CONFIRMATION
OF MINUTES
Ratification dU
procÈs-verbaL
Minutes 39 of the
Planning and Environment Committee meeting of Tuesday, 23 September 2008 were
confirmed.
CONFIRMED
STATEMENT
REQUIRED UNDER THE PLANNING ACT
Chair Hume read a statement
required under the Planning Act, which advises that anyone who intends
to appeal the proposed Official Plan and Zoning Amendments listed as Item 1 on
today’s agenda must either voice their objections at this public meeting or
submit their comments in writing prior to the amendments being adopted by City
Council on 22 October 2008. Failure to
do so may result in the Ontario Municipal Board dismissing all or part of the
appeals.
STATEMENT
REQUIRED FOR ZONING MATTERS SUBMITTED FOR POST JANUARY 1, 2007
DÉCLARATION POUR LES DEMANDES DE MODIFICATION DE ZONAGE PRÉSENTÉES
APRÈS LE 1ER JANVIER 2007
Chair Hume read a statement
relative to the Zoning By-law Amendments listed as Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 on
the Agenda. He advised that only those
who made oral submissions at today’s meeting or written submissions before the
amendments are adopted could appeal these matters to the Ontario Municipal
Board. In addition, applicants may
appeal the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board if Council does not adopt an
amendment within 120 days for Zoning and 180 days for an Official Plan Amendment
of receipt of the application.
PLanning,
TranSIT and thE EnVIRONMENT
urbanisme, transport en commun et environNement
PLANNING
URBANISME
1. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING - 30 GOULBOURN
FORCED ROAD
PLAN OFFICIEL ET RÈGLEMENT DU ZONAGE
- 30, CHEMIN GOULBOURN FORCED
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0179 Kanata North/nord (4)
(This
application is not subject to Bill 51)
Lise Dalla Rosa, Richcraft, was present
in support of the recommendations. She
and Grant Lindsay, Manager of Devleopment Approvals, were informed of the
motion being brought forward by Councillor Wilkinson and did not object.
Moved by P. Feltmate:
That the setback on the Goulbourn Forced Road be changed from 0
metres to 3 metres;
And that staff be directed to change the name of the road to
Disdbury Road.
CARRIED
That the Planning and Environment
Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve
and adopt an amendment to the Kanata Town Centre Site-Specific Policies in
Volume 2-B of the Official Plan to redesignate 30 Goulbourn Forced Road from
"LDE" (Low Density Employment Area) to "LDE-5" (Low Density
Employment Area - Special Policy Area 5)", as detailed in Document 4.
2. Approve
an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 30 Goulbourn
Forced Road from “IL7[307]-h” (Light Industrial Subzone 7, Exception 307,
Holding) to "IL7[xxxx]-h" (Light Industrial Subzone 7, Exception
xxxx, Holding), as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 5.
3. Approve
an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning By-law 142-93 to change the
zoning of 30 Goulbourn Forced Road from “M1C-1(H)” (Light Industrial, Mixed,
Exception 1, Holding) to “M1C–x(H)” (Light Industrial, Mixed, Exception x,
Holding), as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 5.
4. Approve that the setback on
Goulbourn Forced Road be changed from 0 to 3 metres;
5. That staff be directed to change
the name of the road to Didsbury Road.
CARRIED as amended
2. ZONING - 175 AND 425
MARCH VALLEY ROAD
ZONAGE
- 175 ET 425, CHEMIN MARCH VALLEY
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0194 KANATA NORTH/NORD
(4)
(This application
is subject to Bill 51)
Greg Winters,
Novatech Engineering, on behalf of the Kanata Research Park Corp., was present in
support of the application.
That
the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve an amendment to Zoning By-law
2008-250 to change the zoning of 175 and 425 March Valley Road by amending the
Business Park Industrial, Subzone 8 exception 172 (IP8[172]H(15)) to permit a
'golf course' as a temporary use for a period of three years as shown in
Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.
2. Approve an amendment to the former City of
Kanata Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 175 and 425 March Valley Road by
amending the Rural Industrial - exception (d) (RI(d)) to permit a 'golf course'
as a temporary use for a period of three years as shown in Document 1 and as
detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
3. ZONING - 300 EAGLESON ROAD
ZONAGE - 300, CHEMIN
EAGLESON
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0206 KANATA south/sud (23)
(This application is subject to Bill 51)
The
following delegations were present in support of the application:
·
Dave
Dorans, Westpin Properties/Bentall Retail
·
Nadia
De Santi, FoTenn Consultants Inc.
