|
7. REVISED DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW - RURAL AREA AND
GREENBELT - PUBLIC MEETING and approval version RÉVISÉE du règlement
de zonage prÉliminaire – secteur rural et ceinture de verdure
|
2. That Council approve:
(a)
the Draft
Comprehensive Zoning By-law, Volume 1 (text and schedules) and Volume 2 (zoning
maps) – September 2007 as noted in Document 1;
(b)
the staff
recommendations noted in the Staff Recommendation Column IV of Document 2 -
Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Rural Area and Greenbelt - Summary of
Comments on the May 2006 version and Modifications; and
(c)
the Additional changes to the Draft Comprehensive
Zoning By-law – Rural and Greenbelt Area as noted in Document 3 and Document
4.
3. Upon
Council approval of the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, and in the event of
appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), the most restrictive provisions
of either,
(a)
the existing zoning
by-laws of the former municipalities, or
(b) the new
comprehensive zoning by-law,
will apply until such appeals are disposed of by the OMB.
4. a. That the requirement for a
sight-obscuring buffer where adjacent to a rural zone be added to Column V of
exception [294r] to reflect the provisions of the current zoning by-law as
amended by By-law 2006-267.
b. That
the proposed zoning of the lands known municipally as 6100 and 6116 Gough Road
be modified to reflect the true intent of By-law No. 2006-242 with regards to
permitted uses.
c. That the
proposed zoning of the lands know municipally as 1201 Thomas Dolan Parkway be
changed from DR1 to RU to reflect the fact that the subject lands are not
located within the Dunrobin Village Boundary.
d. That the
proposed zoning of the lands know municipally as 5420 Richmond Road and the
lands know legally as CON 5RF LOT 23 TO 24 PT PCL;1 be changed from DR1 to RU
to reflect the fact that the subject lands are not located within the
Fallowfield Village Boundary.
e.
That the proposed zoning of the lands know legally
as part of the west half of Lot 38, Concession 7 being Part 1 on Registered
Plan 5R-2553 be changed from AG to DR1 to recognize the fact the subject lands
are located within the Village Boundary of Vernon.
f.
That the proposed zoning of the lands on part of Lot
22, Concession 2 (former City of Cumberland) at 5342 Saumure Road be changed
for the north portion of the property from AG3 to RU so that the whole of the
property is in the RU zone.
g. That
Section 69 – Setbacks from Waterways contained in the May 2006 version of the
draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be re-inserted as modified below:
i. Despite provisions of the
underlying zone, the following minimum setbacks must be provided to provide a
margin of safety from hazards associated with flooding and unstable slopes and
to help protect the environmental quality of watercourses.
ii. Except for flood or erosion control
works, or a public bridge or a marine facility, no building or structure,
including any part of a sewage system, which does not require plan of
subdivision or site plan control approval, shall be located closer than 30 m to
the normal highwater mark of any watercourse, or 15 m to the top of the bank of
any watercourse, whichever is greater.
NOTE:
Development requiring plan of subdivision, rezoning or site plan control will be
subject to the watercourse setbacks as identified in Policy 4.7.3 of the City
of Ottawa Official Plan.
h. That Section 69 be moved to Part 2,
General Provisions and that the following modifications be made:
§
add the words “the Rockliffe Air Base. Airport
zoning regulations” after the words “of Carp Airport and” in subsection (1)
§
add a new subsection 2 as follows: “(2)
Development in the vicinity of the Macdonald-Caritier International Airport,
the Carp Airport, and Rockliffe Air Base, shall take into consideration
guidelines found in Transport
Canada Document TP312E - Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices as
amended. With respect to
development in the vicinity of the Carp Airport, runway 10-28 shall be protected as a "4C CAT 1" Runway, and runway 4-22 shall be protected
as a "1C NON-INSTR" Runway.”
§
change subsection (2) to (3).
i. That there be no further notice
pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
5. The zoning
for 1599 River Road be amended to include an exception to permit the following
additional uses:
·
animal care establishment
·
animal hospital
·
animal cemetery
6. That the
draft comprehensive zoning by-law be revised to apply a site-specific exception
at 1751 8th Line Road to recognize the existing catering
establishment; and
That pursuant to the Planning Act,
subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.
