Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement

 

Minutes 17/ Procès-verbal 17

 

Tuesday, 14 September 2004 9:30 a.m.

le mardi 14 septembre 2004 9 h 30

 

Andrew S. Haydon Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Andrew S. Haydon, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

 

 

Present / Présent :     Councillor / Conseiller P. Hume (Chair / Président)

Councillor / Conseillère P. Feltmate (Vice-Chair / Vice-présidente)

Councillors / Conseillers M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, G. Bédard, J. Harder, D. Holmes G. Hunter, H. Kreling

 

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT    

 

No declarations of interest were filed.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ratification dES procÈs-verbaUX

 

Minutes 16 of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 24 August 2004 were confirmed.


At the outset of the Meeting Chair Hume 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 31 - 6 and 9 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 or the proposed subdivision is granted draft approval by the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals.  Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.

 

 

Planning and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Services d’urbanisme et d’aménagement

 

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

POLITIQUES D’URBANISME, D’ENVIRONNEMENT ET

D’INFRASTRUCTURE

 

1.         Official Plan Amendment for the Special Study Area - Kanata

MODIFICATION AU PLAN OFFICIEL CONCERNANT L'AIRE D'ÉTUDE SPÉCIALE DE KANATA

ACS2004-DEV-POL-0043                                                                      Kanata (4)

 

Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management, Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy, Larry Morrison, Manager, Infrastructure Approvals, Susan Murphy, Environmental Planner, Jennifer Jackson, Solicitor, Daniel F. Brunton, Brunton Consulting Services, and Bruce Finlay, Planner and Project Coordinator for the Special Study Area (SSA), appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 1 September 2004.  Following a comprehensive presentation by Mr. Finlay, staff responded to questions posed by Committee members, with the main points summarized below.  Mr. Finlay added there was no formal written response from the community associations to staff on the recommendation presented at the public information meeting or in response to the technical circulation, except for a response from the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  The community has come forward with a position, received this morning, which staff was not able to address as yet.

·        The Kanata OP identified the urban boundary as following the hydro cut.  The Terry Fox alignment was identified in the Region OP (ROP) as a conceptual alignment.  The 2000 Environmental Assessment (EA) process did identify the Carp Road (western alignment) as the preferred option.  The Terry Fox EA Addendum is a concurrent study with the SSA and this topic arose during the community consultation.  The community asked the Terry Fox EA Addendum consultants to revisit the hydro cut alignment and the conclusion reached is that the new road alignment to the west along the Carp River is more environmentally friendly.

·        On the Richardson forest – NEA criteria established through the former ROP was applied and the first exercise entailed a review of all existing reports to determine the NEA boundary.  There were a number of site alterations and planning decisions; therefore, staff wanted the boundary to reflect those changes and provide an NEA boundary that would be sustainable over time.  The Terry Fox Road alignment was taken into context and Mr. Brunton also worked on that EA Addendum and came up with mitigation measures to offset most of the ecological linkage requirements with the passageway proposal.  The area is a massive landscape complex.  This area is provincially significant.  In light of the changes surrounding it, the Richardson Forest, effectively would be functionally separated from the other larger portions.  It would not have any features that were not represented in other areas within the retained area.  The end result is the modified line.  That does not mean that area does not have significant value, but, in the long term it cannot compete in comparison with other areas.  As a stand alone it would be in big trouble.  The Terry Fox Road is a major challenge, wherever it might be, crossing that is a major challenge.

·        The Terry Fox Drive – Richardson Side Road to Goulbourn Forced Road (Environmental Assessment Addendum) report was deferred by the Transportation Committee (TRC) due to procedural issues with public consultation, and the two reports are to rise to Council simultaneously.

·        All NEA land within the extended study area identified by Brunton is designated NE at the current time; that includes all the land to Huntmar proceeding north to the railroad to the Old Carp Road and beyond.  In fact, the amendment does not change the designation, it adjusts the boundary.  It is a northward movement of the boundary line to reflect the Hazeldean Ridge, which was identified by Mr. Brunton.  Everything south would be recommended as General Rural.

·        The land proposed by the landholders to gift to the City is part of the NEA north of that General Rural designation shown on the map.

·        The only technical response of any length came from the Conservation Authority (CA), which is supportive.  The CA is also supportive of the trigger mechanism to ensure it is protected and encouraged the City to protect fish habitat and the like.  All those policies and requirements are included in the OP and therefore do not need to be added through the Amendment.

·        When the Terry Fox alignment was being considered, 3 options were discussed with Regional Council; one was that Terry Fox would follow Goulbourn Forced Road; one was that it continued to follow the hydro cut; and, the third option was another alignment.  In the 1997 ROP, this alignment was conceptual.  Section 3.11 directed staff to do a number of things, one of which was to determine the urban boundary.  There is no comparable statement in the former ROP that says Terry Fox is the alignment of the urban boundary and nothing to say it is not.  This process was designed to arrive at a resolution.

·        The current Capital Budget for the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands is in the range of $2.3 Million.  In recent years the amount placed into the fund has been reduced substantially year over year as a result of existing unspent authority.  There has been ongoing negotiation across the City on a variety of parcels, one being the Constance Bay expenditure.  Staff will certainly examine the funds to be put in place for 2005 to fund additional acquisitions, but cautioned whether it would necessarily be in this area.  Staff would need to prioritize those demands and provide a list to Committee.  Part of this is a policy discussion, which staff is working through on the Greenspace Master Plan (GMP) as well as the Urban Natural Features (UNF) with the intent of concluding that work later this year.

·        The Greenspace Master Plan Policy was initially created to establish the boundaries the City needs to deal with, how much land is being looked at and the priority for purchasing that land.  It has been approached in a comprehensive basis and the report is anticipated in 3-4 months.

 

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

 

Mik Svilans addressed the Committee as a resident of Kanata Lakes and provided a detailed written presentation, in opposition, both on substance and planning process.  The submission was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  His representation encompassed the following topics:  Consensus on the ecological significance of the SSA; Conflict with existing urban sprawl and Urban Boundary policies; Impact of change not minor; Unresolved adjacent development Issues, Immediate versus long term; Erosion of City’s negotiation position; Securing the NEA land into public ownership; Community input; Selective approach to the new OP; Equitable treatment of landowners; Circular augmentation.  In conclusion, Mr. Svilans stated there is no clear case for proceeding with extending the Urban Boundary and consequently redesignating lands within the SSA to General Urban.  Quite to the contrary, there are several compelling reasons for maintaining the present Urban Boundary until City expansion has reached a stage where this could be warranted.  He urged the Committee to adjust the amendment accordingly.

 

Ron Tolmie, Kanata Forum, provided a detailed written presentation, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  Mr. Tolmie’s representation included overhead maps.  The recommendations contained in his submission are noted below:

·        The Committee should direct staff to enter into negotiations with Kanata Highlands Properties (KHP) on the basis of their proposal, but also considering the potential for improving the route for Terry Fox Drive (in association with the TRC).

·        Since the City would, as a consequence, own the high land through which Terry Fox Drive will run, it will be more economical to plan and build that road.

·        The City should extend the urban boundary to encompass the SSA within the Kanata Highlands land since that can be achieved in a way consistent with the objective of preserving NEA land.

·        The City should retain the existing NEA designation for the Richardson forest since that land still qualifies for such designation and will continue to do so for many years.

·        The City should NOT extend the Urban Boundary to encompass the “compensation land” or to encompass the NEA land of the Richardson forest since that would neither be necessary nor desirable.

Mr. Tolmie also provided a comparison between the staff report and the KHP.

 

As a result of the Mr. Tolmie’s presentation, staff responded to questions posited by the members of the Committee and the main points are summarized below:

·        The values contained within the Richardson forest are represented at least comparably, if not better, in the areas to the north.  So, the lack of connectivity to the area, the long term ability of that area to sustain itself as not only a collection of trees and squirrels, but a real living landscape that contributes provincial values, etc. is compromised by the fact it is completely surrounded, regardless of what Terry Fox Road might do.  It is a detriment to those woods.  As part of a larger unit, it works fine.  You take it away, it loses ecological function values; those are important criteria used to satisfy requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and in terms of the OP criteria for identifying what an NEA zone has to satisfy.  Some of the more significant values in the context of the Richardson forest can be dealt with at the development level as a UNF.  There can still be natural values protected within the area, just not all of it.  The protection is through the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

·        There are opportunities through the Draft Plans of Subdivision to ensure forested areas are protected as part of any development proposal.  The Committee will also see a Forestry By-Law that will ensure the ability of developers to pre-clear land to make it suitable for development does not occur.  If the City is going forward in good faith then the City must ensure those regulatory tools are in place to retain any integrity in the process.

 

Iola Price, Chair, Ottawa Forest and Greenspace Advisory Committee (OFGAC), provided a written presentation that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  OFGAC submitted the following recommendations:

·        That NEAs boundaries be designed to reduce the amount of ‘edge’ and to increase the amount of interior forest in an attempt to protect the ecological integrity of the site.

·        That due to the potential for medium to high-density development at the edges of the NEA, the recommended buffer be increased from 50m to 100 m.

·        That, within the recommended buffer zone, only native species of vegetation be used for planting, and as many native trees as possible be retained to reduce the amount of windfall which will occur on newly developed edges of forests within the NEA.

·        That Planning and Environment Committee and Council direct staff to ensure appropriate mitigation measures are put in place to provide safe wildlife crossing areas, which are designed in consideration of all wildlife species found in the area.

 

As a result of Ms. Price’s presentation, staff responded to questions from members of the Committee and the main points are summarized below:

·        Buffer from 50 to 100m – currently there is a 30m adjacent lands provision in the Plan to trigger an EIS for a NEA, but Mr. Brunton recommends a 50m trigger for an EIS.  That is a trigger mechanism and not a buffer.  Through the EIS process the buffer will be prescribed, with a review by appropriate staff.  That would be circulated to the Advisory Committee for comment as part of the process and their comments taken into account when reviewing the EIS.  The EIS would provide a buffer that would ensure no negative impact on the features and functions of the NEA from the adjacent development.

·        There will be significant development to the east of the hydro cut lands.  It seems the most appropriate compatible use, given the lands to the south are urban, also within Terry Fox alignment and the proximity to the Marchwood community to the east.  The staff recommendation at the time of the draft Plan was that that land be urban.  Staff did not extend that General Urban designation as far north as proposed at this time; however, there was intent to designate that urban.  That area is very fragmented from the balance of the farm.  The Richardson property extends across the Carp River at this point.  With the construction of Terry Fox, it does create a boundary to the agricultural activity and it is more appropriate as urban designation.  The land between Terry Fox and the Carp River, looking at Fig. 8 is flood plain to the Carp River.  The Terry Fox alignment skirts the flood plain and there was discussion at TRC in relation to remediation on that flood plain.  The land to the west of the Carp and Huntmar is in an Agricultural Resource designation and the intention is to retain that designation.  Staff is suggesting the land west of Terry Fox Road, between Terry Fox and the Carp return to General Rural.  That does not stand alone as a farm operation, although farming is permitted in the General Rural designation.

 

Jim Malone, President, Kanata Lakes Community Association (KLCA), advised that KLCA supports the KHP’s land exchange proposal, given that KLCA has been involved over the last several months and in fact years on the KNL development north of the Beaver Pond trying to acquire additional NEA lands, etc.  This proposal is a gift to the City, given the urban boundary can be extended to the proposed Terry Fox to include all the SSA.  As Councillor Hunter outlined earlier the urban boundary has been moved several times.  It was given up when the Corel Centre was approved.  Given that the urban boundary will in all likelihood be extended westward in the not to distant future to include development, this is an opportunity for residents of Kanata Lakes, Beaverbrook, Morgan’s Grant and the rest of Kanata to have a natural 700+ acre park and environmental area in what will be the centre of urban development.  KLCA therefore supports the proposal and asks the Committee to recommend to Council the proposal to preserve 10 acres of the 65 acres in the SSA to serve as parklands and donate the 120 acres of NEA type lands.  These will provide linkages to the Compensation Lands and the South March Highlands and provide that very large natural buffer of several acres between the development areas.  KLCA would also like to express their approval of the Regional Development group and their amendment to provide additional lands over and above the 5% that will link the Richardson forest and Compensation Lands and linkages up to South March Highlands.  This makes an exciting park within a major urban development.

 

Amy Kempster, Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital (GACC), provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  A summary of the main points:  The GACC took the stand at the time of the OP that this area should be rural.  The NEA should include the Richardson forest.  The SSA should have been larger.  While GACC does not wish to extend the urban boundary suggested in the staff report, GACC is supportive of land deals, in return for the donation of sustainable and ecological valuable land in the SSA.  (The last statement was not cleared with the Executive since she only learned of the proposal this morning and because possibly there are other beneficial deals that could be negotiated that could be more beneficial.)

 


Nancy Meloshe, Planner, and Ed Balys, Balys & Associates Inc., President, Kanata Highlands Properties (KHP), representing the three families who own KHP, provided a comprehensive written presentation, with maps, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  Jerry Corush, Corush Sunderland Wright, was also present as part of the presentation.  Mr. Corush consulted with KHP with respect to landscape architecture issues and trailway design.  Mr. Meloshe regretfully stated that unfortunately Bernie Muncaster, Muncaster Environmental Planning Inc., the environmental biologist, had to attend an OMB hearing today and was unable to attend.  She would however refer to his letter.  The recommendation contained in that proposal is copied below:

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council adopt the “Alternative KHP Proposal” as presented herein for 26 ha. (55 + 10 acres) of KHP lands in the SSA.  If approved 49 ha.. (120 acres) of ‘Exchange Parklands’ west of the proposed TFD will be gifted to the City and its residents. (ref photo-map ‘Alternative KHP Proposal-#1).

 

Ms. Meloshe provided some history on the KHP lands and submitted on behalf of KHP that the environmental significance of lands east of Terry Fox Drive will be significantly diminished when this four-lane arterial roadway is built, together with the surrounding development.  These lands (65 acres) will be just as isolated as the Richardson forest lands and Mr. Brunton has made his comments with respect to the lands to the south of Richardson forest and the very significant challenges that Terry Fox will present to maintain these lands in a natural environment state.  She was of the opinion there was no difference between these 65 acres to the north.  Through the summer, Mr. Balys on behalf of the other two owners, met with representatives of the Kanata community associations, (Kanata Lakes, Beaverbrook and Morgan’s Grant) to determine if a win-win solution could be found.  Key objectives were to provide an integral, natural and open space corridor through the community to the greater South March Highlands to the north, some 800 acres of environmentally protected land and a second objective was to protect the Hazeldean Escarpment, west of Terry Fox, identified as a high priority area for the City.  Mr. Muncaster determined that land, shown on the map as the parkland dedication lands, has been shown to have significant rock barrens and flora on slopes and the summit and was identified for protection in both the former ROP and Kanata OP.  The community also desired a linkage along the hydro right-of-way running north-south to connect from the urban community of Kanata for an integral linkage/corridor system through these lands up to the South March Highlands.  The plan before Committee illustrates the proposal, crafted to address all of these concerns, which reads as follows:  That approximately 55 acres of land located east of proposed Terry Fox Drive would be designated as General Urban Area and added in with respect to the OPA as General Urban Area.  That approximately 10 acres of land shown in the dark pink, immediately west of the hydro right-of-way and running north-south, would be designated as major open space, to serve as an open space corridor from the NEA lands in urban Kanata to the South March Highlands to the north-west and that the 120 acres of land located west of Terry Fox Drive be gifted in perpetuity to the City of Ottawa to form an integral natural linkage to the South March Highlands to the north and to preserve its significant environmental features, being the Hazeldean Escarpment.


