5.      Zoning – 30 Tyrrell Place


Zonage – 30 place Tyrrell



Committee Recommendation



That Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law 100-2000 to rezone 30 Tyrrell Place from Residential Sixth “B” Density Zone - (R6B) to Residential Sixth Density “B” Zone: Block 1 - (R6B: Block 1) to permit the development of ground -oriented and stacked townhouses as detailed in Document 1.



Recommandation du comité


Que le Conseil municipal approuve une modification au Règlement municipal de zonage 100-2000 de l’ancienne ville de Nepean en vue de remplacer la désignation « Sixième densité B, résidentiel (R6B) » du 30 place Tyrrell en une désignation « Sixième densité B, résidentiel : Lot 1 (R6B : Lot 1) » afin de permettre la construction de maisons en rangée superposées dotées d’entrée privée.








1.                  Development Services Department General Manager’s report dated 2 October 2002 is immediately attached (ACS2002-DEV-APR-0211).


2.         An Extract of Draft Minutes, 24 October 2002, immediately follows the report and includes the voting record.

Report to / Rapport au:

Planning and Development Committee /

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'aménagement


and Council / et au Conseil


2 October 2002/ le 2 octobre 2002


Submitted by / Soumis par:  Ned Lathrop,  General Manager / Directeur général

Development Services Department / Services d’aménagement


Contact / Personne-ressource:  Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals /

Gestionnaire, Approbation des demandes d’aménagement

580-2424 ext. 28310, karen.currie@ottawa.ca





Ref N°:   ACS2002-DEV-APR-0211










That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law 100-2000 to rezone 30 Tyrrell Place from Residential Sixth “B” Density Zone - (R6B) to Residential Sixth Density “B” Zone: Block 1 - (R6B: Block 1) to permit the development of ground -oriented and stacked townhouses as detailed in Document 1.




Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement recommande au Conseil municipal d’approuver une modification au Règlement municipal de zonage 100-2000 de l’ancienne ville de Nepean en vue de remplacer la désignation « Sixième densité B, résidentiel (R6B) » du 30 place Tyrrell en une désignation « Sixième densité B, résidentiel : Lot 1 (R6B : Lot 1) » afin de permettre la construction de maisons en rangée superposées dotées d’entrée privée.





An application has been made to amend the Zoning By-law to permit the construction of 195 townhouse units in total, on a vacant parcel of land located in the Westcliffe community of Bells Corners. The parcel is situated on the southeast corner of the intersection of Seyton Drive and Tyrrell Place (see Document 2).


In addition to the zoning amendment application, site plan, road opening and street naming applications have been submitted. The site plan application is currently being processed and will address the design elements of the development relating to building elevations, landscaping, buffering, traffic and servicing issues.




Former Regional Official Plan


The subject site lies within the General Urban Area in the former Regional Official Plan. Section 2 of this plan contains a Regional Development Strategy, the emphasis of which is on more compact, efficient development within the confines of the Greenbelt. This application satisfies the objectives contained in the development strategy especially relating to the achievement of more compact development and providing a variety and mix of housing types, which can be serviced in a cost effective manner. These principles are also reiterated in the Preliminary Draft of the City of Ottawa Official Plan.


Former Nepean Official Plan:


The site is designated “Residential” in the former City of Nepean Official Plan and “High Density Residential” on Schedule “A” of the Secondary Plan for the Bells Corners Community. The general intent of the Residential designation is in keeping with the Regional Official Plan. The Secondary Plan objective for these lands is to permit apartment buildings, but may include, where appropriate, medium density development. This policy objective is reflected in the current zoning for the site, which is R6B, permitting only apartment dwellings. The policies also indicate that medium and high-density developments shall be permitted where they can be adequately accommodated, will not significantly alter the neighbourhood character, where there are adequate services and there is demonstrated local demand.


