepted, the decision will be difficult to uphold as a matter of law at any appeal that may be launched by objectors.

Based upon the foregoing presentation, Councillor Cullen asked staff for the evolution of its thoughts. Mr. Smit explicated that the essence of the September report was premised on the project proposed under the zoning requested through the application. He pointed out the boards on display represent the October 2002 report proposal and that proposed today. In staff’s view the previous proposal did not respond to the policies of the OP, either the former Ottawa OP or the new OP, in terms of providing for design treatment that achieves an integration of new development with the character of existing development. It is a fairly massive-looking building coming out to the street edge. There is very little distinction between the lower and higher elements of the building; no differences in architectural treatment; and, in fact, it accentuates some aspects of the mass and bulk of the building. Whereas the current proposal downplays aspects of the mass and bulk of the building and articulates the façade, providing recesses both at the ground floor and the main building. It removes sections of the building, providing a greater setback between the upper floors and the lower podium; and, also the penthouse component. It introduces architectural treatment and material more compatible with that found in Centertown. That, in essence, is the difference and the reason why the different recommendations have come forward.

Brant Thompson provided a hard copy of his submission, which is held on file with the City Clerk and indicated he lives at 255 Argyle, which is also known as Studio Argyle and many believe is one of the most successful examples of intensification in Centertown developed in numerous years. It is a 3½ storey former government warehouse and office; an additional floor was built, set back from the cornice of the building and it is now a 4½ storey building, beautifully renovated and very much in keeping with the neighbourhood character. He was asked the difference between Councillor Arnold’s seven storey Motion and the nine storey proposed by the developer – would they not have the same impact? Anyone who owned one of the officially designated heritage homes immediately beside this building would find that two stories makes a great difference. He also addressed the fact that the developer created the impression he has compromised immensely, having originally come in at 20 stories, reducing it to 13 and then 9. Since September 2002, when a proposal was clearly rejected by City staff, the developer has reduced the FSI from 4.9 to 4.5 and the height from 28 to 27.8 metres. This is not a compromise. The community on the other hand has an existing two storey building, under the heritage overlay. The community is not anti-development or anti-intensification; it has indicated that a six or seven storey building would be accepted; and, has compromised from 10.7 to 18.3 to 22.5 – the developer has loped off .2 metres.

Councillor Munter could visualize the difference between 7 and 14, but could not comprehend the difference between 7 and 9 and questioned why that was so odious.
Mr. Thompson responded that the community would like to see something in the neighbourhood of four or five stories and has compromised, having realized that Council has said that residents would have to live with intensification.

Robert Smythe responded to Councillor Munter’s question by advising that the community did support increases in height and density where warranted and where the concept of the streetscape was deemed appropriate and provided examples. In this case, this block does not support the radical height increase proposed by staff. Mr. Smythe subsequently read from a presentation circulated and held on file with the City Clerk.

Mary Jane Lemenchick addressed the heritage issues related to the site, as contained in the written submission distributed. The guidelines and policies with respect to heritage areas are meant to protect and preserve the existing rich heritage character of Centertown neighbourhoods, this being one. The community recognizes heritage sites enhance the vitality and pride of the communities and are an asset that must be valued and preserved. The City also recognizes the importance of heritage in its 20/20 growth management plan. She reiterated the community was not saying that development cannot happen, but it must respect current heritage provisions. As residents, the community is concerned this application has been approved on the basis that it does satisfy the heritage provisions of the OP designation for this area, the Centretown Secondary Policy Plan and the Heritage Chapter. It does not. To have disregard for heritage provisions in a City that prides itself on its beauty and history is a dangerous thing. Heritage conservation is critical to our regional culture and identity. She asked that the Committee not compromise on this issue.

Denis Peters provided a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk in addition to that distributed with the Task Force presentation in opposition to the proposal.

Brian McGarry, Hulse, Playfair and McGarry, and Peter Vice, Vice and Hunter, for Hulse, Playfair and McGarry. Mr. McGarry provided a written submission in opposition that is held on file with the City Clerk.

Mr. Vice advised that as can be seen from the numbers present, this is one of the most important issues the Committee will deal with. There is the intensification principle advocated by Council and the rights of property owners who have obtained those rights over the years through an extensive planning process, particularly in Centretown. As mentioned by Ms. Lemenchick, this is in a heritage designation area. The present building cannot be demolished without Council approval. Yet, no application has been submitted as required under the Ontario Heritage Act, which concerned him. On p. 4 of the report, the Committee will see under heritage approvals, the property at 320 McLeod is located within an area that has been designated under Part V of the Heritage Act. He opined that was very important because throughout the report, there is mention of architectural design, how buildings will be clad and the only control over that is under the Heritage Act, pointed out very clearly on p. 10 of the report. Those cannot be controlled under Site Plan. He submitted that because of the importance of this application, the only way to adjudicate on this properly is to have the application under the Heritage Act before Committee. Nothwithstanding what takes place today, there will be OMB appeals. But, later the Committee will have to deal with the Heritage Act, which is also appealable to the OMB. The Board will not hear two applications involving the same subject matter.

Councillor Arnold was surprised at the request and, although her preference is to have the site plan, zoning and heritage together, she understood that when Committee had an application before it, it was required to deal with it. The applicant is not required to bring all applications in together and there are implications to Committee and Council in deferring the matter. Mr. Vice agreed with the Councillor, but opined the only reasonable way to deal with the matter is to have all matters in front of Committee. He put
Ms. Bradley on notice that regardless of the Committee’s decision today, his position at the OMB, if it rises to the Board, is that both applications be dealt with together. Mr. Lindsay averred that this matter has been deferred since September as heard through the various submissions. He acknowledged there is a benefit to have the whole package come forward together, but there is no requirement for that to happen. Staff over the past 20 months has tried to have the information before Committee to make an informed decision and opined the reports before Committee will allow the Committee to do that.

Responding to a query on Mr. Vice’s statement by Councillor Munter, Mr. Marc acknowledged that, as a general principle, the Board does like to deal with all items related to an application at one point; and, this is certainly true of OP’s, zoning and subdivisions. Since heritage applications do not arise as often, it was not clear to him the general principle of consolidating those matters would apply as readily in that case. Councillor Munter confirmed the City was beyond the 90 days required by the Planning Act to render a decision. The Councillor inquired if there was any analysis conducted on the difference in terms of shadowing between 7 and 9 stories. Presumably it is less at 7 stories, but did it make an appreciable difference in terms of impact on Mr. McGarry’s property? Mr. McGarry confirmed there was no study, although the Councillor was correct there was less with 7 and less yet with 4. And, as the community submitted they would have preferred 3 or 4, so each floor provides more shadow. But, that was not the main concern and returned to the heritage aspect of the development, which will be raised at the OMB. The proposal has no semblance to his heritage building, to the Museum of Nature and the neighbourhood houses. That aspect has been largely ignored by City planners and is important to the community. It is not suggested that there be a Motion for deferral since there have been many deferrals. Hulse, Playfair and McGarry would have preferred 3 or 4, but will go with 7, which is yet another compromise by the community.

Alistair M. Ross, Alistair Ross (Architect Ltd.), retired. Mr. Ross lives on Lewis Street, which is the second phase of this project, across the street from the former Ottawa Board of Education building purchased by Ashcroft with a 20-storey building proposed for that site. He pointed out that FSI was the multiple used to multiply the area of the land and provides the area of the building. This building has 4.5 FSI. To clarify he provided examples of buildings for comparison purposes: the Queen Elizabeth Towers on Laurier Avenue, which is a very large apartment building - 5 FSI; the Sussex Condominium next to the Japanese Embassy, a 12-storey building - 2.5 FSI; a large concrete apartment building at the southend of Elgin Street before the Queensway underpass - 3 FSI. The City opens a Pandora’s Box by allowing this to happen for future developments. Minor changes due to site conditions are acceptable; e.g. 2.5 to 2.6 or 2.7, etc. Additionally, when he opened his practice in 1960, there was a different attitude in Ottawa. At that time, there was a height limit of 110 feet until Campeau was able to increase that to 150, etc. and so on. The notion at that time was that the bigger the building, the better for the City. That resulted in the disappearance of a number of fine brick homes in the central area. If the proposal proceeds, it will result in a further loss of fine homes. He related the story of an architectural convention held in Ottawa 20 years ago with an architect from Edmonton telling him that Ottawa was fortunate with its many historical houses that did not exist in Edmonton and recommended that they not be lost.

Gordon Cullingham, represented Heritage Ottawa for David Fleming, indicated the presentation made by the Task Force was so comprehensive, it did not leave any argument unadvanced. Heritage Ottawa agrees with all those points, but one aspect they did not emphasize is the dangerous precedent that could be set if the proposal is allowed to proceed. Heritage Ottawa had proposed six storeys, which itself is a big compromise, but if that was not approved, they would support seven.

Janet Bradley, Gowlings, on behalf of Ashcroft Homes, opined it is unfortunate and regrettable there was the level of opposition to the proposal before Committee and it is somewhat surprising since there was a tremendous effort made to arrive at a resolution. Planning staff put in an inordinate amount of time meeting with interested groups and at least six public meetings held, when normally there is only one. She wanted to place this project in perspective, given what the Committee heard. The most important point for the Committee to keep in mind is that it does not require an OPA since it complies. The OP for this area has been in effect for at least 10-15 years and recognizes medium profile residential development. It describes medium profile as up to 9 stories and a 9-storey residential building is the adopted City of Ottawa policy for this part of the City. Before Committee is a Zoning By-Law and zoning by-laws should comply with OPs. But, it is not uncommon in Ottawa for the actual Zoning By-Law zoned for the use on the site and the Zoning By-Law that implements the OP take place at such a time as there is a site specific development. In that way, City Council can tailor a Zoning By-Law specifically to a proposal.

Also to be kept in perspective is the location of the building and why there would be such a policy. This building is two blocks from the Queensway, fronts on O’Connor Street, which is a major arterial with three lanes of traffic moving quickly to take traffic to the Queensway, one block from the 8-storey Victoria Suites; and, it is two blocks from the Y residence, which is 15-storeys. In this context there is in fact compatibility and it is not surprising the OP recognized and encouraged this type of residential. This application is not an intensification project.

The current proposal is a 7-storey building with a two-storey penthouse. It is important to note there will be 8 levels of elevator and the penthouse setback will house the penthouse units with central stairways. Currently every highrise residential building has mechanical and elevator penthouses on top. This one will have that accommodated on the ninth or the second storey of the penthouse unit. The city does not want to increase its infrastructure costs and does not want urban sprawl and this has been accepted and promoted by residents until it is tested in their neighbourhood. The existing OP promotes intensification and protects neighbourhoods. Those two goals are very strong and a challenge everyone will have to work towards. That dichotomy is the challenge staff is working towards. One year ago staff informed Ashcroft the 9-storey building did not address urban and built form as it was perceived to move towards compatibility with intensification. It also did not recognize heritage issues and the proponent worked assiduously with staff to appear before Committee/Council in that vein.

In that respect Barry Padolsky was initially retained by Ashcroft to work with the community and staff to have a built form that could achieve that goal of compatibility.
Mr. Padolsky started attending these meetings and felt compromised since he was paid by Ashcroft. He then took on all the meetings and is present today pro bono. She submitted it was incredible that one of Ottawa’s most distinguished heritage architects feels that strongly about this project in terms of the goals of the OP. Before turning the matter over to Mr. Padolsky, she urged the Committee to support the recommendations for all the reasons mentioned in the face of a very articulate, organized, well-meaning community association. If the Committee does not approve the application, it will have to consider the message it is conveying to various segments of the community and questioned the commitment of Council to the principles set out in the OP.

Barry Padolksy, Barry Padolsky & Associates, introduced himself as an architect and planner for the last 30+ years; as an advocate of heritage conservation, urban design and practicing architect and heritage consultant. He is before Committee out of an intense interest in the new OP, which he supports and admires. One major principle is that there ought not be any victims in the existing neighbourhoods of the attempt to intensify development within the greenbelt. The battle carried on by the inner city neighbourhoods, lower town, Glebe, Sandy Hill, Centretown, New Edinburgh, over 30 years has been to have the municipality recognize the value of the quality of life and character of existing neighbourhoods. These are two conflicting objectives. He was originally invited to be involved by Councillor Arnold, who asked him to attend the August 29^th meeting. He attempted to guide the developer and his architect to develop an infill building that intensifies the neighbourhood, but respects the existing centretown neighbourhood and its architectural character and scale. He attended the meeting, listened and heard the stories of the previous application for a 20-storey and 13-storey building, which he completely disagreed with. The challenge put to him was whether it was possible to stay within the medium profile, yet design something respectful of the existing neighbourhood. The outcome of the exercise was the development proposal presented to Committee today.

He supported the staff recommendations. The analysis by staff is a model of objective reporting and judgement. There are some key points that are the test of whether this meets the OP objectives of the Centretown community and the City overall. If medium profile had been limited to five or six stories, he would not be in front of Committee. If the existing building was similar to those adjacent, he would not be present. It is an opportunity for intensification and redevelopment and an interesting indicator as to where the City is going with its objectives.

The idea of the low base and setback building above comes from the initial planning concepts of the City of Rotterdam, after World War II. After 50 years, this principle has finally come to North America and it does work. The second point is that the character of the building above this podium level, in contrasting colours, is designed with some major cut-outs, which are similar to the historic apartment buildings in Centretown. He reiterated what was already presented, but it was worth summing up in this manner because the architectural articulation and character are key to whether things fit or not. Many of the buildings were designated in Centretown, not because of their height, but because of their architectural character. The setback of the penthouse will give the effect of a 7-storey building. The penthouse is a crown, setback and its impact from most views along O’Connor, Museum of Nature park, will be inconsequential, which is his personal judgement from a number of years of designing and studying buildings. Lastly, one of the features added to the building on the ground floor, along O’Connor, are glass and awnings; and, similarly an amenity area along McLeod for residents. One of the recommendations he made to the developer was to cut out the whole corner of McLeod and O’Connor to create a mini plaza, so that the pedestrian experience on the street is strengthened and it presents a marvelous opportunity where one might want to linger. In conclusion, the staff report has found what he considered to be a fine balance between the competing objectives of intensification and neighbourhood conservation. It is very defensible at the OMB in his view.

Councillor Cullen was informed that Councillor Arnold’s Motion would set the building at 7 storeys, presumably removing the penthouse, at 9 units. He deduced that even with the loss of 9 units, it is still a significant increase in residential units. Responding to whether the heritage aspect was factored in, Ms. Bradley asserted that procedurally there would need to be a site plan application and heritage approval. On the heritage approval, LACAC does not normally like to deal with an application unless they know Council will approve the zoning, similarly with the developer. Due to its history, it is premature to take it to LACAC. On the one metre setback, Mr. Padolsky pointed out that his view was not that of the developer, but it would be symbolic and not make any significant visual impact from the point of view of a third party architect judging it. Councillor Cullen noted that since the community supported the “symbolic move”, it was obviously more than symbolism to them. If it was not a major problem for the proponent, there was some progress.