·
D.
Egan, Philippe Dandurand Wings Ltd.
·
Bruce
Firestone, Partners Advantage GMAC
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council:
1. Approve an amendment to the Zoning
By-law 2008-250 to amend Urban Exception 224 as it relates to 300 Eagleson Road
and as detailed in Document 2.
2. Approve an amendment to the former City
of Kanata Zoning By-law 169-93 to amend the CG-1 Zone as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
4. ZONING - 340 GLADSTONE AVENUE
5. ZONING
- 228-242 BESSERER STREET
ZONAGE - 228-242, RUE BESSERER
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0192 Rideau-Vanier
(12)
(This application
is subject to Bill 51)
Rod Lahey and Brian Casagrande
were present in support of the recommendations.
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve an amendment to the Zoning By
law 2008 250 to change the zoning of 228 242 Besserer Street from R5F Schedule
70 to R5F[***] Schedule 70 revised, as detailed in Document 2.
2. Approve an amendment to the former City
of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 228-242 Besserer Street from
R6M - Schedule 198 to R6M[***] Schedule 198 revised, as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
6. ZONING
- 340 INDUSTRIAL AVENUE
ZONAGE - 340, VENUE
INDUSTRIAL
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0207 Alta Vista (18)
(This application is subject to Bill
51)
The following correspondence and
documentation was received and is held on file with the City Clerk:
·
Summary
of comments received at a public meeting held June 10, 2008
·
Email
dated October 8, 2008 from Patrick Buchanan seeking deferral
·
Email
dated October 9, 2008 from Jennifer Faulkner seeking deferral
·
Email
dated October 13, 2008 from Roger Piché seeking deferral
Roger Piché, Riverview Park
Community Association
requested deferral of the item on behalf of the adjacent residents, who have
concerns with regard to the short notice given with respect to this
meeting. The extra time would allow
residents to understand the process and the difference between zoning and site
plan; furthermore, it would permit all parties to work together to better
understand the City’s intensification guidelines and provide comment that is
more constructive during site plan control.
Shawn Maholtra, Claridge Homes did not support a two-week delay,
as the applicant has followed all the requirements of the process. He advised that a public meeting was well
attended and residents were informed of the plans for the site. He reiterated that there is no need to
defer.
Moved by D. Holmes:
That the matter be deferred to the
next meeting.
LOST
YEAS (4): M. Bellemare, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate, P. Hume
NAYS (4): J. Harder, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri
Douglas James, Planner II, provided a
PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. He clarified that the current height limit
under the former City of Ottawa by-law is 18 metres and the applicant is
seeking 28 metres. The new comprehensive zoning by-law, which is not in effect,
allows 22 metres with 11 metres adjacent to the residential area.
John Moser, Director of Planning, stated that
the meeting notice was sent 10 days in advance of the meeting, which is the
standard practice.
On the application, Mr. Piché noted density and
traffic are the key concerns of the community association. Existing traffic in the area can get very
condensed between Neighbourhood Way and Alta Vista Drive at peak times. He expressed a hope that the proposed height
could be revisited.
In response to a question from Councillor
Holmes, Chair Hume noted the community association covers the residential area
south of the subject site.
Mr. Maholtra spoke in support of his
application, explaining that the proposed building height is appropriate as
there a number of high rises in the area.
In addition, he said the property is north facing and shadowing is not
an issue for the town homes south of the site.
In terms of traffic, he expressed a willingness to pay for the
signalisation of the intersection at Neighbourhood Way and Industrial Avenue,
if deemed necessary through site plan.
Chair Hume clarified the community
association’s point with regard to traffic and access to Industrial
Avenue. Mr. Maholtra responded that the
issue could be looked at further during site plan and added that the existing
zoning would generate much more traffic than the proposed use.
That the Planning and Environment
Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve
an amendment to Zoning By law 2008 250 to change the zoning of 340 Industrial
Avenue from General Industrial (IG3) to Residential Fifth Density Subzone A
(R5A H27) as shown in Document 1.