Zoning Compatibility


The current zoning on the site is Residential Sixth Density “B” Zone – R6B, which permits only apartments dwellings on the site developed to a maximum density of 112 units per hectare. The density requirement was designed to control negative impacts of apartments on abutting developments and therefore a maximum density is specified in the by-law as opposed to a minimum. This zoning could theoretically yield a maximum of 311 units in an apartment form, with a building height of 33.6 metres or eight to ten storeys high. The present zoning on this site has been in place for over 15 years. The intention was to develop the site for apartments when market conditions prevailed.


The proposed zoning amendment will, through an exception to the existing R6B zone, add ground oriented and stacked townhouse units to the permitted uses for this site, developed to a minimum density of 70 units per hectare. The minimum density provision will ensure that the site plan, when finalized, will yield a density that is in keeping with the Official Plan objectives.  In total 195 units are being proposed, of which 80 are stacked units and 115 are ground oriented townhouses (see Document 3).


The existing R6B zone requirements were designed for an apartment dwelling. As a result, the zoning amendment that is being proposed is tailored to accommodate the proposed townhouses and stacked units. The following table provides a comparison of the proposed zoning provisions with a comparable townhouse zone (R5C) and the existing apartment zone (R6B).


Zone Provision

Proposed R6B – Block 1

Comparable R5C – Townhouse Zone

Existing R6B – Apartment Dwelling Zone


70 units/ha.

50 units/ha.

112 units/ha.

Lot Coverage




Building Height (Maximum)

11.5 m.

10.7 m.

33.6 m.

Yard Front (Minimum)

4.8 m.

6.0 m.

9.1 m. (or 1.4 times the Building Height)**

Yard Rear (Minimum)

5.9 m.

6.0 m.

9.1 m. (or 1.4 times the Building Height)**

Interior Yard Side (Minimum)

3.2 m.

6.0 m. *

9.1 m. (or 1.4 times the Building Height)**

Exterior Yard Side (Minimum)

3.5 m.

6.0 m. *

9.1 m. (or 1.4 times the Building Height)**

Building Main Spacing (Minimum)

2.4 m.

3.0 m.

4.5 m.


*    Zoning By-law 100-2000 does not differentiate between “Interior” and “Exterior” Yards

**  Where an apartment abuts residential units that are ground oriented, the abutting yard shall be a minimum of 9.1 metres or 1.4 times the building height, whichever is the greater.


In addition, notwithstanding future severances of this site, the entire parcel will be considered one lot for the purpose of the Zoning By-law.


A well-attended community meeting organized by the applicant in September, drew a number of concerns from area residents. A presentation of these is contained in the Consultation section at the end of this report. Three significant issues that were raised include lot coverage, building height and rear yard setbacks. These can be addressed through the zoning by-law amendment, while the other issues such as buffering, traffic, servicing, and snow storage can be adequately addressed through site plan approval.


With regards to lot coverage, the concern was that the request of 45% was excessive. However, the proposed coverage is not unreasonable when viewed in comparison to a typical townhouse zone (R5C in the table above). The proposed lot coverage of 45% is only 5% more than is typically required for townhouses. An apartment could yield lot coverage of 25%, but would be mid to high-rise. The proposed townhouse development proposes lot coverage of 45%, but with ground-oriented units. The proposals increased lot coverage represents a trade-off for the mid to high-rise apartment.


The proposed building height of 11.5 metres is a 0.8 metre variance from the R5C zone. This report is recommending that the maximum building height be fixed at 11.5 metres, which is in keeping with comparable developments in the area. The increased height is required to accommodate the stacked townhouse units incorporated into the proposal. The standard townhouse unit will be approximately 9.15 metres high versus the stacked units, which will be approximately 2.35 metres higher at 11.5 metres high.


With regards to the rear yard setbacks, it should be noted that the application request is not dissimilar from the typical townhouse zone rear yard provision. In the table above, the R5C zone is a typical townhouse zone with rear yards of 6.0 metres. In this application, the request is for a rear yard of 5.9 metres versus 6.0 metres, a mere 0.1-metre variance. Concerns with the yard reductions focus around loss of privacy for existing residents; however, screening and fencing will be examined through site plan control approval to address the issue.


