1.             OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT AND PLAN OF SUBDIVISION - 7268 PARKWAY ROAD

        MODIFICATION AU PLAN OFFICIEL - MODIFICATION AU RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE ET  PLAN DE LOTISSEMENT - 7268, CHEMIN PARKWAY

           

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

 

1.         That Council direct the City Solicitor to:

 

            a)         Execute Minutes of Settlement allowing that part of Appeal 60 against the City of Ottawa Official Plan, 2003 (OMB Case No. PL031324) to expand the boundary of the Village of Greely to encompass the lands described as 7268 Parkway Road, Ottawa, and to request an order of the Ontario Municipal Board to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement;

 

            b)         Execute Minutes of Settlement allowing the appeal of the applicant (OMB File No. O060161) against the failure of Council to approve a requested Official Plan Amendment designating the lands described as 7268 Parkway Road, Ottawa, as Village, and to request an order of the Ontario Municipal Board to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement, amending the designation; and

 

            c)         Execute Minutes of Settlement allowing the appeal of the applicant (OMB File No. Z060077) against the failure of Council to approve a requested by-law to re-zone the lands described as 7268 Parkway Road, Ottawa, to implement the plan of subdivision proposed by the applicant, and to request an order of the Ontario Municipal Board to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement, rezoning the land;

 

2.         That, upon the approval by Council of the three recommendations (a, b and c above), the City Solicitor be directed to execute Minutes of Settlement allowing the appeal of the applicant (OMB File No. S060073) against the failure of Council to approve an application for approval of a plan of subdivision for the lands described as 7268 Parkway Road, Ottawa, and to request an order of the Ontario Municipal Board to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement, granting draft plan approval to the subdivision and establishing the conditions to final approval; and

 

3.         That, upon the receipt of the orders of the Ontario Municipal Board, the Planning and Growth Management Department be directed to amend the Community Development Plan for the Village of Greely to reflect the said decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board.

 

Recommandations modifiÉeS du comitÉ

 

1.         Que le Conseil demande ce qui suit au chef du contentieux :

 

            a)         Exécuter un règlement amiable permettant qu’une partie de l’appel 60 logé contre le Plan officiel de 2003 de la Ville d’Ottawa (dossier de la CAMO no PL031324) déborde les limites du Village de Greely, de manière à englober le terrain situé au 7268, chemin Parkway à Ottawa, et permettant de demander une ordonnance à la Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario en vue d’appliquer le règlement amiable;

 

            b)         Exécuter un règlement amiable permettant l’appel du requérant (dossier de la CAMO no O060161) concernant le refus par le Conseil d’approuver une modification au Plan officiel désignant comme village le terrain situé au 7268, chemin Parkway à Ottawa, et permettant de demander une ordonnance à la Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario en vue d’appliquer le règlement amiable modifiant la désignation;

 

            c)         Exécuter un règlement amiable permettant l’appel du requérant (dossier de la CAMO no Z060077) concernant le refus par le Conseil d’approuver un règlement visant à modifier le zonage du terrain situé au 7268, chemin Parkway à Ottawa, permettant de mettre en oeuvre le plan de lotissement proposé par le requérant, et permettant de demander une ordonnance à la Commission des affaires municipales l'Ontario en vue d’appliquer le règlement amiable attribuant un nouveau zonage au terrain;

 

2.         Que, après approbation par le Conseil des trois recommandations (a, b et c ci-dessus), le chef du contentieux de la Ville soit chargé d’exécuter le règlement amiable permettant l’appel du requérant (dossier de la CAMO no S060073) concernant le refus par le Conseil d’approuver une demande d’approbation d’un plan de lotissement visant le terrain situé au 7268, chemin Parkway à Ottawa, qu’il soit chargé de demander une ordonnance à la Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario en vue d’appliquer le règlement amiable, d’approuver le plan de lotissement provisoire et d’établir les conditions en vue d’une approbation définitive;

 

3.         Que, sur réception des ordonnances de la Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario, Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance soit chargé de modifier le plan d’aménagement communautaire du Village de Greely afin de refléter lesdites décisions de la Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario.

 

 

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.                  A/Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management report dated 02 October 2006 (ACS2006-PGM-APR-0205).

 

2.                  Extract of Draft Minutes 34, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meeting of October 12, 2006.

Report to/Rapport au :

 

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

02 October 2006 / le 02 octobre 2006

 

Submitted by/Soumis par John L. Moser,

Acting Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint par intérim,

Planning and Growth Management / Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Karen Currie, Manager / Gestionnaire, Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement

(613) 580-2424, 28310  Karen.Currie@ottawa.ca

 

Osgoode (20)

Ref N°: ACS2006-PGM-APR-0205

 

 

SUBJECT:

OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT, Zoning By-LAW AMENDMENT and plan of subdivision - 7268 Parkway road  (FILEs NO. D01-01-05-0025, D02-02-05-0119 AND D07-16-05-0019)

 

 

OBJET :

MODIFICATION AU PLAN OFFICIEL - MODIFICATION AU RÈGLEMENt DE ZONAGE ET  PLAN DE LOTISSEMENT - 7268, CHEMIN pARKWAY

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That the  recommend Council refuse an Official Plan Amendment application, a Zoning By-law Amendment application and a draft Plan of Subdivision for 7268 Parkway Road.