Councillor Hume followed up on Councillor Cullen’s discussion of the architectural treatment of the third storey setback and noticed it was not brought around the corner. The south side would be the most intrusive. Mr. Padolsky remarked that there was no setback at this level, but the site plan outlines the face of the proposed new building is 3-4 metres further back from the street than the face of existing buildings. Councillor Hume received confirmation it was not necessary to carry that back around the corner since the same effect was achieved by having the distance from the other facing properties.

Councillor Arnold questioned why the OPA request was not withdrawn. Ms. Bradley reiterated the history of the development and the Appeal to the OMB through the refusal of City Council to deal with it within 90 days and the continuing dialogue with the community and staff on the possibility of 9 stories. She wrote a letter to Council approximately one year ago stating that her client would agree to review a 9 storey, but let the application stand at the Board. The 13-storey proposal was still before the OMB and will be withdrawn if Council approves the 9-storey zoning. Ms. Bradley confirmed Ashcroft did not agree with either portion of Councillor Arnold’s amendment. For the record, Councillor Arnold received confirmation Mr. Padolsky was invited to the second public meeting in January because he had expressed an interest as the architect for the Museum of Nature. Standing at the Museum of Nature, there is a very different building than from Bank and McLeod or another location, although Mr. Padolsky spoke about the impact on the neighbours, which she disagreed with, surely this building is also going to have a public view from the other cardinal points. Mr. Padolsky commented that Councillor Arnold was correct that the kind of articulation on the other sides is not the same, although to be fair to what is presented, 1/5^th of the site on the southwest side is not close to the property line. It is basically an L-shaped building with the opening of the L in the direction described. Councillor Arnold was concerned the two abutting neighbours faced 9-storey blank walls with no articulation. Mr. Padolsky had technical drawings available, which he presented and described for the benefit of Committee. He pointed out that the wall was not blank, but had windows and the same was true along McLeod with windows and materials changed at the different levels.

Responding to a question from Councillor Arnold, Mr. Padolsky stated that architecturally and from an engineering perspective, it is possible to achieve the one metre setback, but there will need to be very deep concrete beams along the alignment of the setback area since it is directly over the parking garage ramp. The other impact is that in the last architectural bay the interior planning of the suites would be more congested. On his comment that compatibility and intensification objectives in the OP were at odds, Mr. Padolsky clarified that they are perceived to be at odds. The magic is how to make these conflicting objectives marry, which is not easy. It involves massing, architectural character and understanding the neighbourhood context. Councillor Arnold remarked that in her ward those two objectives are generally not at odds. The examples put forward by the CCCA illustrate that, as does much of the remarkable work accomplished by Mr. Padolsky and other developers/ architects accepted and promoted by residents and businesses in her Ward. She wanted to correct for the record that at least in her ward those two objectives of the OP are absolutely achievable and this project should not be held up as an indictment of the entire process.

Councillor Munter inquired if the Committee was within its rights to dispose of the matter today, have it rise to Council, but however request that the by-law to enact not be placed before Council until the heritage approvals are dealt with. Mr. Marc confirmed that was an option open to Committee and Council, but the developer would retain its rights to appeal under the 90-day rule. On timing, Messrs. Lindsay and Smit affirmed that those applications were a matter of months away. Mr. Lindsay added that it must be recognized the developer wants to have some level of certainty with the disposition of the matter before Committee today. Obviously, the proponent needs to know what the zoning parameters are before they make their final site plan submission.

Councillor Stavinga noted Ms. Bradley had indicated that if the application is not approved as stated in the report, the applicant will no doubt return to the original request, being 13 stories. She could appreciate public skepticism with respect to the public process, but wanted to clarify with legal that if the Committee accepts recommendation 1, it has clearly identified from a City perspective that the OPA to allow such a higher level is not appropriate. Mr. Marc confirmed the City would have taken that position. Councillor Stavinga added that the City was not then in a difficult bind should recommendation 2 be rejected and Councillor Arnold’s Motion approved. There is still a presence by the City with regard to the request for 13 stories. Mr. Marc also confirmed that was the case.

Councillor Arnold pointed out that this was an extremely important issue in her ward and one of the most difficult and frustrating 18-month processes in her years as a Councillor, but she did want to thank all those involved. Particularly, in her absence she wanted to thank Tara Peel from her office, who was the key staff person. It is very disappointing there is no consensus today. She acknowledged the proposal is a better design than those previously submitted. But, unfortunately it does not respect the adjacent neighbours and this is an opportunity for the City to show how it can marry the different objectives of compatibility and intensification of the OP on a very key site in her community. Her Motion does meet the key tests and, in fact, it meets a broader range of the tests in the OP. The proposal before Committee defeats the goal to bring people downtown. There is no need to go to the absolute maximum permissible. In her view, what should be done through this zoning is to set the stage through the amendments to deal with the relevant issues at LACAC and site plan. The issue of height and setback cannot be dealt with at either of those two applications.

The following correspondence was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk:

· E-mail dated 22 July 2003 from Steve Donahoe

· E-mail dated 23 July 2003 from Diane Parnham

· E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Harvey Newman

· E-mail dated 17 July 2003 from David Flemming, President, Heritage Ottawa

Moved by Councillor E. Arnold:

WHEREAS the revised application for this site is significantly improved over previous proposals for 320 McLeod Street;

AND WHEREAS there remains community concern over the height and massing of the proposal;

AND WHEREAS the current proposal does not include any setbacks along the south and west facades of the building;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED Planning and Development Committee Amend the staff report – Document 4 to reflect:

· A maximum height of 22.5 metres or seven stories

· A setback of 1 metre at a height of 10.7 metres along the west and south facades of the building.

That no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

Councillor Arnold’s Motion was divided at the request of Councillor Hume.

On the first bullet:

· A maximum height of 22.5 metres or seven stories

LOST

YEAS (4): Councillors Stavinga, Cullen, Arnold, Little

NAYS (6): Councillors Harder, Munter, Eastman, Bellemare, Hume, Hunter

On the second bullet:

· A setback of 1 metre at a height of 10.7 metres along the west and south facades of the building.

CARRIED

YEAS (9): Councillors Harder, Munter, Eastman, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Little, Hume

NAYS (1): Councillor Hunter

The report was approved as amended.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council:

1. refuse an application to amend “Schedule H – Plan of Centertown” of the former City of Ottawa Official Plan to change the land use designation applying to the property at 320 McLeod Street from ‘Medium Profile Residential Area’ to ‘High Profile Residential Area’.

2. approve an application to amend the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 1998 for 320 McLeod Street from a Low Rise Apartment R5D [82] H(10.7) zone to a High Rise Apartment R6A H(28) zone with exceptions as detailed in Document 2.

3. WHEREAS the revised application for this site is significantly improved over previous proposals for 320 McLeod Street;

AND WHEREAS there remains community concern over the height and massing of the proposal;

AND WHEREAS the current proposal does not include any setbacks along the south and west facades of the building;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED Planning and Development Committee Amend the staff report – Document 4 to reflect:

a. A setback of 1 metre at a height of 10.7 metres along the west and south facades of the building.

4. That no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

CARRIED as amended

Councillor Arnold dissented.

6. OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT - 2101, 3101 and 4101 INNOVATION DRIVE - ZONING BY LAW AMENDMENT - 2101 and 3101 INNOVATION DRIVE

PLAN OFFICIEL - 2101, 3101, 4101 et 5025, PROMENADE INNOVATION - ZONAGE - 4101 et 5025, PROMENADE INNOVATION

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0157 Kanata (4)

Chair Hunter pointed out that a technical amendment to departmental report dated 17 July 2003 was circulated to the Committee, which Councillor Munter would be moving.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Fred Boyd, President, Kanata Beaverbrook Community Association, provided a written copy of his presentation in opposition to the staff report, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Munter noted this report, if approved, deals only with the blocks referenced therein. The Councillor received confirmation from Sally Switzer, Planner, that any other redesignations would have to proceed through this process with circulation etc. On the 5% parkland requirement under the Planning Act that would be applied at subdivision, Ms. Switzer advised that when this property went through that process as an industrial subdivision, 2% was given, which is the amount for an industrial subdivision. As residential it will be topped up to 5%. The applicant will also have to conduct an environmental impact study in support of their site plan application. Councillor Munter remarked that Mr. Boyer’s issues were legitimate issues that will be addressed through the site plan approval process. Ms. Switzer added that they are all captured in the proposed OPA to the former Kanata OP.

Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering, addressed the Committee fully in support of the staff recommendation. He appeared in front of the Committee on numerous occasions on behalf of the developers in the Kanata North Business Park, for both Canderel and the Kanata Research Park Corporation. There are many acres of undeveloped land in this business park with the potential to accommodate thousands of additional employees if and when they develop. This business park has overachieved in terms of the expectations of employment years ago to an extent that people are becoming concerned with the traffic volume generated by this development and the number of jobs located in this business park. There is still considerable opportunity to develop high tech uses in this business park, if the economy turns around. This is an opportunity recognized through the OP debate to introduce medium to high density residential into what is now and will continue to be a very successful business park. Staff summed it up in their report on p. 58, under Site Location/Land Use Conflicts, where staff made the observation, “This protected area and associated pathway network makes this an ideal location for residential development and also provides connections to the Marchwood and Lakeside communities.” For those who haven’t had the opportunity to visit this site, it is truly an idyllic location for residential development, up against the Trillium Woods and various other natural features. He urged the Committee to support the staff recommendation, with the technical amendment that has been circulated.

Chair Hunter made reference to a letter dated 24 July 2003, from Doug Kelly, Soloway, Wright, wherein the penultimate paragraph stated “Until such study is carried out, any redesignations would be premature. Therefore Minto objects to the amendments to the OP proceeding prior to a comprehensive study as to how much employment land is need and a determination of where residential units should be available, in order to meet the projected growth in the City of Ottawa, particularly the West Urban Area.” This letter has been circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Cullen inquired if Mr. Kelly’s comments pertain to this land and if there was an assessment of the impact on the job target for Kanata. Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning Environment and Infrastructure Policy, reminded the Committee that Jack Sterling, Minto, made analogous comments to Committee on a similar application. He is not sure this particular application has been assessed against a particular jobs and housing balance, but the study referred to is being undertaken by his branch and a report is anticipated at the second meeting in September. The report does address the balance of housing to employment in the west end of the City as required by the Kanata West study. In a general sense, the work that led up to the OP clearly indicated that across the City as a whole and even in the Kanata West area there are more than enough employment lands. And, with respect to residential, there may be some constraints in the western part of the City, although there is generally sufficient residential land across the city to meet its needs.

Councillor Munter referred to the comments previously made by Mr. Sterling, which were akin to those made by the Minto representatives and they are derisory since they hold the premise there is insufficient land for residential development in the west. This proposal adds more land for residential development and they are opposed to it. He surmised they are primarily opposed to it because they don’t own the land. There has to be a move away from sterile, auto dependant, sprawling business parks that are hard to service from a transportation point of view. In the case of the Kanata North Business Park, it has been developed at much higher densities than originally planned, partially as a function of the increase in land value and the requirement to build at a higher density. Initially there were one and two storey buildings; now, there are five, six and seven storey buildings, indicating the employment targets will be met or surpassed, without question. The west urban community has a 30 year supply of industrial, commercial land. This is a proposal for a better integration of uses with the possibility of residents living closer to their jobs, the provision of a needed housing type of stacked townhouses and apartments in the west urban community. It is a good application and the community concerns raised are legitimate and can be dealt with at the subdivision and site plan approval stage.

Moved by Councillor A. Munter:

1. That a technical amendment be made to Document 5 (Zoning Details) to correct wording and omissions as follows:

1. Residential Type 5A Zone Subsection A (ii), (iii) and (iv) “Coverage” be changed to replace the word “minimum” with the word “maximum”;

2. Residential Type 5A Zone Subsection A be changed to add (v) Minimum Density 35 units/net residential hectare; and

3. General Commercial Zone Subsection A (1)(b) be changed to replace “an automobile car” with “an automobile gas bar”.

2. That no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

CARRIED

The Committee approved the recommendations as amended.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve and adopt an Official Plan Amendment to the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton and City of Kanata Official Plan to permit residential development within the Kanata North Business Park as detailed in Document 2 and 3.

2. Approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning By-law to rezone 4101 and 5025 Innovation Drive from M2 and M2S(11) General Industrial to CG-1 General Commercial Exception and 5RA-1 Residential Type 5A Exception as shown in Document 4 and detailed in Document 5.

3. Approve a technical amendment to Document 5 (Zoning Details) to correct wording and omissions as follows:

1. Residential Type 5A Zone Subsection A (ii), (iii) and (iv) “Coverage” be changed to replace the word “minimum” with the word “maximum”;

2. Residential Type 5A Zone Subsection A be changed to add (v) Minimum Density 35 units/net residential hectare; and

3. General Commercial Zone Subsection A (1)(b) be changed to replace “an automobile car” with “an automobile gas bar”.

4. Provide no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

CARRIED as amended

7. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENT - 300 HUNT CLUB ROAD

PLAN DIRECTEUR ET ZONAGE - 300, CHEMIN HUNT CLUB

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0163 river/rivière (16)

Councillor Cullen noted departmental report dated 11 July 2003 proposes some changes to Greenbelt land to accommodate a commercial development and inquired how many jobs were contemplated on build out. Mr. Lindsay did not have a precise figure, but it will be roughly 14,000 square metres. The proponent could provide a better indication of the employment. Councillor Cullen commented that while this is airport land, it is also National Capital Greenbelt land and he was taken by the comments offered by the NCC, who do not support this development as outlined on the bottom of
p. 97. Protection of Greenspace is the number one value within the City and he questioned why there is no OP redesignation to remove it from the Greenbelt. Mr. Lindsay responded that staff determined an amendment would not be required since it is adhering to the Airport Master Plan, which was a fairly significant planning exercise that consulted with the Federal Government and the former cities of Gloucester, Ottawa and the Region. At that time, the NCC did not indicate these lands should be taken out of the Greenbelt. From a pure designation perspective perhaps it makes rational sense, but it was not deemed essential to have this application move forward. Councillor Cullen had a problem with setting a precedent about employment in development within the Greenbelt. There needs to be an addition to the OPA to remove it from Greenbelt designation. He received confirmation that staff would prepare a technical amendment that he could present at Council to amend the appropriate schedule.