Neighbourhood Compatibility


In terms of compatibility with the surrounding community, the Westcliffe community is characterized by significantly higher residential densities than any other part of Bells Corners. There is a multi-storey housing complex operated by Nepean Housing as well as a multi-storey seniors residence and co-operative housing project that immediately abuts the site to the south. The remaining stock of housing in the area is street townhouses along Seyton Drive and single family detached dwellings developed under the “linked single” format immediately abutting the site to the north and across on Tyrrell Place. The site also backs onto single homes that front onto Moodie Drive. The proposal represents an extension of the development pattern that presently exists along Seyton Drive and is an appropriate transition from the singles that are located on the Tyrrell Place.


An accompanying site plan application has been submitted to the Department. However, at the time this report was being prepared, the plan was being revised to respond to community concerns. Preliminary indications are that some units will be developed fronting onto Seyton Drive and Tyrrell Place with the rest of the units developed on a private internal roadway.


Staff supports the amendment to a Residential Sixth Density “B” Zone, for the following reasons:




Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Policy. Information signs were also posted on-site indicating the nature of the application.


A number of responses were received from the public circulation. A community meeting initiated by the applicant was also held in the Westcliffe Community Building on September 9, 2002, to present the proposal and hear issues and concerns. A summary of the main issues were:

·        proposed setbacks from existing residential

·        height of the stacked units in comparison to existing residences

·        Proposed lot coverage for the overall development

·        Impacts of additional traffic on Seyton Drive and Tyrrell Place 

·        Flooding on adjacent properties as a result of the proposal

·        Fencing around the perimeter of the development

·        Snow storage and removal

·        The encroachment of decks and patios into the rear yards and their impact on privacy of abutting residents and

·        Installation of sidewalks along Seyton Drive


Staff Response :


Staff feels confident that most of these issues can be adequately dealt with through the site plan approval process with the exception of rear yard setbacks, lot coverage, and building height. These issues were dealt with in detail earlier in the report and the by-law will be tailored to address the issues. The site plan is being revised to address the remaining concerns and will be presented to the residents in upcoming community meetings as part of the site plan consultation process. 


The Ward Councillor is aware of the application.








The application was processed within the timeframe established for the processing of Zoning Amendment applications.




Document 1 – Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 2 – Location Plan

Document 3 – Concept Site Plan




Development Services Department to forward the implementing by-law to City Council and undertake required Planning Act notification.


Details of Recommended Zoning                                                                                        Document 1



R6B – Block 1


The following amendments will be made to the R6B zone:


 1)  Additional uses that will be permitted shall include:




2)   The following provisions shall apply to the lands zoned R6B – Block 1:


-     Density                                     (Minimum)        70 units per hectare

-     Lot Coverage                           (Maximum)       45%

-     Building Height                         (Maximum)       11.5 m.

-     Front Yard                               (Minimum)        4.8 m.

-     Rear Yard                                (Minimum)        5.9 m.

-     Side Yard Interior                     (Minimum)        3.2 m.

-     Side Yard Exterior                    (Minimum)        3.5 m.

-     Spacing between Buildings        (Minimum)        2.4 m.


3)   The lands zoned R6B – Block 1 shall be considered as one lot for Zoning By-law purposes regardless of severances or the definition of LOT in the Zoning By-law.


Location Plan                                                                                                                     Document 2


Concept Site Plan                                                                                                              Document 3







Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council.  Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.


Dhaneshware Neermul provided a brief presentation and was available to answer any questions related to the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 2 October 2002