7. That the
draft comprehensive zoning by-law be revised to apply a site-specific exception
at 6971 Bank Street to add the existing funeral home as an additional use; and
That pursuant to the Planning Act,
subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.
8. That the subject lands will be
exempt from the provisions of Section 58 (1) & (2) pertaining to the Flood
Plain Overlay; and
That pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.
9. That the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be amended
with respect to the zoning of Property Lot 3 Conc.1 at 5600/5994 First Line
Road, Kars, ON (ward 21, City of Ottawa) as follows:
Section 2.D – Dealership:
·
to include the following in
§
category 1 – dirt bikes
§
category 4 – landscape
·
to add a category 7 – Power Products.
That all categories include the following
wording - sales, service, parts, rentals – as permissible uses; and
That an auxiliary storage building (5000 sq.
feet) be considered as a permitted use.
Recommandations modifiÉes du Comité
2. Que le Conseil
approuve :
(a) les volumes 1 (texte et annexes) et 2
(cartes) du règlement de zonage préliminaire, version de septembre 2007,
constituant le document 1;
(b) les recommandations du
personnel qui figurent dans la colonne IV « Recommandation du
personnel » du document 2 (Règlement de zonage préliminaire – Secteur
rural et Ceinture de verdure, Sommaire des commentaires sur la version de mai
2006 et des modifications apportées);
(c) les modifications
supplémentaires apportées au Règlement de zonage préliminaire – Secteur rural
et Ceinture de verdure, signalées dans le document 3 et document 4.
3. Après
l'adoption du règlement de zonage par le Conseil et dans l'éventualité de
contestations devant la Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario
(CAMO), qu'entre les dispositions
(a) soit du règlement de
zonage d'une ancienne municipalité encore en vigueur,
(b) soit du nouveau règlement de zonage,
Ce soit la plus restrictive des deux qui s'applique jusqu'au moment où
la CAMO aura statué sur les contestations.
4. a. Que l’exigence d’une zone visuelle tampon à proximité d’une zone rurale
soit ajoutée à la colonne V des exceptions [294r] afin de tenir compte des
dispositions du règlement de zonage actuel modifié par le Règlement 2006-267.
b. Que le zonage proposé des propriétés sises
aux 6100 et 6116, chemin Gough soit modifié pour prendre en compte l’intention
véritable du Règlement no 2006-242 à l’égard des utilisations
autorisées.
c. Que le zonage proposé des propriétés sises au
1201, chemin Thomas Dolan passe de DR1 à RU pour tenir compte du fait que les
propriétés visées ne sont pas situées à l’intérieur des limites du village de
Dunrobin.
d. Que le zonage proposé des propriétés sises au
5420, chemin Richmond désignées juridiquement comme concession 5(fr), lot 23 à
24, pt pcl; 1 passe de DR1 à RU pour tenir compte du fait que les propriétés
visées ne sont pas situées à l’intérieur des limites du village de Fallowfield.
e. Que le zonage proposé des propriétés
désignées juridiquement comme une partie de la moitié ouest du lot 38,
concession 7, correspondant à la partie 1 du plan enregistré 5R-2553 passe de
AG à DR1 pour que l’on reconnaisse le fait que les propriétés visées sont
situées à l’intérieur des limites du village de Vernon.
f. Que le zonage proposé des propriétés de la
partie du lot 22, concession 2 (ancienne Ville de Cumberland) au 5342, chemin
Saumure, soit modifié pour la portion nord des propriétés de AG3 à RU de sorte
que l’ensemble de la propriété se retrouve dans la zone RU.
g. Que l’article 69 sur le retrait des cours
d’eau qui se retrouve dans la version de mai 2006 du Règlement de zonage
préliminaire soit reformulée comme suit :
i. Malgré les dispositions relatives à la zone
sous-jacente, les retraits minimaux suivants doivent être établis afin d’offrir
une marge de sécurité contre les risques associés aux inondations et aux pentes
instables et pour faciliter la protection de la qualité des cours d’eau.
ii. Sauf en ce qui concerne les ouvrages
de protection contre les inondations ou l’érosion ou la construction d’un pont
public ou d’installations relatives à la navigation, aucun immeuble et aucune
structure, y compris toute partie d’un système d’évacuation des eaux usées, qui
n’exige pas d’autorisation d’un plan de lotissement ou d’une demande de
contrôle de plan de site, ne peuvent être situés à moins de 30 mètres du niveau
normal des hautes eaux de tout cours d’eau ou à moins de 15 mètres du sommet de
la rive de tout cours d’eau, soit la plus grande de ces distances.