2. Approve
an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of
340 Industrial Avenue from General Industrial (IG F1.0) to a Residential
High-Rise Apartment Zone (R6A (H27.0)) as shown in Document 2.
CARRIED
7. ZONING
- 1840 WALKLEY ROAD
ZONAGE - 1840, CHEMIN WALKLEY
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0199 Gloucester-Southgate
(10)
(This application is subject to Bill
51)
Katherine Grechuta and Miguel Tremblay, FoTenn Consultants Inc. were present in support of the application.
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend
Council:
1. Approve
an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 1840 Walkley
Road from IL, Light Industrial Zone, to IL [xxx] exception zones as shown in
Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
2. Approve
an amendment to former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98 to change the zoning
of 1840 Walkley Road from IP F(1.0), Industrial Business Park Zone, to IP[xxx]
F(1.0) exception zones, as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
BUILDING CODE SERVICES
SERVICES DU CODE DU BÂTIMENT
8. SIGN
BY-LAW MINOR VARIANCE - 2420 BANK STREET
DÉROGATION MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES - 2420, RUE BANK
ACS2008-PTE-BLD-0032 Gloucester-Southgate
(10)
That Planning and Environment Committee recommend
Council:
1. Refuse
the application to vary Sign By-law 2005-439, to permit two internally
illuminated logo signs on the north, west and south elevations of the building
situated at 2420 Bank Street, as further detailed in this submission.
2. Approve
a variance to Sign By-law 2005-439, to permit a second internally illuminated
logo sign on the south elevation of the building situated at 2420 Bank Street,
as detailed in this submission and as shown on Document 4.
CARRIED
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
BUREAU DU DIRECTEUR MUNICIPAL
LEGAL SERVICES
SERVICES
DES CONTENTIEUX
9. Minor variances
dÉrogations mineures
ACS2008-CMR-LEG-0019 City Wide/à l'échelle
de la Ville
Councillor
Feltmate advised that she presented an inquiry on this matter as a result of an
application in her community to double the density through the Committee of
Adjustment.
In response to
questions from Councillor Feltmate, Grant Lindsay, Manager of Development
Approvals Central/West, clarified that Planning staff provide comments to the
Committee of Adjustment with respect to Official Plan and other applicable
policies. In his experience, requests
for minor variances in order to significantly increase density are infrequent. He advised that when proponents come to seek
advice from staff, the Planning branch provides an indication of the
appropriate route to follow (zoning or Committee of Adjustment). Generally, staff recommends the zoning
amendment process for significant increases in density as it is much more of a
public consultative process. In the
end, it is the decision of the proponent to determine which process to follow.
Tim Marc, Senior
Legal Counsel, concurred that changes to the process could only be sought
through the Province. He said that the
Ontario Municipal Board and the Court have struggled with what constitutes a
minor variance; moreover, the approach of the Court was to describe what it is
not (too large or too important to be considered minor). Such language or criteria would not normally
be found in a statute but one could suggest criteria to outline a certain
threshold.
Christine Enta,
Legal Counsel, reiterated that this debate stems from the 1970s. The Court has determined that each case is
looked at individually to determine if each element of the four-part test is
met. She emphasized that no actual
definition has been held up as a standard.
The laymen standard of “minor” (small in size and impact) is not necessarily
applicable and is not the sole consideration.
Councillor
Feltmate introduced her motion, stating that she is seeking to make the process
more transparent for residents. Mr.
Marc undertook to work with the Councillor to clarify the motion further, prior
to consideration by Council.
Councillor Hunter
spoke in opposition. He noted that the
Committee of Adjustment process provides the City with some flexibility to deal
with applications that are truly minor and changes to the Act could result in an onerous process for both applicants and
residents.
Councillor
Leadman expressed support for the motion touching on issues with the
application of the four-part test and community frustration with the process.
Moved by P.
Feltmate:
WHEREAS concerns have been
expressed that applications for minor variances are being used for changes that
would more appropriately be addressed through zoning changes; and
WHEREAS the lower level of
scrutiny that applications for minor variances receive means that the use of
minor variances instead of zoning changes means that changes that could have a
significant impact on the community may not receive the attention they deserve;
and
WHEREAS the Planning Act
currently provides no definition of what constitutes “truly minor”;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
that the City of Ottawa call on the Government of Ontario to adopt criteria for
what constitutes a minor variance; and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED that this motion be circulated to other municipalities through the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
CARRIED with J. Harder and G. Hunter
dissenting.