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales recommande au Conseil de rejeter une demande de modification au Plan officiel, une demande de modification au Règlement de zonage et une proposition de plan de lotissement pour le 7268, chemin Parkway.

 

 

BACKGROUND

The lands that are subject of this report are located on the southeast quadrant of Bank Street and Parkway Road and have frontage on Bank Street to the southwest, Parkway Road to the northwest, and Sale Barn Road to the east.  The lands measure 32.62 hectares, are vacant, and have an irregular configuration (Document 1).  Surrounding land uses include a works yard, a church and vacant lands to the north, crop farming to the east, and to the south, rural lands with scattered homes on them.  To the southwest, across Bank Street is the Village of Greely.  At the southeast corner of Bank Street and Parkway Road is an animal hospital, which is surrounded by the proposed Greely Shopping Centre site.  Adjacent to the commercial site, to the east, is a vacant property, between the future shopping centre site and the subject lands.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The applicant has submitted three applications as follows:

 

 

 

 

The applicant has appealed all three applications to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on the basis that City Council had failed to render a decision on the applications within the 180 days of submission.  These appeals have been combined with the applicant’s appeal of the policies in the 2003 Official Plan regarding Section 2.2.2 Village Boundaries and Policy 6f in Section 3.7.2, which states that subdivisions in the General Rural Area may not be located within 1 km of an approved Village boundary.  The OMB hearing is scheduled for January 16, 2007.

 

The main arguments provided in support of the applications are contained in the applicant’s report titled Planning Rationale In Support Of Proposed Development, Greely Village Centre, Sunset Lakes Development Corporation (January 2006) by Holzman Consultants Inc.  On the basis of a Residential Lot Supply Analysis In Greely (Document 3), contained in the Planning Rationale and which places the lot supply to 14 years, the applicant suggests that the Village of Greely does neither meet the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2005 nor the 2003 Official Plan requirement for a supply of land for a 20-year planning horizon, and that new growth areas are therefore needed.

 

The PPS requires “a minimum of 10 years” and “up to 20 years” of residential lot supply.  According to the City’s Residential Land Supply and Unit Potential by Development Status and Area (December 2005), appended to this report as Document 4, there is a 24-year supply of residential land in Greely and a 26-year supply in the larger area.  Even the consultant’s own analysis concludes that the lot supply meets the minimum specified by the PPS.  This indicates that there is no need for additional supply.  Therefore, the subject lands are not needed to meet the demand for residential land in Greely for the minimum 10-year planning horizon prescribed by the PPS.  The proposal fails to clearly establish that opportunities for growth are not available within the Village of Greely to accommodate the projected needs over the 20 years.  The proposed amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement nor is it consistent with the achievement of the 2003 Official Plan policies.

 

It is further suggested that the proposed expansion of the Greely Village boundary accommodates the demand for housing, ensures that expansion of the Village occurs in an orderly manner, and is therefore consistent with the achievement of the 2003 Official Plan.  The proposal has failed to establish the need for additional land supply to accommodate projected growth.  The City’s long-range vision for how Greely should grow is articulated in the Greely Community Design Plan (CDP), which was approved by City Council in February 2005.  Formulating the CDP was done through extensive public consultation and consensus was developed for the long-term vision.  The issues that necessitated the creation of the plan were that the Village lacked a commercial mainstreet and that it was disjointed.  A CDP provided an ability to co-ordinate development to facilitate linkages within the community, and provide an appropriate mix of land uses including parks and commercial uses.

 

The CDP’s objective is to create a village core on the west side of Bank Street, which has some mixed use development, and to link subdivisions in order to create an integrated community.  With Bank Street constituting a barrier, this proposal offers yet another isolated residential subdivision, with no links to other residential communities.  The fact that the Greely Village boundary includes the site for the proposed Greely Shopping Centre, east of Bank Street, was carried forward from the former Township of Osgoode.  When the former Township included the commercial site east of Bank Street, it was clearly stated in the Official Plan Amendment that the expansion of the village boundary was not for residential purposes.  The proposal to include commercial and office uses, in addition to residential uses, would have the effect of moving the community core to the east side of Bank Street, which is contrary to the vision that was developed by the community and articulated in the CDP.

 

Also, the applicant asserts that the subject lands are well suited to development on private services.  There are a number of private servicing issues that have yet to be addressed to the satisfaction of the City, including elevated chloride in the bedrock aquifer, the lack of enough physical data on the isolating layer, aesthetic groundwater quality parameters that exceed the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) criteria for treatability and failure by the proposal to clearly demonstrate that the size of the proposed residential lots can support a house, a well and a sewage system.

 

Staff recommends that the proposed amendment to the 2003 Official Plan be denied for reasons stated below.

 

Consistency with Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)

 

The PPS provides the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land in Ontario.  The PPS came into effect on March 1, 2005, as did amendments made to the Planning Act through the Strong Communities Act, 2004.  One such amendment requires that planning decisions on applications commenced on or after March 1, 2005 “shall be consistent with” the new policies.  This proposal, which was received on October 3, 2005, is subject to the “shall be consistent with” standard and the PPS applies.