REMARQUE : Les aménagements
exigeant un plan de lotissement, un rezonage ou une demande de contrôle de plan
de site seront soumis aux retraits des cours d’eau mentionnés dans la politique
4.7.3 du plan officiel de la ville d’Ottawa.
h. Que l’article 69 soit incorporé à la partie
2, Dispositions générales, et que les modifications suivantes soient
apportées :
§
Ajouter
les termes « la base aérienne Rockliffe, règlements de zonage
aéroportuaires » après les termes « de l’aéroport de Corp » au
paragraphe (1)
§
Ajouter
un nouveau paragraphe 2, qui se lit comme suit : « (2) les
aménagements dans les environs de l’aéroport international Macdonald-Cartier,
de l’aéroport de Carp et de la base aérienne de Rockliffe, tiendront compte des
lignes directrices que l’on trouve dans le document TP312F – Aérodromes.
Normes et pratiques recommandées du ministère des Transports, dans sa
version modifiée. En ce qui concerne les aménagements dans les environs de
l’aéroport de Carp, la piste 10-28 sera protégée comme Code 4C, Approche
catégorie 1 et, la piste 4-22, comme Code 1C, A vue.
§
Remplacer
le paragraphe (3) par le paragraphe (2).
i. Qu’il n’y ait plus d’autres avis aux termes du paragraphe 34 (17) de la Loi
sur l’aménagement du territoire.
5. Que le zonage du 1599, chemin River soit
modifié afin qu’y soit incorporée une exception permettant les utilisations
additionnelles suivantes :
·
établissement
de soins des animaux
·
hôpital
pour animaux
·
cimetière
pour animaux
6. Que le Règlement de zonage général préliminaire
soit révisé afin qu’y soit incorporée une exception particulière pour cet
emplacement du 1751, chemin 8th Line reconnaissant l’établissement
de traiteur existant et;
Qu’il n’y ait plus d’autre avis aux
termes du paragraphe 34(17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.
7. Que le Règlement de zonage général préliminaire
soit révisé afin qu’y soit incorporée une exception particulière pour cet
emplacement du 6971, rue Bank reconnaissant le salon funéraire existant et;
Qu’il n’y ait plus d’autre avis aux
termes du paragraphe 34(17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.
8. Que les terrains visés seront exclus des
propositions des paragraphes 58(1) et (2) relatifs à la définition de la zone
sous-jacente de plaine inondable et;
Qu’il n’y ait plus d’avis aux termes
du paragraphe 34(17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.
9. Que le règlement de zonage général préliminaire soit modifié en ce qui
concerne le zonage du lot 3, conc. 1 au 5600/5994, chemin First Line, Kars
(Ontario) (quartier 21, Ville d’Ottawa) comme suit :
Section
2.D sur les concessionnaires automobiles :
·
pour
englober ce qui suit dans les catégories suivantes :
§
catégorie
1 – motos hors route
§
catégorie
4 – aménagement paysagé
·
rajouter
une catégorie 7 – produits d’énergie.
Que toutes les catégories comprennent les termes suivants – vente,
service, pièces, location – comme utilisations autorisées.
Que l’aménagement d’un immeuble d’entreposage annexe (5 000 pi2)
soit considéré comme une utilisation autorisée.
For the information of
council
The Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee also approved the following directions to staff:
That
the Agriculture and Rural Affairs be directed to:
1. (a) Hold
a public meeting on the City of Ottawa Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law -Rural
Area and Greenbelt in accordance with the Planning Act.
(b) Direct staff to release the final
version of the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law after City Council disposition
of the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee Recommendations 2 and 3, and
that a final public meeting be held prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive
Zoning By-law”.
Pour la gouverne du Conseil
Le Comité de l’agriculture et des questions
rurales a également approuvé les directives suivantes :
Que l'on enjoigne le Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales
de :
1. (a) Organise une assemblée publique sur le
Règlement de zonage général – Secteur rural et Ceinture de verdure,
conformément à la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.