That the Planning
and Environment Committee receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
PUBLIC WORKS AND
SERVICES
TRAVAUX PUBLics
WATER AND WASTEWATER
SERVICES
SERVICES DE L’EAU POTABLE ET DES EAUX USÉES
10. 2009
WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE – SUPPORTED DRAFT OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGETS,
HIGH-LEVEL 2010 AND 2011 BUDGET FORECASTS
PROJETS DE BUDGET DE FONCTIONNEMENT ET D'IMMOBILISATIONS 2009 SOUTENUS
PAR LES TARIFS D'EAU ET DES EAUX USÉES, PRÉVISIONS BUDGÉTAIRES 2010 ET 2011 DE
HAUT NIVEAU
ACS2008-ISCS-WWS-0025 City Wide/à l'échelle
de la Ville
Dixon Weir,
Director of Water and Wastewater Services, provided a PowerPoint presentation,
which is held on file with the City Clerk.
Budget documents and a covering report were tabled for consideration at
a special meeting called for October 29, 2008.
Mr. Weir, joined by Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager of
Infrastructure Services, and Community Sustainability and Marian Simulik, City
Treasurer, provided the following in response to member questions:
· Regulatory
compliance for water and wastewater services is the top priority.
· With
respect to the Ottawa River Fund, provincial and federal funding will not
impact the 2009 nine per cent increase.
·
Pertaining to the Ottawa River Fund for
2009, $19.75 million is directed towards the overall capital program of $180
million within the 2009 capital budget.
Seventy to 80 per cent of designs are complete for tendering in
2009. The authority is sought for real
time control measures, specifically with five sites and approximately 13 others
to monitor.
·
A report expected in December will identify
all the various options, including financial implications concerning sewer
separation and the Ottawa River. A
summary financial estimate would be provided at the special meeting.
·
The City is unaware of federal funding directed to other municipalities
on the Ottawa River. An Environmental
Taskforce with Gatineau and the National Capital Commission was created with
the primary focus of understanding the impacts and information sharing,
including data monitoring.
· Rate
increase comparisons were not done with all municipalities. These findings were used to determine the
reasonableness of the 2009 increase.
· Performance
measures are included in the report with regard to the Ontario Municipal
Benchmarking Initiative. The service
and operating costs are competitive in comparison to other municipalities. With regard to benchmarking, each
municipality is working towards the same level of drinking water quality
standards and wastewater treatment standards.
· The
draft budget is available on the City’s website and the special meeting will be
advertised on the Friday preceding the meeting in the three major dailies.
· Only
four positions in the Director's Office are administrative, with the majority
of Branch staff involved in direct service delivery.
·
Wastewater and Drinking Water Services
effectively operate as one utility; moreover, the divisions share customer
services and environmental programs that provide support to both groups.
· A
breakdown to achieve the $6.4 million 2009 efficiency target will be developed
with the senior management team. In
2008, the second year of significant operating reductions, the surplus is
within $0.5 million dollars overall with $81 million net worth revenue. To date, up to 80 per cent of the 2008
targets have been achieved. The rate
efficiency does not contribute to the City Manager’s $100 million tax based
efficiency targets; however this similar program seeks to ensure that operating
costs are reasonable, and that productivity targets are met.
· The
$1 million annual Lead Pipe Replacement Program is included in the 2009 draft
budget. An Information Previously
Distributed Memorandum was received at today’s meeting with respect to an
accelerated program not included in the budget.
· Each
year the development system grows with pumping stations and linear meters of
water mains and storm water services.
The operating cost of growth is not covered as part of the
infrastructure provided by developers, but recovered through anticipated water
sales and rates. In 2007, Council gave
authority to conduct a cost revenue and rate study that will look at changing
demand patterns to ensure that the City does not rely too heavily on increasing
water sales as a means of curbing the operating and maintenance costs of
growth.
· A
number of different sources of revenue (federal/provincial funding, debt,
development charges, reserves) contribute to the 10-year capital program.