 

The PPS establishes a long-term planning horizon of up to 20 years to accommodate growth (s. 1.1.2).  To provide for a suitable range of housing types and densities to meet current and future needs, the PPS requires that planning authorities  “maintain at all times the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 10 years through residential intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, lands which are designated and available for residential development” (s. 1.4.1.a).  The PPS further provides that planning authorities may:

 

“allow the expansion of a settlement area boundary only at the time of a comprehensive review and only where it has been demonstrated that …sufficient opportunities for growth are not available through intensification, redevelopment  and designated growth areas to accommodate the projected needs over the identified planning horizon” (s.1.1.3.9.a).

 

For the purposes of section 1.1.3.9, the PPS defines comprehensive review as “an official plan review which is initiated by a planning authority, or an official plan amendment which is initiated or adopted by a planning authority”.  The review, as set out in the definition, must:

 

 

The proposal has failed to demonstrate the need for additional land supply.  A residential lot supply study was published in 2004 and included in the Greely Community Design Plan.  According to the study, there was a supply of 2,169 lots in the Village of Greely.  The study used the average absorption rate for residential lots between 1995 and 2003 and found that the annual projected demand was 62 residential lots, providing a supply of 35 years.  Based on the average absorption rate for a three-year period between 2001 and 2003, the annual demand was 100 residential lots and a supply of 22 years exists.

 

The applicant has carried out a review of the residential lot supply in the Village of Greely and updated the counts to August 2005.  According to the review, there is a downward adjustment of 747 lots, resulting in a supply of 14 to 23 years, based on the annual absorption rates of 100 lots and 62 lots respectively.  A more recent analysis of residential lot supply in Greely by the City of Ottawa, titled Residential Land Supply and Unit Potential by Development Status and Area (December 2005) shows a 24-year supply based on average absorption rates over three years between 2003 and 2005.

 

Consistency with 2003 Official Plan and Greely Community Design Plan (CDP)

 

The 2003 Official Plan designates the land as General Rural Area.  The purpose of this designation is to provide a location for land uses that would not be more suitably located within urban, Village or resource areas.  Commercial uses of the rural type and commercial recreational and tourist service uses are permitted subject to conformity with a passed Zoning By-law or subject to a Zoning By-law amendment.  The Official Plan directs that growth within the rural area will be focussed on Villages.  Residential development in the General Rural Area designation may take place through country lot subdivisions.  Development of more than three lots for rural industrial and highway commercial uses is to be by plan of subdivision.  Section 3.7.2.6 provides that subdivisions may not be located within 1 kilometre of an approved Village Boundary, a policy that is currently under appeal by the applicant.

 

Section 1.7 of the Official Plan directs that the City will monitor relevant conditions and make adjustments to the Plan as part of the five-year review.  This exercise will be carried out in 2008.  Section 5.2.2 goes on to direct that when considering Official Plan amendments, the City will have regard to the effect of the proposed change on the attainment of the Official Plan's policies, the impact of the proposed change on surrounding communities, and the effect of the proposed change on the need for water, wastewater and transportation services.  When considering amendments that affect a specific site, the Official Plan requires establishing whether there is a need to add the land to areas already designated for the proposed use.

 

The proposed development is neither consistent with the 2003 Official Plan nor with the Greely Community Design Plan.  As discussed above, the proposal has failed to clearly demonstrate the need for additional land supply.  The Official Plan planning horizon is 20 years; there is a land supply of 24 years in Greely.  Therefore, there is no need to expand the Greely Village boundary at this time.  The location of the proposed village boundary expansion on the east side of Bank Street is contrary to the CDP’s vision to create a village core on the west side of Bank Street.  The proposal introduces commercial office blocks along the east side of Bank Street, tantamount to strip development.  This raises traffic and pedestrian safety concerns for residents crossing Bank Street at non-designated crossing points to reach the offices.  The CDP directs commercial development to the Village core.

 

It is staff’s opinion that if Greely were to grow, the subject lands would not be the best location to accommodate the expansion because the site is isolated, has servicing issues, and is separated from Greely by Bank Street, which constitutes a barrier.  There are other areas that would be more suitable in terms of an efficient and orderly expansion of the Village.  The City will carry out a five-year review of the 2003 Official Plan in 2008, and any necessary adjustments to the Plan and to the CDP will be made at that time.  If additional land is needed, there should be a comprehensive evaluation of the Village boundary to determine where the best location for the expansion should be.

 

Servicing

 

Staff cannot support the proposed development on the basis of servicing information received to date.  The Applicant’s consultant has prepared two reports that have been reviewed by the hydrogeologist for South Nation Conservation, and by Golder Associates, who acted as peer reviewers of the reports for the City.  The first report (No. PH0145-REP.01) is dated September 2, 2006.  The second report (No. PH145-REP.02) is dated June 19, 2006, and is referenced as “Addendum No. 1”.  There are a number of outstanding issues with the two reports, which can be grouped under three main headings:

 

System Isolation

 

The consultant has provided information in support of its argument that the bedrock groundwater supply is hydrogeologically isolated from surface activities.  This information, in the opinion of the reviewers on behalf of the City, does not adequately support the isolation argument.  This is mostly due to elevated aesthetic parameters above the MOE treatability limits, elevated chloride in the bedrock aquifer, and the lack of enough physical data on the isolating layer.  The source of the elevated parameters must be explained, and the two options are either i) anthropogenic, or ii) natural.  The implication is that if there are external sources which are resulting in exceedances in aesthetic parameter then the drinking water bedrock may not be hydraulically isolated from the surface, where the sewage systems will be located.  This means that the person who will use the water can potentially be drinking water coming from the nearby surface where the sewage systems are located or other sources.  In cases like this, the lots have to be large enough to allow sufficient attenuation of the surface contaminants.  At this point in time the City has insufficient information to support a finding of system isolation.