Mr. Corush advised that one of the key aspects reviewed when comparing the departmental report was the sustainability of a NEA when Terry Fox would be built.  It is their opinion, if you take all the various line items in the Brunton report and apply those to the parcel of land being discussed, those lands would not be sustainable due to two issues of urban development and, more importantly, the building of Terry Fox.  An elevated arterial will effectively alter the area immediately to the west of it; e.g. salt spray, noise, etc.  Looking at the entire parcel, the City now owns 600 acres of land.  The parkland donation creates a more integral parcel of land.  The connectivity addressed in the Brunton and City reports continues, but has moved to Shirley’s Brook.  The team working on Terry Fox would need to review it as far as engineering goes, but logically it would seem to work since it is currently a natural passageway underneath Terry Fox, perpendicular to the drive and not at an oblique angle as the passageway is now drawn.  He authored the drawing before Committee and the land shown in pink illustrates a 20m wide buffer zone from the First Line Road right-of-way on the private lands; there is a bit of a knuckle (a rock outcropping) to be retained.  Regardless of whether Terry Fox or First Line is the urban boundary, the essence of the building of Terry Fox will be to turn the areas to the east of it into something less than NEA.

 

Mr. Balys put forward, as the landowners’ representative, that they followed every intent of the OP for new land development.  They participated for the last 16 months in every way to work with City staff, community and environmentalists to arrive at a solution and the solution before Committee, called the 55-10-120 solution was just worked out.  It was proposed by the Kanata communities on September 1st, too late for staff to react and verified by the rest of the community on September 7th, with last minute negotiations in the Ward Councillor’s office last evening at 5 p.m.  He was very pleased the landowners agreed to virtually gift 120 acres of land, now considered NEA B lands, which permit development.  It preserves the most scenic part of their lands, which is the Hazeldean Ridge that affords a view of the Parliament Buildings.  The headwaters of Shirley’s Brook have considerable potential for ponds and natural wildlife.  Mr. Balys provided an example of the developability of the land.  The only way to protect the land and they are delighted to be able to do that is to take the best part of the land and deed it to the City in perpetuity and that is what the residents wanted and they complied with.  Hopefully Council can see that this is a win-win situation for all.

 

Councillor Harder liked the donation of parkland and viewed the proposal in a positive light.  She was interested in presenting a Motion that instead of acquiring 55 acres, the landowners would acquire between 40-45 acres depending upon where the line was drawn, but it would be more contiguous with the NEA land.  Mr. Balys explained that the previous proposal had 43 acres of developable land, but the park donation was at a reduced price of $1.1 Million, preserving more of the purple area, at 20 acres.  It would have included more of the ridge.  They met with the City’s property acquisition staff and it became clear it was virtually impossible the City would pay $1.1 Million.  Councillor Harder emphasized that staff has a strong opinion on the area northwest of the KNL exchange lands as opposed to the area southeast of that and she was trying to find something that was a win for everyone.

 

Following on the presentation, questions were posited by members of the Committee to the delegation and staff and the following summarizes the main points:

·        Copies of the studies were received this morning, although staff did have the August 10th letter that is attached to the staff report.  Ms. Meloshe explained that subsequent to the September 8th letter, Mr. Balys had asked Mr. Muncaster to summarize his key findings on one page.  The Muncaster Study and the Corush Sunderland Wright Study were only received today.  Ms. Murphy acknowledged the May 27th 2004 letter and the September 24th 2003 letter were provided to Mr. Brunton as part of his assignment and he stands behind the boundary presented today.  The parkland donation lands are currently designated NEA, the majority of which is provincially significant wetland and therefore there are provisions under both the PPS and the OP that restrict development.  The land Mr. Balys wants to have the City designate as urban is currently NEA.

·        The City’s proposal is that there would 24 ha. of land in the NEA and approximately 1.4 ha. outside, which would potentially be developable.  The KHP proposal reduces the NEA to 4 ha. within the SSA, which excluded the dedication of 120 acres gifted to the City of Ottawa.  The difference between the 2 proposals – the City would receive 120 acres of land (approximately 65 ha.) plus the 4 ha. inside the SSA – totaling approximately 70 ha. vs. 24 ha. totally inside the SSA.  There would be a loss of 20 ha. of NEA.  In one proposal the City would be given lands and in the other the City would need to acquire lands over time.

·        The parkland donation, if it is not deeded to the City, would remain in private ownership.  The donation enables the community to access 600 acres.  The hydro corridor runs due north and provides access to the Regional conservation lands.  Many residents presently use the KHP lands, without permission.  The term “connectivity” is being used in two contexts.  There is connection for recreational purposes (narrow lines on the map called links), which works for residents on bicycles, but does not work ecologically.  An ecological linkage is a functional natural system that needs to be wider.  Those are not functional ecological linkages.  This is a very complex area with many pressures.  When using the term connectivity one must be certain which type is being addressed, whether for people or for landscape.

·        The focus was to have development land inside the urban boundary and donating land outside that could offset the costs.  Priorities will be set as part of GMP, which will identify what areas will become a priority for purchase and this area would be part of that assessment.

 

Gordon Henderson, Executive Member, Kanata Beaverbrook Community Association (KBCA), indicated that until last night the KBCA position was that the urban boundary should not move whatsoever (held at the hydro cut).  Mr. Balys has been lobbying the community quite effectively in the last few weeks and the position has changed.  KBCA is primarily concerned the staff recommendation does not have an acquisition plan for NEA lands.  The community is aware there is a funding crisis and there was also a precedent by Minto when they took a similar situation to the OMB, which ruled the City did not exercise its right to acquire quickly.  Mr. Balys’ proposal mentions that Terry Fox will cause considerable degradation to the environment and they agree.  There is no reversing this; Terry Fox will be built.  The proposal will allow Mr. Balys to develop 43 acres in what Mr. Brunton has defined as NEA.  The community would prefer this was protected, but reading the political winds, Regional is getting its way with the development of the Richardson forest; Mr. Balys, to some degree, is being discriminated against and prevented from developing his land.  The community will gain recreational use and a pathway for skiiers, hikers, joggers, bikers that would extend from Richardson Side Road along the hydro cut, through the KNL exchange lands on that map to Mr. Balys’ proposal, joining with the parkland donation.  KBCA viewed the parkland donation as a significant benefit.  Regional will be forthcoming with an amendment to offer a parcel of land, the acreage was unspecified and this would run along the hydro cut, so there would be a pathway that extends from Richardson Side Road and hits the exchange lands.  Councillor Harder mentioned that possibly the amount of land being donated by Mr. Balys can be augmented, which would be more than acceptable.  KBCA’s position, similar to Kanata Lakes and Morgan’s Grant (all at the table last night), is to accept Mr. Balys’ proposal and hope that amendments are accepted by Council to conform to the KHP landowners with additional amendment to be made by Regional.

 

Janet Bradley, Gowlings on behalf of Richardson Family and Richardson Road Inc. (Regional), and Steve Cunniliffe, land use planner.  Ms. Bradley referred to p. 5 of the Agenda, Fig. 2.  The Richardson lands are shown as 1, 2 and 4.  Richardson Road Inc. bought part 4 and that land, through agreement, will be conveyed to KNL and they have agreed to convey that to the City.  The original purchase included 1 and 4 and the Richardson family still owns what is shown as 2 and the rest of the farmland over to Huntmar.  She then referred to p. 11, which illustrates how the Richardson lands have been proposed to be designated by staff.  The Richardsons support the staff recommendation.  An extensive study was completed and she urged the Committee to support the recommendations with respect to the Richardson lands.  There were extensive facilitated meetings.  It was well studied and staff did designate the appropriate area for the boundary.  Two major submissions were made to the Committee; the first is that many environmentalists have said that all should be designated NEA, including the Richardson lands.  With respect to that, she submitted first as was heard and as contained in the Brunton report, much of the Richardson lands is, and has been fields, and is currently being grazed.  Secondly, it is simply impractical to designate all the land.  The City must be practical in that there are limited resources and these must be applied to the most valuable of the assets and when land is designated as NEA, the ultimate goal, even in the OP, is to acquire them over time.  The City’s consultants are stating the lands do not include much of what is the Richardson lands.  Some are NEA, but most are not.  As heard from staff, the Richardson lands and their development is a logical extension of March land and can be readily serviced without extending the infrastructure.

 

The second point made today is that if the City is not going to designate all the Richardson lands NEA, at least designate what is referred to as the Richardson forest.  She referred to p. 38, that contains information from Mr. Brunton on the forest and why he, as the City’s ecological consultant, is recommending against it being designated NEA.  Mr. Brunton makes 4 points in his study, which she read out to the Committee, against the NEA designation and stating the land would be better dealt with through the subdivision approval process and an EIS.  Ms. Bradley then referred to p. 14/15 under the heading 2. More land than recommended by the Environmental report should be preserved as NEA, which contains the staff response to that statement and also read out the staff recommendation on that same point – that was in accord with Mr. Brunton.  There has been considerable thought and analysis and the recommendation from the City’s professionals is that this particular area could better be looked at through the subdivision approval process and she urged the Committee to adopt the staff recommendation in that regard.

 

The Richardsons are pleased to support Mr. Balys’ position and were invited to meetings to discuss this and as indicated by the last speaker, through these discussions the Regional Richardson Road Inc. have agreed to provide a natural greenspace corridor all the way to Richardson Side Road, through their lands.  Their understanding is that it would be a commitment through the subdivision approval process to provide for a greenspace corridor.  They are prepared and supportive of providing that corridor through that subdivision approval process.  In conclusion, with respect to the Richardson lands, she urged the Committee to adopt the staff recommendations.

 

Marianne Wilkinson, Kanata Beaverbrook Community Association, addressed the Committee as an individual.  Ms. Wilkinson reminded the Committee that when a Minto parcel was designated NEA for decades, they were granted development rights on that land by the OMB and the only way the City could secure part of Trillium Woods was to give up a major community park.  Morgan’s Grant, as a result, has no major community park.  The OMB has consistently said that if land is designated NEA, the City either gives it some development rights or it purchases the land.  Mr. Balys’ proposal is similar to the 40% Open Space Agreement, which provided more land than would have otherwise been provided through the development process.  She liked the idea of the additional 10 acres suggested by Councillor Harder, but she did not believe more can be acquired.  The land outside Terry Fox (parkland dedication) is an incredibly important part of the ecological system.  This proposal is a good compromise for urban development.  It keeps 20 acres of the most significant lands in public ownership, provides public ownership of the area outside the greenbelt, which is an incredibly important part attached to the lands the City already owns.  City Council should seriously look at it.

 

In the case of the Richardson lands, they should also put in writing what they are prepared to do, similar to Mr. Balys.  That those pine areas in the environmental lands will be preserved as well as others, over and above the 5% lands.  They have said they would provide a buffer strip.  There is already a road allowance of 66 feet, which the City owns.  She understood a 20-30m wide buffer was discussed and that should be put in writing before this is approved.  In closing, she would strongly recommend the KHP proposal be approved; get in writing a commitment from the Regional Group and proceed to have the development take place in such a way that will enhance the open space areas.

 

Peter van Boeschoten, a resident of Beaverbrook, provided a written submission, in opposition (circulated and held on file with the City Clerk).  Mr. van Boeschoten’s comments centred on the following:  Official Plans, Transportation Committee 1 March 2000; Regional Council 10 May 2000; An artificial boundary is not needed; Environmental Studies; The Escarpment; The workshop; From the City of Ottawa OP.  His key points are as follows:

·        The majority of lands in the interstitial area need to be protected

·        The Carp Ridge needs protection in the same sense as the more ecologically sensitive areas to the north

·        Interspersing development with environmental lands will be detrimental to both

·        The property value will be lower in its current status than if the land was designated within the Urban Boundary, thus making it easier to publicly acquire in the future

·        The road was moved west to minimize environmental damage.  Thus, development on these very same lands should not be considered.

·        The development community has yet to make a case why these lands need to be developed

·        Neither the Kanata nor the Regional plan planned or permitted development in what are now interstitial lands

·        The Ottawa OP states there is no need to expand the Urban Boundary.

He urged the Committee to protect the “status quo” by not moving the Urban Boundary and leaving the SSA as Rural with an NEA designation.

 

The Committee also received a written submission from the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  The EAC stressed the following points

·        The City should strongly consider the merits of keeping the SSA entirely rural, as opposed to endorsing a rural/urban split.  There are concerns about the preservation of the Richmond Forest which hosts a variety of small wildlife and is connected to other rural areas further out.  Forests in the Ottawa area are already becoming an “endangered species”.

·        The City should not support any expansion of the urban boundary west of the hydro cut.  There are substantial residential concerns about the impact of blasting rock areas and the impact this could have on surrounding land/homes.

·        The City should ensure that any proposed underground passage beneath Terry Fox Drive is adequately accessible to animals so as to minimize potential wildlife casualties resulting from crossing over.

 

Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter returned to Committee.

 

The Committee adjourned between 12:30 and 1:00 p.m.

 

In response to Councillor Feltmate, staff confirmed the NEA land under discussion was appealed to the OMB.  KHP appealed the NEA designation.

 

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

 

WHEREAS the community desires that the neighborhood design should be based on natural green space corridors adjacent to the unopened First Line Road;


BE IT RESOLVED THAT the design of the neighbourhood for the Regional Lands and that the required EIS ensure that natural greenspace corridors be provided in excess of the required 5% park land dedication which connects to the proposed trails along Kizell Pond and the NEA lands located to the north located on Regional Lands and the proposed connection to the South March Highlands.

 

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

 

WHEREAS the Kanata community desires an integral natural and open space corridor through the community to the South March Highlands;

 

AND WHEREAS the Hazeldean Escarpment has been identified for protection in the former Regional and City of Kanata Official Plans;

 

AND WHEREAS proposed Terry Fox Drive and surrounding residential development will isolate the Kanata Highlands lands within the Special Study Area and eliminate the interior forest habitat of these lands and any Provincially significant NEA features;

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee amend the staff recommendations as they relate to lands known as the Kanata Highland Properties by removing the Special Study Area boundary and note and approve the designation of these lands as follows:

 

1.                  That approximately 45 acres of land located east of proposed Terry Fox Drive and north of the KNL Exchange Lands be designated as General Urban Area.

 

2.                  That approximately 20 acres of land located immediately west of the Hydro right-of-way and running north/south be designated Major Open Space to serve as an open space corridor from the NEA lands in urban Kanata to the South March Highlands to the northwest.

 

3.                  That approximately 120 acres of lands located west of proposed Terry Fox Drive be gifted in perpetuity to the City of Ottawa to form an integral natural linkage to the South March Highlands to the north and preserve its natural environment features

 

4.                  That the City staff work with the landowners and the community associations to determine the boundaries

 

Responding to Councillor Cullen with respect to the 3rd bullet of Councillor Feltmate’s Motion, Ms. Jackson suggested the paragraph be amended to direct staff to undertake the negotiations to accomplish that aim.  Following on that advice, Councillor Cullen indicated he would move a Motion as follows:  Amend the Feltmate Motion to add the following:

That this report be deferred to staff pending the outcome of negotiations based on the following provisions…to be followed by the 5 recommendations in the Motion.”

Councillor Cullen maintained that in terms of process it would make sense to negotiate the deal with respect to paragraph 4 since the exchange being referred to in paragraphs 1 – 3 relate to paragraph 4, therefore the agreement is completed, the boundary is settled and the OPA would reflect that.  Ms. Jackson agreed it would be appropriate that after the negotiations are held staff would bring forward the results to this Committee for further approval and implementation of the Motions.  Councillor Cullen was concerned that if the City were to adopt Councillor Feltmate’s Motion as is, changes would be made to the interstitial lands between Terry Fox and First Line and paragraph 4 would sit there because the City cannot compel or create that exchange.  A process must be engaged and completed.  Mr. Jacobs agreed that if the City wanted to secure the land, that process should take place first and then adopt the amendment.  Chair Hume received confirmation that Councillor Cullen was strictly addressing the KHP lands and not the Richardson lands.

 

Responding to a request for clarification from Councillor Feltmate, Mr. Jacobs argued against deferral of the amendment.  The Balys’ proposal suggests the City is trading to receive something, but the City is giving up something that cannot be replaced within the urban area, which is critical.  The City may attain access to other lands, but within the urban area, where there are the greatest number of complaints about preserving NEA’s, the City would be giving up NE Land.  That is the principle upon which staff has assiduously worked to properly delineate that boundary and ensure it is before Committee.

 

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen

 

That Councillor Feltmate’s Motion be amended to add the following:

 

That this report be deferred to staff pending the outcome of negotiations based on the following provisions…to be followed by the 5 recommendations in the Motion.”