The Committee heard from the following delegation:

Graham Bird submitted that the Councillor should think of this area as commercial, an enterprise park with the approved hotel and a number of other businesses. It is introducing another mix. He opined the Greenbelt Plan accommodates all these other uses. It is a change to the box and finally, Transport Canada and the Federal Government have enacted the Airport Master Plan; and, therefore, the NCC has signed off on it.

The Committee approved the recommendations.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve and Adopt an amendment to the Official Plan of the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton to modify Section 4.1.2, Policy 13 “MacDonald-Cartier International Airport” as set out in Document 1 to permit commercial retail uses at 300 Hunt Club Road.

2. Approve and Adopt an amendment to the Official Plan of the former City of Ottawa to modify Site Specific Policy 9.0 “MacDonald-Cartier International Airport” as set out in Document 2 to allow commercial retail development at 300 Hunt Club Road.

3. Approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 1998 of the former City of Ottawa from an “Industrial Business Park” IP F(1.0) Zone and “Transportation” T1 Zone to an “Industrial Business Park” IP F(1.0) exception zone to permit commercial retail uses at 300 Hunt Club Road as detailed in Document 4.

CARRIED

8. ZONING - 560 RIDEAU STREET

ZONAGE - 560, RUE RIDEAU

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0149 rideau-vanier (12)

Mr. Lindsay advised that Doug Bridgewater would provide an abridged presentation on the proposed amendment contained in report dated 16 July 2003 and respond to any questions.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Judy Rinfret provided a written submission of her presentation in opposition to the proposal, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Cullen referred to and commented that the current zoning provides for a six storey height limit, but the current FSI is less than that proposed. Mr. Bridgewater advised that the FSI is currently 2.0 and the proposal is 4.25. The Councillor received confirmation from Ms. Rinfret that she would not have a problem with the proposal if “B” was removed from the Schedule in Document 4, setting the height limit at 21.2m, which is seven storeys.

Robert Edmonds, Action Sandy Hill (ASH), provided a comprehensive written submission of his presentation in opposition to the proposal, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Martin Laplante, Director, Planning and Development, ASH, provided a comprehensive written submission of his presentation, with photos and an overhead, in opposition to the proposal, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Cullen asked Mr. Laplante similarly to Ms. Rinfret on removing “B” from the Schedule in Document 4. Mr. Laplante responded in the affirmative.

On the matter of the Uptown Rideau Design Plan, Mr. Bridgewater advised that it is a joint effort with staff and members of the community working together. Richard Kilstrom, Manager, Community Design and Environment, added that it was due to come to Committee in a few months. Councillor Cullen suggested it might be premature to process this application when a planning process is underway for the entire street. Mr. Bridgewater responded that the applicant had a right to have this application come before Committee and staff opined it had merit even in the face of ongoing work.

Councillor Cullen put the Committee on notice he would move a Motion to amend Document 4 to remove “B” (27m) from the Building Height Schedule. It would leave “A” in place at seven storeys.

Jon Legg, Board member, ASH, provided a written submission in opposition, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Franceska Gnarowski, Chair, ASH, provided a written submission in opposition, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Elizabeth Gibb, Lowertown East, was a neighbour of both Sandy Hill and this site for almost 15 years, having previously lived in front of proposed site. The lowertown area has been neglected for many years. She provided a brief history of the area, including Macdonald Park, the Wallace House, Turkish Embassy, etc. She was concerned that with the development of Rideau Street many large buildings were erected; e.g. Quality Inn, Bell, Constitution Building, Horizon Apartments, 160 Charlotte and 215 Wurtemburg. The proposed building is out of scale and will create a barrier at nine storeys with no set back. The planning initiatives in the last 10 years have suggested a variety of improvements for Rideau Street, but none recommended buildings taller than six storeys. The recent draft of the Uptown Rideau Design Plan proposes the street should contain architecture, which fits in with existing older and historical fabric of buildings that have been conserved and reused. She questioned how this plan for a green pedestrian streetscape framed with 4-6 storey buildings transformed into a nine storey building along Rideau Street. This is the time to re-dress and ameliorate the effects of design failures over the past 50+ years. It is not the time to create new problems on Rideau; vis-à-vis parking, etc. The whole building is out of scale and character and she asked that the present zoning regulations be respected for this site. She is in favour of intensification, but it should however be on a scale that is in character and enhances the community as a whole

Warren Wasylik summarized from his comprehensive written submission in adamant opposition, which is held on file with the City Clerk. In conclusion, he quoted from the OP, Section 5, Sandy Hill; one of the aims is to preserve Sandy Hill as an attractive residential neighbourhood, especially family living. The proposal does nothing to move towards that objective.

Chair Hunter explicated that Planning and Development Committee has a responsibility to make recommendations to Council on applications made to the City for amendments to the Zoning By-Law. He believes the community design process will be an invaluable tool in the redesign/redevelopment of existing communities, but the final decision rests with Council and there is an appeal process to the OMB. The Committee cannot abrogate or delegate this responsibility to an unelected body. Councillors are delegated that responsibility under the Ontario Planning Act and are elected by the citizens of Ottawa in that regard on behalf of all citizens. Responding to Mr. Waysylik, Chair Hunter reiterated that input from the community is vital, but the final decision rests with Council. On the process and rationale for the Committee decision, Chair Hunter advised that the Committee has before it a report from staff. In that consideration, the Committee hears delegations from the community, with very considered opinions that residents put a lot of time into making presentations; and, the Committee listens very concertedly to each and every one. The Committee, as individual members, will make responses or ask questions of delegations; and, similarly hear from representatives of the developer. Following receipt of the delegations, the public will hear the Committee debate the recommendations contained in the report for subsequent recommendation to Council. The Chair provided this explanation in light of the various presentations made to Committee on the criteria and rationale it will use to make its decision.

Chair Hunter advised that Michael Barnes had to depart, but left his written submission, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Peter Ferguson, President, Brigadiers Walk Homeowners Association, provided a written submission of his comments in opposition, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Ferguson had provided an earlier letter to the application that was circulated and also on file. Additionally, he made four points:

· The plan is unacceptable to the owners of Brigadiers Walk and he urged the Committee to reject it or at a minimum to send it back.

· Second, in answer to the anticipated question from Councillor Cullen, we need a new configuration of height, density and set back; and, he placed some considerable emphasis on set back.

· Third, there is a need for some consistency in this process. This is spot development and would set a new precedent in the area, not needed at this point in time. Something is needed and wanted on that site. It should be done consistently with development in mind for the balance of Rideau Street, north and south sides.

· Finally, on process, it is understood, but he suggested some improvement to the early community consultation process. It has the friendliness of an arms negotiation. Public consultation needs to be built into this so that staff can come forward with something that more thoughtfully represents input from the community.

Patricia Roberts-Pichette, provided a letter that outlined her opposition to the proposal, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Chair Hunter noted Ms. Roberts-Pichette stated in her letter that there were likely to be traffic problems on Besserer and inquired what would give rise to that. Ms. Roberts-Pichette responded that it was anticipated to have more parking with many entrances and there were homeowners that did not have spaces.

Ron Gamlin lived on Besserer Street, almost immediately behind the proposed site, for the last 21 years. City planning assisted the community when the proposed Sandy Hill Community Centre was to be built at the corner of Besserer and Charlotte with issues related to inadequate parking and high density. They are now faced with another project not in keeping with the nature of the neighbourhood. Nine storeys is not acceptable; the density is too high and set backs too limited. He referred to another project on the north side of Cobourg Street, which at one time had a tower projected, but instead there is a nice row of well-appointed shops backing onto townhouses. This is the type of infill the community is looking for. There is a need for development of this site, but not nine storeys. Property values will be affected. It would not be in keeping with the character of the heritage area. Another factor that has been touched upon briefly is parking and traffic flow. There has been a street closure on Coburg Street for the last 15 years, which keeps traffic from Rideau and Laurier from using the area as a short cut. The proposed entrance for this property, which is on Coburg Street will create a dreadful traffic jam on the corner of Coburg and Rideau Street in the future. Rideau Street is already well used and this development will add to the congestion. Greater consultation needs to be addressed and thought has to be given to a different type of development.

Claire Beauchesne-Chabot provided a written submission in opposition that was circulated and is held on file with the City clerk.

John Dimitrijevic noted the staff proposal talks about a step from the proposed nine storey building to four or five allowed on the north side of Besserer Street. This works in theory, but in reality there are two or three storey buildings located on the north side of Besserer Street. The height differential between the proposed building and that on Besserer will in reality be six or seven storeys, so the visual affect will not be one of a step, but rather that of a cliff. In other words, there is no compatibility with the existing heritage neighbourhood. Since the proposal of a nine-storey development, two properties have sold on Besserer Street, between Coburg and Charlotte. He is concerned the shade studies do not take into account the south side of Besserer Street in the late afternoon. Generally, during the summer, residents coming home from work like sunshine at that time of day. The proposed building would create major shade problems. The width of this building is incredible at 250-300 feet with no visual break, encompassing nine city lots. Lastly, he asked if nine storeys is needed for intensification. Sandy Hill is already one of the most intensified communities in the City and because of the great width of this project it will easily fall into the OP of intensification without adding an additional three storeys. Councillor Arnold has already stated there is no need to go to the maximum on the OP for any intensification. This is a much bigger project than McLeod and there is no need to increase the height from the present zoning.

Chair Hunter advised that the following correspondence, in opposition, was received, circulated and held on file with the City Clerk:

· Letter dated 26 March 2003, from the Rideau Street Development Group

· E-mail dated 20 June 2003 from Deborah Czernecky and Warren Wasylik

· Letter dated 4 July 2003 from B. Baylor

· Letter dated 10 July 2003 from D. E. George

· Letter dated 10 July 2003 from G. Bedard

· Letter dated 15 July 2003 from Jason and Margaret Way

· Letter dated 16 July Tom Bimson

· Letter dated 16 July Colonel C. Branson

· Letter dated 17 July 2003 from Brett Martensen

· E-mail dated 17 July 2003 from Frank S. Ruddock

· E-mail from B. M. Haugh

· Letter dated 18 July 2003 from Hubert and Indra LaRose

· E-mail dated 18 July 2003 from John Doucet

· E-mail dated 18 July 2003 from Kathryn Moyer

· E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Jean-Guy Brault

· E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Coralie Brault

· E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Jaqueline Buchanan

· E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Lena Creedy, Rideau Street Redevelopment Working Group

· Letter dated 21 July 2003 from Alex Mackenzie and Mary Anne Sharpe

· E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Martin Conboy

· E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Ken C. McKay

· E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Julie Hodgson

· E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Susan Kelen and Peter Ferguson

· E-mail dated 22 July 2003 from Diane Whalen and Tom Laverty

· Letter dated 22 July 2003 from Laura B. Farquharson

· E-mail dated 22 July 2003 from Doreen McMullin

· E-mail dated 22 July 2003 from Hildegarde Henderson

· E-mail dated 23 July 2003 from Sabrina Gaon

· E-mail dated 23 July 2003 from Beatrice Johnston

· E-mail dated 23 July 2003 from Odette Gamlin

· Letter dated 23 July 2003 from Asif Malik

· Letter dated 23 July 2003 from Giacomo Vigna

· E-mail dated 23 July 2003 from Nickolas Plowden

· E-mail dated 23 July 2003 from Linda West and Bill Dunn

· E-mail dated 24 July 2003 from Odette Gamlin

Lewis Kruger, Director of Development, Richcraft, advised that the site is a vacant lot, located on South side of Rideau between Coburg and Charlotte, on the edge of the Sandy Hill community. Rideau Street is designated as a main street with the objectives of the City in that regard. Mr. Kruger expounded on the proposal before Committee as detailed in the report referring to the Sandy Hill Secondary Plan (SHSP), the former City of Ottawa OP, the ROP and the Council-approved OP. Richcraft supports the staff recommendation and recognizes the extensive review of the various planning documents. The new OP states the potential for intensification will be largely based on site specific opportunities generally small to medium in scale and may include circumstances such as vacant lots and auto sales lots. The proposal is architecturally pleasing, lively in its mix of use oriented to the street, friendly to pedestrians and presents a strong continuous building edge along the sidewalk, ensures that the redevelopment of underutilized lands is optimized and considers the extent to which the proposal will increase the diversity of housing types in the area. The OP also has a section on compatibility of development and comments that infill development may occur anywhere in the city. The zoning in many areas may allow for much more intensive developments than has occurred in the past. Also that lands located on the boundaries between neighbourhoods or on major transportation arteries are excellent locations for compact and mixed used developments, which speak exactly to this site. The OP speaks to significant increases in density may also be accommodated through design, although the results may not be as successful in the eyes of some observers. However, compatible design may not necessarily mean the same as the surrounding area. Even with the attention to design, the process of creating infill and other intensification is challenging for both the proponent and the community.

Richcraft believes their proposal addresses all the approved planning documents. Many concerns were raised by the community, which is consistent with what has been heard in the past; that they are opposed to anything over six storeys. There has been a suggestion consultation has not taken place. That is incorrect. Richcraft met with them in January, submitted a design and received a response back that Richcraft not bother seeing them if the proposal is over six storeys. That was the end of the consultation. From Richcraft’s point of view they consulted with the community to the extent they were able to. They communicated with staff extensively in the development and submission of this proposal. There were many comments made, with criticism of staff and the process.

Rod Lahey, Roderick Lahey Architect, advised that in the Spring of 2002, he was retained by Lansdowne Developments, which had purchased the subject property, to determine what it can provide under the current Zoning By-Law. After a cursory review, with a free hand sketch of a six storey building, within a week Lansdowne realized they were pushing the envelope of their own ability to develop the property and sold same to Richcraft homes, who at that time were beginning to develop outside their traditional suburban row-house and single family homes. Richcraft subsequently retained his services. He reviewed with Richcraft the current Zoning By-Laws, proposed OP, discussed the potential for the site and came to the conclusion the current By-Law, which allows for a six storey building (FSI 2.0) underutilizes the potential of a significant mixed-use residential site on a major arterial road. This was a vacant parking lot and eye sore for a long time and seemed perfect for residential development. Initial meetings with the staff confirmed the site would be best suited for intensification of the urban center, given its location at the edge of the community, on a major arterial, with major bus routes and talk of rapid transit systems.

Throughout the balance of 2002, numerous options and site configurations were studied. They elected to develop the plans before Committee today, which is essentially the seven storey building stepping up to nine. Throughout the entire development process, certain design objectives were very firmly entrenched, the first being to maximize potential commercial exposure on Rideau. A significant building with a strong ground floor, commercial presence will help reinforce and expand the existing ground oriented commercial activity of Rideau. The second was to develop the site in such a way as to take advantage of that small frontage on Cobourg. That allowed for all vehicular access onto the site through a signalized intersection to a dead end street, which provided a simple and safe access to the site without increasing vehicular traffic within the two adjoining neighbourhoods. The third objective was to locate all of the parking below grade. With two levels of underground parking, they have exceeded the minimum parking requirements imposed by both residential as well as commercial.