(b) Demande
au personnel de rendre publique la version finale du Règlement de zonage
général préliminaire après que le Conseil municipal aura donné suite aux
recommendations 2 et3 du Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales et
qu’une assemblée publique finale se sera déroulée avant l’adoption du Règlement
de zonage général.
DocumentatioN
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Planning, Transit
and the Environment dated 24 October 2007 (ACS2007-PTE-POL-0062).
2. Document
4 of report ACS2007-PTE-POL-0062 - Draft
Comprehensive Zoning By-law – Rural Area and Greenbelt Summary of Comments post
September 25, 2007.
3. Extract of Minutes 14, 25 October 2007;
Extract of Minutes 15, 8 November 2007, and Extract of draft Minutes 16, 22
November 2007.
Report to/Rapport au :
Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Committee
Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales
and Council / et au Conseil
12 October 2007 / le 12 octobre 2007
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice
municipale adjointe,
Planning, Transit and the
Environment/Urbanisme, Transport en commun et Environnement
Contact Person/Personne-ressource :
Richard Kilstrom, Manager/Gestionnaire, Community Planning and Design/Aménagement
et conception communautaire, Planning Branch/Direction de l’urbanisme
(613)
580-2424 x22653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
That Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee:
1. Hold
a public meeting on the City of Ottawa Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law -Rural
Area and Greenbelt in accordance with the Planning Act.
2.
Recommend Council
approve:
(a)
the Draft
Comprehensive Zoning By-law, Volume 1 (text and schedules) and Volume 2 (zoning
maps) – September 2007 as noted in Document 1;
(b)
the staff
recommendations noted in the Staff Recommendation Column IV of Document 2 -
Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Rural Area and Greenbelt - Summary of
Comments on the May 2006 version and Modifications; and
(c)
the Additional changes to the Draft Comprehensive
Zoning By-law – Rural and Greenbelt Area as noted in Document 3.
3. Upon Council approval of
the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, and in the event of appeals to the Ontario
Municipal Board (OMB), the most restrictive provisions of either,
(b)
the existing zoning by-laws of the former municipalities, or
(b) the
new comprehensive zoning by-law,
will
apply until such appeals are disposed of by the OMB.
Que le Comité de l'agriculture et
des questions rurales :
1. tienne une réunion
publique sur règlement de zonage préliminaire – secteur rural et Ceinture de
verdure, conformément à la Loi sur
l'aménagement du territoire;
2. recommande au Conseil d'approuver :
a) les
volumes 1 (texte et annexes) et 2 (cartes) du règlement de zonage préliminaire,
version de septembre 2007, constituant le document 1;
b) les
recommandations du personnel qui figurent dans la colonne IV
« Recommandation du personnel » du document 2 (Règlement de zonage préliminaire
– secteur rural et Ceinture de verdure, Sommaire des commentaires sur la
version de mai 2006 et des modifications apportées);
c) les modifications
supplémentaires apportées au Règlement de zonage préliminaire – secteur rural
et Ceinture de verdure, signalées dans le document 3.
3. recommande, après
l'adoption du règlement de zonage par le Conseil et dans l'éventualité de
contestations devant la Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario
(CAMO), qu'entre les dispositions
a) soit du règlement de
zonage d'une ancienne municipalité encore en vigueur,
b) soit du nouveau
règlement de zonage,
ce soit la plus
restrictive des deux qui s'applique jusqu'au moment où la CAMO aura statué sur
les contestations.
Assumptions
and Analysis:
This report deals with the
approval of the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the rural area and
greenbelt, and information is
provided which pertains to submissions received since May 26, 2006. Further, the Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee (ARAC) meetings scheduled for October 25 and November 8 and 22
constitute the public meetings to be held under the Planning Act. The purpose of these public meetings is to provide
the public with an opportunity to address ARAC, as well as to present staff
recommendations on each comment received, for Committee’s final recommendations
to Council. The initial Draft
Comprehensive Zoning By-law – Rural Area and Greenbelt was released on May 26,
2006, with a revised second draft released September 25, 2007.