 

Groundwater Quality

 

Section 4.4.2 (Private Water and Wastewater Servicing) of the 2003 Official Plan directs that where new lots are created on the basis of private individual services, the City will require sufficient information with the development proposal to assess the likelihood that the quality of the groundwater is acceptable.  The South Nation Conservation Authority has reviewed the servicing studies received and has advised that the raw water quality on the subdivision site is not potable.  The servicing studies have not adequately dealt with the turbidity parameter of the groundwater, which is related to both health and aesthetics.  There are also a number of strictly aesthetic groundwater quality parameters exceeding the MOE criteria for treatability—i.e., the Maximum Concentration Considered Reasonably Treatable, in Procedure D-5-5.  MOE procedure D-5-5 recommends that developments should not be considered where individual private servicing is proposed and the aesthetic treatability limits are exceeded.

 

Terrain Analysis

 

While it is undisputed that in their intent, the Provincial Policy Statement and the 2003 Official Plan all favour intensification, the proposal has not adequately demonstrated that each proposed residential lot could support a house, a well and a sewage disposal system.  At issue here is the width of some of the mantles forming part of the proposed leaching beds.

 

Conclusion

 

The subject proposal to amend the 2003 Official Plan fails to establish that the subject lands are needed in order to implement the Plan’s long-range policies for managing growth in Villages.  The proposal is contrary to the vision for the long-term growth for Greely Village as articulated in the Greely Community Design Plan.  The proposal also fails to clearly demonstrate that the quality of the groundwater is acceptable.  There are a number of aesthetic groundwater quality parameters exceeding the Ministry of the Environment criteria for treatability.  Therefore, the subject proposal is neither consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement nor in conformity with the 2003 Official Plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Notice of these applications was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy.  Information signs were posted on-site indicating the nature of the application.  The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation. The City received comments regarding the subject proposal, as mentioned in Document 5.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

 

This application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Official Plan amendments due to the complexity of the issues associated with servicing and planning policy context.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1      Location Map

Document 2      Proposed Development Concept

Document 3      Residential Lot Supply Analysis

Document 4      Residential Land Supply and Unit Potential By Development Status and Area

Document 5      Consultation Details

 

DISPOSITION

 

Corporate Services Department, City Clerk’s Branch, Secretariat Services to notify the owner, Greely Family Farm Inc., 6576 Apple Orchard Road, Greely ON K4P 1E5, applicant, Sunset Lakes Development Corporation, 6576 Apple Orchard Road, Greely ON K4P 1E5, Signs.ca, 866 Campbell Avenue, Ottawa, ON  K2A 2C5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code:  26-76) of City Council’s decision.

 

Planning and Growth Management Department to prepare the by-law adopting the Official Plan Amendment, forward to Legal Services Branch, and undertake the statutory notification.

 

Corporate Services Department, Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-law to City Council

LOCATION MAP                                                                                                  Document 1

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN                                             Document 2

Source : Application
GREELY RESIDENTIAL LOT

SUPPLY ANALYSIS, JANUARY 2006                                                                 Document 3

Prepared by Holzman Consultants Inc. on behalf of the Applicant

 

RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND UNIT POTENTIAL

BY DEVELOPMENT STATUS AND AREA, DECEMBER 2005                     Document 4

City of Ottawa

Ward/Village

Registered

Draft-Approved

Pending

No Plan

Total

Units built/yr

Yrs of

Net Ha

Units

Net Ha

Units

Net Ha

Units

Net Ha

Units

Net Ha

Units

av 03-05

supply

Osgoode Ward,

outside of villages

343.1

371

138.3

143

195.7

270

1,299.8

1,518

1,976.9

2,302

81

28.5

Greely

81.2

188

65.7

663

152.5

413

11.8

89

311.2

1,353

56

24.2

Kars

0.1

1

0.0

0

19.4

36

4.0

7

23.5

44

2

22.0

Kenmore

0.3

2

0.0

0

0.0

0

22.9

152

23.2

154

1

231.0

Manotick

11.6

41

0.0

0

40.8

151

157.7

586

210.0

778

42

18.5

Metcalfe

27.3

82

0.0

0

0.0

0

92.0

279

119.2

361

16

22.6

North Gower

10.4

43

0.0

0

0.0

0

160.8

670

171.2

713

13

56.3

Osgoode

9.3

25

40.3

95

0.0

0

36.6

85

86.2

205

22

9.5

Vernon

17.9

49

0.0

0

0.0

0

42.8

115

60.7

164

5

35.1

Total Area

501.2

802

244.4

901

408.4

870

1,828.2

3,501

2,982

6,074

236

26

 

 

CONSULTATION DETAILS                                                                                Document 5

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

The City did not receive comments from the public.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS

A member of the Greely Community Association contacted staff inquiring whether the Public Private Partnership (P3) mentioned in the proposal summary which was circulated was actually true and whether the City was seriously considering the P3.