 

Chair Hume requested clarification from Legal Services on the proper process to deal with Councillor Cullen’s Motion.  Ms. Jackson advised the Chair was correct that the Motion was one of deferral of part of the report.  Having received the advice, Chair Hume ruled the Motion was one of deferral.

 

In light of the ruling, Councillor Cullen withdrew his Motion.

 

In speaking to the main Motion, Councillor Cullen noted that the Balys proposal would see NEA lands, which have been so identified through a number of OP’s, being developed despite their designation, and that the City would be getting in exchange lands also designated NEA lands, which area already protected from development.  Councillor Cullen said that the Balys proposal would involve a net loss in NEA lands, and declared that he would support the staff recommendation, as this provided better protection for these lands.

 

Councillor Feltmate posited this was a difficult situation and many Kanata residents would prefer the lands remain NEA.  However, through bitter experience with the KNL lands, residents are doubtful and looking for guarantees.  It was a difficult decision for the community association and certainly a difficult position for her.  The 120 acres offered do create a ring.  She was concerned there was no legal agreement on paper and assumed there can be more assurance prior to the Council meeting.  She supported this based on the representations from the Community.

 

Councillor Hunter suggested an amendment to the fourth bullet to add clarity on the land exchange before this is approved by Council.

 

Moved by Councillor G. Hunter:

 

That before the above amendments are approved by Council an agreement with KHP be in place ….

 

Councillor Hunter did not dispute the word of the individuals involved, but if this Committee is to recommend that position to Council, the Committee wants to ensure it is going to take place and that is due diligence on behalf of residents.  Speaking to motions and amendments as a whole, it is a matter of where one draws the line.  For the Committee, the line was drawn many years ago when it was recognized the western boundary of the urban area of Kanata should be the Terry Fox Drive alignment, which was put in place to contain Kanata’s growth.  That alignment has had many changes, but it was always recognized the road would be the urban boundary.  If Richardson Forest stands alone, it only does so because the lands to the south of it, known as Heritage Hills, were not considered.  These are portrayed as NEA and in one iteration of the ROP, NEA’S were divided into two different definitions: NEA, to be protected at all cost with the understanding no development would take place.  NEA B were under A, with a more lenient set of rules that allowed development, subject to a number of conditions.  These lands, along the boundary of Kanata, were NEA B lands; there are development rights on these lands until such time as the OP is approved; it is limited to country lot estates but it is development.  The city could also consider acquisition of those lands.  Adding 120 acres to existing 400 acres is substantial and should be considered.  He urged support of the amendments.

 

On Councillor Hunter’s Motion:

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate

 

1.         That the staff recommendations be amended as they relate to lands known as the Kanata Highland Properties (KHP) by removing the Special Study Area boundary and note and approve the designation of these lands as follows:

 

i.                    That approximately 45 acres of land located east of proposed Terry Fox Drive and north of the KNL Exchange Lands be designated as General Urban Area.


ii.                  That approximately 20 acres of land located immediately west of the Hydro right-of-way and running north/south be designated Major Open Space to serve as  an open space corridor from the NEA lands in urban Kanata to the South March Highlands to the northwest.

 

iii.                That before the above amendments are approved by Council an agreement with KHP be in place and that approximately 120 acres of lands located west of proposed Terry Fox Drive be gifted in perpetuity to the City of Ottawa to form an integral natural linkage to the South March Highlands to the north and preserve its natural environment features.

 

iv.                That City staff work with the landowners and community associations to determine the boundaries.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

YEAS (6):        Councillors P. Feltmate, G. Hunter, J. Harder, H. Kreling, M. Bellemare, P. Hume

NAYS (2):       Councillors A. Cullen, D. Holmes

 

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate

 

WHEREAS the community desires that the neighborhood design should be based on natural green space corridors adjacent to the unopened First Line Road;

 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the design of the neighbourhood for the Regional Lands and that the required EIS ensure that natural greenspace corridors be provided in excess of the required 5% park land dedication which connects to the proposed trails along Kizell Pond and the NEA lands located to the north located on Regional Lands and the proposed connection to the South March Highlands.

 

Responding to Councillor Cullen on the implications of the Motion, Mr. Finlay explained that this Motion reflects an offer made by Regional and the City would want to have the ink dry before designating the land.  Alternatively there would need to be some provision on the amendment.

 

Councillor Feltmate suggested possibly adding a statement similar to Councillor Hunter’s statement in the previous Motion might be in order, to which staff agreed.

 

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

 

That the Motion be amended to read as follows:

 

WHEREAS the community desires that the neighborhood design should be based on natural green space corridors adjacent to the unopened First Line Road;


That before the amendment are approved by Council an agreement with the Richardson properties be in place that the design of the neighbourhood of the Regional lands the design of the neighbourhood for the Regional Lands and that the required EIS ensure that natural greenspace corridors be provided in excess of the required 5% park land dedication which connects to the proposed trails along Kizell Pond and the NEA lands located to the north located on Regional Lands and the proposed connection to the South March Highlands.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

The Committee approved the departmental recommendations as amended.

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council adopt the amendment, to the Official Plan of the City of Ottawa adopted on 14th May 2003, as detailed in Document 1 to this report, in order to establish the land use designations for the land within and adjacent to the Special Study Area in Kanata, subject to the following amendments:

 

1.         That the staff recommendations be amended as they relate to lands known as the Kanata Highland Properties (KHP) by removing the Special Study Area boundary and note and approve the designation of these lands as follows:

 

i.                    That approximately 45 acres of land located east of proposed Terry Fox Drive and north of the KNL Exchange Lands be designated as General Urban Area.

 

ii.                  That approximately 20 acres of land located immediately west of the Hydro right-of-way and running north/south be designated Major Open Space to serve as  an open space corridor from the NEA lands in urban Kanata to the South March Highlands to the northwest.

 

iii.                That before the above amendments are approved by Council an agreement with KHP be in place and that approximately 120 acres of lands located west of proposed Terry Fox Drive be gifted in perpetuity to the City of Ottawa to form an integral natural linkage to the South March Highlands to the north and preserve its natural environment features

 

iv.                That City staff work with the landowners and community associations to determine the boundaries

 

2.         That before the amendments are approved by Council an agreement with the Richardson properties be in place and that the design of the neighbourhood for the Regional Lands and that the required EIS ensure that natural greenspace corridors be provided in excess of the required 5% park land dedication which connects to the proposed trails along Kizell Pond and the NEA lands located to the north located on Regional Lands and the proposed connection to the South March Highlands.

 

Carried as amended  with Councillors A. Cullen and D. Holmes dissenting.

 

 

PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH

DIRECTION DE L’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES

D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE

 

2.         ZONING - 2809 Carp Road

ZONAGE - 2809, CHEMIN CARP

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0183                                              29 June West Carleton (5)

 

Doug Smeathers, McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers, was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 23 August 2004.  The Committee approved the recommendations.

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of West Carleton Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 2809 Carp Road from Rural Industrial Zone, MR-4 ( x 5) to Rural Industrial Zone, MR-4 ( x 5) as detailed in Document 3.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

 

3.         ZONING - 375 Michael cowpland drive

ZONaGe - 375, promenade Michael cowpland

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0182                                                                      Kanata (4)

 

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 30 July 2004.

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning By-Law No. 135-93 to change the zoning of 375 Michael Cowpland Drive from "Light Industrial, Select" to "Light Industrial, Select - Exception" as detailed in Document 3.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

 


4.         zoning - 361 monterEy drive

zonage - 361, promenade monterey

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0167                                                                      Baseline (8)

 

D. Jacobs, L. Morrison, Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, John Smit, Program Manager, Development Review, and J. Jackson appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 26 August 2004.  Following a presentation by
Mr. Smit,
staff responded to questions posed by Committee members, with the main points summarized below:

·        The EIS provided a number of recommendations related to slope stabilization and minimizing the removal of trees to the greatest extent possible.  The study concluded that with the proposed development and some of the measures being proposed to ensure no adverse impact of Graham Creek, will result in the stabilization of Graham Creek and for those reasons the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) accepted the EIS undertaken and did not object.

·        Setbacks would have been looked at through the EIS, in keeping with the policy direction of the OP, which does provide for reductions in the normal setback where it can be accommodated.

·        The parking area would be accessed from the front with no impact to the area to the rear where Graham Creek runs.

·        This development would be contiguous to the existing residential development.

·        The vehicular set back would be accommodated within the 7.5m.  The townhouse units will back onto the ravine and Graham Creek Corridor.

 

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

 

Valerie Nichols provided a detailed written presentation, in opposition (circulated and held on file with the City Clerk), as well as an overhead presentation, with photographs of the area.  Ms. Nichols’ is the Past President and member of The Townes of Monterey Court Phase IV Owners Committee (O.C.).  Her comments centred on the following:

·        Background and Overview

·        Issues

·        1. Notice, Timing and Participation

·        2. Importance of the Monterey Forest and Graham Creek Area

·        3. Outstanding Information and Questions to be answered.

·        a. Presumption of Zoning and the “Back Door”

·        b. Process and Lack of Public Information Meeting

·        c. Impacts on Phase IV homes and other related outstanding questions

Conclusion – the O.C. requests the Committee recommend against approval of the rezoning application for the reasons noted.  It is important this forest and creek area be preserved because of its significance as a natural area and the usage and variety of community values and activities associated thereto and suggested it be rezoned as conservation area.  In the alternative, the rezoning decision should be delayed until proper consultation and investigation of the potential alternatives for preserving the site have been exhausted and outstanding questions on technical matters answered.


Arising from the delegation, Councillor Harder raised some questions and  the main points are summarized as follows:

·        Ms. Nichols did address the Planning Committee at Nepean on behalf of O.C. and posed some of the question still outstanding.

·        O.C.’s position was that the rezoning was an inappropriate conversion from Special Study Holding.

 

Responding to Councillor Cullen on public consultation with respect to the site plan issues, J. Smit was unaware of the status of the site plan.  It is under review, but clearly the Ward Councillor has an opportunity to engage in a community meeting.

 

Ronald Lalonde and Adeline Trottier were not present when the matter was considered by the Committee.  They were in opposition.

 

Iola Price, Chair, Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee (OFGAC), provided a PowerPoint presentation, in opposition, which was distributed and a copy is held on file with the City Clerk.  The main points/slides of her submission are summarized below:

·        Introduction – OFGAC recommends NO Development for the Site.  Measures should be taken to give it true conservation status.

·        Site and the Creek

·        View of the Creek and Rip-rap

·        Trees on the site include – Eastern Hemlock, White Pine, White Ash, Basswood, American Elm, Sugar Maple, Manitoba Maple, Bur Oak, Red Maple, Yellow Birch, Butternut.

·        44 of 97 trees listed are scheduled for removal; 18 because they are directly in the building site and the remaining 26 because they are too close to proposed buildings, etc.; some of the trees are deemed unhealthy.

·        The EIS states the large Bur Oak will be retained, but the site plan clearly reveals it within the building envelope.

·        An Urban Natural Feature (UNF); ancient trees; RVCA questions

·        Comments on the EIS; calculating the impact

·        An alternative to development; Baseline Road

·        Should not be developing UNF – losing greenspace and with it a chance to keep the city green and meet the OP target of 30% canopy cover.

·        Need the GMP to identify important lands and to guide the acquisition of lands such as the UNF and to complete the system of green corridors, of which this is one part.

 

Councillor Chiarelli informed Ms. Price that the former municipality had set aside funds to purchase the land, but the landowner refused to sell.  Ms. Price suggested it was never too late to recommence negotiations and City Council and staff should make an attempt.  Responding to Chair Hume, Ms. Jackson advised the property is not subject to the Expropriation Act for such a purpose.

 

Amy Kempster, Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital (GACC), supported the OFGAC comments, as provided in their excellent submission.  The idea of trying to acquire these lands through some route should be looked into.  There should be second thoughts to removing the trees, many of which are heritage.  The OP addresses a 30m setback and regardless of what the RVCA has said, a 30m setback for new construction should be 30m.  Greenspace is extremely important to many local communities; it increases the value of homes considerably.  One possibility is to reduce the number of houses to save trees and the resulting values would rise.

 

Robert Darling, President, Leslie Park Community Association (LPCA), addressed the Committee in support of the application.  LPCA and the community have been aware of this development from beginning.  At a meeting held in 2000 it was determined the community did not want institutional (fought against it) and wanted it residential.  As shown in the diagram, it does impact 20 homes on that street and it is acknowledged traffic will impact the community.  LPCA together with the Councillor is working to lessen that impact.  Contrary to what has been implied, the Ward Councillor has been in constant contact with LPCA on an ongoing basis.  This is the final development that can take place in the neighbourhood.  It is privately owned land and LPCA hoped the Committee does approve the rezoning to residential because this is the will of the majority of homeowners.  On the question of greenspace, there is a lovely park in the neighbourhood.  LPCA and the Ward Councillor have made use of Nepean funds to update that facility.  There is now a splash park for children.  It has been zoned for development in excess of 15 years.  LPCA urges the Committee to approve the recommendation.

 

Rod Lahey, Roderick Lahey Architect Inc., Agent for the Applicant, was also the architect for the previous institutional rezoning.  Mike Cunningham and Chris Pullen, Golder Associates, who worked on the EIS as well as the slope stability, were present.  The project has a long history.  There was no conservation zone prior to the institutional; it did have a special holding zone specifically to deal with the question of the immediate environmental impact of whatever was developed.  Once that was satisfied it could be lifted to allow for the institutional use.  In 2000 it was rezoned as institutional; a site plan was finalized in 2001; and, at that time there was no demand for seniors’ residents in that area and the proponent decided not to pursue it.  The land sat vacant until 2002, when his new client purchased the site and returned to what the neighbourhood initially wanted, which was lower scale residential.  The original plan called for 20 units, with one unit eliminated because of slope issues.  He provided a landscaping plan, prepared by Julie Mulligan, landscape architect.  The 7.5m setback allows for a private road, with access to parking.  Each unit would have a driveway as well as a traditional garage within the unit.  All the units back onto the ravine.  Approximately 10.5% of the site is building area; 11% is asphalt, driveways and roadways; and, the balance (77%) is greenspace.  One of the concerns of the RVCA was the concept of ownership because they did not want private ownership at the water, which could result in changes to the shore line.  A zoning line was created and there will be a fence which defines the private ownership and use.  Spill-over into the creek will not be an issue.  It will remain in its natural state.  Steps were taken to save as many trees as possible.  There was an issue regarding Bur Oak.  Ms Mulligan examined the tree and opined it was not healthy and recommended removal.  The city maintained it could be saved; therefore, an arborist was tasked to inspect the tree and made adjustments.  It has now been listed on the Plan as one of the trees to be retained.  With respect to slope stability, they have retained Fondex/Inspec-Sol Inc. as the soil engineer and Golder Associates is carrying out all design for slope stabilization.  There has been restorative work, with the edge of the creek in a state of failure because of undercutting and the work being done will help preserve and protect the balance of the creek.  There is an extensive amount of work and money being spent solely on that process.

 

Arising from the delegation, Councillors Cullen and Holmes raised some questions and the main points are summarized as follows:

·        They generally work with the Councillor’s office and if there is a requirement to consult they will.  The initial community response was supportive and as long as they worked with the RVCA the community was satisfied.

·        With respect to the setbacks, as requested by the City and through the site plan process the stepping will be reduced.  The setback lines in the zoning reflect that change.  There will be a little sway, which allows for some pockets of green on the adjoining property line and creates a small landscape pocket.

 

The Committee also received the following correspondence (circulated and on file):

·        E-mail dated 12 September 2004, from Rae-lyn Bennett in opposition

·        E-mail dated 4 September 2004, from Peter C. and June Ellis, in opposition

·        E-mail dated 29 August 2004, from Jeff and Maria Jansen in opposition

·        E-mail dated 25 August 2004, from Ingrid ten Broek in opposition

·        E-mail dated 25 23 August 2004, from Linda Ryan in opposition

 

Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter returned to Committee.

 

Councillor Chiarelli indicated this issue has been ongoing for many years.  It would be best for the community if nothing was developed at the site, but the land has been privately owned and zoned for development for decades.  As the Councillor, he has to look at the best possible development.  A process was undertaken in 2000 where the community argued first that there be no development, but secondly, if there must be development, there be townhouses since that would have the second-least impact on the area and greenspace.  This development is the best of the available choices.  It is less intrusive than the current zoning and brings more conservation land into protection.