The discussion section of the report speaks to the nature of the numerous submissions made by the public regarding the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Overall, most of the submissions deal with site-specific issues: the role of a Zoning By-law versus an Official Plan with respect to severance policy; boundaries of villages, the parking of recreational vehicles and heavy vehicles on a residential property in a village or country estate area, building setbacks from licensed quarries and sand and gravel pits, setback distances from a watercourse, and provisions for accessory tower antennas for amateur radio operations. Many of the submission concerns have resulted in changes to the draft Zoning By-law. Moreover, staff have made additional changes, all of which have resulted in an improved by-law. While most of the concerns raised have been resolved, as noted in Document 2, some outstanding issues remain.
Financial
Implications:
Costs associated with the production of the approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law and the notice requirements as a result of approval of Recommendation 2 are estimated to be no more than $10,000 and the funds are available under the capital budget 900852 for this project.
Public
Consultation/Input:
Numerous consultations on the Draft Comprehensive Zoning
By-law have been held since consultation on the project was initiated in
2005. Document 2 is a summary of the
over 107 submissions related to the rural area and greenbelt that were received
from the public and public bodies.
RÉSUMÉ
Hypothèses et analyse :
Le présent rapport concerne l'approbation par
le Conseil du nouveau règlement de zonage pour le secteur rural et la Ceinture
de verdure et l'information qu'il contient a trait aux mémoires reçus depuis le
26 mai 2006. De plus, les réunions du 25 octobre et des 8 et 22 novembre du
Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales (CAQR) constituent des
réunions publiques aux fins de la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire.
Ces réunions publiques ont pour but de donner l'occasion au public d'intervenir
devant le CAQR ainsi que de présenter les recommandations du personnel
municipal sur chacun des commentaires reçus en vue de la formulation des
recommandations finales que le Comité adressera au Conseil. La première version
du règlement préliminaire de zonage – secteur rural et Ceinture de verdure, a
été publiée le 26 mai 2006 et la seconde version le 25 septembre 2007.
La section « Discussion » du rapport est
liée à la nature des nombreux mémoires présentés par le public sur le règlement
préliminaire de zonage. Dans l'ensemble, la plupart des mémoires portaient sur
des questions touchant des lieux particuliers : le rôle du règlement de zonage
par opposition à celui du Plan officiel quant aux politiques sur le
morcellement; les frontières des villages; le stationnement de véhicules de
plaisance et de véhicules lourds sur les terrains résidentiels dans un village
ou une zone de domaine de campagne; les marges de reculement des constructions
par rapport aux carrières, sablières et gravières autorisées; les marges de
reculement par rapport aux cours d'eau; l'érection de tours-antennes
accessoires pour la radio amateur. Bon nombre des préoccupations exprimées dans
les mémoires ont mené à des révisions du règlement préliminaire de zonage. De
plus, le personnel a apporté des modifications supplémentaires qui ont amélioré
le texte du règlement. Bien que la plupart des préoccupations soulevées aient
été réglées, comme le mentionne le document 2, il en subsiste un certain
nombre.
Répercussions financières :
Les coûts associés à la production du règlement
de zonage approuvé et aux exigences d'avis, advenant l'adoption de la
recommandation 2, sont estimés à moins de 10 000 $; des fonds sont
prévus pour ce projet dans le budget des immobilisations, poste 900852.
Consultation publique / commentaires
:
De nombreuses consultations sur le
règlement de zonage préliminaire ont eu lieu depuis le lancement du projet en
2005. Le document 2 résume les 107 mémoires et quelques portant sur le zonage
dans le secteur rural et la Ceinture de verdure qui ont été présentés par des
membres du public et des organismes publics.
In 2003, the City adopted its first Official Plan as an amalgamated city. With the new Plan in place, staff began the preparation of a new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, which is a key implementation tool of the Official Plan. The development of a new By-law also allowed for the integration of the 36 Zoning By-laws inherited from the former municipalities. This integration will be a major step forward in the efficient and effective delivery of planning and building services to the community. Currently, each of these by-laws must be administered, updated and enforced – a complex task that can result in increased administrative costs and time delays as well as inconsistencies in regulations from one area of the city to another.