Michele Laflamme was present as Chair, Westcliffe Estates Development Proposal Committee.   A Sub Committee was formed out of the Westcliffe Estate Committee Association to deal with the community concerns regarding the proposal.  Although Westcliffe Estate might be characterized by higher density than other areas of Bells Corners, the proposed development was definitely out of character with properties abutting the site.  Height was a concern.  She provided samples of an Ashcroft development in Central Park at Merivale.  Some of the units planned were three storeys in height, with steep roofs and provided sample photos of existing properties in the neighbourhood.  They were two storeys and the existing row houses were also much lower.  Most of the houses facing Moodie Drive were bungalows.  There was a marked contrast with the proposal.  Homes further removed from the site were a little higher.  As a result, the abutting homeowners were concerned about privacy issues.  There was discussion on installing fences and trees, but the opinion was that it would take a very high fence to ensure privacy with such a difference in height and trees would not ensure immediate privacy.  Another concern was the number of proposed units to abut existing homes.  On the issue of an apartment building, there was a split in the community.  50% would be more interested in having an apartment building either really close to the street or in the middle of the site.  The residents cherish their privacy and it was one of the main reasons they purchased their property.  They were concerned about the decrease in property value.  In general, the expectations of the current residents were different from prospective purchasers willingly buying higher density.  It was unfair to treat people the same way.  Having been involved in drafting the by-law, the 1.4 times exception clause was probably written for this purpose.  Unfortunately the proposed by-law completely ignores that clause.  Another concern was the decks and balconies, which would bring the units even closer to the property line of existing properties.


Looking at the site plan, there was a grade from the south side of the lot to the north side.  They were not yet aware of height for the units and although the community requested that all units be level there was no guarantee whether they would be either lower or higher.


She addressed security issues and looking at the preliminary draft of the City of Ottawa draft OP, there was a statement that said that a new neighbourhood would be planned with the needs of pedestrians and cyclists as a chief priority.  Sidewalks and pathways would be provided along the streets.  As can be seen from the plan, sidewalks were practically non-existent from that plan.  There was already an established pedestrian traffic pattern across the vacant field through the right of way.  There were two schools, a church, bus, etc. and the community questioned wondering how that would be addressed since it appeared that there was no more for pathways or sidewalks.


As well there was concern regarding security with the difficulty to be experienced by residents backing out of their driveways from narrow lots.  The community had expressed for some time concern regarding traffic issues with the City and three-way stop sign was recently installed to deal with that issue.  A traffic issue was recognized and increasing the number of units would definitely not help the situation.


The proposed recommendation set a minimum density of 70 units per hectare, when normally it set maximum densities.  When looking at the 195 units planned, the density did not equal 70 units per hectare, but was lower.  She questioned whether there was a new site plan that increased the number of units and did not receive an answer for that.  With the increased density, there was the number of available parking spots and she did not know if that was properly addressed.  Snow management; where was snow going to be stored until it was removed from the site?  Where would garbage be put?  What are the lighting concerns?  These would need to be addressed with the site plan.  There were a number of negative impacts with the increased the units.


The City and developer indicated there were benefits in intensification within the Greenbelt.  Although the community recognized the benefits of intensification, it was applied in contradictory ways.  The units were reduced from 112 units to 70 per hectare but setbacks were decreased. There was no fixed interpretation on what intensification should be.  The residents reluctantly accepted that the site would be developed, but it should be in line with the existing community.  Given the configuration, little room was left for trees etc.  The Community opposed the current staff recommendation, but were unaware if they could propose amendments to the current proposal.  The community realized there would be development and someone would always be unhappy, but if some compromises could be made for the lot coverage; for example, currently it was 25% and was proposed at 45% they were willing to compromise at 35%, which would alleviate some concerns.  In the same vein, the density went from 112, which was recognized as a high rise building and unrealistic, to 70, she suggested 60.  The community was willing to agree to all the yard setbacks, with the exception that the 1.4 clause be applied to all the units on the perimeter of the site, regardless of whether they were townhomes, stacked or unstacked.


In response to a query from Councillor Munter, Ms. Laflamme suggested the community would like to see single homes, which they understood would never happen.  The Councillor received confirmation, given a choice; residents would like a 330-unit, ten-storey apartment building.  Ms. Laflamme declared it was not her personal preference, but again the community was a split.  Councillor Munter was completely astonished by that statement.  Ms. Laflamme understood the perplexity of the Committee, but it was determined the apartment building would not be close to the property line.