Market studies were prepared by Richcraft Homes that suggested a younger crowd of first-time buyers be targeted. By creating smaller and well-designed apartments, Richcraft feels it will provide an alternate type of accommodation not readily available in the immediate area. The goal was to develop the residential component of the project to reflect the current City planning, as well as the Rideau Street Redevelopment Working Group. He sat in on a number of meetings of that group and was an active participant, it being an interesting process. Unfortunately, his opinions of intensification were dismissed entirely.

The ground floor is essentially all commercial, with small scale stores, street access; and, the building has been well articulated. It is about 220 feet long, broken up with recesses for the balcony. Richcraft increased the side yard setbacks to 4.5 metres, an increase of 10 feet over the minimum on both ends. It created an opportunity to provide 15-foot wide terrace areas. The ground floor is seen as a potential for coffee shops. He believes the building will be moved back another couple of feet to about three feet back from the current property line. The side yard setbacks created small pockets for outdoor terraces, which are directly open to the commercial spaces on both sides. The 8^th and 9^th floors were recessed an additional three metres. The upper floors are some 25 feet back from both property lines on the east and west sides. As can be seen from the perspective, the building on Charlotte street is currently a five-storey building, it then steps up to the seven-storey addition on the side and then again to nine storeys. The end product is a win for the street and neighbours.

The ground floor also features a large common area deck at the back, which is accessible through the ground floor amenity spaces at the lower side, that is heavily landscaped along the edge to reduce the impact of the buildings on the adjoining properties. The application was filed at the end of 2002 and Action Sandy Hill was made aware of the application. In January 2003, they made a presentation to the Planning and Development Sub-Committee of ASH that was received with mixed sentiments. On January 9, he received an e-mail from the Committee stating that ASH would oppose any proposal that extended the height limit, on principle, without any discussion as to the specific benefits of the project, and there was no point in continuing any dialogue. A copy of the letter was forwarded to the Planning Department. On the sun shade study raised, the study was completed and no impact was done on the community because of the location of the building. In conclusion, the proposal is an excellent example of increase in the usability of serviced lands within the urban core without adversely affecting the neighbouring community.

Mr. Lewis added that it complies with past planning and current planning documents. It is adjacent to a five storey building, a three storey building and opposite a fourteen storey building.

Councillor Cullen was advised that of the 118 residential units, the penthouse section had two levels of eight units, which equals 16 units in total.

Having heard from all public delegations, the matter was returned to Committee.

Councillor Cullen referenced the message clearly heard from the community to refuse the application and remain with the current zoning, which he is sympathetic with. The proposal does meet a number of objectives in the OP. He would propose amending Document 4, which is the Building Height Schedule on p. 110, to remove section B, essentially the penthouse section. This would reduce the 118-unit building to 102 units and leave it at seven storeys. It was offered as a compromise, which was supported by some of the presenters. It is a form of intensification, which has been supported by the Committee in the past. In the earlier McLeod discussion, it was presented that the issue of compatibility is supposed to be a trade off with intensification. That is not so. If communities are to accept the planning logic of intensification, the City must ensure that it provides force to the policy provision that it be compatible with the existing community, that changes do not alter the characteristic of existing communities that form the fabric of our city. His proposal supports the principal of intensification; however, it does recognize it is on the border of a low profile residential community. He commended the developer on the setbacks, landscaping, etc. The City can accommodate the principles of not overly massing that building with respect to its neighbourhood by putting in seven storeys.

Madeleine Meilleur, as the Ward Councillor, pointed out that as was heard, the community is not against intensification and in support of redevelopment. She commended the community for its involvement in both the OP, la Charette and also the Rideau Street Redevelopment Working Group. Mr. Lahey claimed the community association refused to meet with the developer, which is not exactly the case. ASH sees its role as defending the OP they participated in. The zoning permits six storeys, 18 m, and ASH did not see any possibility of negotiation. Further to that, she organized two meetings with the community association, staff and the developer, with a lot of dialogue. That part of Rideau Street is residential. The community is in support of the six storey building and redevelopment of the empty lot. Their concern is that if the Committee and Council allow this proposal to proceed, it will create a precedent. The community has also worked very hard to protect their area, being involved in the redevelopment of the bridge, saving Wallace House and recently worked with staff to redevelop Macdonald Gardens. The proposal is a 50% increase in the zoning, which she asked the Committee to reject. The community wants six storeys and seven storeys may be a compromise.

Councillor Stavinga indicated she would neither support seven storeys nor the staff recommendation. She found it astounding that during the discussion each side recited the same passages from the OP, but said something different in terms of the outcome, which concerned her. That is why there is an importance placed upon community design plans, on that further dialogue with the community to better articulate those policies and what they mean. She held a different opinion than Chair Hunter with regard to the planning process. It is correct that under the Planning Act, the City does not have the ability to refuse an application; it has to be reviewed and come forward to Committee. But, as the Chair elucidated there is the opportunity for that consideration at Committee. But, if the Committee continuously rejects staff recommendations, it behooves the Committee/Council to return to its policy to re-evaluate whether it clearly articulated the direction advocated. The intention of the community design plan is to be a multi-stakeholder process. It’s not only the residents, nor the developers, nor only the City, but everyone coming together with consensus building. She referenced the Kanata West Concept Plan that received unanimous approval at Committee and involved three different communities. She heard from the community today, as well as the Ward Councillor, that there is a game plan for this community and it behooves the Committee to be the gatekeepers.

Chair Hunter highlighted the recent 20/20 Visioning Process and the acceptance of a new OP for the City. In that plan were clear statements there was going to be intensification in the urban core with no expansion of the urban boundaries to the extent of tens of thousands of new housing units built in the downtown, surrounding areas and communities, such as Sandy Hill, Hintonburgh, and on main streets across the City. These are the areas where the principles of intensification take place. What is the difference between seven and nine when the nine is set back? Residents on the north side of Besserer would need to strain to see the top of the building or those on the south side could not see it because their own houses would be in the way. He recognized and respected the sentiments of the residents within the community and shared them in the past in his Ward; and, residents learned to live with an apartment next to single-family homes in Nepean. Property values did not diminish as a result. This scenario takes place across Canada.

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

Amend Document 4 to remove B (27.0 meters above grade) from the Building Heights Schedule.

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors Cullen, Arnold

NEAS (7): Councillors Bellemare, Hume, Harder, Munter, Eastman, Stavinga, Hunter

On the staff recommendation.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve the application to amend the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 1998, to change the zoning of 560 Rideau Street from a CN7 F(2.0) Neighbourhood Linear Commercial Zone to a CN7 F(4.25) Neighbourhood Linear Commercial Zone with an exception, as detailed in Document 3 and shown in Document 4.

CARRIED

YEAS (6): Councillors Bellemare, Hume, Harder, Munter, Eastman, Hunter

NEAS (3): Councillors Cullen, Arnold, Stavinga

9. ZONING - 125 BOTELER STREET

ZONAGE - 125, RUE BOTELER

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0151 rideau-vanier (12)

Chair Hunter advised that Angela Rickman had registered to speak against the application for the Proposed New Chancery for the United Arab Emirates. Ms. Rickman had to leave, but provided a detailed presentation that is held on file with the City Clerk. Messrs. Ted Fobert, FoTenn Consultants Inc., and Tony Griffiths, Griffiths Rankin Cook, Architects, were present on behalf of the applicant in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 4 July 2003. Mr. Fobert provided detailed plans of the proposal prepared by Griffiths Rankin Cook, Architects, that are also held on file with the City Clerk.

Moved by Councillor P. Hume:

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve the application to amend the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998, for 125 Boteler Street, from Urban Reserve UR to CG [543] F(1.0) to permit a Diplomatic Chancery (office) as shown on Document 2.

CARRIED

10. Zoning - 10 Range Road

ZONAGE - 10, CHEMIN RANGE

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0167 rideau-vanier (12)

The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated
11 July 2003.

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council amend the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998, to establish a further exception to the R4C [87] zoning for the property at 10 Range Road as detailed in Document 2 and shown in Document 3 to allow “office limited to a diplomatic mission” as a permitted use.

CARRIED

11. ZONING - 1075 Bank Street

ZONAGE - 1075, rue Bank

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0164 capital/capitale (17)

Leo Doyle, Ottawa South Community Association, was present in support of the recommendation contained in report dated 14 July 2003 and the technical amendment to limit the size of the chip wagon. Correspondence dated 23 July 2003, from Michael Jenkin, Chair, OSWATCH, Old Ottawa South Community Association, and correspondence, with a petition from the owner of M & G Chipwagon was circulated to the Committee and held on file with the City Clerk.

Moved by Councillor E. Arnold:

1. That Document 2 of the Report be amended by inserting the phrase ‘of not more than 24 square metres’ immediately after the phrase ‘take-out’.

2. That no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

CARRIED

The report was approved as amended.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 1998 to add a temporary use provision to the CN4 [516] F(1.5) Neighborhood Linear Commercial zone for the property at 1075 Bank Street to permit a restaurant, take-out for a period of three years as detailed in Document 2, subject to the following amendments:

1. That Document 2 be amended by inserting the phrase ‘of not more than 24 square metres’ immediately after the phrase ‘take-out’.

2. That no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

CARRIED as amended

12. ZONING - 2825 CARP ROAD

ZONAGE - 2825, CHEMIN CARP

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0152 west carleton (5)

Gregory Winters, Novatech Engineering, was present in support of the recommendation contained in report dated 3 July 2003. The Committee approved the recommendation.

Moved by Councillor D. Eastman:

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of West Carleton Zoning By-law, to amend the zoning of the portion of the property at 2825 Carp Road, from Rural Industrial Zone, MR-4, to Rural Industrial Exception Zone, MR-, as shown on Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED

13. ZONING - 2710 CARP ROAD

ZONAGE - 2710, CHEMIN CARP

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0150 west carleton (5)

Councillor Eastman stated the recommendation in departmental report dated 3 July 2003 speaks to adding one use to the list of uses. The applicant was interested in a number of usages that was narrowed down to only one in contention and staff are not supportive of that use. The usage he proposed adding is that of financial services.

Councillor Hume questioned the difference between a financial office and business office and why staff was opposed? Burl Walker, Planner, advised that a financial office permits a use such as a bank or trust company. Staff is recommending refusal because the property is located within the General Rural Area under the former ROP as well as the new Council adopted OP. The General Rural Area policies do permit commercial uses within the General Rural Area, provided the uses are not better located within a village area. It is staff’s position that a financial institution should be located within designated commercial areas in a village to provide better convenience and efficiency for residents.

In response to a further question, Mr. Walker advised that an office that would sell mutual funds would be considered a financial office under the Zoning By-Law definitions. Councillor Hume supposed that an insurance office would be a business office and was trying to determine the difference between the two. He posited that if the difference was so slight it did not make sense. Mr. Lindsay advised that in essence Councillor Hume is correct. It is a very slight distinction between the various uses. The original question staff had to contemplate is that any of those types of uses should be permitted in a rural industrial park because the more you permit in rural industrial parks, eventually village residents will submit that that type of use should be in the village. Staff is trying to protect that, recognizing that staff met with the applicant who had an entire list of additional uses they wanted and worked down to this particular use. The applicant met again with Mr. Walker today, as well as Councillor Eastman, to add the one additional use. It is within this Committee’s purview to put this in if they feel it is appropriate.

Moved by Councillor D. Eastman:

1. WHEREAS over 200 businesses located along the Carp Road Corridor provide employment to over 3000 employees on a daily basis;

AND WHEREAS the same corridor is currently home to hundreds of permanent residents and that number will more than double as approved developments come on stream over the next few years;

AND WHEREAS both the business and residential communities would benefit from the convenient availability of financial services in their area;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT “Financial Office” be added to the list of permitted uses for this site.

2. That no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

CARRIED

The report was approved as amended.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of West Carleton Zoning By-law for 2710 Carp Road to permit a business office, a professional office, a retail store accessory to a permitted MR-23 use, and a showroom in the MR-23 – Rural Industrial Exception 23 Zone as detailed in Document 2, subject to the following amendments:

1. WHEREAS over 200 businesses located along the Carp Road Corridor provide employment to over 3000 employees on a daily basis;

AND WHEREAS the same corridor is currently home to hundreds of permanent residents and that number will more than double as approved developments come on stream over the next few years;

AND WHEREAS both the business and residential communities would benefit from the convenient availability of financial services in their area;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT “Financial Office” be added to the list of permitted uses for this site.

2. That no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

CARRIED as amended

14. ZONING - 2162 PRINCE OF WALES DRIVE

ZONAGE - 2162, PROMENADE PRINCE OF WALES

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0127 bell-south nepean/bell-nepean sud (3)

Steve Cuuliliffe, Regional Group, was present in support of the recommendation contained in report dated 17 July 2003. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law to rezone a portion of 2162 Prince of Wales Drive from MP Block 6 Industrial Park, Exception 6 Zone to CA3 (CN) Block 9, Commercial Automotive Zone 3 and Neighbourhood Commercial Exception 9 and to permit access to Prince of Wales Drive as shown in Document 1.

CARRIED

15. ZONING - 6158 RIDEAU VALLEY DRIVE

ZONAGE - 6158, PROMENADE RIDEAU VALLEY

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0153 rideau (21)

Suzanne Miller was present in support of the recommendation contained in report dated
3 July 2003. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Rideau Zoning By-law, to change the zoning of 6158 Rideau Valley Drive from A1-Restricted Rural to A1-8 Restricted Rural Exception 8 to permit a rural home occupation and a craft shop as shown in Document 2 and detailed in Document 3.

CARRIED

16. ZONING - 5935 McCORDICK ROAD

ZONAGE - 5935, CHEMIN McCORDICK

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0160 rideau (21)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated
4 July 2003.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Rideau Zoning By-law, to change the zoning of 5935 McCordick Road from A2-44 - General Rural Special Zone 44 to RE-26 - Estate Residential Special Zone 26 as shown in Document 1.

CARRIED

17. ZONING - 6330 SECOND LINE ROAD

ZONAGE - 6330, CHEMIN SECOND LINE

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0158 rideau (21)

Don Stephenson, applicant, was present in support of the recommendation contained in report dated 4 July 2003. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Rideau Zoning By-law, to change the zoning of 6330 Second Line Road from A2 - General Rural Zone to RE-35 - Estate Residential Special Zone 35 and RE-8 - Estate Residential Special Zone 8 as shown in Document 1.