Staff have been working to integrate all of these by-laws into one new Comprehensive Zoning By-law that will provide a more direct tool to implement the new Official Plan and at the same time introduce efficiencies in:
· the provision of zoning information to the public
· consistency of interpretation
· the processing of development applications
· compatibility with other municipal regulations
· public accessibility through a user-friendly, Internet-based computerized text and mapping system, and
· linking of zoning information to the City's property information system.
On May 10, 2006 City Council approved the proposed project and public consultation timelines for the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law project. The Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law was released on the City’s website on May 26, 2006 for public consultation. A revised version of the Rural Area and Greenbelt portions of the draft by-law, taking into account comments received from the public, was released on September 25, 2007.
DISCUSSION
The draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law has been developed as a user-friendly, Internet accessible zoning website. For the first time, residents, developers, consultants and realtors will have access to zoning information from their home or office computer, or for those without a computer, at their local public library. The document can be accessed with either a dial-up or a high-speed internet connection. Its searchable text and address-driven mapping system is state-of-the-art technology. The text is organized with detailed tables of contents that serve as a menu to every section of the by-law. The zoning mapping data which forms an overlay to the City’s E-Maps system can be viewed along with property boundaries, aerial photography, the transportation network and public facilities. Considerable positive feedback has been received from the public with respect to the website.
The document itself is presented in a user-friendly format that combines the best attributes of existing by-laws. The By-law uses plain language wherever possible, while meeting legal requirements for clear and precise legislation. As well, the By-law is available in both English and French. The By-law addresses both urban and rural zones within one document, however, a rural extract (a separate stand-alone consolidation of the rural provisions) is available to provide easier access to zoning information for the rural public.
The zoning for the rural areas is based on a review of the existing rural by-laws and their common approaches and best practices. It is important to note that although some zoning approaches are city-wide, special provisions were created to address the rural context; urban approaches are not imposed on the rural and village areas (e.g. a larger range of activities than is allowed in the urban area is permitted in a rural home-based business; separation distances for group homes in rural areas are larger than the urban area, etc.); the draft Zoning By-law does not use “one size fits all” solutions- rural specific zones, subzones and provisions are used to reflect the unique characteristics of rural areas.
The impact and degree of the zoning changes in the rural area is dependent primarily on whether former rural municipalities had implemented the policies of the former Regional Plan through their Zoning By-laws. As well, numerous changes are reflected in this draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law to assist in the implementation of the policies of the Official Plan. However, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law project is more than a straightforward consolidation due to significant differences in provisions between existing by-laws. Some changes are inevitable simply through the harmonization of provisions. More importantly, there will be some changes in zoning provisions and permitted uses where required by policy direction in the Official Plan and from the Provincial Policy Statement on land use planning and development.
Some of the key approaches used in the development and application of rural zoning are as follows:
1. Villages - The 26 villages recognized in the Official Plan have been placed in zones specifically designed to reflect village development (lot sizes, ranges of permitted uses) and to acknowledge Council-approved village boundaries. Zones and subzones are applied primarily to recognize existing development or existing zoning provisions. As well, where appropriate, zoning reflects applicable Official Plan policies and approved Village Plans (e.g. Community Design Plans for Carp and Constance Bay). Specifically:
(a) three village residential zones of increasing densities have been created and applied where appropriate, with a variety of subzones used to reflect existing land uses, lot sizes, yard setbacks, and taking into consideration private servicing requirements;
(b) a village mixed-use zone has been applied to village mainstreets to recognize existing services and to create a focus for future commercial development. Gaps in existing commercially zoned strips have been “filled in” wherever possible; Automobile-related uses (e.g. service stations, gas bars, drive-through facilities) are not permitted in these core areas, and are directed to the rural commercial zones generally on the perimeter of the village;
(c) areas formerly zoned agricultural and rural within a village have been placed in a development reserve zone to acknowledge future development potential;
(d) existing open spaces and institutional uses have been placed in open space and rural institutional zones respectively, and
(e) industrial and highway commercial areas have been zoned either general or heavy industrial or rural commercial respectively to reflect either the existing zoning or new directions in the Official Plan or approved village plans.