 

The Committee approved the recommendations.

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:

 

1.         Approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 361 Monterey Drive from an Institutional (I zone) and Conservation (Con zone) to an R5A-  Residential Fifth Density A exception zone and Conservation Zone as detailed in Document 3 and shown on Document 1.


2.         That the implementing By-law not be forwarded to City Council for enactment until such time as the related Site Plan Control Application has been approved.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

5.         ZONING - 369 Island Park Drive and 368-370 Piccadilly avenue

ZONAGE - 369, promenade island park et 368-370, avenue piccadilly

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0160                                                               Kitchissippi (15)

 

D. Jacobs, G. Lindsay, J. Smit, L. Morison, Burl Walker, Planner, and J. Jackson appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 23 August 2004.  As a result of a presentation by Mr. Walker, staff responded to questions posed by Councillor Cullen and the following summarizes the main points:

·        The installation of a noise barrier would be addressed through the Site Plan.

·        Planning and Public Works reviewed the matter of traffic generated and this site worked out to an average of 9 vehicles/hour at its peak.  The numbers reflected in the traffic analysis are deemed to be very realistic.

·        The analysis indicates that over a daily period, between 5 and 15 vehicles maneuver that right-hand turn.  If it became a problem, staff could look at installing a no-right turn sign or review the exit to direct traffic to Richmond.  That would be a site plan issue.

·        The Ward Councillor could request a community meeting to deal strictly with site plan issues if he so desires.

·        Staff was not of the opinion this particular application set a precedent.  The intent of the Main Street policies is to try to encourage a strong street edge of pedestrian-focused retail activity.  This proposal does that; it orients a retail development along virtually the entire frontage of the Piccadilly and Richmond portion of the property where previously there was a used car dealership.  The drive-thru is a car wash; it is not drive-thru associated with a fast-food restaurant with a possible line-up of 30 vehicles in the morning rush hour.  The car wash is associated with an established automobile-focused business and the car wash is tucked in behind.

·        This is a very unique situation.  Staff is recognizing in this instance that there are ways it can be appropriately accommodated without comprising City policy objectives as they relate to Main Streets.

·        Each site has its own unique characteristics, but staff made it abundantly clear on a previous iteration that went before the OMB how much it is enforcing the Main Street policies to have more pedestrian oriented development against the street edge.  Those type of principles will guide staff with respect to any other site that will re-develop along this stretch or any stretch of Main Street designations.

 

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

 

Michael Billowits and Michael Porter provided a detailed written presentation, in opposition (distributed and held on file with the City Clerk).  Mr. Billowits submitted that over 500 residents living less than 1km from the Island Park Esso signed a letter indicating their strong opposition.  He commissioned a peer review of the traffic analysis carried out by the applicant, which he submitted to the Committee (circulated and held on file).  This was carried out by Bassam G. Hamwi, Principal and Senior Transportation Planner, Morrison Hershfield Limited.  The main points raised are noted below:

·        Fundamental shift from the Main Street policies.

·        The car wash is NOT a pedestrian oriented use.

·        The peer review was commissioned due to concerns with deficiencies in the traffic analysis.  The principle conclusions and recommendations are copied below:

·        No effort expended on reviewing the Richmond/Piccadilly intersection and the difficulty faced by a northbound left-turning vehicle.

·        Although the Delcan report states there is little propensity for users of the proposed development to travel down Piccadilly, the rationale is not well founded.  Measures such as the erection of a “no right turn” at the Piccadilly egress and the extension of the curb on the west side of Piccadilly are known to be ineffective.

·        Concerns related to safety and delay associated with the northbound left turn lane at Richmond/Piccadilly intersection and pedestrians northbound on Piccadilly.

·        Delcan did not address on-street parking associated with future conditions.

·        The proponent should be encouraged to explore alternative development type and/or form consistent with the street character and the current zoning that prohibits drive-thru facilities.

·        The peer review directly contradicts the primary findings of the Delcan study and staff report.

 

Mr. Billowits read a letter from a resident who could not attend; the main points are copied below:

·        Residents of the immediate neighbourhood and regular customers of the Esso Station and highly value the phenomenal customer service provided.

·        Initially supportive of the application to Mr. Newcombe, in writing.  Having the benefit of considering the various issues, she now has considerable concerns, particularly pedestrian traffic safety in the neighbourhood as it is populated by many families with young children, including her own.

·        Concerned about the possible future use of the land in question as well as the precedent such rezoning may set.

·        Drive-thru operations are completely incompatible with the nature and primary purpose of this residential area.

·        Current lack of support should in no way be viewed as a lack of support for
Mr. Newcombe, in general, or the services currently provided at Island Park Esso.

 

Michael Porter provided the following comments:

·        The staff report notes there is a mix of commercial, residential and institutional traffic along Piccadilly, which is 200m and ends in a T-junction at the Byron strip.

·        By far the heaviest traffic is institutional from the church.  There are only 20 residential cars on the street.  Church traffic is heavy every weekday morning, heavier on Saturday and quite heavy on Sunday morning, but is fairly predictable.  The church is very active, with weddings, funerals, parish hall meetings, to which residents have adapted.

·        There is one commercial operation on the street, which is an account’s office.

·        Residents will now face the exodus of cars from the car wash throughout the day, which was not the original concept, but introduced by planners, making it difficult to accomplish left turns from either exit on the street.

·        The street is heavily used by children attending elementary and high schools and bicyclists.  The additional 20,000 vehicles on the street are not needed.

 

Arising from the delegation questions were posed by Councillors Harder and Cullen, the main points of which are summarized below:

·        There will not be an incremental increase of 18-20,000 vehicles on Piccadilly because of the proposed car wash.

·        A monitoring programme would be established as opposed to a direction to install the sign since it is uncertain there will be a real issue at this point in time.  It is clearly within the Committee’s purview to give direction to staff to include that installation as a condition of site plan approval.

 

A package of letters, in opposition, was circulated to the Committee and is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

John Melanson provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  The main points are noted below:

·        The report is incorrect in its claim there is no similar-type car wash in the vicinity and therefore the community wants that service in the community.

·        Over 200 residents signed a petition objecting to the proposed car wash and no one feels such a facility is desirable or necessary.

·        Contrary to what is contained in the staff report, the community is well serviced by 9 locations less than a 4km distance and provided the list as well as a map highlighting the locations, which was circulated and is held on file.

 

Vice-Chair Feltmate Chaired the following portion of the item.

 

Mario Giannuzzi, co-owner Bella’s Bistro Italiano, addressed the Committee in opposition.  Mr. Giannuzzi advised that along with the 500 signatures in opposition, he had a list of various businesses that strongly oppose this application:

·        Bella’s Bistro Italiano; Dental Clinic; Istanbouli Restaurant; India Food Centre; Harvest Loaf; Café Mio

These all have strong opposition to the proposed plan and are very concerned with the negative impact to their businesses; e.g. traffic, noise, pollution, etc.  As business owners, they are pro-business and have no opposition to the retail aspect the applicant is proposing.  They spent money promoting their business, conducting studies, reviewing zoning and expending considerable work building a business, only to a have site like that proposed with its negative impact.  They envision a neighbourhood with residents walking along the street to the local restaurant, butcher shop, without a drive-thru.  He asked the Committee to take into consideration the significant investment devoted to their business and the lack of incentive for other business owners to establish in the neighbourhood.  Since being established in 1995, they have seen various businesses established in the area, pubs, restaurants, salons, etc., which are desirable, but a drive-thru does not conform to the zoning.  He urged the Committee to reject the application.

 

Vincent Marsh, Kelley, Marsh & Associates, advised that he along with Keith Kelley and Jim Sardellis own a building on Piccadilly, designated as the existing commercial building.  They purchased the building in 1992; it is an old house, similar to those on the street, built in the 1930’/40’s.  They purchased the property with the intent of operating an accounting practice on the first floor and leasing the second and third floors as residential.  He had serious concerns about the detrimental effect the car wash will have, specifically on their practice and employees.  The concerns are summarized below:

·        The drawings illustrate 4 cars lined up at the car wash.  After a few days of dirty spring/winter weather, people line up at the car wash, with more than 4 vehicles. If there is a n/w wind, fumes from the vehicles will travel directly to their offices.  As an old building, it breathes and, as such, residents are susceptible to outside odours, even with closed windows.  With 6 windows on the wall facing the car wash, fumes are a serious concern.  It will have a detrimental effect on the residents.

·        The report speaks to their building being a buffer to the residential area.  It is insulting to use their building, with 7 employees and 3 tenants as a buffer.

·        Noise – with a 10-foot driveway between the car wash and their building, noise will resonate between the two buildings.

·        In the winter on very cold days, vapour will exit the doors of the car wash and blow onto their sidewalk, driveway and porch area and freeze on the surface, creating a dangerous situation.  It will have a serious detrimental affect on their clients and the employees accessing the location.

·        Traffic – their driveway will be 6 feet from the exit of the car wash, which will result in serious problems.  Although there was discussion regarding the installation of no left turns, no one will comply with that sign.

 

Vincent Alcaide, Architect, lives and owns a business in the area.  He focussed on 3 areas of architectural and planning concerns:

·        Incompatibility of the project – the rezoning is an inappropriate use of the site and in direct conflict with the OP Mainstreeet policies that prohibit drive-thrus.  The intent of business owners to develop ground floor retail is to create a healthy business environment that is very much street oriented.  This project does nothing but promote the car.  It is in direct violation of the planning directives of the OP, which he elaborated upon.  The rezoning in his opinion, effectively allows a non-conforming use to be expanded.  The purpose of the Main Street policies is to arrest the expansion of a non-conforming use, but acknowledges some existing uses have developed over time and should remain.  The incompatible use does not promote future expansion of residential development adjacent to such sites.  Main Street policies of the OP attempt to move towards a carefully integrated urban community.

·        The possibility of future precedents – if this development is allowed to proceed, the City will open doors to existing service stations, car lots and other businesses interested in expanding non-conforming use.  As architects, they encourage their clients to build in a reasonable manner, with community and zoning requirements in mind.  They also encourage the Main Street policies and have been asked by planning staff, within the last year, to consider second storey developments.  The approval of this project will undermine the ability of architects to advise clients not to request rezonings and other significant variances.

·        The lack of commitment of the planning department to follow through on Main Street development issues – this is a prime example of the lack of commitment to execute initiatives.  He discussed this application with many of his colleagues, who oppose the development.  The current zoning, OP, Main Street policies and West Wellington Street directives, including planning studies, that identify the need for residential intensification are absolutely correct.  This is an example of a project that uses the Main Street policies in an incorrect fashion to justify the installation of a car wash masked by retail frontage.  The City planners should not have recommended a rezoning process to the applicant.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application.

 

Patricia Kot provided a written presentation in opposition, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  Ms. Kot’s family has a long history in the community.  The community is opposed to the proposal.  Over 500 signatures were appended either to letters or petitions opposed to the proposal.  95% of the signatories are within 1km of the proposed site.  Several had previously signed the proponent’s petition.  She illustrated the area canvassed on a map.  Carleton, Gould, Garison, Western, Scott, Oakdale, Rockhurst and Northwestern, not shown on the map, were canvassed.  She read the petition preamble:

“We the undersigned, urge the City of Ottawa, to respect and maintain existing zoning of 369 Island Park Drive and 368-370 Piccadilly Ave (Neighbourhood Linear Commercial).  We ask the City to reject any request to change, amend or alter this zoning, and thereby the vision and intent of the Official Plan and the Ottawa West Plan for the area, in order to accommodate a drive-thru car wash, which the Ontario Municipal Board has already ruled “by its very nature creates noise, fumes and traffic impacts” (OMB Decision No. 1012, July 24, 03).”

Ms. Kot asked the Committee to respect the wishes of community residents and maintain the OMB decision.

 

Lorne Cutler, President, Hampton Iona Community Group (HICG), provided a detailed written presentation on behalf of HICG, unanimously in opposition.  A letter dated 12 September 2004 was also circulated to the Committee, both of which are held on file with the City Clerk.  The main points raised are noted below:

·        The proposal is not consistent with the OP and the City’s vision for Main Streets.

·        A drive-thru use is currently a prohibited use along Richmond and was previously refused by the OMB.  Approval will set a precedent at either the City or the OMB for other drive-thru uses to be allowed along Main Streets.

·        This development represents both a de-intensification of the site as it consists of a one-storey building replacing a two-storey building.  This goes against the OP stated mission for Main Streets regarding intensification.  This will also set a precedent for developers to continue to only erect 1-2 storey buildings along Main Streets.

·        There has been no independent analysis of the proposed car wash or peer validation.  While market impacts are not of concern, the greater the use of the proposed facility, the greater the environmental and traffic impacts.

·        The community has demonstrated it is against the proposed drive-thru car wash as evidenced by 500 letters and signatures in opposition.  Unlike the letters collected by the applicant, all letters against the facility were collected in the neighbourhood and not from users of the existing gas station.

·        The City is seeking to maintain its existing urban boundaries and has prepared the “Where will we live” report, also being tabled today, which identifies 369 Island Park and 368-370 Piccadilly as potential residential intensification (5-storey building).  By approving the application, the City will be going against its own planning staff and handing an argument to the development industry that the City cannot be trusted to ensure there will be sufficient housing stock developed within the existing urban boundaries.  With several developers taking the City to the OMB over this issue, the Committee is handing the development industry an argument it can present to the OMB.

 

Gary Ludington provided a written submission in opposition, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  The main points are listed below:

·        The used car lot might have 9-10 cars located on this site, which pose no threat to pedestrians along Richmond.

·        Why would staff oppose other drive-thru uses such as Burger King or Tim Hortons and now say a car wash is ok?

·        Why did the applicant in 2001 state the car wash traffic would be more than 40,000 and it is now almost half?  Car wash traffic in similar sized car washes is about 50,000 and are not contingent on selling gas.

·        “The Noise Impact Study (and traffic study?)” apparently didn’t verify nighttime issues because the car wash will only operate during the daytime.  Yet, reference is made to operating hours as 13 and there is no hope of 13 hours of daytime year round.

·        The exhaust fumes from idling cars do affect the environment.

·        Reference is made to the surrounding built form being less than 2 storeys as rationale to approve this application.  Good planning would change this as demonstrated by the proposed development at Wellington and Holland and the almost completed development at 1277 Wellington.  This application defeats the policies of the new OP and creates cynicism in the community.

·        At previous public meetings for rezoning applications, local residents have reiterated the desire to eliminate used car lots, yet staff are rationalizing the addition to this gas station by its proximity to used car lots.

·        Richmond is one of the identified traditional “ Neighbourhood Main Streets” as are Rideau, Dalhousie, McArthur, Bank, Elgin, Gladstone, Preston and Hawthorne for a total of 20.  There are also “Arterial Main Streets” such as Carling, Bronson, Tenth Line, St. Joseph Blvd., Merivale and Walkley for a total of 17.  Is the Committee aware of the differences between these two types of “Main Streets” and the opportunities for intensification identified by planning staff?

He urged the Committee to reject the application.

 

Kristjan Wallner is a new homeowner in the area.  He and his wife purchased in the area for the sole reason it is pedestrian and retail friendly.  As a result, they reduced their car use significantly.  The area is well served by those in the area, as mentioned by a previous delegation.  Zoning in the neighbourhood needs to be maintained for the OP vision to be carried forward.  If it is not maintained, how can they as new homeowners trust the planning process and the City to uphold these processes.  He urged the Committee to consider his comments and refuse the application.

 

Ralph Wiesbrock is a neighbourhood resident and an architect.  His comments are related to his understanding and interpretation of the OP provisions and zoning as it stands.  The zoning is in place because it anticipates a future form of development, which is somewhat more intense and imagines development along Wellington and Richmond and at the intersection of Island Park as very different from the existing automobile low-density development.  If the amendment is approved, the Committee will be undermining what he understood is the intent of that zoning.  Does the zoning exclude a drive-thru use or not?

 

A. Duff Mitchell provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  He is a customer of the existing gas station.  The main comments are listed below:

·        He welcomes the proposal to develop retail use adjacent to Richmond.