CARRIED

18. ZONING - 7149 GALLAGHER ROAD

ZONAGE - 7149, CHEMIN GALLAGHER

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0159 rideau (21)

Peter Hipwell, Ollie Inc., was present in support of the recommendation contained in report dated 4 July 2003. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Rideau Zoning By-law, to change the zoning of 7149 Gallagher Road from A2 - General Rural Zone to RE - Estate Residential Zone, A2-28 - General Rural Special Zone 28 as shown in Document 2.

CARRIED

19. ZONING - 910 EARL ARMSTRONG ROAD

ZONAGE - 910, CHEMIN EARL ARMSTRONG

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0154 gloucester-southgate (10)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated
19 June 2003.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an application to amend the former City of Gloucester Zoning By-law from Future Growth, Fg to Institutional Service (Exception 13), Is(E13) to permit a fire station together with an ambulance and police depot at 910 Earl Armstrong Road, as detailed in Document 1.

CARRIED

20. ZONING - 1422 GOTH STREET/3797 ALBION RD

ZONAGE - 1422, RUE GOTH/3797, CHEMIN ALBION

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0161 gloucester-southgate (10)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated
3 July 2003.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve the application to amend the former City of Gloucester Zoning By-law, to rezone 1422 Goth Street / 3797 Albion Road from Commercial Neighborhood Zone (Cn) to Low Density Apartment Zone (Ra1) to allow the property owners to convert the existing two unit structure and attached convenience store to an apartment dwelling, as detailed in Document 1 and shown in Document 2.

CARRIED

21. ZONING - 1428 HERON ROAD

ZONAGE - 1428, RUE HERON

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0166 alta vista (18)

Saide Sayah, Planner, provided a brief presentation on departmental report dated 14 July 2003 and was available to respond to any questions.

Barbara Barr, Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital, provided a detailed written submission of her presentation with an excerpt of the OP, Section 3.2.3, Urban Natural Features, in opposition, which is held on file with the City Clerk. In summary, the Greenspace Alliance urges the Committee to defer consideration of this item and to instruct staff to provide a different zoning solution for the area occupied by the stormwater pond and to provide a means to designate the land use of the newly added ES1 area as Urban Natural Feature.

Councillor Hume clarified this is not a developer’s stormwater management pond and the stormwater for the development will be accommodated through pipe services. This dry pond drains the greenway linkages, which is City of Ottawa land. The community does not want to see any changes to the ES1 designation, but want all the lands they were promised kept in the open space category that permits no development; e.g. no pathways, no buildings, no play structures, nothing! That was part of the agreement the NCC and the City of Ottawa arrived at when developing this site. It is reasonable to allow the development of the dry pond in exchange for the trees and the wood portion. The area has to be cleaned up, including garbage and some of the invasive species pervading that area. In some ways the development of this pond, by getting rid of some of those species on the fringes of the woodlot will be positive. Community volunteers have tried to clear areas on the other side of Heron Road to plant trees, and spent days and weeks trying to get rid of buckthorn. It allows the City to preserve a large number of trees, at over 1m in diameter, which would meet the OP goal to improve tree coverage from 28% to 30%. He urged the Committee to approve the recommendation, which is supported by the community.

Jim Burghout, Claridge Homes, had presented a request to speak in support, but had to leave.

The Committee approved the departmental recommendations.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998, for 1428 Heron Road as detailed in Document 2 and shown in Document 3 to:

1. Permit a dry stormwater management pond on the southern portion of the ES1 Zone; and

2. To expand the eastern portion of the ES1 zone into the R6A[606] F(1.0) zone.

CARRIED

22. ZONING - 4191, 4195 AND 4199 INNES ROAD

ZONAGE - 4191, 4195 ET 4199 CHEMIN INNES

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0165 cumberland (19)

Debbie Belfie, D. G. Belfie Planning & Development Consulting Ltd., on behalf of the applicant, Lemay Homes, was present in support of the recommendation contained in report dated 3 July 2003. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve an amendment to the former City of Cumberland Zoning By-law to rezone 4191, 4195 and 4199 Innes Road from R1A (RAU) Block “A” - Residential - Alternative Use - Block “A” to R4A-X1 - Residential – Multiples - Exception One as detailed in Document 1.

CARRIED

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT &INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

POLITIQUES D’URBANISME, D’ENVIRONNEMENT ET

D’INFRASTRUCTURE

23. ZONING AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH A THREE-KILOMETRE

SEPARATION DISTANCE FOR INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS

MODIFICATION AU ZONAGE VISANT À METTRE EN OEUVRE UNE DISTANCE DE SÉPARATION DE TROIS KILOMÈTRES POUR LES FERMES D’ÉLEVAGE INTENSIF

ACS2003-DEV-POL-0037 city-wide

Chair Hunter advised that staff had presented a Motion to amend the report that was circulated to Committee. Jean-Guy Bisson, Planner, advised that a Motion from Council adopted on 25 June 2003, asked staff to submit zoning regulations to replace the Interim Control By-Law that will expire 11 September 2003, removing controls on the size of hog farms in Cumberland Ward. He provided an extensive presentation on the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 4 July 2003. Mr. Bisson explained that the Motion circulated would clarify certain aspects of the zoning regulations submitted to assist in drafting a proper by-law for these regulations.

Chair Hunter received confirmation that although it talks about livestock units, it only refers to the hog part of livestock units. Mr. Bisson added that the Council Motion asked that intensive hog farms be defined and restricted. Responding to a further question, Mr. Bisson advised that the Planning Act allows only one extension to a maximum 2 years, which expires 11 Septembe 2003. Once an Interim Control By-Law has been put in place and expired, a new one cannot be put in place for the next three years.

In response to a question by Councillor Hume, Mr. Bisson related that the OP has a policy to establish a 3 km separation distance between intensive hog farm operations and other non-agricultural uses. The OP is now in front of the Province for approval and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Foods (OMAF) has already expressed opposition to that type of policy because it does go against the Provincial Policy Statements regarding agricultural uses. It is likely they will object to that section. Councillor Hume received confirmation the recommendation is consistent with the OP as it now stands. If the Minister should modify the Plan to eliminate that section, staff would have to return to Committee and Council for direction. Mr. Bisson informed the Councillor that OMAF indicated in January and again this week, that this By-Law is premature, until the OP is reviewed and approved. Councillor Hume suggested that possibly the report should be deferred until the Minister approves the OP and inquired what the ramifications would be. Mr. Bisson responded that in the interim there would be no control on the establishment of intensive hog farm operations in the City.

Following on Councillor Hume’s question, Councillor Eastman suggested the Nutrient Management Act(NMA) and the Minimum Separation Distance (MDS) will apply and the Province will not permit municipalities to be more restrictive than Provincial Legislation. Mr. Bisson responded that the NMA has been approved, but the regulations are still under consultation and have not been approved by the Province as yet. But the MDS does exist. Councillor Cullen received confirmation the MDS is not the same as the City’s 3 km. Although Councillor Eastman has indicated there is something to fall back on, it is not what the City wants, which is 3 km.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Adele Muldoon provided a lengthy written submission of her comments in opposition to the recommendations, which is held on file with the City Clerk. She outlined three reasons to defeat the recommendations:

· It serves no useful purpose

· It is discriminatory

· It is impossible to put a cost figure on the hearings and court hearings that will result, if adopted

Marcel Bisson provided a brief written submission of his comments that is held on file with the City Clerk. He added that the By-Law being put forward is discriminatory. Discrimination is an act that no level of government can support, especially in the Planning Act. He attended at the University of Ottawa library of law, and discovered different sections of the Municipal Act. All by-laws that were discriminatory and brought before the courts were struck down. Secondly, the Property Act, which is the oldest Act in Canada dating back to the fall of 1792, says that you have the right to enjoy the full use of your property. That will be removed by this regulation. Then there is the Farming Act that allows farmers to farm their land. The recommendation tells the farmer he/she can produce, but cannot keep the livestock necessary to use the crop produced. As a friendly amendment, he suggested the Committee maintain the minimal distance, plus what OMAF has asked the City to put in force. Also, it should be stated that any crop produced on either a farmer’s own farm or leased land, should be entitled to be fed to his cattle. In doing that, it will prevent those mega-farms that have to import their feed, which is not produced locally.

Josée Lafontaine, Nelligan, O’Brian, Payne, representing Luc Fontaine and Mario Côté, co-proprietors of a farm located on Lafleur Street, Sarsfield. Her clients feel the proposed modification is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminating. They filed their first request for a construction permit in July 2001. Following their request, the Interim Control By-Law was adopted. It is very clear it was enacted in response to her clients’ building permit application. A second construction permit was filed on 26 March 2002, for renovations to certain buildings on the farm to acquire 1,045 sows (209 units), on the basis of their rights, confirmed by the City of Ottawa. To this date, there has not yet been one sow at the farm and they must once again return to a Tribunal in September. Dr. Cushman produced a report that looked at environmental and public health questions. That report does not contain much information other than the negative consequences or impact of a pig farm. Now, the City must undertake longitudinal studies over five years at a cost of approximately $70,000, and studies that must take place either as of, or prior to the implementation of a hog farm operation, and they don’t know when that will take place.

When her clients filed their second request they not only provided all required documents, they voluntarily provided a nutrient management plan. Her clients are farmers with more than 20 years experience and received awards and carry out a lot of research, both at the provincial and federal levels, and are very preoccupied with the environment. She requested that Councillors read the Act adopted on 1 July 2003. There is a general rule 26703 that will be in effect as of September 30 2003. She read Section 7 of the regulation: “For the purpose of the Act in this regulation, there shall be no restriction on the number of farm animals that may be managed in the course of an agriculture operation, unless imposed expressly or by implication by this regulation, or by an order made under Section 29 and 30”. Sections 29 and 30 speak to a five-year management plan, and following that, there must be approval by a director. Section 61 of the Act specifies: “the regulations (or by-laws) replace a municipality’s by-laws, or their provision relating to the same issue”. Your by-law tries to define an intensive hog farm operation linked to a particular operation by limiting the livestock number to 150 units. Farmers have used liquid and solid manure as fertilizers for decades. Their purpose is not to pollute the environment, provided the procedure is conducted correctly and well managed and the crop’s absorption capacity is known, thus they avoid having to purchase expensive chemical fertilizers.

The previous delegation spoke to the Farming and Food Production Protection Act of 1998. This is an interesting piece of legislation insofar as the preamble states that conservation and protection of farmland are desirable. The second paragraph of the preamble reads as follows: “Agricultural activities may include intensive operations that may cause discomfort and inconveniences to those on adjacent lands.” It is increasingly difficult for farm owners and operators to produce crops effectively, and it is in the provincial interest to protect agricultural areas and uses as well as normal agricultural practices. No municipal regulation may be made under the Act to effectively restrict normal agricultural practices.

To limit livestock to 150 animals is to target a particular type of farm operation in a discriminatory fashion. Reducing the number of livestock, thereby reducing the quantity of manure does not necessarily lessen potential impact on the environment. If the farmer owns the required surface area for a specific number of livestock units, there is no reference within the document to land surface areas or types of culture.

The Committee failed to approve the proposed nutrient management policy, though they understood the situation clearly on June 25, 2002. The OSA report commissioned by the City of Ottawa is an interim geological report that concluded there was little risk of inherent vulnerability, especially with regard to the Sarsfield property, for which no proof to that effect was available. It is understood that there is an ongoing flow of urban dwellers to rural areas. However, this is no reason to discriminate against farmers, who are legitimately entitled to run farming operations. The proposed by-law is at odds with the NMA and possibly the OP for the reasons mentioned above. She recommended, on behalf of her clients, that the proposal be rejected.

Jean Tremblay congratulated the City for its efforts to limit any damages that could be caused by the establishment of a hog farm in the vicinity of Sarsfield. Since the application for the construction permit of such a farm, many Sarsfield residents feel their environment is being threatened. There have been problems with pollution caused by hog farms in other areas, such as the province of Quebec, areas in the United States, as well as European countries. Residents do not understand where there would be an economic advantage for the residents of Ontario, given the information available. The hogs in question would be imported from Quebec, reproduced hogs would be returned to Quebec, and all necessary feed for the animals would be from Quebec. For these reasons, he requested the Committee to adopt the proposed recommendations.

Harold Cuthbertson, OMAF, provided an extensive presentation in opposition. A hard copy was distributed and is held on file with the City Clerk. He also provided an Information Document on Nutrient Management entitled “Municipalities and the Nutrient Management Act”

Chair Hunter referred to the third last slide and a point was made by a delegation that any municipal by-law on this subject will be superceded and also that there will be no restriction on the number of livestock units. Mr. Cuthbertson confirmed that is correct. The Chair questioned the situation of an existing livestock operation wherein implementation of the regulations does not take effect until 2005. Does that mean a Municipal By-Law is superceded as of this day or not until 2005? Mr. Cuthbertson responded not until 2005, and the same applies with other farms that come on stream in 2008.

Councillor Eastman noted the clarification related to existing operations, but received confirmation that if a new hog farm came on stream, it would apply as of September 30.

Bruce Hudson, representing Ontario Pork, and a concerned pork producer in the City of Ottawa, provided a written submission of his presentation in strong opposition, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Hudson echoed Mr. Cuthbertson’s comments and supported the provincial legislation. He also provided a handout on the VIDO (Veterinary Infectious Disease Organization) Study that demonstrated that the microorganisms present in swine barns do not travel any significant distance on the wind; and, a list of publications on line. In closing, as a local farm for 170 years, he wanted to have the opportunity for his children to farm and the business to grow. To make a living farmers need resources.

Rudy Verspoor, PORC. Dr. Verspoor submitted that if one looked at the history of intensive hog operations around the world, there is only one conclusion - that it is an unmitigated disaster. He was not talking about individual farms, but industrial scale operations. He pointed out that North Carolina has had a moratorium on further intensive hog operations in place for six years. They are now considering banning open cesspools and spray field methods. He heard many statements that this is against farming. There is a move in the agricultural area, from simple Mom and Pop operations to corporate farming, which is not farming. It is entirely legitimate for the municipality to put restrictions on the way land is used. The Province has steadfastly said that what happened in Manitoba, North Carolina, Europe and Quebec will not happen here. Nutrient Management has been presented as the solution; Nutrient Management is exactly that; it is an Act to deal with the management of nutrients on a farm. It is not an Act to deal with the environmental consequences of intensive hog operations, which exist in jurisdictions that already experienced this. If it were, the Department of Environment would be involved and that Department has effectively been shut out of the NMA because it has nothing to do with environmental and water quality protection. This really has to do with farming and an insidious attempt on the part of the Province to fold in what is an industrial operation under the legitimate laws to protect legitimate farmers.