2. Rural Area - Zoning in the rural area outside of the villages generally reflects Official Plan designations. The boundaries of each Official Plan designation were used as the first step for determining zoning boundaries, with a further fine-tuning being done using existing zoning and land use data. The urban/rural boundary is based on work undertaken by Official Plan staff, as well as reflecting the boundaries of recently approved urban development. In addition:
(a) A series of agricultural subzones has been created to reflect the average lot size of groupings of farm lots in each area designated as Agricultural Resource Area in the Official Plan. The agricultural zone allows a range of ancillary and complementary uses, but commercial uses are not permitted.
(b) Environmental Management staff worked closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources and local conservation authorities to develop criteria and apply boundaries for areas designated as Natural Environment Areas and Significant Wetlands in the Official Plan. This involved some adjustments to the boundaries as shown in the Official Plan. These areas were then placed in an EP - environmental protection zone. However, areas designated as Rural Natural Features have been placed in a rural zone as per Official Plan policies.
(c) The boundaries of mineral extraction areas designated as Limestone Resource Area or Sand and Gravel Resource Area in the Official Plan reflect existing zoning and land uses as well as approved licenses where available. Special subzones and holding symbols apply to lands not yet licensed for extraction, which must be lifted by Council before development is permitted (subject to appropriate conditions).
(d) Existing industrial and commercial sites have been placed in either RG -general or RH- heavy industrial or RC -rural commercial zones respectively in accordance with their existing zoning and land use;
(e) Existing institutional uses and open spaces areas (including those designated as Major Open Space in the Official Plan) have been placed in RI - rural institutional or O1 - parks and open space zones respectively.
(f) Existing country estate subdivisions have been placed in a RR - rural residential zone, with various subzones to reflect the unique lot size and characteristics of each area.
(g) The MacDonald-Cartier International and Carp Airports, designated airports in the Official Plan, have been placed in a T1 - transportation facility subzone that reflects the existing zoning.
(h) Lands within the Carp Road Corridor designation of the Official Plan have been placed in a range of industrial and commercial zones in accordance with Official Plan and Community Design Plan policies.
(i) Existing landfill and snow disposal facilities have been recognized using site-specific exceptions; any new facilities or expansions to existing facilities will require a rezoning. Related uses such as recycling and composting facilities are often also permitted.
Most comments received from the public or agencies relate to property specific zoning questions. These are detailed in accompanying Document 2. These include a few that have implications for lands other than the subject owner’s, such as a request to add funeral home as a permitted use in the Rural Institutional – RI zone, which would apply to all lands so zoned; or, a request to severely restrict permitted land uses on existing lots of record within 500 metres of a sanitary land fill site, resulting in the need to apply this to not just one, but to all five land fill sites in the city.
Noteworthy additional comments, problems or issues arising from the 2006 draft version of the Zoning By-law include:
(a) There was some public confusion as to the role of a Zoning By-law versus an Official Plan, wherein it had to be explained that the former does not set out severance policy, that being found in the latter document;
(b) A provision on restricting land uses to protect the groundwater in areas around the well heads of the four publicly served villages (Vars, Carp, Munster Hamlet and Richmond) was removed from the proposed By-law. A new revised provision will only come back by by-law amendment to the new by-law after being dealt with via a public process on this matter that will involve the conservation authorities, farm community, village residents, etc.
(c) Portions of the boundaries of the villages of Vernon and Kenmore are incorrect in that they show a Development Reserve – DR zoning on lands that should be zoned AG. This occurred due to a misread of the Official Plan where areas of village expansion proposed by the former Township of Osgoode had been deferred by the ROC. The Official Plan deferrals have now been lifted, and these areas are no longer part of the villages but remain agricultural resource areas;
(d) There has been debate as to the provisions of the draft by-law stating where on a residential property in a village or country estate area that the parking of recreational vehicles (boats, motor homes, campers) and heavy vehicles should or should not be permitted;
(e) The setback for building on an existing lot of record adjacent to an existing licensed quarry has been increased to 210m (former West Carleton standard) but remains unchanged from the first draft of the Zoning By-law at 150m for sand and gravel pits. Additional subzones have been introduced with pit only as a permitted use versus the main zone that allows both a pit or quarry;
(f) The general provisions dealing with the requirement of setback distances from a watercourse, top of bank and wetlands were removed as a city-wide uniform zoning requirement was not considered to be the most appropriate tool to implement the policies of the Official Plan in this regard. A provision must be included in the By-law before adoption otherwise building permits and construction could occur at improper and unsafe locations on many rural lots. This can happen on those properties where floodplain and conservation authority regulation of development controls do not apply or where a site specific rezoning (that may set different setbacks from the standards) is not needed to occur prior to development.