Councillor Munter noted the 25% coverage was based on an apartment building and when dealing with lot coverage and height, more land means lower.  Moving the buildings further away and reducing their footprint would squeeze as the logical trade-off.  Would the community accept stacked units, with two storey units, if it meant the units were further away?  Ms. Laflamme reiterated her previous comments about returning to the original proposal, but given the choice between four storeys with large setbacks on the perimeter or the current application, the community would take the four storeys.


Councillor Stavinga inquired what happened to the original proposal of 160 units.  Ms Currie advised that when the developer approached the City staff looked at the site in terms of intensification policies allowing for infill within a community.  The site had been zoned for apartment development, for many years and staff opined it was important to maintain that objective to maximize the number of doable units on the site.  Ashcroft originally proposed a townhouse proposal on the site, which staff did not support.  Staff was trying to maximize the number of units on the site to maintain the current density.  That was the rationale for implementing a minimum density on the property, since it feared a zone that allowed for townhouses without minimum density would result in a standard townhouse type product.


Councillor Stavinga asked why staff accepted a proposal that appeared to encourage conflict within the community.  Ms. Currie responded that staff would have preferred to retain the apartment zoning and achieve growth targets in a more efficient manner.  The developer proposed an alternative that seemed to be compatible with development in the adjacent community with townhouses, stacked type units albeit reducing the number of units.  On that basis staff was willing to support the recommendation.  She accepted it was always difficult when a series of yards abutted one.  Through the site plan, fencing, and perhaps landscaping, etc. would help mitigate that problem.  Many of the units were not necessarily stacked, but standard townhouses lower than shown on the plan.  Addressing a further question, Ms. Currie responded that staff would not be adverse to more intense development and the ultimate density of the 8-10 storeys.


Chair Hunter noted that similar to the Ogilvie Road issue, the phrase density referred to a minimum number of units and inquired if this was new thinking in zoning by-laws for the City.  Ms. Currie acknowledged some by-laws have minimums and maximums.  She referenced the Cumberland Zoning By-Law, which contained minimums.  Once a municipality had undertaken an exercise and identified a range of unit types in communities to achieve the ultimate balance and growth targets the municipality had to protect those apartment sites.  That was achieved by imposing minimums in density; otherwise a developer could make an application for half the proposal.  Many OPs and Zoning By-Laws do have minimums and maximums densities for the higher density type of development.  There was a maximum in place that would be the maximum imposed in the current R6B zone.  This was an exception, so it was a not withstanding clause, with a minimum 70, maximum 112, which was the existing maximum.


Steve Tovell, President, Westcliffe Estates Community Association, represented the community at large.  Aspects of the application were addressed in an application for Minor Variance to the Committee of Adjustment presented on two separate occasions.  Both were postponed for a variety of reasons, specifically related to setbacks among other things.  Unlike some projects where the City, the developer and the public met early in the project development phase, this did not take place with this particular project and that resulted in problems and delays for the developer.  The feeling within the community was that it was left out of the process.  He took it upon himself to negotiate something more amenable with the developer.  There was some openness to address some of the community’s concerns.  Contrary to statements in the report a well-attended community meeting was the result of intense community interest and persistent effort on behalf of the community and not by the applicant.


The statement “Westcliffe Communities was characterized by significantly higher residential areas than any other part of Bells Corners” was false and self-serving.  There were other high-rises, but generally speaking, the footprint in Bells Corners was attractive single-family homes and Westcliffe was newer.  He demonstrated on the map the single-family homes and town homes, but if one looked at the site plan, it was obvious there was a difference in the character.  He pointed that out since the report was misleading.  The vague reference to a variety of past, present and proposed plans as well as strategies to support zoning amendments and the extensive by-law variances associated with that were out of context and misleading.


The original R6B zoning was for an apartment building had a specific exception that addressed the development that abuts existing homes.  That was completely avoided and missed in terms of minor variances and seemed to be thrown out.  There was a move from R6B, high-rise apartment building to a town home called comparable.  Every aspect of the R5C was being asked to be changed.  Questions and concerns regarding adequate services were yet to be resolved.  They were led to believe they would have other opportunities to address those concerns at the site plan stage and other phases.