· Staff
have not considered a local contribution rate for the areas requiring sewer and
stormwater separation, which is counter to the current policy of a unified
rate.
Mr. Weir will
provide more information on the following at the October 29, 2008 meeting:
· Breakdown of the cost of service delivery of
other major cites in Ontario
· Breakdown of the percentage of
administration costs for both drinking and wastewater individually
· Breakdown of efficiency targets for 2008 and
possible focus for 2009
· List of work in progress and time delivery
· Explanation of the revenue side of the water
and waste management budget
· List of all of the revenues that support the
capital program
· An estimated cost of cleaning up the Ottawa
River and what this would entail
· Amount paid through development charges for
suburban water and sewage
· Explanation of who pays the rate and who
benefits (i.e. rural ditching and culverts)
· History of increase in water rate charges of
other municipalities over the last number of years
· Impact of reducing the proposed rate increase
by percentages in terms w\of which capital projects would be impacted
1. That the 2009 Operating and Capital
Budget Estimates be received and tabled at the meeting of the Planning and
Environment Committee to be held on October 14, 2008 for subsequent
consideration by the Planning and Environment Committee at a Special Meeting to
be held on October 29, 2008 and Council on November 12, 2008; and
2. That the Rate-supported 2010 and 2011
budget forecasts, which incorporate the high-level budget directions provided
by Council, be received.
RECEIVED AND TABLED
MOTION OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY
GIVEN
MOTION AYANT FAIT L’OBJET D’UN AVIS PRÉCÉDENT
Councillor/Conseillère
Peggy Feltmate for/pour Councillor/Conseillère Christine Leadman
11. 267 (269) Kirchoffer AVENUE and 271 Kirchoffer
AVENUe – Committee of Adjustment Appeal
267 (269), AVENUE Kirchoffer et 271, AVENUE Kirchoffer –
Appel À la dÉcision du ComitÉ de dÉrogation
ACS2008-CCS-PEC-0020 kitchissippi (15)
Tim Marc, Senior
Legal Counsel, indicated that a confidential memorandum was provided in
response to the notice of motion. He
suggested that the Committee might move in camera to receive solicitor/client
advice. He circulated photographs of
the streetscape and subject sites.
Moved by B.
Monette:
That the Planning and Environment Committee move in camera to receive advice subject to
solicitor/client privilege.
CARRIED
The Committee
resumed in open session. Chair Hume
read a replacement motion moved by Councillor Hunter:
That Planning and Environment Committee recommend
Council approve that Legal Services be instructed to appear at the Ontario
Municipal Board to ensure that the proposed developments be compatible with the
neighbourhood.
Chair Hume clarified that if the replacement motion is adopted, then the
City would not appear before the OMB to oppose the minor variance and consent
applications; however, it would seek the imposition of conditions to ensure
compatibility.
Mr. Marc
confirmed the City would retain the services of a planner to put forth the
City’s position with regard to conditions to ensure compatibility. He added that the City would be willing to
talk to both the applicants and the community association to see if a mutually
agreed upon result could be arrived at.
At the request of
the delegations, the Committee recessed for 10 minutes to allow consideration
of the motion currently before Committee.
Don Stewart,
Kenneth Abraham and Catherine Casserly, representing the Westboro Beach
Community Association expressed support for the replacement motion as a
positive step forward. They also agreed
to take part in future discussions regarding compatibility.
Doug Kelly, on
behalf of Tim Faouquier, stated
pre-consultation did occur with Planning staff, as emphasized under Bill 51,
with discussions on landscaping and compatibility; furthermore, Planning staff
had no problem with the applications at the COA hearing. With regard to the design, he confirmed
meetings occurred with Planning staff and the Councillor.
Pamela Mountenay-Cain
and Jim Cain noted that all parties share the wish that the buildings be compatible
with the neighbourhood. Ms.