Farmers purport that manure is valuable. To these industrial corporate interests, it is something to be disposed of. That is what caused the Province of Quebec to place a moratorium. The Ottawa Medical Officer of Health has made a statement that liquid hog waste is more toxic than human waste. If municipalities are required to treat human waste, why are these operations not required to treat their waste as well? They don’t belong on farm land, they belong in industrial parks. Someone suggested they did not think they could smell a hog operation 3 km away. Residents in St. Marie de Kent in New Brunswick, who live 5 km away from a hog operation, are still fighting that several years later. Dr. William J. Weida, an economics professor, pointed out the negative economic impact these industrial hog operations have on farming and traditional communities. This is already seen in Sarsfield with investment flowing out. Property values in the United States and other provinces in Canada near industrial hog operations plummet anywhere from 50-90 % within a 3-5 km radius.

PORC consists of a diverse group; farmers, villagers and urban residents, who all believe this does not belong in a farming community or near urban and suburban areas. He urged the Committee to support the 3km buffer, which is a minimum. He referred to Section 61 of Bill 81 that prevents municipalities from taking further measures to protect the health and safety of their residents. This is a change from the past when the Province set the floor and municipalities could take further additional measures on health and safety grounds. When PORC met with the former Minister of Agriculture, he advised that the municipality had the power to regulate further. Yet, the municipality had been advised the opposite. If the 3 km buffer is not adopted, there will be a proliferation of these intensive livestock operations because of the restrictions in Quebec, and Ottawa will pay the price similar to those other jurisdictions. He urged the Committee to support this measure and demonstrate to the Province the approach with the NMA to deal with environmental issues is not appropriate.

John Hendrikx, Ottawa Carleton Lanark Pork Producers, provided a written submission of his comments in opposition that is held on file with the City Clerk. He added that there are currently 8 hog producers in the City of Ottawa for a total of 500-600 sows. By approving the recommendations today, there may be one or two left over the next 5-10 years. He urged the Committee to defeat the recommendations. Common sense should prevail.

In response to a question by Chair Hunter on a comparison of the recommendations and the NMA affecting his operation, Mr. Hendrikx explained that since he is not an intensive operation, it did not affect him. But, if he expands he will become intensive and must meet certain regulations. If the City approves the 3km buffer, he will never be able to get to that stage. The 3km buffer would shut him down within 5-10 years.

Rob Jellett read a detailed statement in support of the staff recommendation on behalf of Councillor Phil McNeely that is held on file with the City Clerk.

Denise Sarazin read from a written statement on her own behalf in support and on behalf of Marc Lafleur in support, which are held on file with the City Clerk.

Richard Fraser, Vice-Chair, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee (ARAAC), read from a prepared statement in opposition that was strongly endorsed by ARAAC at its 22 July 2003 meeting and is supported by the Carleton Milk Producers Committee, which represents 147 milk producers in the former County of Carleton. A copy is held on file with the City Clerk. He added that the idea that what is being proposed in Ottawa is anything comparable to North Carolina or in Quebec, is totally unfounded. It is very clear under Ontario’s Bill 81 that you must have the land base to support the number of animal units and that is where the mistake was made in the Carolina’s, Holland, Quebec etc. They built large barns with just enough land for the barn, a holding tank for manure and some land to dispose of manure and brought in feed from other areas. It was a factory type operation.

Councillor Cullen noted the great interest in this issue, with conflicts and values, but he had to respond to the threat of being called two-faced. Council has the ability to zone where certain uses and activities can and cannot take place. For example, the Zoning By-Law forbids strip clubs in residential areas, which strip club operators opine as discrimination. But just because the City does that does not make Councillors two-faced.

In clarification, Councillor Stavinga recognized that Bill 81, although promulgated has not come into effect. She returned to 2002, for example, and the situation with regard to the application of manure on the land. Mr. Fraser referenced that it is land-based in Ontario. Councillor Stavinga received confirmation the important difference from North Carolina or Québec is the recognition in principal that is being enshrined through the legislation, thereby eliminating any question. That is the distinction between some of the horror stories heard in Québec and North Carolina.

The Committee received correspondence dated 22 July 2003 from Margo Lienhard, Manager, Community Planning and Development, Municipal Services Office – Eastern, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing indicating that the Zoning By-Law Amendments are premature until such time as the Agricultural Resources polices in the new OP are finalized. Ms. Lienhard advised that it would be more appropriate for changes to the zoning by-laws to await the approval of the new OP. Previous correspondence dated 8 January 2003 was attached, which contained the Ministry’s original comments on the matter. This correspondence is held on file with the City Clerk.

The Chair closed the Public Meeting and the matter was returned to Committee.

Councillor Thompson represented a rural area for 20 years and the last 2½ years as Chair of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC). ARAC and ARAAC are fully in support of not regulating farmers out of business. This Committee should reject the recommendation. Emotional pleas were heard from both sides. The Committee should heed the farmers who are the most knowledgeable in this area.

Councillor Stavinga commented it is unfortunate that Council has found itself in the position of endorsing a direction that was counter to that of staff and it is through the efforts of local farmers as well as her colleagues that commenced her education process on the meaning of farm operations, particularly as it relates to hog farming. She thanked them and pointed out Mr. Hudson who has been sending out the same message on many occasions. It is also important to recognize individuals on the other side of this particular matter. We all share concerns with regard to groundwater protection, the protection of our aquifers, wells, drinking water and a principal shared by the Province. She recognized the internet is a valuable tool to obtain information, experiences in other provinces, countries, states, but when gathering this information it is critically important to determine the context in which those particular instances are happening, and whether those horror stories/experiences are within the same context as Ottawa. Throughout this debate, she has found that Ontario has been very progressive with regard to nutrient management. She has also heard from a number of farmers as Vice-Chair of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) concerned the NMP is very restrictive. They are therefore looking for some form of assistance in the introduction. The implementation of the NMP will not be painless. As Councillor Thompson identified, ARAAC has been consistent in saying that Council should not endorse the 3 km buffer zone. That voice has not been heard by Council. This is an opportunity to not support the recommendation before Committee and get back on track. Ottawa spoke in March 2001 with pride that it is the Farm Capital of Canada and she asked the Committee to speak with that same pride and reject the recommendation.

Councillor Bellemare declared he would support the report recommendations as they follow through and give effect to a series of decisions City Council has made over the last couple of years on this issue. Hopefully it will prevent situations like Sarsfield. Those decisions include and have led up to the adoption of the OP, which includes the 3 km buffer. An intensive hog farm constitutes a nuisance, which affects public health and the environment. There will be differences between the City and the present Ontario government on this subject. He believes jurisprudence is already on the City’s side. There was earlier mention of the Hudson decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada decreed that, in general, municipalities can adopt regulations for the benefit of its citizens. Ottawa should not wait for proof beyond all reasonable doubt before acting. He opined Ottawa was well-positioned judicially to date and could regulate in the best interest of the citizens of Ottawa on public health and the environment. Chair Hunter suggested legal advice should be sought siting the Hudson precedence.

Councillor Hume was also concerned in that regard and requested advice from Mr. Marc before rendering a decision on the matter. Since that would take into account matters of a solicitor-client privilege, he opined it would be appropriate to proceed in camera to receive that legal advice.

Moved by Councillor P. Hume:

That the Planning and Development Committee move In Camera pursuant to Section 12(1) f) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, of the Procedure By-Law.

CARRIED

Councillor Harder dissented.

The Committee adjourned to the Caucus Room at 9:25 p.m.

The Committee resumed the Open Session at 9:45 p.m.

Councillor Harder opined this has always been more about politics than farming. Certainly, farmers in this City have come out time after time to ARAC and any Committee this subject has been discussed. When will the City start respecting farmers such as Mr. Hudson and Mr. Fraser who have been out on this matter 16 times and trust the system? NMA exists, and will protect Ottawa. If the recommendation is passed, there are three places in Ottawa where there can be an intensive hog farm. One is in her Ward and she will not worry about it since the parcel of land is so small it would not hold many hogs. She would absolutely not be supporting the recommendations. On the record, she had considerable empathy for Sarsfield residents and if her residents were in the same predicament, she would be fighting just as hard. But, this has to be looked at from the parameters of the entire City. She has dairy farmers in her Ward who are intensive and farms in the vicinity of 60,000 residents. There is a smell, but people have choices and she had a choice not to support recommendations that will penalize farmers. It is about doing the right thing and being proud to say that Ottawa is the Farming Capital of Canada; 90% of the land mass is rural.

Moved by Councillor M. Bellemare:

1. That Recommendation 1 be deleted and replaced by the following:

define “intensive hog farm operation” to mean a hog farm operation where land, buildings or structures are used for the purposes of accommodating 150 livestock units or more, or having 50 livestock units or more with a livestock density of more than 5 livestock units per tillable hectare;

2. That a new Recommendation 2 be added as follows:

list “intensive hog farm operation” in all zones where a hog farm operation is permitted as a use;

3. That Recommendations 2 and 3 be renumbered 3 and 4;

4. That no further notice be given under Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

Councillor Eastman commented that this has been a senseless battle the City was destined to lose from the beginning and staff, including legal, advised accordingly. It is time to bring this to an end and to place Ottawa farmers on the same playing field as those across the Province. Farmers asked for the NMA since they wanted something to illustrate to residents they were farming properly and been the main pushers on this legislation. It will be tough on them, as well as himself as a farmer, but it is needed. It is a tool to indicate the amount of manure and nutrient spread on the land. The Committee is at an important juncture and he asked the Committee to support a Motion he put forward, which simply changes the word “approve” to “reject”.

Councillor Cullen related a former practice from his youth that involved spraying side roads in the countryside with oil. That is no longer carried out because the oil sprayed was transmission oil that contained PCBs, but for 50 years it was a common practice. Ottawa stopped spreading biosolids, which was also a common practice. With Walkerton, there is now a higher standard being placed on municipalities when it comes to the precautionary principle. There is already legislation approved that has MDS, so already there is an acknowledgement there has to be this separation. As the impacts of these techniques are understood and policies are put in place to cover these, the industry finds ways of dealing. In this context, the government already recognizes the requirement for a minimum distance and residences are approaching the municipality concerned about the impact of this activity. The Planning Act is used to designate where uses occur. In this particular context, City Council has already adopted a position through the OP. The City is already engaged in a court case with respect to an Interim Control By-Law with respect to that separation. This Committee needs to send a recommendation to Council because that Interim Control By-Law will expire by 11 September. The only new information that has come forward since the Interim Control By-Law and the OP were put into effect is that the province has put MDS in place. The decision should be made to continue on the same path.

Moved by Councillor D. Eastman:

Therefore be it resolved that the statement “Council approve” in the first sentence of the Motion regarding the Zoning Amendment to Establish a Three-Kilometre Separation Distance for Intensive Livestock Operations be changed to “Council reject”.

And provide no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

CARRIED

YEAS (5): Councillors Eastman, Stavinga, Hume, Harder, Hunter

NAYS (4): Councillors Munter, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold

The report was approved as amended.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council reject amendments to the zoning by-laws of the former municipalities of Nepean, Kanata, West Carleton, Goulbourn, Gloucester, Cumberland, Osgoode and Rideau in order to:

1. define “intensive hog farm operation” and list the use in the existing agricultural zones;

2. set a maximum of 150 livestock units per intensive hog farm operation; and

3. set out provisions requiring that intensive hog farm operations not be established within a separation distance of three kilometres from one another and from any village, residential, recreational, institutional and environmental zones.

And provide no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

CARRIED as amended

PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH
DIRECTION DE L’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES

D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE

24. ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD APPEAL - ABBOTT STREET, STITTSVILLE - SUBDIVISION AND ZONING AMENDMENT

APPEL INTERJETÉ À LA COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES MUNICIPALES DE L’ONTARIO - RUE ABBOTT, STITTSVILLE - MODIFICATION AU PLAN DE LOTISSEMENT ET AU ZONAGE

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0174 GOULBOURN (6)

Sally Switzer provided a presentation and was available to respond to questions on departmental report dated 17 July 2003.

Councillor Stavinga presented a series of Motions for the benefit of Committee, staff and delegations. The thrust of her first Motion is to reject the staff recommendation and endorse an alternative position at the OMB. The second Motion relates to a land exchange that appears to be supported. There seems to be an interest and willingness to pursue this option by the land developer. Real Property Asset Management (RPAM) and Legal Services, who are aware of the Motion, have been involved in discussions and concede to the timelines. Councillor Stavinga questioned why there was a change from the July 2002 report and this year, to allow for a local double loaded collector road across the provincially significant wetland, when it was not in 2000. Mr. Lindsay responded that when this issue came to the new City, staff had to balance off various concerns. The landowner indicated they had land development rights on the westernmost portion of their land. Staff had to determine how to realistically balance the clearly defined development rights, service the land versus the impact on the existing subdivision to the north. Servicing the infrastructure would have necessitated the excavation of a relatively new street with disruption to all residents. That had to be balanced against the issue of the integrity of the wetlands. Unaware of the final decision on the wetland boundary, staff made a decision, which is subject to question, to allow the developer to cross the northerly most portion of the development to provide access to lands on the west. It is acknowledged it does cross the wetlands as it is currently maintained by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), but is disputed by the property owner. The other benefit sought was that the subdivision would provide a vital linkage to Westridge Drive, through a wetland component, to Abbott Street and beyond to connect into the Westwood subdivision. Staff felt it was important to obtain that link as well and have the developer pay for it, since it will be an expensive stretch of road crossing Pool Creek, as part of this subdivision application, to have a contiguous roadway taking pressure off Main Street Stittsville in a north/south direction. It would provide another collector road for the community on the west side of Main Street. With those two overriding public interest objectives, a recommendation was presented to Committee in 2002.

Councillor Stavinga received confirmation from Mr. Marc that the City is not obliged to provide another access to the entire property given that access was provided on Westridge Drive southerly to the eastern portion.

Chair Hunter questioned the status of the MNR recommendations at the OMB. Mr. Lindsay explained that the OMB can weigh the concerns and requirements of the MNR against the application in front of them as well as all other relevant land use policies and form their decision. They do not have to implement without question the MNR’s designation and draw the line where they see fit. Chair Hunter received confirmation the OMB can do that, but the City cannot. Responding to further questions, Mr. Lindsay clarified there is a wetland in this vicinity in Stittsville, which links into other wetlands. There is some debate as to whether this portion is provincially significant or not. That is part of the discussions before the OMB. Staff looked at it from the overall public interest and to have a very vital transportation link. This subdivision does provide that.