In summary, the community as a whole was surprised they were not invited to express an opinion with regard to an apartment versus the particular development.  Surprising for many, based on the community involvement comments to date, there appeared to be a balance in terms of residents who would rather have the apartment than that particular development.  It was believed there was a reason why it was established.  The front and, in particular, back setbacks represent a potential safety hazard along Tyrell and Seyton Drive.  The community long expressed concerns to the former City of Nepean that traffic was a major problem due to only three entrances/exits to the whole community.  Moving those units closer to the street reduces the visibility, puts cars in the parking lots closer to the street and potentially reduces the ability to see that.  Reducing the setbacks in the front was a safety issue.  Furthermore, since that area was vacant it was popular and frequented by families to get to churches, schools, library and public transit, making it a pedestrian safety.


The existing zoning allowed for approximately 311 units and the proposal called for 165.  Planning staff allowed the developer to reduce it from 311 to 195, but insisted on cramming 195 units on the site, changing every aspect of that particular code.


On the one hand they reduced the concentration of development yet used intensification to cram 195 units.  Where did those 195 units come from?  The community opined that safety, the nature of the community and the existing protections for residents supersede intensification.  If you everything was left in place with the new proposed zoning, what would be the impact on the number of units that the developer could build?  The developer stated the parcel was the last sizeable piece of land in Bells Corners of any significance and, intensification aside, the difference between 165 or more, to allow the setbacks and some compromise to the setbacks, would not be a major problem.  If the result was few town homes then it was a small price to pay if the community was safer and the character was maintained.


Janet Bradley, solicitor for Ashcroft Homes, advised that David Chou, Ashcroft Homes was present.  This parcel of land was vacant since Assaly developed the lands in 1970 and was always zoned for high-rise development.  For various reasons it was never developed.  The proposal before Committee was achieved through compromise.  Staff originally wanted more density and the applicant understood from speaking with Councillor Harder and others that the community wanted less density resulting in the compromise that was understood to be acceptable density at 195 units, by placing a combination of stacked townhouses and row houses.  Stacked houses were necessary for more density.  It was a good plan.  The community meeting was very well attended in an area community centre.  She was dumbfounded to hear that 50% wanted apartments, which was never raised.  Her recollection from the meeting was a concern about the height of some of the stacked townhouses and privacy issues.  After the public community meeting, the developer changed the plans and placed the stacked townhouses in the middle of the development with the row houses at the edge ensuring comparable rear yard to rear yard.  That was thought to address the major issue of residents at the meeting.  It was unfortunate Councillor Harder could not be in attendance today, because of a family event, since she had real finger on the pulse of her community and assured her earlier this week she supported the staff report.  She hoped Councillor Harder was able to communicate that to the Committee.


The submissions presented made reflected a desire for the apartment performance standards applied to townhouse development.  As Mr. Neermul explained this was a typical Bells Corners townhouse type of development.  It would not be appropriate to impose apartment building performance standards to a typical townhouse development.  The densities would not be in keeping with the proposed OP and the staff’s perception of what it takes to achieve the goals with the directions given them.  She asked the Committee to support the staff report, which was the result of a lot of compromise and re-planning, supported of the Ward.


Councillor Munter observed Ashcroft was one of the very few developers in Ottawa that build apartment buildings and he questioned why, having acquired a site zoned for apartments with a 10-storey designation a site plan was not filed and thus the rezoning.  Mr. Chou responded that a 10-storey condo apartment was not marketable today on this particular site, which was why it stood empty for 15 years.  The demand for condos was largely in the downtown core.  He could not justify buying the site as a condo apartment site.  On the other hand there was a large interest in the community for a street-oriented project.  Responding to the marketability of condos, Councillor Munter pointed out Ashcroft was pursuing that king of development in a similar neighbourhood in Kanata.  Mr. Chou clarified that the site in Kanata was adjacent to the Kanata employment district; and, the Newbridge offices across the street.  The site backed onto the golf course and there was challenging topography in the slope of the land, which makes it difficult to develop street oriented units.  It was an excellent site for a pair of condos that allow the employees in the high tech industry that type of lifestyle.  High-rise condos and apartments were very site specific and he clarified his comment to say that condos wer viable in specific areas.