·        The proposed use will create noise, fumes, traffic impacts and is not in keeping with the vision of a Neighbourhood Linear Commercial area or Main Street.

·        The drive-thru would set a precedent that would fundamentally change future development in neighbourhood Main Streets away from pedestrian to automotive oriented, throughout Ottawa.

·        He referred to the OMB decision and provided extracts from that decision.  The OMB has already established the proposed use is not in keeping with the OP.

·        Noise – he objected to the assessment the noise generated by the use is acceptable for a location in a Main Street setting, immediately adjacent to a residential zone.  It will be in excess of the City’s standards for health (at 64 decibels).  He cited the World Health Organization and Ministry of Environment’s (MOE) Environmental Noise Assessment in Land – Use Planning Guidelines.

·        Fumes – the drive-thru will generate fumes and be in violation of the City’s environmental standards.

In conclusion, he urged the Committee to respect the outcome of the OMB process and reject the recommendation to rezone the property.

 

Mark Lazarovitz moved into the area in 1980.  Currently there is a parking problem on the street.  There is constant thru-traffic, doubled since the new Loblaws.  Piccadilly is a hill and runs toward the river; and, at the intersection where cars will be exiting, there is a collector for water.  After heavy rains, winter run-offs or a heavy snow fall, that corner becomes a sheet of ice.  There is a lot of traffic at that location and there have been a number of accidents and near-accidents.  The car wash will clearly bring more water to the area, creating additional problems for pedestrian and car use.  A very dangerous precedent will be set by allowing this non-conforming use.  The OMB has said it is not an appropriate use and the City has already ruled on it and it is returning in camouflage with a few stores as frontage.  The information provided by the proponent is based on fallacious material; e.g. the number of cars, the noise impact – no one has conducted an independent study to refute this.  He urged the Committee to reject this proposal for all of the reasons presented.

 

Robert Brocklebank, President, Federation of Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa-Carleton (FCA), provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  Three points touched upon are:  1) inconsistency with the public consultations on the OP, Zoning By-Law and the neighbourhood plan; 2) questions of the extension of non-conforming use; and, 3) the manner in which the Committee should make planning decisions about this type of issue.  Presumably planning instruments such as zoning by-laws are implemented to achieve some social purpose.  Spot rezoning should be considered on the same basis.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application for spot rezoning of this property.

 

Peter Finnegan provided a written submission, in support, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  Mr. Finnegan resides in the neighbourhood.  The main points of his submission are noted below:

·        A car wash in the proposed location is positive for the community.

·        Currently, residents can perform almost all their errands in the community, from groceries to hardware to dry cleaning.  There are currently no car wash facilities in the area and one needs to travel outside the community.

·        The proposal calls for the construction of new retail space, which will further enhance the area economically.

·        The concern expressed with respect to increased traffic is unwarranted.  Currently, the existing site has been one of many used car lots servicing a customer base from Eastern Ontario, with little if any business arising from the adjacent community.  Ultimately, the removal of the used car lot and introduction of the car wash will lead to less traffic in the immediate area.

·        Mr. Newcombe extensively remodelled 10 years ago.  It is a landmark with its Art Deco design, which has received architectural awards.  He intends to follow through on this scheme with the new building.

·        As a client of Mr. Newcombe, he can attest to the excellent service provided.  He has also been an active member of the community, providing support and sponsorship to sports teams, scouts, etc.

·        Mr. Newcombe is committed to constructing a facility that will enhance the economics of the area as well as serve the community.

 

Rudi Duss, Duss Bros Motors Ltd., operates a business 100m from Mr. Newcombe’s business and spoke in full support.  He has operated a business since 1980 and lived in the area since 1979.  As a client, he appreciates the service provided to the neighbourhood and welcomed the added retail and “state of the art” car wash as a business asset to the area.  He plans to utilize the service and so will his customers.  The new development will improve the appearance of that section of Richmond.

 

Chair Hume resumed the Chair.

 

Robert Argent provided a written submission, in strong support, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  Mr. Argent has lived in the community for 11 years and is a client of Mr. Newcombe.  He addressed Mr. Newcombe’s and his staffs’ commitment to customers and the community.  Mr. Newcombe’s community involvement is evident through the award-winning design of his service centre.  He was not approached by anyone from the community association to obtain his views.  The community is in need of a full service centre with an environmentally friendly car wash.  On the question of increased traffic, this location is not a destination for residents outside the community since they have similar facilities in their own communities.  The proposed car wash is an environmentally friendly solution to washing your own car.  This service station provides employment for those in the community; e.g. local teenagers.  Mr. Argent urged the Committee to support the staff recommendation.

 

Keith Bassett addressed the Committee in support.  Although he does not live in the area, he has been in the car wash business for over 20 years and wanted to address statements made regarding the impact a car wash would have on a corner intersection.

·        The number of cars utilizing the car wash – quoted at 20-40,000/year – that is on the high side.  Councillor Harder was correct in that the car wash would be there for current customers.  His station currently pumps 12 Million litres/year and he washes approximately 40,000/year.  Mr. Newcombe’s station, at 3.5 Million/year, would be in the range of 12,000/year.  He did not see it as hugely impacting traffic flow.

·        Stacking – in the present retail environment, people are in a rush.  If they see line-ups, they move on.  The days of sitting for hours at a car wash are long gone.

·        Fumes – with 3 lanes of traffic on Richmond and a stop light every 4 minutes, there are far more fumes on that roadway than from 3 cars at the car wash.

·        Ice build-up – as in most car washes, the pads are heated with a drain at the end of the pad; therefore, the pads remain dry even when it snows and there is very little residual water by the time the car exits the dryer.

·        Noise – since the dryer is situated well inside the exit, the noise factor is negligible at street level or anything past the sidewalk level on the street.

·        There are no similar-type car washes in the vicinity.  Many of those mentioned are auto detailers (hand washing along with other services), not touchless car washes.  The closest east and west of the subject site would be either at Carling or downtown.

·        The car wash is an add-on feature to the existing clientele.  It is a niche market for residents not to exit their own community to have their car washed after filling on gas.

 

David W. Glastonbury provided a written submission, in support, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  In summary, the development compliments the City’s OP to support intensification; allows residents to obtain services in their own community; provides for the continuation of a winning design; addresses and encourages environmental stewardship; encourages employment; generates economic benefits, both for business and government; provides for a built form which is pedestrian friendly; and, enhances community safety.  He encouraged the Committee to approve the recommendations.


Brad Lockwood addressed the Committee in support of the application.  He is a long time customer of Mr. Newcombe.  This endeavour has included 2 ½ years of exhaustive public consultation; it saw a willingness to compromise by City staff, the neighbourhood and
Mr. Newcombe.  The incredible attention to detail and architectural design, the sound studies, the transportation analysis and site layout is rare when you consider this is a rezoning application.  Many of the site plan details Councillor Cullen alluded to have been hashed out in consultation with the public over 2 ½ years; consulting with customers, neighbours, concerns; and, all were addressed to the best of Mr. Newcombe’s ability.  Mr. Newcombe has put many developers to shame with the extent of his public consultation and willingness to compromise.  There are no issues from the opposing side that have not been reasonably addressed by the applicant.  In the 1993 OP it was clear the City’s vision was to encourage development that fostered pedestrian-friendly street-front retail.  At the same time it became policy to eliminate the used car lots along Richmond and West Wellington.  This is the first development from Kirkwood to Clarendon, the City envisaged in 1993.  This development will be pedestrian friendly and provide additional security for evening pedestrian traffic.  It is disturbing that HICG is so out of touch with the vision the City had for this area.  There appeared to be a distinct fear with the word “drive thru”, which is being mis-applied.  The by-law for drive thrus was written in 1993 and clearly says that a drive thru is for the ordering and pick-up of food from a restaurant.  The proposal is not a drive thru.  In summary, the addition of the car wash in this neighbourhood is long overdue.  The Esso service station has been operating since 1938.  A car wash has always been an accessory use to a service station.  The layout makes sense and is environmentally sensitive.

 

Ted Fobert read out a letter on behalf of Paula Roy dated 13 September 2004, who was unable to attend the meeting due to recent surgery, in support of the proposal, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

John Newcombe, applicant, provided a written submission in support of his application.  The highlights are captured below:

·        This is a “home grown” development proposal put forward by himself, as a local business owner, operating a family run establishment at its present location for 30 years.

·        His involvement in the community is ongoing and long standing and includes participation in fund raising events for local schools, churches, community groups and charities, sponsorship of youth oriented sports teams and providing after-school and summer employment to dozens of young people in the neighbourhood.

·        The service station was originally owned by Imperial Oil and pre-dates homes and businesses in the area.  It has provided a valuable service for over 65 years.  He restored the building to its 1938 appearance and was honoured to receive a City heritage award.

·        He intends to replace the tired and visually unappealing used car lot with 2,500 square feet of architecturally designed retail space.  The building will carry over the Art Deco styling of the existing service station and provide a pedestrian friendly enhancement to the streetscape, but will also bring in new retail business.

·        The second part of the development features an automated car wash located behind the retail facility, which is totally hidden from pedestrian view and Richmond traffic.  The car wash provides economic justification for the development and encourages neighbourhood self sufficiency, as the nearest such facility involves a 8km round trip.

·        The development is focused on environmental responsibility, confirmed in writing by the Head of Emissions Research at Environment Canada.  He is providing an environmentally preferable alternative to “at home, in the driveway” car washing.

·        This will not be a 24-hour operation, contrary to the misinformation circulated.

·        Due to the nature of his business, he communicates daily with the community and knows his development has met with overwhelming endorsement.  He is in receipt of 516 letters of support, 10 of which originate from property owners located within 100m of the development.  (Copies of these letters are filed with the City Clerk.)

He asked the Committee to allow him to continue serving the needs of his neighbourhood by supporting the proposal.  In conclusion he was compelled to address some of the serious misleading information disseminated earlier.  First, he never suggested at the OMB that he would process 40,000 vehicles; he suggested 40,000 vehicles, as confirmed by Mr. Bassett, is the maximum number an Esso Station in the greater Ottawa network supplies.  The suggestion that his letters did not emanate from the community is erroneous; 370 of the letters are from Kitchissippi Ward.  On the question of the 500-signature petition from his opponents, he was approached several times by supporters who indicated canvassers did not indicate the signatures were elicited against his development or anything to do with Island Park Esso – it was an open-ended are you supporting a re-zoning for “drive-thru “ use and used fear-mongering.

 

Arising from the presentation, the delegation responded to questions posed by Councillor Cullen, the main points of which are summarized below:

·        The car wash hours will be consistent with the existing service station hours.  It will be an unmanned facility that works in tandem with the service station.  The hours of operation will be 7 a.m. till 8 p.m., week nights, and 9 p.m. on Friday.  The 2.4m noise barrier to be installed at the rear of the car wash is a noise attenuation barrier.  That was directly in response to the concern from Mr. Marsh.  It is an 8 foot solid masonry wall, fully sound attenuating.

·        All the vapour should be deflected by the wall.  The dryer is recessed 5m in the building and anticipated any vapours being released from the exit.

·        Ice build-up at the exit – has been dealt with in an operational sense since the concrete pads are heated with glycol, which is a radiating system.  On the coldest day of the year ice will not form and will be drained internally.

·        Mr. Newcombe had no problem with the “no right turn” and would be amenable to a curbed bump out.  Piccadilly is a wide street, due to the institutional uses; and, as such the additional width would be compatible with a bump out that would eliminate anyone wanting to turn right out of the facility.  He would be willing to pay for that cost.

·        Mr. Newcombe would be amenable to consult with the community on site plan issues.

 

Following on the aforementioned, Councillor Holmes received affirmation Mr. Newcombe was willing to sign an agreement with the City on the hours of operation at the time of site plan approval.

 

Ted Fobert and Ron Jack, representing Island Park Esso, provided a detailed written submission, with the site plan, perspective rendering, photographs of existing conditions, site photographs, City map outlining the Customer Survey and City map with the location of nearest Car Washes; illustrations of Noise Analysis and Zoning; summary of the key points in support of the project; and, Environmental Considerations.  Since the planning merits were covered, Mr. Fobert responded to the concerns raised as noted below:

·        Drive-thru uses – the proposed use is not a drive thru as intended by the prohibition in the CN zoning.  The primary focus of this prohibition, which was discussed in the 1993 Wellington Street Zoning Study was exactly as Mr. Lockwood stated.  It was to restrict food ordering and pick up at restaurants.  A drive thru service is a secondary function to a permitted use in a zone such as a restaurant or a bank.  A car wash is a primary use and is not regarded or considered a drive thru service.  Admittedly, drive thru service such as Tim Horton’s do generate problems in the community and can generate continuous high traffic volumes that are potentially incompatible with the Main Street environment.  The proposed car wash has extremely low traffic volumes. It is regulated by the operation of the car wash, with a 5 minute cycle; even at full occupancy the maximum number of cars is 12/hour.

·        The proposed rezoning is a site specific request and must be evaluated on its own merits.  It does not set a precedent for other non-conforming uses along Richmond.

·        Minimum 2 storey requirement on Main Streets and the requirement to infill with mixed use – there is no requirement in the new OP to develop a minimum of 2 storeys on Main Streets.  In fact, the CN zoning that currently exists along Richmond does not require a 2 storey building.  The policies in the new Plan referred to by the community are all under appeal and not in effect.  Second, the proposal complies with them, since the predominant form of development along this stretch of Richmond is in fact one storey or no storey development in the case of the parking lots and car dealerships.

·        Desire for residential intensification – there is no requirement to build housing above commercial uses in a CN Zone.  This is at the discretion of the developer.

In closing, he believed the rezoning proposal achieves a balance between the historical and non-conforming rights the property enjoys and the desire for a pedestrian oriented architectural streetscape.

 

Ron Jack, Vice-President, Delcan, commented on the transportation aspects of the proposal.  He understood a report was commissioned by residents opposed to the proposal.  He had an opportunity to view the report, but was unable to analyse the report.  It is generally understood and professional courtesy and practice when conducting a peer review to advise the others and he did not hear from anyone in that respect.  With regard to the project, it does not require a traffic impact study because the volumes generated by the project are well below the threshold numbers the City looks to for a traffic impact study.  The owner, however, commissioned a study in response to community concerns.  He conducted a Traffic Impact Assessment, which is a lighter version of the traditional traffic impact study.  The retail component is permitted and therefore that was not addressed.  A car wash is one of the lowest traffic generated land uses that can be allowed on the site.  Worse case scenario, if vehicles lined up, 12 would be processed per hour.  But, as Mr. Newcombe mentioned, his maximum threshold is thought to be 20,000/year and that is optimistic.  It is very seasonal.  Analysis indicates that in winter, on average there are 6 vehicles/hour with half that in the summer.  Mr. Newcombe believes that half will be purchasing gas; that being said, only 50% of the low volume will be new traffic to the site.  At the average volume previously indicated coming out onto Piccadilly, there is one vehicle every 10 or 20 minutes, depending upon the season.  Comments were made of no analysis of Piccadilly at Richmond; it is a very low volume street with 20-40 vehicles/hour.  Piccadilly is a wide street at 12m with a range of uses.  The school is closed, but when it was open there was far more traffic on the street.  Its main connection to the gas station is between Piccadilly and Island Park on Richmond and traffic obviously enters/exits the gas station without a problem.  20-50 vehicles/hour use the gas station.  It is acknowledged the driveway is connecting to Piccadilly and there will be an impact on Piccadilly, albeit small.  There is no propensity for much of the 3-6 to proceed south on Piccadilly; if there were, it is recommended that the curb extension be construction with the no right turn sign.  The owner has agreed to and volunteered to pay for that.  He agreed with staff that it should wait until monitoring is completed because it may not be a problem and there may be residents at the south end of Piccadilly who might want to access their homes.  Generally speaking, the majority of residents do obey traffic signs in the City.  In summary, very low traffic is generated.  More retail on the site would generate more traffic than the car wash.  The volume is manageable and can be controlled.

 

The Committee also received the following additional correspondence:

·        E-mail dated 13 September 2004, from Bruce Attfield, President iai Consulting Ltd., in opposition.