Response: Staff could not verify that the City had been party to any discussion about the P3.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS

The Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee recommended that the proposed Official Plan amendment not be approved on the basis that there was sufficient land supply within the Greely Village Boundary and therefore no need to expand the village boundary.

 

OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT AND PLAN OF SUBDIVISION - 7268 PARKWAY ROAD

MODIFICATION AU PLAN OFFICIEL - MODIFICATION AU RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE ET  PLAN DE LOTISSEMENT - 7268, CHEMIN PARKWAY

ACS2006-PGM-APR-0205

 

Ms C. Kaufman, Planner, Planning and Growth Management, provided a detailed presentation in which she reviewed the details of the above-noted application and the staff recommendation on same.  Ms. Kaufman outlined the following reasons why staff recommended that the application for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision be refused: the need for more residential lots has not been demonstrated; comprehensive review to expand the settlement area has not been done; servicing requirements have not been satisfied; and the proposal is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, the City’s Official Plan, or the Greely Community Design Plan. A copy of her presentation is held on file.

 

In response to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Ms. Kaufman explained that the application is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement in that there is already a surplus of residential lots in the Village of Greely, and it does not meet the servicing requirements.

 

Responding to further questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. J. Lachance, Program Manager for Infrastructure Approvals, explained that a number of aesthetic parameters for the water quality in the proposed development exceed the limits set by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) in procedure D-5-5.

 

Councillor El-Chantiry noted that it was quite common for well water in rural areas to exceed MOE limits.  However, he wondered to what extent the levels in the proposed development exceeded the limits and whether or not it was treatable.  Mr. Lachance explained that a number of test wells drilled on the property demonstrated high levels of sodium, hardness, and chlorides, which exceeded the MOE guidelines.  He noted the following specific instances where levels on the proposed development exceeded MOE guidelines: for total dissolved solids the Ontario drinking water objective would be 500, whereas some of the test wells ranged above 1600; for chlorides, the objective is 250, whereas some are ranging above 500; and for sodium, the Ontario drinking water objective is 20, and some are in the range of nearly 300. 

 

On further questioning from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Lachance added that various parameters could be treated but that some of them exceed treatability limits described in the MOE procedure D-5-5.

 

In response to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Ms. K. Currie, Manager of Development Approvals, confirmed that no comments were received by the public and that the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee (OFGAC) had recommended the development be refused.  Ms. Currie read from an e-mail from OFGAC, which stated that the advisory committee did not recommend approval of the proposals because there was sufficient developable land within the boundaries of the Village of Greely and therefore no need to go outside the village or to expand its boundaries. 

 

Councillor Thompson wished to point out that before amalgamation, the Township of Osgoode had supported the re-zoning of part of the proposed development for a shopping centre.  He suggested this was a tacit approval to jump over the imaginary line of Highway 31.  He added that Greely was one of the fastest growing rural villages and did not have a commercial core.  He acknowledged the rationale behind the commercial core of Greely being on the West side because its residential area was located there; however he maintained that any successful commercial development would need to be visible from Highway 31 and therefore the village core of Greely would have to be on the East side of Bank Street.

 

Ms. Currie acknowledged the existence of the commercial site East of Bank Street, approved by the former Township of Osgoode.  She noted that the reference to the village core being West of Bank Street came out of the recent Community Design Plan.  She added that although this did not discount the existence of the commercial site on the East, it did not indicate that the major commercial development would be to the West.  She added that the site on the East would be developed, but it was an individual site and not the main focal point for the village.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Thompson, Ms. Kaufman explained how staff arrived at 24 years as the supply of lots in Greely.  With reference to page 4 of the report, she explained that during the Greely Community Design Plan there was a supply of 260 lots in Greely and there were some average absorption rates calculated.  She explained that during the period of 1995 – 2003 the supply was 35 years, and recognizing there has been an increase in demand in 2002-2003, the supply is now estimated to be 22 years.  She noted that the applicant, using those same figures found that there was a downward adjustment of 747 lots, but still there is at least a 14-23 year supply of surplus residential lots in the village.

 

Responding to a question from Councillor Thompson, Ms. Currie explained that Document 3 of the staff report was a table submitted by a consultant on behalf of the applicant, which indicates the 14-23 year supply.  She noted that subsequent to the analysis mentioned by Ms. Kaufman, the City did an additional analysis in December of 2005 to look at the whole of Osgoode, not just Greely.  She explained that the numbers provided by the City as of December 2005 indicate a 24-year supply in Greely and an average of 26 years supply across the Osgoode villages, as outlined in Document 4.  She suggested that taking those numbers, together with the upper range of the supply proposed by the applicant (23 years), gives 3 statistics that suggest there is a greater than 20-year supply.  She added that the 14-year supply is not something that staff is supportive of as an appropriate number because the absorption of 100 lots which was used to get to that calculation is substantially higher than the 56 units that the city has tracked as being built between 2003 and 2005 in the village of Greely. 