Following a series of questions and debate, Councillor Hume opined the best method to advance the City’s interest is to approve Councillor Stavinga’s Motion. Mr. Marc advised the report is back before Committee because it was felt, given the Westwood decision, it did not take a final conclusive position on the western lands. Given that fact and the Westwood decision, it was felt appropriate that this Committee and Council consider the issue to determine a position for the Board. The City has not yet adopted a position for the Sep 15 hearing with respect to Westridge 3B and there is a need to do so. Responding to a further query, Mr. Marc explained the City was at the OMB under the 90 day rule since the developer appealed the refusal of Council to approve their plan of subdivision zoning by-law. Councillor Hume questioned whether the design before Committee respects the MNR advice in light of OP policy. Mr. Lindsay explained that the City must balance the MNR recommendation against other objectives, which is the ability to have Westridge Drive cross the wetland south of Pool Creek. He reiterated it is all part of the subdivision, and that is the wetland area the MNR is disputing as part of the wetland. In essence, staff tried to balance the concerns and position of the MNR versus the need of the overall community to have that road extended and the developer’s desire to have the land developed on the west, which are not affected by the wetland. Hence, the staff recommendation before Committee.

Councillor Eastman noted the current wetland designation by MNR is the third designation. Initially they had one small corner and came back with the bulb followed by the current designation. Ms. Switzer acknowledged that was correct. In fact, a small area has been dedicated to the City since it was anticipated it would encompass the wetland at the time. Responding to a further question, Mr. Lindsay was unclear whether the OMB hearing would conclude if the City and developer agreed on the new design.

Following on Councillor Eastman’s question, Councillor Stavinga questioned whether there was consensus between staff and the developer on the subdivision proposed in July 2002. Mr. Lindsay confirmed that was staff’s understanding, although he was not sure if Mr. Kelly addressed it at Committee in 2002. Councillor Stavinga added that between July 2002 and early this year, there were efforts underway between staff and the developer to define draft conditions associated with approval for the most easterly portion and that was going to be finalized. The pending consideration of the west was dependant upon Westwood.
Mr. Lindsay confirmed that, as well as the fact that those draft conditions were not finalized. The reason this is revisited and there is no consensus is because the Westwood decision came out in favour of the developer in contravention of MNR policies with Provincially Significant Wetland. Therefore the developer in Westridge believes they can push the envelope on what is acceptable and go beyond the compromise between staff and the developer of July 2002. It has taken another year to reach this point due to the resolution passed by Planning Committee and Council a year ago “that decision is rendered by the OMB for the Westwood subdivision to the south of Abbott Street resolving the matter of the number of residential units that will be permissible given the existence of the Provincially significant wetlands”. That had to be determined and was determined in the Westwood decision. The developer now feels that, given the outcome of the Westwood decision, they have a greater latitude to ask for additional development in this application.

Keith Forgues provided a detailed written presentation, in opposition, that is held on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Stavinga received clarification from Mr. Forbes that when he spoke of rejecting the construction, he was speaking to the bridging road to the disconnected piece of land on the western side.

Selena Walker, spoke on behalf of the Goulbourn Wetland’s Group (GWG). Ms. Walker provided a comprehensive written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk. In conclusion, GWG requested the Committee to reject the staff recommendation and any other proposal for development on the Upper Pool Creek Wetland and requested the City to uphold this position at the OMB hearing.

Councillor Stavinga clarified that the Westridge Drive extension was not an issue for the GWG, since they conceded it is required as a result of the Westwood hearing.

Barbara Barr, on behalf of the Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital. Ms. Barr provided a detailed written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk. The Greenspace Alliance urged that the staff recommendation be rejected and that another way be found to put this subdivision on the map.

Kevin Patrick, pointed out his house is adjacent to where that road comes in. His key point is that it was no less than four years ago they called in MNR officials who immediately halted construction when they created the Westwood connection and Abbott street was a dead end. They buried Pool Creek with bulldozers and drove over it. A number of court actions and other actions ensured with this study a part of that outcome. He is a little early in the process because it failed last time. Planning will advise that his concerns would be dealt with. He was asking for design consideration. He is not against the Westridge Road and believes it is the right thing to do for Stittsville. He demonstrated where Pool Creek runs on the diagram. There is a 7 ft wide crossing area that had to be reconstructed when bulldozed over, parallel to Abbott St. in the vicinity of the fish habitat. His next point is to preserve the existing path, slope and flow of Pool Creek from the T-culvert and parallel right back to Pool Creek. Next, is to preserve the existing Pool Creek West-East direction at the old culvert. This road will cross Pool Creek twice. The proposed road is considerably higher than the current land. That road will be at least 6-8 feet higher than the creek to protect the creek and creek buffer barrier to block the winter snow plough salt and other surface debris. Lastly, he pointed out a traffic calming that he did not want removed. He has young children and it has been a great success, slowing down traffic.

Councillor Stavinga had earlier asked Mr. Patrick to meet with staff to prepare appropriate wording for a Motion to address his concerns. Responding to a query in that regard,
Ms. Switzer assisted in putting together the correct wording, but opined it was not necessary since a number of conditions are already included in the list of draft plan conditions, which will safeguard his concerns with respect to the crossing of Pool Creek. Councillor Stavinga posited there would then be no harm in their inclusion. Ms. Switzer suggested it is difficult to endorse them without consultation with engineering staff. She did not anticipate they would present a problem since they reflect what is intended. Councillor Stavinga suggested a minor amendment to the Motion since Mr. Patrick sought safeguards due to the history of problems, to read “shall consider design of Westridge ...”. This allows for flexibility and Mr. Patrick should be kept in the “loop”. Ms. Switzer confirmed the wording and agreed to involve Mr. Patrick. Councillor Stavinga noted the consent of Mr. Patrick and staff.

Ken McRae has been involved with this matter for many years. He asked the Committee to reject the recommendation. He found it rather ironic that in the staff recommendation, Condition #2 in part states “that the owner shall provide appropriate signage to inform residents of the sensitive nature of the wetland and indicate that no intrusion is permitted.” Yet, it is recommending houses be developed in the northern portion. A number of residents seem to think the OMB decision on Westwood has a strong bearing upon the Westridge 3B case. There are differences between the two. In the Westwood decision there was reference to an agreement between the land owners and the former Township of Goulbourn regarding the build out of Abbott St. connected with the housing development and the sanctity of contracts. That had an influence upon the decision. It is his understanding there is no such agreement in the Westridge 3B case. Also, it criticized the MNR for not making a critical analysis of the GWG”s evidence and not undertaking systematic professional evaluation of the wetland themselves. In the Westridge 2B case, after receiving the data from GWG, two MNR staff members made several crossings of the wetland to check the boundary and the location of a colony of provincially significant Ramshead Lady Slipper Orchids.

Regarding Councillor Hume”s earlier question if MNR had indicated it was acceptable to develop on the west side of the wetland, the answer is no. MNR only indicated where the wetland boundary is and the location of the provincially significant orchids. He pointed out that besides the wetland itself there is the question of the required buffer adjacent to the wetland, which has not yet been determined. The buffer size could be large enough on the west so as to make the remaining portion of the landowner’s land undevelopable. Also, regarding Chair Hunter’s question related to whether or the City and the OMB had the authority to ignore MNR’s wetland boundaries, Mr. Linday had indicated that the OMB does, but that the City does not. Why then is the staff recommendation ignoring MNR’s wetland boundary? In conclusion, he did not support the staff recommendation and asked the Committee to consider rejecting it and continuing with the fight to protect this provincially significant wetland at the OMB.

Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering, and Doug Kelly, Soloway, Wright. Mr. Chown spoke directly to the Motions tabled by Councillor Stavinga. First and foremost he wanted to confirm on behalf of his client that they discussed with Councillor Stavinga the possibility of negotiating an exchange of land with the City of Ottawa. He confirmed that they fully support the second Motion Councillor Stavinga put forward. They do not support the first motion which replaces the staff recommendation. They do support the staff recommendation with one minor change and that is to replace Document 2 in the staff report with a plan he circulated to the Committee identified as the proposed compromise. He brought the Committee back to 1999/2000 when a plan of subdivision was filed with the former Region based on a wetland boundary determined by the firm of Ecologistics. That boundary was endorsed by the MNR following a field visit in 1999 and confirmed in written correspondence in December 1999. Early 2000, the MNR confirmed in correspondence with the municipality that they were standing by their decision with respect to that boundary, and as shown on both plans. The first speaker indicated the consultant hired by their consultant made a mistake and did not identify a wetland area where it extends to the North. Rob Snetsinger is not present to defend himself, but that is wrong. Mr. Snetsinger acknowledged in numerous public meetings in the Township of Goulbourn that there was an area of wetland that extended to the North. It was his opinion that that land should not be included within the boundary of the wetland and that is why there is a “truncation” on this plan and that was the basis upon which they prepared their plan of subdivision. Mr. Kelly may go into this in greater depth in his presentation, but it was recently determined that the MNR staff did the exact same thing. They went into the field and identified there were areas of wetland extending to the North of this boundary and chose not to include it in the provincially significant wetland boundary. Numerous submissions and commitments were made based on this wetland boundary. It is still a valid boundary based on what was learned over the last year.

What has changed between July 2002 and July 2003? In July 2002 there were two factors at play as far as their client was concerned. One was the pending decision with respect to the Westwood hearing. Secondly, since then they discovered MNR had already been in the field and determined that in their opinion, they should not include these lands in the wetland boundary. The difference between the plan negotiated with staff in 2001 and the plan he presented this evening is marginal at best. The difference is the cul-the-sac down the west side of the “wet area” is a double loaded cul de sac instead of a single loaded cul de sac. Otherwise, the plan is the same as that agreed to last year. The difference is that they believe that if the matter proceeds to the OMB, they will be successful in defending the plan initially approved by Goulbourn Council in 2000.

Mr. Kelly submitted it is not correct to say that the Westwood decision caused a rethinking by his client. First, the Board decides, based upon the OP at the time of application, and what is in that plan. He cited a former case related to 4160 Riverside Drive that dealt with airport noise and was upheld. The Airport Authority bought the land from his client because it was designated residential development. That is in keeping with Councillor Stavinga’s Motion for a land exchange, which is the proper course of action. The City wants to preserve the wetland. The second principal is - does that case apply to wetlands? He submitted the Board is very protective of wetlands unless there is information that changes their position. The board can make a decision without blindly following the MNR as does this Council to make a decision in dealing with wetlands or any matters that come before it because it only had to have regard to the Provincial Policy Statement. Having said that, what reflected on the Board greatly in Westwood is the history, which is outlined in a letter dated 16 July 2003 that he previously circulated to Committee. The agreement referred to in the OMB decision exists in Westridge. Once that road goes into Abbott St. it triggers a requirement that they pay approximately one-third the cost of Abbott St., which was originally thought to be $600,000, but is now over $1.3 million. There are major cost considerations to connecting into Abbott St. and not having enough lots to pay those costs that would be immediately triggered, including building Westridge Dr. with no lots on either side to Abbott St. The facts in this case are the same as Westwood or in his opinion stronger. On that basis, if the City does not want to go to the west, which Councillor Stavinga said in her motion, the City should either pay for it or execute a land exchange, which Councillor Stavinga has properly put before Committee.

Councillor Eastman raised concerns in the event the land exchange is not successful. He addressed staff’s clear attempt to lessen the potential risks and alluded to the very real possibility as related by the precedents presented by Mr. Kelly should the matter proceed to the OMB. That should seriously be weighed before rejecting the staff recommendation. Staff is doing the best it can under difficult circumstances.

Councillor Hume found Mr. Kelly’s rendition of the facts disheartening Based on Mr. Kelly’s submission, which may form part of his case before the OMB, he asked if adopting Councillor Stavinga’s Motion presented a greater risk to the City in losing before the Board than the staff position. Mr. Marc advised that he could answer that question in closed session.

Councillor Stavinga reiterated the developer does not support the staff recommendation and was not prepared to support her Motion. Mr. Kelly explained that there have been additional costs on Abbott Street they were not aware of in 2002. The developer was prepared to look at a land exchange. Secondly, the developer brought forward the compromise position, which differs from the staff recommendation and that does not illustrate the wetland boundary as depicted in the staff recommendations as a modified version. However, she did hear from the delegations today, which were consistent throughout the discussions, that if the Committee chooses not to support the compromise position put forward by the land developer today, the land developer will be going to the OMB, not for 115 lots, but 133. Although the developer is prepared to concede the double loaded in terms of costs and return on investment, when it comes down to the OMB, the developer will push the envelope based upon principles Mr. Kardish values. Mr. Kelly clarified that is the application filed and if it is changed, the developer may be at risk.

Mr. Chown added that he could confirm the discussion held with the Councillor that the compromise plan is on the table to avoid going to the OMB at odds with the municipality. If not approved, then that is not the plan going forward.

The Committee received the following correspondence, which was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk:

· E-mail from Lorne Peterson dated 23 July 2003 in opposition

· E-Mail from Marcos Alvarez/Susan Walters dated 23 July 2003 in opposiont

· Confidential Memorandum dated 16 July 200 from the City Solicitor

Councillor Stavinga highlighted the rationale for her Motions and reiterated the history that led to the staff recommendation. She pointed out that Westridge Drive is an important infrastructure link to the transportation network for the Village of Stittsville, identified in the Goulbourn OP, as well as the new Ottawa OP. It is an important north/south collector road for the west part of the village. The same cannot be said for a local road that crosses the Provincially significant wetland for the construction of houses. The City needs to uphold the advice given by the MNR for the matters pertaining to Provincially Significant Wetlands. As mentioned by Ms. Barr, it is not a matter of the wetland’s increase and therefore it became Provincially significant. This is an issue as it relates to Policy 5.5, 1.3, dealing with the fact that the City has the ability when an application is made to make boundary adjustments, which can be made without an OP. It was at the point of public circulation where it was realized there was another omission with respect to the extent of the wetland. That is the rationale for asking the Committee to reject the staff recommendation and the compromise position the developer put forward; and, to only approve that development in the easterly portion, to approve the extension of Westridge Drive to Abbott Street because it is an important link. But, most importantly, it is to formally begin a process of looking at a land exchange. RPAM has indicated it can meet the time lines and a meeting has been scheduled with Mr. Kardish for next week.

Councillor Hume agreed to support Councillor Stavinga’s Motion, with some reluctance since adopting that position before the OMB presents a larger risk than the staff position. In that regard, Councillor Eastman was right in adopting the aggressive position before the board raises the risk to such an extent that the City will see not the proposed compromise but the Goulburn Council approved development proposal being approved and costs awarded against the municipality. It was important to understand that extreme risk going forward. Having said that, it would be inappropriate to leave the delegations with any other impression. This is a fight on a matter of principal. Mr. Kelly laid it out clearly that this is a risky proposal and he encouraged delegations to work hard on Councillor Stavinga’s land exchange since that represents the best opportunity to achieve what it wants.