·        E-mail dated 14 September 2004, from Maureen Milne in opposition.

·        500 +/- letters/petitions in opposition

·        516 letters in support presented by Mr. Newcombe

 

Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter returned to Committee.

 

Councillor Cullen gave notice he was prepared to move a Motion that staff be directed to include a no right turn restriction for cars exiting the car wash onto Piccadilly Avenue and curb extension on Piccadilly Avenue with the site plan conditions for this location.  The Councillor was of the opinion it should be implemented as part of the development and provided rationale for the Motion, based upon the representations made.  The applicant recognized the situation and is prepared to pay and put in place the turn restriction and the curb out.   That should not be ignored because the community has become sensitized to the issue of traffic and traffic impacts of development.  There is an ability to mitigate the traffic impact in granting the rezoning.

 

The Committee approved the recommendation.

 

1.         That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law (1998) to change the zoning of 369 Island Park Drive and 368-370 Piccadilly Avenue from "CN[489] H(18.0)" (Neighbourhood Linear Commercial, Exception 489) to "CN[909] H(18.0)" (Neighbourhood Linear Commercial, Exception 909) as detailed in Document 5.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED


Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That an agreement between the owner of 369 Island Park Drive and 368-370 Picadilly Avenue be established at the time of Site Plan to provide for hours of operation of the carwash.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

 

That staff be directed to include a “no-right turn” restriction for cars exiting the car wash onto Piccadilly Avenue and curb extension on Piccadilly Avenue with the site plan conditions for this location.

 

                                                                                                LOST

 

YEAS (3):        Councillors A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes

NAYS (5):       Councillors H. Kreling, J. Harder, G. Hunter, M. Bellemare, P. Hume

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That staff monitor the traffic volume turning right at the location over a one year period and that securities be taken to allow for this turning restriction and associated work (curb extension) to take place.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

 

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

POLITIQUES D’URBANISME, D’ENVIRONNEMENT ET

D’INFRASTRUCTURE

 

6.         ZONING- PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING BY-LAW, 1998 (TECHNICAL ANOMALIES)

ZONAGE - MODIFICATIONS PROPOSÉES AU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL SUR LE ZONAGE DE 1998 (ANOMALIES TECHNIQUES)

ACS2004-DEV-POL-0045                                                                      Baseline (8)

 

Pierre Chatelain, Conseil des écoles publiques de l’est de l’Ontario, was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 27 August 2004.  The Committee approved the recommendation.

 

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve the amendments to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998, as detailed in Document 1.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED


PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH

DIRECTION DE L’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES

D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE

 

7.         Appeal - Committee of Adjustment - 3329 Joy's Road

APPEL - COMITÉ DE DÉROGATION - 3329, CHEMIN JOY'S

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0191                                                                 Goulbourn (6)

 

D. Jacobs, G. Lindsay and Steve Belan, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 27 August 2004.  Following a brief presentation of the issues by Mr. Belan, staff responded to questions posed by Councillors Harder and Hunter, with the main points summarized below:

·        In the Council-adopted OP, a minimum lot size that can be severed for lots in an agricultural area declared either farm surplus or farm help is between .2 and .4 ha.  The principle being not to remove land from a viable farm operation.  It does not have to be under active cultivation; but could be a stand of trees, low lying land or the like.  The point is to maintain the integrity of the agricultural area.

·        Approving the application would expand the total lot area to 5 ha. and clearly contravene Council’s adopted policy.  That is why staff made a strong position at the Committee of Adjustment and that Committee agreed, which is why the applicant has appealed it to the Board.

 

The Committee heard from the following delegation:

 

Paul Menzel and Adrian Schouten provided a written submission, in opposition, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.   Mr. Menzel provided photos of the land from the north, south, east and west, to aid in his presentation.  A summary is copied below:

·        To farm the land, Mr. Schouten would need to clear the area expensively with heavy bush clearing equipment damaging the already very poor quality and thin layer of soil.

·        The block of land from Franktown to Garvin and east of Joy’s is classed with a broad brush of Class 3 Agriculture.  The federal Agriculture Canada map shows most of the land east of Joy’s as RE2-OS3 type of soil except for a small finger of unfarmable M3-D3 type soil exactly where the forest in question is located.  The water table on this land is only inches below the surface and on the surface for most of April, May and June.  This land can only be traversed on foot in late summer when the water table drops slightly and in mid-winter when it is frozen.

·        To verify the Federal classification of the soil, ACCUTEST asked that 20 soil samples be taken in a zig-zag pattern across the 5 ha. land for lab testing.  ACCUTEST is the City’s preferred soil testing lab as recommended by the City’s sub watershed planner.  The results matched the description of Agriculture Canada’s soil map, being a poor combination of low fertility and high acidity.

·        This land is severed naturally by Mud Creek and poor soils.  To argue that farmland is being taken out of production is ludicrous.  This land has never been, is not and never will be farmed.

·        This forested land, adjacent to Mud Creek, provides a buffer to the agricultural runoff the City is trying so hard to control.  The City’s sub watershed planner is attempting to study the Mud Creek area in an effort to reduce agricultural runoff from Mud Creek.

·        The RVCA had no objection to the ownership transfer.

·        He approached Mr. Schouten to purchase this land, which is adjacent to his property.

·        The transfer of land ownership is not precedent setting and the land is very unique.

He urged the Committee to refuse the recommendation.

 

Responding to Councillor Cullen, Mr. Menzel confirmed that if the severance was approved nothing would happen, there would not be any construction, but simply a lot line adjustment.  He would be prepared to accept a conservation easement.  G. Lindsay clarified the issue is with the OP, which sets limitations on the size of lots in agricultural designations.  Staff recognizes the proponent has no plans to develop the property; it is the principle of maintaining the Council-adopted OP and what has existed in previous OP’s.  Staff had to be concerned with the potential precedent, if approved.  Mr. Lindsay averred there is nothing to prevent the current lot owner to maintain the property as is; and as it has been for a number of years.  Staff is not denying the parcel is not viable for agricultural production today; however, there may be some value for the trees at some point in the future, although it is important to maintain tree coverage as was heard earlier today.

 

Mr. Schouten added the matter is no different from an application made a few years ago.  2 5-acre lots in a wooded area were sold, with houses built and the owners asked to purchase the treed area behind their lots.  One lot amounted to 14 acres and the other 9 acres.  There was no objection when these lots were sold.  In both instances the land was a poor pocket area, not valuable farm land.  This is the same scenario.

 

G. Lindsay specified he was not familiar with the applications referred to.  He could only assume these fell under the previous Plan’s poor pocket policies.  This is not in a poor pocket; it is in an agriculturally designated area.

 

The Committee approved the recommendation.

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the presence of staff from the Corporate Services and Planning and Growth Management Departments at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing regarding the Committee of Adjustment application for 3329 Joy's Road.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

YEAS (6):        Councillors H. Kreling, A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, M. Bellemare, D. Holmes,
P. Hume

NAYS (2):       Councillors J. Harder, G. Hunter

 

 


8.         DEmolition Control - 115-117-119 O'Connor StreeT

RÉGLEMENTATION DE DÉMOLITION - 115-117-119, RUE O’CONNOR

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0197                                                                   Somerset (14)

 

D. Jacobs, G. Lindsay and Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Development Law, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 2 September 2004.  The Committee heard from the following delegation.

 

Doug Kelly, Soloway, Wright, and Ted Phillips.  Mr. Kelly explained they were in agreement with the recommendation, save and except to the recommendation regarding the park or open space.  He referred to p. 117 of the Agenda – some of the area owned by the applicant has parking as a non-conforming use.  The suggestion would be that after demolition, the owner would look at landscaping the entire site, maintaining the amount of parking currently on the surface of the site.  He asked the Committee to approve the demolition and negotiate an appropriate site plan for the entire site with staff.

 

Mr. Phillips added the suggestion has been, and staff would support, that an area equal to the footprint of the building be landscaped on the areas adjacent to Slater, O’Connor, creating landscaped area adjacent to the sidewalk, with park benches to make it user friendly, but not to encourage people to come onto the site for uses other than sitting in the area.  There are concerns with respect to liability, etc. of creating a larger block and perhaps in the long term create misinformation or misconception that at some time a park would be developed in the area.  The intention is clearly to redevelop the site.

 

Chair Hume suggested a sign be erected stating “this park is provided courtesy of (NAME) for a limited period of time and that there is future development contemplated”. 
Mr. Phillips agreed something of that nature could be erected.

 

In response to Chair Hume and Councillor Holmes, Messrs. Kelly and Phillips provided the following clarification:

·        The building is currently empty.

·        The property is zoned in a central business district with an 8.0 FSI.

·        The building has been an impediment to redevelopment of the site.  The owner would like to demolish and develop the site in accordance with the zoning in place.  It is known the approval process to remove a building takes several months and for a number of reasons the building needs to be demolished and replaced at this time with open space.

·        Taggart Realty Management is a landlord in the City and the most recent figure suggested a current vacancy rate of 6% in their residential buildings; and, a significant portion of the units owned in the downtown core are certainly well under $800/month.  They are offering many incentives to lure people, with several months of free rent.  This is a significantly higher vacancy rate than the 3%, considered to be a normal vacancy rate in a healthy market.  Some landlords report 10% vacancies in the downtown core.

·        The owner approached City Living and CCOC to determine if they would like to upgrade the building and use it in the interim and were turned down.


The Committee also received an e-mail dated 13 September 2004, from David Gladstone asking that the demolition request be deferred until staff has had an opportunity to examine the feasibility of renovating the building for use as affordable housing until a firm requirement emerges for an office-tower development on the site.

 

Councillor Holmes acknowledged it was impossible for non-profits to take over the building in the short term and commented this is another degradation of the central area.  This is what the Demolition Control By-Law was brought in to prevent.  The current residential building is seen as an impediment; but, is in fact the kind of residential building necessary in the downtown area to provide convenient, affordable housing.  The Demolition Control By-Law states that if affordable, convenient housing is being removed, that replacement unit money be provided to the City for affordable housing, to be placed in the Housing Reserve Fund for affordable housing.  The Committee has a choice between taking money for the Housing Reserve Fund or moving to an empty lot that could sit there for 10 years or more, with no guarantee the proponent will win a Federal proposal call.  She opined the best option is to take the money and having said that, she would move that $10,000/unit be provided, although the By-Law provides for $20,000.  Failing that, she would then move that the landscaped open space be the size of the building footprint and that a site plan be agreed to with staff and she agreed landscaping should be at the street.

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That $10,000 per unit be provided for the Housing Reserve Fund in accordance with the Demolition Control By-Law.

 

CARRIED with Councillors G. Hunter and P. Hume dissenting.

 

Councillor Kreling apologized since he misunderstood Councillor Holmes’ Motion and asked for clarification.  Responding to the Chair, T. Marc advised there was no re-consideration at Committee.  The Committee could waive the rules, which requires the support of  ¾ of those present and voting.

 

Moved by Councillor H. Kreling:

 

That the Committee suspend the rules to re-consider the Motion.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That $10,000 per unit be provided for the Housing Reserve Fund in accordance with the Demolition Control By-Law.

 

                                                                                                LOST ON A TIE

 

YEAS (4):        Councillors P. Feltmate, M. Bellemare, D. Holmes, A. Cullen

NAYS (4):       Councillors J. Harder, H. Kreling, G. Hunter, P. Hume


Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That the land area equal to the building footprint be landscaped open space.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

The Committee approved the recommendations as amended.

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the demolition of the building at 115-117-119 O'Connor Street subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         That between the demolition of the existing building and the time of construction of any replacement building, the registered owner shall maintain the property as open space in accordance with a landscape plan submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals, subject to the following amendment:

                                                                               

That the land area equal to the building footprint be landscaped open space.

 

2.         Prior to the demolition of the subject building, the Owner shall enter into an agreement with the City to undertake the requirements of Condition 1 (above) by May 1, 2005 and submit financial security in the amount of $15,000 which will be held by the City until completion of the landscape plan and associated site works.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED as amended

 

 

9.         DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW PILOT PROJECT

PROJET PILOTE D’EXAMEN DE LA CONCEPTION URBAINE DU CENTRE-VILLE   Rideau-Vanier (12)

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0149                                                                   Somerset (14)

 

D. Jacobs, and J. Smit, Program Manager, Development Review, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 23 August 2004.  Following a detailed PowerPoint presentation by Mr. Smit, staff responded to questions posed by members of the Committee, with the main points summarized below.

 

·        Councillor Holmes handed out a map that depicted the area planned for the pilot project.  The pink area is the heritage area with its own design review capability.  The yellow on Wellington is NCC, which has significant design capability and coming down Elgin is NCC as well; and, there is soon to be a heritage district on Sparks Street, leaving the Central Area and Sandy Hill.  There are 7 old site plans in the central area, which she listed separately.

·        The Design Review Pilot Project area was identified and defined to correspond with the area included in the Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy approved by Council.  Downtown Design Strategy established a framework from which the City can launch the pilot project.  Some delegations may refer to the old Ottawa Design Committee, which was in existence for a number of years, but ran into problems some of which can be attributed to the fact there was no frame of reference for its assessment of the design of projects.  The Downtown Design Strategy provides that framework and staff opined it was important to work from that framework as far as the Pilot Project is concerned.  In terms of excluding the areas in the heritage district, they are not excluded from design review, but are excluded from design approval.  Areas in a designated heritage district or where NCC design approval is required will continue as they currently do.  Staff did not want to have a duplicated design approval process in place.  That was consistent with one of the guiding principles laid out.

·        In terms of the reactivation of old site plans, there are lapsing provisions on site plans.  There is an ability to extend the period within which site plans agreements can be registered.  Building permits have been issued under some of those site plans, as they are phased developments; e.g. Constitution Square –Phases I and II were built, but Phase III has not.  Because the building permit was pulled, the site plan is in full force and effect.  If there is a desire on the part of Council to have staff review some of the site plans, there will need to be direction to staff.  This is an item for discussion at the On Time Review.

·        In response to the letter from the Ottawa Regional Society of Architects (ORSA) which raised:  1 - focus should be on urban design; 2 – time limit to the Pilot Project; 3 – urban design as it relates to the public realm; 4 – city projects should be subject to urban design review:

·        There is no issue with respect to concern 1 – clearly the focus is on urban design.

·        Concern 2 – staff did not want to set a time limit.  Recommendation 6 speaks to the development of a monitoring program.  Document 8 addresses different tools that would be utilized in that monitoring program.  One, would be yearly reports to Committee and Council on the status of the pilot project.  If it is functioning properly, it should not be terminated after 2 or 3 years.  If there are issues, there will definitely be an opportunity to terminate it through Committee and Council.  As far as the design review, the terms for members is identified in the Terms of Reference included in the report (2 years).  That affords another opportunity, should Council decide to terminate.  There are sufficient checks and balances.

·        Concern 3, related to the public realm – in principle staff does agree; however, it is unsure whether the scope should be limited on only those elements of the building that might be visible.  The backs of buildings are seen by people, particularly in the downtown.  Clearly, the emphasis is on the public realm.

·        On concern 4 – in principle, there is no issue, but this is not the proper venue for that.  Design Review is focused on integration with development review.  The Urban Design Strategy does talk about a number of initiatives the City should be pursuing.  One of those being what the City does as far as its own infrastructure within the downtown, on its own lands within public rights-of-ways.  That is more appropriately addressed in a more holistic way through the Ottawa By Design Initiative, which falls within Mr. Jacobs’ group.  If Concern 4 is understood correctly, it is not so much focused on development on City-owned land that is subject to development review, but more about street lights, sidewalks, street signs/furniture and that is not something that fits within the Pilot Project.

·        On the EAC representation dealing with membership, this is a Pilot Project.  The City must start somewhere and there was extensive dialogue with the design industry; with representatives from a number of stakeholder groups.  The suggestion was to look to design professionals.  Some of the comments made are valid.  The City will draw from the Review Panel.  The entire panel is not involved in reviewing every application.  Staff continues to be involved.  EAC will continue to be provided an opportunity to comment on applications.  The full circulation process will continue.