 

Councillor Thompson disagreed with the last statement.  In regards to the issue of well water, he noted that the higher elevation of sodium was prevalent in other areas of the village of Greely.  He suggested that the issue of sodium levels was being used as reason not to support the proposed development.

 

Ms. Currie explained staff’s recommendations were based on the fact that the application to amend the Official Plan had to satisfy the PPS and the City’s Official Plan in terms of the criteria for growth, which staff did not believe was the case with respect to this application.  Furthermore, with respect to technical issues such as servicing and water, she noted these were problematic and staff had identified these in the report as needing analysis and resolution.  However, she added these were not the sole reasons for staff’s recommendation.  She suggested that even if it were to go through an Official Plan Amendment, it is still possible that the development would not be viable because it is not able to satisfy some of the servicing criteria.

 

In response to a question from Chair Jellett, Ms Currie confirmed that staff was recommending the application be refused for the following reasons:

·        The proposed development was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement or the City’s Official Plan;

·        The current supply of available residential lots in the area;

·        Poor water quality;

·        The analysis suggests that the proposed lot sizes would not meet the minimum requirements for a house, well and septic system; and

·        The proposal is contrary to the Greely Community Design Plan, completed in 2005.

 

Councillor Brooks stated his belief that communities ought to govern communities on local issues, and that if the community was in favour of the proposed development, he was prepared to support it.  He then questioned the deciding authority with respect to the appropriate numbers.  Ms. Currie indicated the 10 to 20 year supply parameter was set by the Province through the Provincial Policy Statement and that the City generally endorsed that position.  She added that Committee and Council would have to decide which analysis had produced the appropriate number – staff’s or the applicant’s.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Brooks, Ms Currie indicated that, if it could be proven that the technical conditions could be met within reason, these would no longer be an issue.  However, she maintained that staff would not be prepared to recommend approval until any new information presented by the applicant could be reviewed by the Conservation Authority and in the context of MOE guidelines. 

 

Councillor Brooks questioned whether there was any way around the Provincial Policy Statement.  Ms Currie suggested that Council could choose to make a decision contrary to the PPS, but that the Province could then appeal any such decision. 

 

Mr. D. Anderson, Sunset Lakes Development Corporation, referenced his company’s record in terms of developing communities in Greely, noting that they were very familiar with the conditions in the area.  He stressed the need for a commercial centre in Greely, noting there was no bank, grocery store or pharmacy in the area.  He maintained that the proposed location was the best place for such a commercial centre.  He went on to describe the proposed development, which would incorporate a 20-acre commercial site with a main street look, a 9-acre parcel reserved for an arena, indoor pool and tennis club, an office block park and a 500 residential area of similar size and virtually identical to Sunset Lakes with storm water management ponds for recreational purposes as part of the site.  He indicated an 11-acre soccer field had already been conveyed to the City and another 4.5 acres would be conveyed.  He added there would also be a 3-acre pond in the village centre, surrounded by a walkway.  Mr. Anderson submitted that the proposed development complied with the PPS in every way and that it met the required guidelines for water on private services. 

 

Mr. Anderson then addressed the issue of lot supply under the PPS, arguing that the actual supply of lots in Greely was currently 833 as a result of a completely new form of housing in the village.  With respect to absorption rate, he indicated that after amalgamation, the City agreed to an absorption rate of 100 lots per year.  However, he submitted that in 1004, the lot supply essentially dried up because of constraints on lot registrations and approvals in Greely.  He noted that between 2003 and 2005, Sunset Lakes Development had gone to the OMB 9 times and had, on each occasion, been successful in having the hydrogeology substantiated and having the development phases released.  Throughout the aforementioned period, their sales had been 60 lots per year and they expected to sell 80 lots in 2006.

 

Mr. Anderson noted no one had referenced Section 1.137 of the Provincial Policy Statement, which states that development taking place in designated growth areas should occur adjacent to the existing built-up area, and shall have a compact form, mix of uses and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public service facilities.  He maintained that the proposed project fulfilled each of these guidelines. 

 

In closing, the presenter argued that Bank Street was not a barrier to commercial development.  Although it is a busy street, there will be traffic lights and crosswalks.  It will be linked and this will be done harmoniously and safely.  He also pointed out that the proposed office park will be on an interior road and therefore will not be tantamount to a strip development.  He re-iterated that the proposed location was the best location for village expansion and he questioned the need for a five-year review, reminding Committee that this proposal was part of the 2003 appeal.  He stated that Greely residents wanted the development now. 

 

Mr. R. Passmore, Environmental Engineer, Paterson Group Inc. spoke on behalf of the applicant on the issue of hydrogeology.  He wished to clarify some issues with regards to the staff report and presentation.  He suggested there was an error in the staff presentation with regards to the treatable limit for sodium.  He submitted that, whereas the presentation indicated the limit was 20, the actual limit in the Ontario Drinking Water Standards was 200, through procedure D-5-5.  He outlined his qualifications and experience with respect to sewage systems before going on to clarify the issues with respect to the ability to size conventional sewage systems on the proposed residential sites.  He suggested they have shown, based on their lot development plan, that they were able to satisfactorily size a conventional sewage system on the sites.  He explained that the Ontario Building Code specifies minimum horizontal clearance distances and vertical separation distances.  He indicated they had tried to maximize purchasers’ flexibility to size a house, locate a well and put a sewage system on the proposed lots.  Specifically, they used a design flow consistent with a four bedroom home with a two-car garage, noting that this was probably in the upper end of the size of home one would see in similar subdivisions in the area.  He maintained that the applicant’s proposal dealt with very conventional and well-established technology.