Chair Hunter commented that he liked the land exchange part least since land is money. To exchange land that might not be of any use to the municipality does no service to Ottawa taxpayers. Having said that, he agreed with Councillor Hume’s position going before the OMB on matters such as this when the planning and expert evidence has been contradictory over the years is risky.

On Councillor Stavinga’s Motion, Mr. Lindsay requested that Clause C be amended to remove “Development Services Department” because the staff recommendation is not consistent with A above, staff could not support this motion at the OMB.

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:

1. Whereas, the relevant Official Plan policies indicate that Council should seek the advice of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) for matters pertaining to Provincially Significant Wetlands;

And Whereas, MNR has reiterated that the most recent wetland boundary interpretation, which shows the wetland extending to the northerly most limit of the subject land, remains the information upon which the City should base subdivision design decisions;

And Whereas, City Council in August 2002 approved a proposal to relieve development pressures on the provincially significant wetland known as the Upper Poole Creek Wetland by approving residential development in the easterly portion of Westridge IIIB, and made any further impact on the nearby Upper Poole Creek Wetland contingent upon a study of the community’s future transportation needs;

And Whereas, consideration of the extension of West Ridge Drive was not to be entertained until such time as the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision had been rendered for the subdivision adjacent to the south, known as the Westwood Subdivision Phase II;

And Whereas, once the decision on the Westwood subdivision was known, the number of units to be developed in that subdivision could be calculated and then the need for the extension of West Ridge Drive could be verified;

And Whereas, in April 2003, the Ontario Municipal Board decision on the Westwood subdivision was issued, concluding that in excess of 500 units are to be developed in this subdivision and, City staff has since verified that the traffic generated from a development of this size necessitates the southerly extension of West Ridge Drive through to Abbott Street to provide an additional north/south collector road through the Stittsville community;

And Whereas, this recent review underscores the continuing relevancy of policies in the former Goulbourn Official Plan and reiterated in the new Official Plan of the City for the provision of an additional north/south collector road through the Stittsville community known as Westridge Drive;

And Whereas, the southerly most extension of West Ridge Drive is proposed along the east boundary of the Upper Poole Creek Wetland and in order to achieve extension of the existing minor collector, it is necessary to encroach on the wetland;

And Whereas, there is no alignment that can avoid this encroachment and the proposed alignment has been recommended by staff and endorsed by the former Township of Goulbourn Council as it provided the least impact possible and crosses at the narrowest point of the wetland within the subject property and most downstream part of the wetland;

And Whereas, the staff recommendation to permit the construction of a local road serving only the internal workings of the subdivision and the building of homes across the northern extension of the provincially significant Upper Poole Creek Wetland cannot be viewed in the same policy context or degree of importance to the transportation infrastructure network for the village of Stittsville as the southerly extension of West Ridge Drive;

And Whereas, the staff recommendation of the proposed subdivision layout does not conform to applicable Provincial Policies and Regional Official Plan policies for the protection of wetlands;

And Whereas, approval of the staff recommendation will contribute to further degradation of the biological integrity of a provincially significant wetland and can be expected to set a precedent as to how the City will deal with provincially significant wetlands within urban boundaries in future applications;

Therefore be it resolved that Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council reject the staff recommendation and endorse the following position at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB):

A. That the Subdivision Layout as shown in Document 2 be revised to reflect:

a) approval of residential development in the easterly portion of the subdivision east of the provincially significant Upper Poole Creek Wetland;

b) establishment of a cul de sac in the western portion of the easterly section of approved residential development; and,

c) that the approval be subject to the following special conditions:

i. That the Owner shall include in the Detailed Conservation and Tree Planting Plan the provision of a buffer area adjacent to the wetland and the provision of additional plantings in areas of the buffer required by the City.

ii. That the Owner shall provide appropriate signage to inform residents of the sensitive nature of the wetland and indicate that no intrusion is permitted. Signs shall be designed and posted to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals.

B. That the implementing zoning by-law to rezone the lands be in keeping with the intent outlined in Recommendation A as stated above;

C. That the appropriate staff resources from the Corporate Services Department be committed for participation in the OMB hearing.

CARRIED

Councillors Hunter and Eastman dissented

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:

2. That the Owner shall consider design of Westridge Dr., as it crosses the wetland (linking to Abbott St.) in such a manner as to:

a) Preserve the existing crossing of Poole Creek in the West-East direction parallel to the adjacent to Abbott Street, from the fish habitat connecting into the T-culvert;

b) Preserve the existing path and slope and flow of Poole Creek from the T-culvert (at Abbott Street) approximately 400 feet north into the creek at the old culvert;

c) preserve the existing Poole Creek, West-East direction, at the old culvert, located approximately 400 feet north of Abbott Street;

d) The proposed road is many feet higher than the current land. Protect the creek and create a buffer/barrier to block winter snowplow salt and other surface debris.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:

3. Whereas, the relevant Official Plan policies indicate that Council should seek the advice of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) for matters pertaining to Provincially Significant Wetlands;

And Whereas, Council has established policies for the protection of environmental lands that are of provincial and regional significance including avenues of acquisition;

Therefore be it resolved that staff be directed to explore avenues for the exchange of lands owned by the City with the lands in the westerly portion of Westridge IIIB and this matter be undertaken expeditiously with a progress report to Council by 27 August 2003

CARRIED

Councillors Hunter and Eastman dissented

The report was carried as amended above.

25. ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD APPEAL - ZONING - 7640 HWY #7 - HENDERSON QUARRY

APPEL DEVANT LA COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES MUNICIPALES DE L’ONTARIO - ZONAGE - 7640, ROUTE 7 - CARRIÈRE HENDERSON

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0175 GOULBOURN (6)

Councillor Stavinga advised she had a technical amendment for this item, which staff and the applicant were in agreement with. Peter Vice, Vice & Hunter, was present and in support of the item, as amended.

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:

That the following technical amendment be approved for inclusion as site plan conditions:

1. That the company shall construct (3) multi-level water monitoring wells to be generally located on the North, West, and South side of the designated Henderson Quarry property;

2. That the company will make, at minimum, monthly measurements for the three multi-level monitoring wells. Records shall be provided to the North West Goulbourn Community Association monthly from the first reading after constructionn and continuing for the life of the permit to take water (PTTW).

CARRIED

The report was approved as amended.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council endorse the following position at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) that the Zoning By-law Amendment to Extractive Mineral Quarry (MXQ) for 7640 Highway #7 be approved subject to the approval of the license application under the Aggregate Resources Act by the OMB, subject to the following amendment:

That the following technical amendment be approved for inclusion as site plan conditions:

1. That the company shall construct (3) multi-level water monitoring wells to be generally located on the North, West, and South side of the designated Henderson Quarry property;

2. That the company will make at minimum monthly measurements for the three multi-level monitoring wells. Records shall be provided to the North West Goulbourn Community Association monthly from first reading after constructionn and continuing for the life of the permit to take water (PTTW).

CARRIED as amended

26. APPEAL - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION - 1240 OLD PRESCOTT ROAD

APPEL DE DEMANDE DE LOTISSEMENT - 1240, CHEMIN OLD PRESCOTT

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0162 OSGOODE (20)

Correspondence dated 16 July 2003, from Daniel J. Anderson, President, Sunset Lakes Development Corporation, in support of the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 2 July 2003 was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk. The Committee approved the recommendations.

That the Planning and Development Committee:

1. Confirm the approval of the Draft Plan of Subdivision for 1240 Old Prescott Road.

2. Approve the presence of staff from the Corporate Services and Development Services Departments, at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.

CARRIED

BUILDING SERVICES

DIRECTION DES SERVICES DU BÂTIMENT

27. HARMONIZATION OF FENCE BY-LAWS

HARMONISATION DES RÈGLEMENTS MUNICIPAUX SUR LES CLÔTURES

ACS2003-DEV-BLD-0030 city wide

Ms Gregoire provided the Committee with a hard copy of a detailed PowerPoint presentation on the recommendations contained in report dated 9 July 2003.

Chair Hunter noted that Councillor Cullen indicated he would be moving that Section 16 read presentation of the finished side of a fence be deleted from the proposed Fence By-Law.

Councillor Eastman referred to p. 252, Section 10 of the By-Law, “a fence of solid materials and uniform construction shall be installed around all outdoor salvage yards, and outdoor storage yards”. He questioned the definition of “outdoor storage yards”. He asked if a machinery dealership or car lot would be considered outdoor storage. Ms. Gregoire responded that outdoor storage yards would be similar to salvage yards, to contain any flying garbage, a large garbage container. Councillor Eastman asked that it be clarified before the matter rises to Council. On the matter of the chain link fence, Councillor Eastman asked if it could be the galvanized variety or if it had to be painted or powdered. Ms. Gregoire responded that in residential zones the City is restricting chain link fences to those powder coated or vinyl coated, since they don’t rust and are less expensive than galvanized fences. Galvanized fences are permitted in industrial zones and non-residential zones as long as it does not abut a residential property. Councillor Eastman advised that a vinyl fence is not as strong as straight galvanized.

On the matter of the finished side of the fence, Ms. Gregoire indicated that 3 out of 11 municipalities had the same wording. Two had similar wording in that they identified that there shall be no defects facing out. That section was imported into the new by-law primarily to avert disputes that arise between neighbours when one decides to put up a fence. It becomes an incentive to choose a design that happens to be finished on both sides and most new fences are designed that way because panels between the posts come in prefab. Staff opined it goes towards aesthetics, which this By-Law has avoided at all costs, but it was one that would reduce the number of phone calls. The Line Fences Viewers Act is very complex, expensive and primarily used for rural areas where a boundary is in dispute and the cost of a fence is key to financial viability.

Councillor Cullen received emails from his constituents. The section referred to is 16, p. 253, the good neighbour policy. He understands why staff is recommending it. Constituents advised they had difficulty installing the “good” fence facing their neighbour, especially when paying the full cost of the fence and in instances of “poor” neighbour relations. Property owners who pay for fences want to see the best part facing their yard. He proposed moving a Motion that used the Goulbourn and Nepean language, p. 265.

Moved by Councillor Cullen

Replace Section 16 in Document 1 with:

“Workmanship and maintenance shall be such that no defects are visible from any street or property adjoining the property of which the fence is located”.

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors Stavinga, Cullen

NAYS (5): Councillors Munter, Eastman, Arnold, Hume, Huner

On Section 16, as recommended by staff.

CARRIED

Councillor Cullen dissented.

Councillor Stavinga commented on the whole process of harmonization of by-laws and the Zoning By-Law and asked that Ms. Gregoire communicate to staff that the comparative was helpful in the process.

The departmental report dated 9 July 2003 was approved.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve:

1. the enactment of a new harmonized Fence By-law similar to the draft by-law outlined in Document 1,

2. the Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch of the Department of Development Services take appropriate steps to repeal provisions, which established fence standards in various zoning by-laws of former municipalities,

3. the effective date for the new Fence By-law of October 1, 2003,

4. the new Fence By-law be administered and enforced by the By-law Services Branch of Emergency and Protective Services Department.

CARRIED

28. SIGNS BY-LAW AMENDMENT - 301 LAURIER AVENUE E.

MODIFICATION DU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL SUR LES ENSEIGNES - 301, AVENUE LAURIER EST

ACS2003-DEV-BLD-0035 city wide

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated
3 July 2003.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve the application to amend Signs By-law 36-2000, of the former City of Ottawa, to permit an illuminated identification ground sign in a District 2 Use zone, subject to the sign being externally illuminated only, as specified under Details of Recommended Amendment.

CARRIED

ADDITIONAL ITEMS

POINTs SUPPLÉMENTAIRE

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

That the Planning and Development Committee approve the suspension of the rules of procedure (Section 82 (3)) to consider the addition of the Item 29, Moffatt Farm Secondary Planning Study.

CARRIED

CORPORATE SERVICES

SERVICES GÉNÉRAUX

LEGAL SERVICES

SERVICES JURIDIQUES

29. MOFFATT FARM SECONDARY PLANNING STUDY

ETUDE DU PLAN SECONDAIRE DE LA FERME MOFFATT

ACS2003-CRS-LEG-0007

Chair Hunter noted Councillor Stavinga was prepared to move a Motion on behalf of Councillor Wendy Stewart. The Chair received confirmation by all parties in attendance, as listed below, that if the Committee approved the Motion by consent they were satisfied:

· John Batson, Moffatt Farm Citizens Coalition

· Doug Kelly, Soloway, Wright

· Peter Vice, Vice and Hunter, for the NCC

Mr. Marc concurred on behalf of Legal Services.

Moved by Councillor Stavinga:

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council:

1. Receive the Moffatt Farm Secondary Study Reports, Phase 1 and 2, prepared by J. L. Richards and Associates;

2. Endorse:

a. The concept plan attached as Schedule “A”;

b. The preparation and submission to the Ontario Municipal Board of a draft subdivision plan reflecting the concept plan;

c. The preparation and subdivision to the Ontario Municipal Board of draft conditions implementing the draft subdivision plan;

d. The full integration of the 9 acre Melfa Crescent parcel (the “9 acre parcel”) with the draft subdivision plan for both its open space and development potential; and,

e. The preparation and submission to the Ontario Municipal Board of draft official plan and zoning amendments to implement the concept plan for the Moffatt Farm and the 9 acre parcel.

3. Consider a financial contribution to the procurement of the additional open space of approximately 1.57 hectares, with the National Capital Commission and DCR Phoenix, each to contribute equally one-third; and,

4. Direct staff to ensure that the Moffatt Farm Citizens Coalition is to be informed about and involved in the subdivision design, particularly related to the development of the open space areas and parkland, on both the Moffatt Farm site and the 9 acre parcel.

CARRIED as amended

Councillor Cullen dissented.

Inquiries

DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS

Councillor / Conseiller A. Cullen

Councillor Cullen raised the following inquiry:

Could staff provide on a regular timely basis updates to Members of Council on the development of the NCC’s Urban Lands Master Plan.

OTHER BUSINESS

DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS

Responding to a query by Councillor Hume, Chair Hunter advised that Councillor Little had dispatched a note as follows:

Dear Gord:

Just a short note to let you know that I had to leave early as I’m not feeling well – think I have a touch of flu. Running a fever with the cold sweats. Please express my apologies to the members of the Committee, Thanks, Shawn.

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

That Councillor Little’s comments be read into the Minutes.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor P. Hume:

That the meeting be adjourned.

CARRIED

YEAS (7): Councillors Munter, Eastman, Stavinga, Cullen, Arnold, Hume, Hunter

NAYS (0):

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 11:58 p.m.

Committee Coordinator Chair