·        On the EAC representation dealing with financial honorarium – the input indicated that design review groups (operating with design professionals) in Canada and North America, operate on honorariums, basically as a token recognition of the contribution.  Advisory committees are made up of volunteers who definitely provide a valuable role, advisory to Council.  The Review Panel is not advisory to Council, but has a specific role to play in an approval process.  In that lies the distinction between the advisory role and what is expected from this panel.

 

Gerry LePage, Bank Street BIA, was in support, but left before the Committee dealt with the item.

 

Iola Price, Chair, OFGAC, was in support, but left before the Committee dealt with the item.  Ms. Price did leave a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Rick MacEwen, Ottawa Regional Society of Architects (ORSA), was in opposition, but left before the Committee dealt with the item.

 

Ralph Wiesbrock, Chair, ORSA Design Review Task Force, provided a detailed written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  Denise LePage, Vice-Chair, ORSA addressed the Committee on behalf of Mr. Wiesbrock who was unable to attend initially.  Ms. LePage commented on the work shops and consultation process, which were very effective and appreciated the significant consideration given to their input by staff and at the meetings various Councillors had with representatives from their Society.  Ms. LePage addressed the 4 considerations contained in the letter, outlined below and appreciated the response from Mr. Smit:

·        Concern 1 – Mr. Smit concurred.

·        Concern 2 – ORSA would be satisfied with that being addressed through the monitoring process.  That the City will create a process that includes the Peer Review Panel and through that they would establish a time line.

·        Concern 3– ORSA reiterated the importance of addressing that, which ties into the first concern about it being about urban design and not about past Design Committees.

·        Concern 4 – City projects should be subject to Urban Design Review

On the other issues enumerated, ORSA would hope to participate in any consultation should the opportunity arise.  There were 2 other small points she wished to add that raised a red flag.  Document 5, under 2. Application Submission, makes reference to coloured elevations, which begs the question if a proponent chooses to change the colour of the brick would that have to proceed through an entire re-submission for such a minor change.  It seems that colour should be extracted.  A similar concern arises with Document 3, 1.0 and 2.0, with reference to specifications.  There appears to be too much specificity in the word specification.  That is usually a document produced much later on in preparation for construction documents.  She also noted in the slides presented the terms – design plan and design brief were used.  Perhaps those are better, and perhaps the term specifications could be extracted, because that level of detail would not normally be available at this stage in submission and if so, it would only be in an outline form.  ORSA looked forward to being a participant in the monitoring process.

 

In response to Chair Hume relative to the comments on the colour and specificity, Mr. Smit explained that staff is aware that when a proponent comes forward with coloured renderings, those are valuable for public presentations.  The Design Review is not going to be focussed on colour and that is made clear throughout the document.  Staff is not focusing on materials, tint colour of glass, etc.  It is not going to be at that level of detail and should the Review Panel commence focussing along that line, staff would take a role to re-focus the Panel.  In terms of the reference to specifications, it is the plans submitted that are approved that will govern, similar to a site plan.  A site plan will indicate certain specifications, but it does not get down to that level of detail.  These are the design drawings and certain specifics are noted on those drawings and those would be part of the approval.  Ms. LePage suggested the word “optional” when referring to the coloured part for Document 5, as an option, similarly with specifications.

 

Responding to Chair Hume, with respect to widening the scope of membership on the Peer Review Panel (EAC), Mr. Wiesbrock was present and responded that with respect to the environmental, based on the discussions that took place, it would potentially be a distraction from the urban design issues.  Although they can co-exist and re-enforce each other, he was unsure the City would want to muddy the waters on a Pilot Project.  Responding further, Mr. Wiesbrock posited urban design parameters is a specialty in itself and the discussion to have it focussed would be a more positive way of approaching it.  Relative to Concern #4, Mr. Wiesbrock emphasized it was a matter of credibility.  If the City desires to do this, City projects should be submitted to the same criteria.  J. Smit explained that if a City project is going forward it has to proceed through a site plan approval process and will be subject to the same design review process as any other project.  The comment from ORSA was directed to applying the same high standards to works within the City’s rights-of-ways, not covered through a development approval process, but governed by City Council budgets and Capital Works Programs.  Staff is not disagreeing, but that is something that is outside the scope of this Pilot Project and could be looked at through the Ottawa By Design Initiatives.  It would require greater discussion and dialogue with departments involved in providing these to the City in terms of City infrastructure, etc.  The proposed Motion talks to re-construction efforts on Laurier Avenue or redevelopment of a street.  Certainly, those were touched upon in the Downtown Design Strategy.  The Motion is really asking that these projects be made subject to the approval of a Director in Planning and Growth Management.  He was not aware whether this Committee can direct that to happen.  It is better to have this discussed in the context of the work of the TRC and perhaps a full discussion at Council.

 

Councillor Holmes referenced the last page of the ORSA letter that contains 4 Motions.  Mr. Smit explained these are being looked at through the Ottawa By Design Initiative and possibly there should be a directive to staff to look into these as part of that Initiative. 
Mr. Jacobs agreed with that comment and, in particular, there has been discussion with
Mr. Wiesbrock with respect to the Design Awards process and staff is looking at that as an initiative to commence in 2005 with the architects.

 

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

·        Memorandum dated 12 September 2004 from Paul Koch, Chair, EAC, outlining some general concerns.

·        E-mail dated 13 September 2004 from David Gladstone, President, Centretown Citizens Community Association in support

 

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

 

1.                  That the term “Design Review” be replaced by “Urban Design Review”.

 

2.                  That City projects (including the redevelopment of streets, sidewalks, intersections, lighting, traffic signals and signage, hard and soft landscaping, furniture, bus shelters, and below grade utilities which may affect or allow the growth of street trees) within the study area be subject to this pilot project.

 

3.                  That one architect position on the Design Review Panel be drawn from architects specializing in environmental design

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That staff be directed to include the 4 elements noted below to be referred to the Ottawa By Design Initiative:

 

a.                  That staff be directed to appoint an internal urban design champion to evaluate and coordinate all related municipal activities to ensure that urban design goals are being actively considered incorporated across all departments; and,

 

b.                  That staff be directed to incorporate the use of quality-based selection (QBS) and the recognition of design excellence into the selection and evaluation criteria in City initiated requests for proposals; and,

 

c.                   That urban design excellence be recognized on an ongoing and public basis through the initiation of an urban design awards program; and,

 

d.                  That streetscape funding be allocated and incorporated into municipal transportation, transit and infrastructure projects.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

The Committee approved the recommendations as amended.

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

 

1.         Establish a Downtown Design Review Pilot Project utilizing the authority provided by the former City of Ottawa Act RSO 1959, to require Design Review and Approval as part of the Site Plan Approval process for all new development and for additions to existing development within the area as shown on Document 1 that is included within the Council Approved Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy by:

 

a.         Adopting Document 2 as a policy framework for the Downtown Design Review Pilot Project.

 

b.         Enacting a By-law pursuant to the provisions of the former City of Ottawa Act RSO 1959 as set out in Document 3.

 

c.         Approving and Adopting an Amendment to the City of Ottawa Official Plan as set out in Document 4.

 

2.         Approve the integration of the Downtown Design Review Pilot Project into the current Development Review Process utilizing a Peer Design Review Panel as detailed in Document 5.

 

3.         Endorse the Design Review Considerations set out in Document 6 for the Downtown Design Review Pilot Project.

 

4.         Approve the Terms of Reference detailed in Document 7 for the Peer Design Review Panel.

 

5.         Direct staff to request the Ontario Association of Architects and the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects to assist in establishing a Peer Design Review Panel comprising 10 design professionals (seven architects and three landscape architects) for the Downtown Design Review Pilot Project and that staff bring forward a report to have Council appoint the Peer Design Review Panel, subject to the following amendment:

 

That one architect position on the Design Review Panel be drawn from architects specializing in environmental design

 

6.         Launch the Downtown Design Review Pilot Project when:

 

a.         A Monitoring Program in accordance with the Principles set out in Document 8 has been developed by staff in consultation with the Peer Design Review Panel and that the Monitoring Program be established by November 30, 2004; and

 

b.         The Department's development approval processes has been modified to incorporate the design review and approval process detailed in Document 5 for the processing of development applications within the Downtown Design Review Pilot Project area shown in Document 1 and that the modifications to the review processes and necessary staff training be completed by December 31, 2004.

 

7.                  That the term “Design Review” be replaced by “Urban Design Review”.

 

8.                  That City projects (including the redevelopment of streets, sidewalks, intersections, lighting, traffic signals and signage, hard and soft landscaping, furniture, bus shelters, and below grade utilities which may affect or allow allow the growth of street trees) within the study area be subject to this pilot project.

 

CARRIED as amended with Councillors J. Harder and G. Hunter dissenting.

 

9.                  That staff be directed to include the 4 elements noted below to be referred to the Ottawa By Design Initiative:

 

a.                  That staff be directed to appoint an internal urban design champion to evaluate and coordinate all related municipal activities to ensure tha urban design goals are being actively considered incorporated across all departments; and,

 

b.                  That staff be directed to incorporate the use of quality-based selection (QBS) and the recognition of design excellence into the selection and evaluation criteria in City initiated requests for proposals; and,

 

c.                   That urban design excellence be recognized on an ongoing and public basis through the initiation of an urban design awards program; and,


d.                  That streetscape funding be allocated and incorporated into municipal transportation, transit and infrastructure projects.

 

                                                                                    CARRIED as amended

 

 

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

POLITIQUES D’URBANISME, D’ENVIRONNEMENT ET

D’INFRASTRUCTURE

 

10.       "WHERE WILL WE LIVE?: HOUSING POTENTIAL IN OTTAWA 2002-2021" Draft report

RAPPORT PRÉLIMINAIRE « OÙ VIVRONS-NOUS? : LE POTENTIEL RÉSIDENTIEL D'OTTAWA, 2002-2021 »

ACS2004-DEV-POL-0034                                                                        City-Wide

 

D. Jacobs, and Ian Cross, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 1 September 2004.

 

The Committee heard from the following delegation:

 

Robert Brocklebank, FCA, provided a written presentation, in support, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  The main points of the presentation are noted below:

·        The population projections may have been distorted by the technology boom in full swing at the time the projections were prepared.

·        As such, the demand for housing will be less than projected.  Therefore, the “Where will we live” study makes us doubly confident the urban boundaries approved by Council provides adequate room for residential development.

·        The study is highly conservative in its methods of estimating the capacity for further residential development to occur.  Many new dwellings are created in established communities through severance or establishment of secondary units in existing dwellings.  This approach results in an under-estimate of residential capacity in the City.

·        The demand for housing will be less than assumed and the supply greater.

·        The old zoning by-laws permit construction to meet the City’s needs for housing and the “Where will we live” study proves this.

·        When proponents argue that greater height is needed to address the City’s call for intensification, the application should be dismissed and the applicant asked to refer to this report.

·        The report should be widely communicated and constitute an initial step in an extensive and coherent engagement by citizens in issues of urbanization, urban design and questions of density of development.

·        A consensus is emerging over time that will bring the City forward in accordance with the guiding principles of the growth management strategy.

 

Doug Kelly spoke on behalf of John Herbert, Executive Director, Ottawa-Carleton Homebuilders’ Association (OCHA) (letter dated 14 September 2004, circulated and on file with the City Clerk).  OCHA intends to retain consultants to review the report and, given the time frames, asked that the matter come forward in November as opposed to October to provide their consultant an opportunity to review the report.  Simply speaking he was saying the same thing as FCA that there be some direction.

 

Martin Laplante, Action Sandy Hill (ASH), provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  Mr. Laplante was not present when the Committee considered the item.

 

Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering, was present, but had to leave before the item was considered by Committee.

 

In response to questions from members of the Committee, the following clarifications were provided:

·        The request to have the report come forward in October was received from Mr. Marc.  There was a concern with respect to timing upcoming hearings and the availability of a finalized report.  The original intent was to bring it forward in November.

·        The extent to which staff is able to bring forward programs and recommend initiatives and incentives, either financial or non-financial, process-related, will be investigated.

·        Staff plans to implement the OP through the revisions to the zoning by-law through a variety of mechanisms that will encourage investment and redevelopment.

·        The purpose of this report was to merely identify potential and speak to issues of the availability of land for residential development based on the policies in the OP and existing zoning

 

The Committee approved the departmental recommendation.

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for information and that staff report back in October on the results of ongoing consultations.

 

                                                                                                RECEIVED

 

 

11.       APPEAL 27 - FERNBANK ROAD REALIGNMENT AT EAGLESON ROAD

APPEL 27 - NOUVEAU TRACÉ DU CHEMIN FERNBANK À LA HAUTEUR DU CHEMIN EAGLESON                                                                                          Kanata (4)

ACS2004-DEV-POL-0044                                                                 Goulbourn (6)

 

Murray Chown, Novatech on behalf of D.I.R. Investments, was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 1 September 2004.  The Committee also received an e-mail dated 12 September 2004 from Peter McNichol, President, Katimavik Hazeldean Community Association (KHCA), in support (with additional comments), which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. 
Mr. McNichol also requested on behalf of KHCA that Fernbank Road be closed entirely between Eagleson and Terry Fox at the earliest possible opportunity.  The Committee approved the recommendations.

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

 

1.         Support the deletion of the Fernbank Road realignment from Schedule E of the City of Ottawa Official Plan;

 

2.         Direct staff to communicate this position to the Ontario Municipal Board during the teleconference scheduled for September 30, 2004;

 

3.         Support the re-phasing of the Terry Fox Drive extension from Fernbank Road to Hope Side Road, from Phase 3 (by 2021) to Phase 2 (by 2013) in the Transportation Master Plan.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

BUILDING SERVICES

DIRECTION DES SERVICES DU BÂTIMENT

 

12.       SIGN BY-LAW MINOR VARIANCE - 370 West Hunt club road

DÉROGATION MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES – 370, CHEMIN WEST HUNT CLUB

ACS2004-DEV-BLD-0024                      Bell-South Nepean/Bell-Nepean sud (3)

 

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 1 September 2004.

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve a Minor Variance to Signs By-law 2-99, of the former City of Nepean, to permit and legalize an existing identification ground sign with a height of 10 metres instead of the maximum height of 6 metres and with an area of 15 square metres instead of the maximum area of 14 square metres.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

 

13.       SIGN BY-LAW MINOR VARIANCE - 500 Terry Fox road

DÉROGATION MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES - 500, CHEMIN TERRY FOX

ACS2004-DEV-BLD-0025                                                                      Kanata (4)

 

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 1 September 2004.


That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve a Minor Variance to Signs By-law 66-98, of the former City of Kanata, to allow four wall signs that project 0.6 metres above the roofline of a gas bar canopy.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

purlic works and services

services et Travaux publics

 

Utility services

Services publics

 

14.       SEWER USE BY-LAW ADMINISTRATION POLICY

Politique d’administration du rÈglement municipal sur les Égouts

ACS2004-TUP-UTL-0010

 

R.T. Leclair, Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services, and Felice Petti, Manager, Environmental Programs and Technical Support Branch, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 28 July 2004.

 

Chair Hume noted a phone call and a letter was received from Bob Bielawski, Ontario Regional Manager, In-Sink-Erator (Canada), Division of Emerson Electric Canada Ltd..  Mr. Bielawski asked to address the Committee on fees and as such requested the matter be deferred to the next meeting.

 

Ms. Leclair indicated there was no issue with deferring the report, but maintained the report is administrative and not related to the issue of fees and perhaps that issue should be referred to staff to report back.  The by-law and fee structure was approved by Committee and Council in 2003.  This report is an administrative policy that outlines how staff will enforce the by-law.  Mr. Petti explained the fines were attached for information purposes only.

 

In response to Councillor Cullen, Mr. Petti averred that since the approach is one of cooperation and working with the industry, the incidence of non-compliance is low.  Ticketing does occur, but given the size of the industry, it is a very small component. 
Mr. Petti agreed to provide Councillor Cullen with numbers related to how many incidents are investigated in a year; how many are violations; and, how many lead to fines?

 

In response to a request by the Chair, Mr. Petti agreed to respond to Mr. Bobielawski to close the file.

 

The Committee approved the departmental recommendation.