 

In response to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Passmore confirmed that the MOE guideline for sodium was 200 and that, at the time of last sampling, the levels on the property in question ranged between 250 and 300.  He agreed that levels of sodium varied across the City of Ottawa and that the proposed development would be consistent. He noted that it was actually lower than some areas in West Carleton.

 

In response to a further question from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Passmore clarified that the sodium level was an aesthetic parameter, therefore it would only require treatment for taste and would not pose a health risk. 

 

Mr. S Walker, Paterson Group, began by explaining his background as a licensed professional engineer in the province of Ontario practicing for 30 years in the field of hydrogeology and geotechnical engineering. He noted that the Paterson Group had provided hydro-geological services on the proposed site, adding that the firm had conducted numerous studies of a similar nature in the Greely area and had provided expert testimony at OMB hearings for subdivisions in Greely and throughout Ottawa and Eastern Ontario.  He indicated there were various technical means to establish whether or not the groundwater supply for a subdivision would be impacted by the sewage system.  He noted that at previous OMB hearings for the Greely Village expansion, for the South Village and Woodstream developments, all the testifying experts had agreed on proper methodologies for confirming isolation.  He maintained that for the proposed site, identical investigation procedures had been used and system isolation confirmed.  He added 34 test pits were put down to determine that an adequate thickness of the isolating impervious layer existed under the site to provide adequate protection to the aquifer.  Mr. Walker felt it was misleading for the City to suggest that a person using the water could potentially be drinking water from nearby sewage systems.  He maintained that, in order to safeguard water supply, stringent requirements currently existed for well construction and septic system design and construction.  He pointed out that even with significant existing development in Greely, there was a total absence of indicator bacteria and nitrates, which suggested the water supply had not been impacted by septic systems.  Mr. Walker referenced a 2005 report commissioned by the City, which indicated that in the long run, average nitrate levels in the village of Greely would represent about 20% of the allowable limit in accordance with Ontario drinking water objectives.  He maintained that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the drinking water aquifer and that staff’s inference to the contrary was technically incorrect.  In closing, he addressed the sodium levels, suggesting that some of the higher levels would be attributed to off-site road salting and that it was quite common to find high sodium levels in Ottawa-area wells.  He concluded that all the issues raised by staff had been addressed and that an ample and safe supply of groundwater existed for the proposed site.  

 

Mr W. Ney, President of the Greely Community Association (GCA), indicated the site plans and the staff report had been fully reviewed by the GCA and discussed at a recent general meeting and he expressed his organization’s support for the proposed development.  He suggested the commercial, recreational, business and residential components of the project were very important to the future of Greely and that Sunset Lakes Development Corporation was the only developer to come forth with a solid plan.  He noted that Sunset Lakes Development Corporation had developed several residential communities of outstanding quality in Greely over the past 14 years.  On behalf of the Greely Community Association, he strongly urged Committee to endorse the project.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Brooks, Chair Jellett confirmed that all registered speaker were in support of the applicant. 

 

Councillor Brooks’ believed there was consensus amongst Committee members with respect to this issue and he questioned the necessity of hearing each registered speaker if the Committee intended to support the application. 

 

Chair Jellett noted that the following individuals had also registered to speak in support of the application:

·        Peter Kindree

·        Marcel Falardeau

·        Bruce Dunlop

·        Pauline Drummond

·        Gary Drummond

·        Paul Belisle

·        R.S. Villa

 

Mr. T. Marc, Manager of Planning and Environment Law, referenced a motion he believed Councillor Thompson would be introducing and he noted that there was an OMB hearing scheduled on this matter on January 16.  He suggested that if Councillor Thompson’s motion carried, it would require Minutes of settlement to be executed by the City and the applicant and then the City and the applicant would come forward with a joint position on January 16 and ask the Board to approve the development.  However, should Council take a different position on October 25 and refuse the application, then the City would argue in opposition to the development at the January 16 OMB hearing and the applicant would bring forward their case.

 

In response to a question from Chair Jellett, Mr. Marc confirmed that even those who did not address Committee but who had attended and been prepared to speak would be part of the record going forward to the Ontario Municipal Board.  Therefore, in the event of a hearing, they would have the opportunity to address the Board. 

 

Mr. P. Webber, Bell Baker, LLP, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He wished to clarify that, whereas the staff presentation indicated there were three proposals coming forward  - OPA, zoning and subdivision –there were in fact four.  He also stated that, whereas the staff presentation indicated that the official plan designation of the land was general rural area, this was not true. He clarified that it was an appealed section of the Official Plan, so the first thing that would be going to the OMB in January was an appeal against the 2003 Official Plan. He maintained this was significant because it suggested this was a unique parcel and approving the application was not creating a precedent.  He felt this would give Council a greater level of comfort.  He also suggested that the Provincial Policy Statement did not apply in this case – it was not to “be consistent with”, it was to “have regard to.”  He wanted Council to be aware that they were not violating the PPS, but having regard to it and applying it properly. With regards to the hydrogeology issue, he repeated Mr. Anderson’s statement - that the developer had been to the Board nine times and suggested that it was essentially a settled issue.  Furthermore, Mr. Webber argued that the 2003 Official Plan did not apply, the 1997 Regional Plan applied with regards to boundary changes.  The latter stated that the only requirement was serviceability and that village boundaries should be left to local decisions. 