Mountenay-Cain added compatibility has been a goal of the applicants from the
beginning. She indicated it is
difficult to support the replacement motion without knowing what the conditions
will be. She advised that nine letters
of support were received from neighbours, who have seen a streetscape
rendering, and stated the building would be an enhancement to the street. Technical issues such as shading and
landscaping were looked at with professional advice (architect, planner and
lawyer). Shade and drainage studies
were undertaken with an investigation on proper setbacks and placement of balconies. With regard to compatibility, the oldest
building on the street, a classical clapboard farmhouse, inspired the
design. She noted the rules in effect
permit a building height of 10.7 metres and 7500 square feet; however, the
applicants are planning a semi-detached building totaling less than 5000 square
feet, while meeting the City’s intensification goal. She also noted that the Comprehensive Zoning By-law changed the
rules but the application was submitted prior to them taking effect. Mr. Cain later commented on the extensive
effort to fulfill the infill guidelines with respect to compatibility.
Chair Hume
interjected that the conditions would relate to compatibility. They would be worked out through discussions
with all parties in the hope of achieving an agreement to present to the
OMB. He noted it is standard for the
COA to make approval conditional on the plans submitted with the
application. He confirmed height is not
an issue contemplated as part of the replacement motion.
Mr. Marc informed
the Committee that he reviewed the elevations and many of the things that the
applicant has mentioned are things that can be imposed through conditions. Issues such as drainage and landscaping
could also be addressed.
Tim Fauquier spoke of his
professional experience in auditing and the need for transparency, touching on
the confidential memorandum and in camera session. He reiterated that the applicants have done everything possible
to observe zoning regulations and requirements, including compatibility. He noted that they were invited by
Councillor Leadman to present their project, which she described as an
enhancement to the community. He noted
discussions occurred with an adjacent neighbour with regard to drainage.
Chair Hume
explained that the confidential memorandum related to the original motion,
brought forward and crafted by Councillor Leadman, on behalf of the Westboro
Beach Community Association. Mr. Marc
reviewed the motion and gave the Committee advice on how to proceed. He agreed on the issue of transparency but
explained that traditionally municipalities do not receive solicitor-client
advice in public in order not to prejudice any decision.
Mr. Marc
clarified that the Committee of Adjustment is entitled to make independent
decisions from City Council.
Mr. Kelly added
that his clients have met with Planning staff, and are willing to attach the
plans to the application, which would be the normal process.
Moved by G.
Hunter:
That Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council approve that Legal Services be instructed
to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board to ensure that the proposed
developments be compatible with the neighbourhood.
CARRIED as amended
INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY
DISTRIBUTED
INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT
A. Lead Pipe Replacement Program – Implications of an Accelerated
Replacement Program / Programme de remplacement des conduites en plomb –
Implications d’un programme de remplacement accéléré
ACS2008-PWS-WWS-0022 CITY-WIDE / À L’ECHELLE DE LA VILLE
RECEIVED
NOTICE OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION AT
SUBSEQUENT MEETING)
AVIS DE MOTION (POUR EXAMEN
LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE)
Councillor/Conseiller Michel
Bellemare for/pour Councillor/Conseillère Deans
WHEREAS
energy costs are high and continue to fluctuate;
AND
WHEREAS municipalities are searching for new energy sources using innovative
technologies;
AND
WHEREAS the City of Toronto is moving forward in its search for new energy
sources by participating with a private corporation using cold water
energy drawn from Lake Ontario to air condition high rise buildings in the
downtown;
AND
WHEREAS the City of Ottawa, working with Ottawa Hydro, should consider
alternative means to generate energy;
AND
WHEREAS a town in Sweden has cold energy technology from snow, wherein
the cold energy from a strategically placed snow deposit site is used to air
condition a local hospital complex;
AND
WHEREAS snow deposit sites could be strategically designed to store the cold
energy through the summer to utilize it for air conditioning in nearby
buildings;
AND
WHEREAS a university professor at the Carleton University Institute of
Environmental Sciences believes that there is significant potential for the
municipality by exploring cold energy technology;
AND
WHEREAS this concept has been discussed with City Manager Kent Kirkpatrick;
AND
WHEREAS City staff have been directed to identify financial cost savings in
future budgets;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT City staff, in conjunction with Ottawa Hydro, be directed
to explore the concept of using cold energy from snow to determine if cold
energy instead of traditional energy could be used in some buildings
resulting in reduced operating costs for the municipality;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a report to Planning and Environment
Committee be brought back no later than February 2009, outlining the full range
of issues associated with such a venture.
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
The meeting
adjourned at 12:20 p.m.
Committee Coordinator Chair