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve:


1.         The Sewer Use By-law Administration Policy as described in this report and direct staff to implement the Policy in accordance with the principles and processes outlined therein; and

 

2.         The delegation of authority to the Deputy City Manager of Public Works and Services to amend the Sewer Use By-law Administration Policy to address minor or administrative matters from time to time as required.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

15.       An Assessment of the Potential to Land Apply Biosolids

GENERATED AT THE ROBERT O. PICKARD ENVIRONMENTAL CENTRE

ÉVALUATION DE LA POSSIBILITÉ d’UTILIser les biosolides produits au centre environnemental robert-o.-pickard À des fins d’Épandage

ACS2004-TUP-UTL-0011

 

R.T. Leclair, Sally McIntyre, Program Manager, Biosolids Management Program, F. Petti, Dr. Robert Cushman and J. Jackson appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 28 July 2004.  Following a PowerPoint presentation by Mr. Petti, staff responded to questions posed by members of the Committee, with the main points summarized below.  A copy of the presentation was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

·        The best practices recommended in the report are those recommended by the Medical Officer of Health (MOH) in May 2002.  Option 2 are the best management practices the MOH recommended at that time.  What has changed is that the Nutrient Management Act (NMA) has been enacted, which made a number of the guidelines regulations.

·        The items identified as best management practices and those items addressed in the NMA that are now regulations are more rigorous protocols for the application vs. the actual practice prior to the suspension of biosolids application.  As such, the City would be returning to a more rigorous regulation of application than that previously in use.  One significant change was storage.  The 90-day storage period is no longer permitted; it is now 10 days.

·        Relative to the regulation limits of the various minerals, Ontario was equal to all but Nova Scotia, which is more stringent.  Ottawa equates to Class B, which contains pathogens, Class A does not.  The City anticipated giving away the Biosolids.  If the City were to charge, it would fall under the Fertilizer Act, which has different requirements and requires pre-approval.  That is a different exercise and process the City would have to undergo, which is more stringent.  Ottawa’s biosolids are of a high quality; referring to Table II, the City has remained under the standards set out by the Province on an on-going basis.  The City meets the Nova Scotia Standards, which are the most stringent in Canada.  The City’s standards are in the same range as the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) (U.S.), much of the work Ontario relies on is done in the EPA.  Document 2, Ottawa’s R. O. Pickard Environmental Centre (ROPEC) Biosolid Quality – the table illustrates Ontario’s parameters compared to the U.S.’ EPA and the European Union (EU) regulations.  The 4th column illustrates how Ottawa compares.  Consistently ROPEC quality is significantly below regulated parameters across North America and EU.  The City has very good biosolids quality.

·        With respect to selling this product, staff was not recommending that at this point in time.  There are requirements for testing with the Fertilizer Act, because at that point it becomes a product being sold.  That is why typically the industry has been giving it away to maintain lower costs and to abide by the NMA with which the industry is more familiar.  The Fertilizer Act only comes into play when the proponent is considering packaging the material.  Should the City decide to sell without packaging, then the City would not need to resort to that Act and the regulations thereunder

·        The contractor is required to incorporate biosolids into the land within 2 hours of spreading.  Biosolids would either be stored in the ROPEC hoppers or the farmer/ contractor could choose to store it on site, but only up to 10 days.  Once stored on site, different setback limits would be in effect.  There is only a 2-day storage ability at ROPEC.  Staff is 99% sure Ottawa biosolids, in a composted form, do not come back into Ontario.  That has been confirmed through Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the City’s contractor.  It is quite successfully disposed in the Quebec market.

·        The ban is only on the City’s biosolids.  The NMA allows other municipalities or industries to spread within the City limits.  The last check with MOE assured the City that is currently not taking place.

 

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

 

Carol Melanson provided a written presentation, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  The main points are summarized below:

·        Lives in Vernon and a member of the Ottawa Citizens Against Pollution by Sewage (OCAPS) and was a member of the Public Advisory Committee which contributed to the Biosolids Management Plan of 2001.

·        3 horrible experiences with the spreading of biosolids in close proximity to her home.  The smell is indescribable and returns every time it rains for months after.

·        There is concern with respect to damage to wells.

·        When fields are cultivated, tractors create dust clouds with the resulting toxic and pathogenic particles contained within that dust.

·        As rain works through the soil, it is being carried into the drain tile (and every agricultural field is drain tiled).  Those tiles empty into ditches, streams and rivers.

·        Do not ignore the grave concerns of the scientific and medical professionals – there are many reports from the Doctors of the Canadian Infectious Disease Society, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Centres for Disease Control.

·        Dr. Cushman disagreed with 400 doctors of the Canadian Infectious Disease Society.

·        It has not been proven unsafe.  She asked for undisputable evidence it is safe to spread.

 

Helen Gerson was not present when the Committee dealt with the item, but provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated to the Committee and is held on file with the City Clerk.


Carol Poushinsky, OCAPS, provided a written presentation, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  The main points are summarized below:

·        Lives in Edwards.  Understood leech aids from other dumps mixed in with biosolids at ROPEC.

·        Referred to the contract with Vanson and GSI.

·        Who will police the spreading?  The MOE does not respond promptly to complaints.

·        Did not have any confidence the biosolids will be applied properly.  The contractors do not take appropriate special precautions.

·        If it is so safe, why is it not used at the Experimental Farm or the Queensway median?

·        Provided a few incidents of horror stories; e.g. spreading in ditches that were overflowing, entire loads tipped into a ditch, wrong fields spread, etc.

 

Following on the presentation, Councillor Cullen and Chair Hume received the following clarifications:

·        Any leech aid accepted at ROPEC has to meet the City’s Sewer By-Law, which is one of the strictest in Ontario.  As noted through the presentation, the City’s biosolids surpass all the standards.  The City does take it from other land fills.  Standards are set on what is accepted, which are tested and monitored on an ongoing basis.  The list of who the City has leech aid agreements with is public knowledge.

·        Each site is subject to pre-inspection and the contractor is required to identify the area being spread and the site then becomes the subject of a post-inspection to ensure the contractor remained within the limits.

·        Remediation efforts for the examples given – the City was immediately made aware and the contractor was instructed to excavate the ditch beyond the actual spill area to ensure everything was recovered.  The ditch was dry at the time and as such it was not a large issue.  Generally speaking there is an ability to contain such incidents.

·        The terms are outlined in the Certificate of Approval from MOE.

·        Dr. Cushman advised the best management practices were set, with an annual review and a site by site review.  There were concerns at the time about practices and that is why the best management practices were adopted, not only to improve on what was done, but to set a higher bar.  As for the actual monitoring, he would have to defer to Mr. Petti.  Mr. Petti clarified those were two options available to the City.  A third party could conduct the auditing, which staff was comfortable with or if Committee/Council prefer that could rest within the MOH overseeing the TUPW application of the standards.  The Chair was assured that did not have to be put forward as an option.

 

Jim Poushinksy, Chair, OCAPS, provided a detailed written presentation, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  Mr. Poushinsky added the following:

·        The best management practices recommended by Dr. Cushman have never been tested.

·        He questioned whether the NMA is more stringent.  In fact, it is considerably less stringent and basically treats biosolids as manure with very little distinction between the two.  In fact, biosolids are now being called a nutrient.

·        He opined this is driven by staffs’ efforts to cut the City budget.

·        Staff has not been honest with OCAPS and Mr. Poushinsky related an incident that took place, involving the former Director of Utility Services, regarding the cost of landfilling biosolids at Trail Road vs. Lafleche.  This occurred at the former Environmental Services Committee (ESC), and City Council.

·        At the 2004 City budget review, staff was charged to look at the cost of land applying.  OCAPS at that time asked for the cost of landfilling at the dump be considered.  In the background of the report beneficial use was defined as either a nutrient or energy.  If it is deposited in the dump, a biocell is created, which then generates methane gas, which is collected under the cap and burned in a generator or as a heat source.  It is a direct energy and that is an advantage.  It is also not spread on the ground to have it enter the atmosphere contributing to the green house effect.

·        $2 Million could be saved by putting in the dump.  Is that not better than saving $300,000 for spreading around the countryside and ruining their lives.

 

As a result of the presentation, Councillor Cullen received the following clarifications:

·        Bringing biosolids to the Trail Land Fill site to take up valuable space as opposed to effectively using it on the land or as compost, is not something staff would recommend to Committee.  If that were to happen, a number of things would need to be reviewed.  Trail Road would need to be set up to accept that material.  Staff was not convinced that funds would not need to be expended to prepare the site to accept it.

·        The methane gas option sounds plausible, but more energy would be derived by composting.  Staff does not believe that is in the City’s best interest.

·        The 5 year limit on returning to agricultural sites would not apply to Trail Road because there are liners there to protect.

·        There are separations with respect to water tables, bedrock and with respect to fields.  Fields are tiled to keep ground water from coming up into the soil and not to drain the upper portion of the soil.  Those are perfectly acceptable sites to spread biosolids.  The majority of sites in the Ottawa area are tile drained.  Staff would prefer them to be tile drained because the moisture in the soil tends to allow pathogens to travel properly.

·        In 2002, as part of the strategy for Biosolids Management a number of options were outlined, none of which have been finalized and staff are in the process of finalizing those options and certainly that should take place within the next year.  Capturing the methane at the landfill site will be included, if landfilling becomes one of the options.  Staff is looking at landfill and a report is forthcoming within the next month.  Biosolids is not part of that report.

·        Mr. Poushinsky’s letter would be provided to staff for respond at Council.

 

The following individuals, in opposition, were not present when the Committee dealt with the item:

 

Bill Pomeret; Buffy Nekachuk; Karen Switzer-House; Estella Rose; and, Lisa Jones

 

The Committee also received an e-mail dated 14 September 2004, from Maureen Reilly, in opposition, which is held on file with the City. Clerk.

 

The Committee approved the departmental recommendation.

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council, in accordance with the recommendations of the Biosolids Management Plan Update (December 2001) and the findings of the Medical Officer of Health (April 2002), authorize land application of the City of Ottawa’s municipal biosolids in accordance with Option 2 presented herein, to commence January 2005.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

At the conclusion of this item, R.T. Leclair introduced Ken Brothers the new Director of Utility Services.

 

 

INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED

INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉ ANTÉRIEUREMENT

 

A.        Advisory Committee Reserve Appointment – Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee

Nomination d’un membre suppléant au Comité consultatif sur la conservation de l’architecture locale

ACS2004-CRS-SEC-0052

 

                                                                                                            RECEIVED

 

 

ADDITIONAL ITEM

POINTs SUPPLÉMENTAIRE

 

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee approve the addition of a Motion at today’s meeting pursuant to Section 81(3) of the Procedure By-Law (being By-Law 2003-589).

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

COUNCILLOR / CONSEILLER R. CHIARELLI

 

16.              FORMER CITY OF NEPEAN URBAN AREA ZONING BY-LAW - ROOMING HOUSES / INTERIM CONTROL BY-LAW FOR PLAN M-115

RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE URBAIN DE L'ANCIENNE VILLE DE NEPEAN - MAISONS DE CHAMBRES / RÈGLEMENT DE RESTRICTION PROVISOIRE CONCERNANT LE PLAN M-115

ACS2004-CCS- PEC-0008

 

Chair Hume noted Councillor Harder would be moving a Motion that related to the Nepean Urban Area Zoning By-Law on behalf of Councillor R. Chiarelli, the Ward Councillor.  He noted Plan M-115 includes Parkglen Drive; Birchview Road; Birchview Court; Andover Place; Withrow Avenue; Suffolk Street; Canter Boulevard; Elmbank Crescent; Rutherford Street; and, the north side of David Drive.

 

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

 

Doug Kelly and Stephen Silver, owner.  Mr. Kelly advised that Mr. Silver had made an application for a building permit to convert 9 Birchview Court to a rooming house in accordance with the Zoning By-Law of the former City of Nepean.  Mr. Silver became aware the Zoning By-Law of the former City of Nepean allows for the operation of a rooming house; e.g. the rental of up to 5-7 bedrooms, exclusive of those being used by the homeowner, in a single family dwelling.  There is a double cohort of students arriving in the City this year.  He recognized that a safe environment for students was lacking in the marketplace and thus he identified a single detached home located within one minute’s walk from Algonquin College.  Prior to the purchase, he reviewed the subject property with the zoning department to ensure it would not require any zoning changes to operate as an off-campus student residence.  He was assured on two occasions the subject site complied in all respects.  Upon these assurances, he purchased the property and reviewed the facility with an architect to ensure it met the building code requirements to ensure a safe environment while not changing the façade of the building so that it would continue to blend in with the neighbourhood.  The upgrades included the installation of fire-rated drywall, central alarm systems, sound isolation systems and many other upgrades totalling approximately $50,000.  Operationally, he had planned for a house manager to live on the property, in addition to his constant visitation of the property.  He received a strong rental response.

 

Mr. Kelly added he was surprised that when reviewing the Zoning By-Law enacted in 2000, a rooming or boarding house is a permitted use in all zones,.  In this case it is an R3 zone.  A permit is ready to be issued and if the Committee is going to proceed with an Interim Control By-Law, he asked that this property be exempt.

 

Councillor Chiarelli indicated that, notwithstanding the presentation made by Mr. Silver, the community anticipated a Notice of Motion to be presented today.  There would have been 200 residents present if they had expected the actual Motion to come forward.  The Committee can appreciate that while the rest of the new City has regulations that must be met to establish a rooming house, it is unconscionable to allow the entire former City of Nepean to continue without any kind of controls or management placed over where/when/how a rooming house is established.  Therefore, he has spoken to those present and if the Committee agrees, they are prepared to accept yes as an answer and will not speak.

 

The following residents were present in support of the Motion, but did not address the Committee:



·        Ken Shultz

·        Ken Hancock

·        Liane Can

·        Ilana Albert-Novick

·        Earle Smith

·        Dale Tuck


·        Sharon Seguin

·        Gaven Kempton

·        Patricia Hancock

·        Vivianne Leguerrier

·        Marilyn Stolavik


 

Responding to Councillor Holmes with respect to the former City of Nepean, D. Jacobs explained that currently in a single detached dwelling it is permissible to have 5-7 rooming units.  For the rest of the City, it varies from place to place.  In most, a rooming house would require either a re-zoning or a higher density zone.  What is generally accepted in most municipalities in a single detached dwelling is the ability to have 2-3 roomers before it is defined as a rooming house.

 

In response to Councillor Hunter, Mr. Marc advised the By-Law has not been interpreted to date as requiring that a house manager be present for it to qualify.  Mr. Kelly recollected the by-law stated that 5-7 boarders, exclusive of the proprietor.

 

Councillor Cullen raised the question of process.  Mr. Marc posited the Motion is for two things:  1) for a study to look at rooming houses in all of urban Nepean; and, 2) which is completely severable, an Interim Control By-Law on rooming houses within Plan M-115.

 

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

 

WHEREAS the City of Nepean Urban Area Zoning By-Law can be interpreted to permit rooming houses in single detached dwellings;

 

AND WHEREAS concern has been expressed that in particular neighbourhoods in Nepean the scope of the permission to establish rooming houses is too broad;

 

AND WHEREAS a rooming house is already proposed to be established within Registered Plan M-115;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Planning and Environment Committee recommend to Council that:

 

1.                  The Planning and Growth Management Department be directed to conduct a study with respect to the urban area of the former City of Nepean to determine the appropriate locations and zoning standards for rooming houses;

 

2.                  The City of Ottawa enact an Interim Control By-Law for Plan M-115 in the form attached as Document 1 to this report.

 

CARRIED with Councillor D. Holmes dissenting.


Following approval of the above Motion, Councillor Holmes wished to move to exempt the subject property.  Mr. Marc advised the Motion should have been introduced before the Motion to adopt the interim control by-law was approved.  There will, of course, be the opportunity to introduce a Motion when the matter rises to Council.

 

 

 

CONFIDENTIAL AGENDA 6

ORDRE DU JOUR CONFIDENTIEL 6

 

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

 

That the meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee move In Camera pursuant to Section 12(1) (e) Litigation or potential litigation affecting the City, including matters before administrative tribunals, of the Procedure By-law, to consider Confidential Agenda 6.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

 

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.

 

 

Original signed by                                                     Original signed by

Lorenzina Ferrari                                                      Councillor P. Hume

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                           

Committee Coordinator                                             Chair