 

Chair Jellett noted that as a result of amalgamation, there was no “local” governing body and that the City of Ottawa would be the deciding body.  Mr. Webber acknowledged this.  However, he maintained the intent of the policy of the day was that village boundaries should be local decisions. 

 

The following submissions were received in support of the application and are held on file with the City Clerk:

·        14-page submission from Sunset Lakes Development Corporation;

·        Letter from William E. Ney, President of the Greely Community Association dated October 12, 2006;

·        Letter from John Crandlemire, Director of John Gerard Homes Ltd dated October 12, 2006;

·        Letter from Gisele Devaney, resident of Greely, undated;

·        Letter from Brian and Karen Anderson, residents of Greely, dated October 11, 2006;

·        Letter from Daniel J. Curran, resident of Greely, dated October 9, 2006;

·        E-mail from Kim Dawson, Dawson and Associates, dated October 11. 2006;

·        Letter from John Hiddema, President, SLOA, dated October 10, 2006;

·        Letter from Claudia Buttera, resident of Greely, undated;

·        E-mail from Dial Singh dated October 5, 2006; and

·        E-mail from Pauline and Gary Drummond dated October 5, 2006.

 

Councillor Thompson introduced a motion to:

 

a)         Direct that the City Solicitor to execute Minutes of Settlement allowing that part of Appeal 60 against the City of Ottawa Official Plan, 2003 (OMB Case No. PL031324) to expand the boundary of the Village of Greely to encompass the lands described as 7268 Parkway Road, Ottawa, and to request an order of the Ontario Municipal Board to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement;

 

b)         Direct that the City Solicitor to execute Minutes of Settlement allowing the appeal of the applicant (OMB File No. O060161) against the failure of Council to approve a requested Official Plan Amendment designating the lands described as 7268 Parkway Road, Ottawa, as Village, and to request an order of the Ontario Municipal Board to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement, amending the designation; and

 

c)         Direct that the City Solicitor to execute Minutes of Settlement allowing the appeal of the applicant (OMB File No. Z060077) against the failure of Council to approve a requested by-law to re-zone the lands described as 7268 Parkway Road, Ottawa, to implement the plan of subdivision proposed by the applicant, and to request an order of the Ontario Municipal Board to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement, rezoning the land.

 

His motion also directed:

 

That, upon the approval by Council of the three recommendations (a, b and c above), the City Solicitor be directed to execute Minutes of Settlement allowing the appeal of the applicant (OMB File No. S060073) against the failure of Council to approve an application for approval of a plan of subdivision for the lands described as 7268 Parkway Road, Ottawa, and to request an order of the Ontario Municipal Board to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement, granting draft plan approval to the subdivision and establishing the conditions to final approval; and

 

That, upon the receipt of the orders of the Ontario Municipal Board, the Planning and Growth Management Department be directed to amend the Community Development Plan for the Village of Greely to reflect the said decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board.

 

In response to a question from Chair Jellett, Mr. Marc indicated that, if Committee was inclined to see the development go forward, he was satisfied with the wording of the motion. 

 

The Committee then voted on the replacement recommendations submitted by Councillor Thompson.

 

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend:

 

1.         That Council direct the City Solicitor to:

 

            a)         Execute Minutes of Settlement allowing that part of Appeal 60 against the City of Ottawa Official Plan, 2003 (OMB Case No. PL031324) to expand the boundary of the Village of Greely to encompass the lands described as 7268 Parkway Road, Ottawa, and to request an order of the Ontario Municipal Board to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement;

 

            b)         Execute Minutes of Settlement allowing the appeal of the applicant (OMB File No. O060161) against the failure of Council to approve a requested Official Plan Amendment designating the lands described as 7268 Parkway Road, Ottawa, as Village, and to request an order of the Ontario Municipal Board to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement, amending the designation; and

 

            c)         Execute Minutes of Settlement allowing the appeal of the applicant (OMB File No. Z060077) against the failure of Council to approve a requested by-law to re-zone the lands described as 7268 Parkway Road, Ottawa, to implement the plan of subdivision proposed by the applicant, and to request an order of the Ontario Municipal Board to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement, rezoning the land;

 

2.         That, upon the approval by Council of the three recommendations (a, b and c above), the City Solicitor be directed to execute Minutes of Settlement allowing the appeal of the applicant (OMB File No. S060073) against the failure of Council to approve an application for approval of a plan of subdivision for the lands described as 7268 Parkway Road, Ottawa, and to request an order of the Ontario Municipal Board to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement, granting draft plan approval to the subdivision and establishing the conditions to final approval; and

 

3.         That, upon the receipt of the orders of the Ontario Municipal Board, the Planning and Growth Management Department be directed to amend the Community Development Plan for the Village of Greely to reflect the said decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board.

 

CARRIED as amended with R. Jellett dissenting