Councillor Munter leaned towards Ms. Bradley’s comments, partially from his experience that it was extremely difficult to believe that residents alarmed by a three-storey development would welcome an 8-10-storey development.


Chair Hunter responded that it was largely an issue of setback and they might not have considered the parking structure needed to support the apartment building, but it was really an issue of the physical setback from apartment buildings.  Almost all of the neighbourhoods in Nepean were planned with a mix of densities from singles, semis and a number of town houses with apartments in them.  Almost all the apartment buildings when proposed met with some opposition, but when the alternatives were considered with the amount of the setback there was considerable support, since apartment buildings could be oriented on the site with more green space and 25% lot coverage compared to 45%.


Councillor Stavinga referenced the various concerns raised by the residents.  To what extent was Ashcroft amenable to increase the number of stacked units and bring the site further to allow additional setbacks.  Ms. Bradley reiterated the realignment to have the stacked internal and the row houses at the edge for the reasons given.  She added that there were some site servicing capacity issues on the site that would be exacerbated if the density increased too much over that now proposed, which was another reason for the particular number and compromise.


There were some constraints that could be exacerbated by increased costs.


Mr. Chou added that the 165-unit proposal would have had units backing onto the single house in the same manner as the application.  The orientation of the streets and the form of the development was identical.  The difference was that on one of those blocks, there would be a double up of the number of units. So, the form of development had not changed from day one.  Essentially this converted a high-rise site into street oriented town home development.  The single homes facing Moodie Drive that back on the development have over ten metre back yard setbacks and would not be unduly affected by either development.  There were some concerns raised by the abutting landowners with respect to buffering and fence, etc. and Ashcroft was not opposed to dialogue on privacy issues between this development and the single-family homes that back onto it during the site plan process, which was the right vehicle to address those concerns.


Chair Hunter advised the Committee that Councillor Harder was aware of some of the neighbourhood concerns and supported the application.


Responding to a question by Councillor Arnold, Mr. Neermul clarified the rezoning addressed setbacks, the height of units, and lot coverage.  Site plan issues would address the traffic study, which were in process and being produced; servicing issues related to the infrastructure, fencing, buffering and screening with reference to the use, snow storage issues, encroachment of decks, patios in the rear yards, and the installation of a sidewalk on Seyton Drive, which was suggested.  Those were some of the issues that would be addressed in the site plan.


Chair Hunter reiterated a concern, which was the site plan issue, if the application was approved.  He did not want to see an access onto Moodie Drive, since that was multiple accidents waiting to happen and was surprised that the Transportation Department hadn’t commented on that.  Mr. Neermul recounted it was discussed at the public meeting and staff was not opposed to closing it off.  It was shown on the site plan, but if the transportation study recommended no access, staff was amenable.  Chair Hunter opined there should be pedestrian access, but right in right out.  He would be voting against the application based on a principle of intensification that he did not support.  Based on his long history on Nepean Council, developments considered neighbourhood compatibility and maintaining zone types and housing of similar type and density.  The concerns raised by the two delegations might be a Nepean tradition, but what they came to expect from development, re-development and re-zonings in Nepean and he wanted to be consistent.  160 units were enough in that area.  He did not perceive any gain, either for the current residents or future residents to be crammed in this manner.  It was not compatible with the vicinity.


Councillor Munter opined the difference between 165 and 195 units did not change the capability and the designation was 116 units fewer than originally anticipated and had the support of the local Councillor.  On that basis he would support the staff recommendation.


Moved by Councillor A, Munter:


That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law 100-2000 to rezone 30 Tyrrell Place from Residential Sixth “B” Density Zone - (R6B) to Residential Sixth Density “B” Zone: Block 1 - (R6B: Block 1) to permit the development of ground -oriented and stacked townhouses as detailed in Document 1.




YEAS (3):        Councillors Munter, Bellemare, Stavinga

NAYS (2):       Councillors Stavinga, Hunter