(g) Major hydro and gas pipeline corridors have now been specifically zoned.
(h) Provisions for accessory towers for amateur radio operations have been revised subsequent to significant public comment and there is general agreement on these provisions.
Prior to the release of the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law in May 2006, staff had undertaken a number of consultation initiatives including:
- several meetings held from May 2005 to January 2006 by the Zoning Advisory Groups (Rural Public and Technical) established to review the development of the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law
- briefings to the Rural panel of the Committee of Adjustment and to several of Council’s Advisory Committees.
Since the release of the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law on May 26, 2006, the following additional consultation activities have been undertaken for the Rural Area and Greenbelt:
-
A series of rural area public open houses were held in June
and September 2006. The June rural open houses took place at the Navan Memorial
Centre, Alfred Taylor Recreation Centre and the Greely Community Centre on June
5, 6 and 7 respectively. The fall rural open houses were held in the Manotick
Arena and Community Centre, Kinburn Client Service Centre, Walter Baker Sports
Centre and Goulbourn Municipal Offices on September 21, 26, 28 and October 19,
2006 respectively.
-
One additional open house was held at Ben Franklin Place on
October 9, 2007 immediately prior to the public hearings.
-
As well, there have been follow-up meetings with the Rural
Issues Advisory Committee and Business
Advisory Committee.
-
Two meetings (organized by the Rural Affairs Office) were held
with representatives of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture resulting in a
number of revisions to agricultural- related zones and provisions (e.g.
elimination of reference to intensive livetock operations and mushroom farms,
broadening of the provison for farm help housing, etc.)
In order to accommodate the busy spring and summer rural agricultural season, the portion of the revised Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law that deals with the Rural Area and the Greenbelt was released on September 25, 2007. Also available on the web site for comparison purposes, and to make it easier for those who provided submissions to understand the changes, was the May 2006 version of the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law text with the revisions illustrated (using the “track changes” tool in Word), the original schedules that had been revised or deleted, and the 2006 zoning map.
The public hearings required under the Planning Act for the Rural Area and Greenbelt portions of the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law are to be held at the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee meetings of October 25, 2007 in Greely, November 8, 2007 in Carp and November 22, 2007 at City Hall.
The key dates from this point forward are as follows:
a) January 2008: City Council adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Rural Area
e) February 2008: Notice of Adoption
f) Post-February 2008: Period for appealing to the Ontario Municipal Board and resolution of appeals.
Costs associated with the production and notice requirements as a result of approval of Recommendation 2 are estimated to be no more than $10,000 and the funds are available under the capital budget 900852 for this project.
Document 1 - Draft
Comprehensive Zoning By-Law - Rural Area and Greenbelt, Volume 1 and Volume
2 – September 2007 (on file with the
City Clerk, distributed separately to members of Council and available on http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/bylaw/zoning/bylaw_en.html)
Document 2 - Draft
Comprehensive Zoning By-Law- Rural Area and Greenbelt - Summary Of Comments on
May 2006 Version and Modifications (on file with the City Clerk, distributed
separately to members of Council and available on http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/bylaw/zoning/bylaw/consult_revision/index_en.html)
Document 3 - Additional Modifications to the September 2007 version
Planning, Transit and the Environment Department to prepare the final draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law incorporating all changes to the May 2006 version, undertake statutory notification and forward to Legal Services Branch.
Legal Services Branch to forward implementing by-law to City Council.
ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING BY-LAW –
RURAL AND GREENBELT AREA DOCUMENT
3
Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law – Rural Area and
Greenbelt Summary of Comments post September 25 2007
Part 1 – Administration, Interpretation and Definitions |
|
|
Sections
1-9: Administration
|
Sections 10-28: General
Rules of Interpretation
|
Sections 29-46: Interpreting
Zoning Information
|
Part 2 – General Provisions |
|||
|
|
|||
Section 55: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures |
|||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
City Wide |
Suggest larger setbacks for wind farms. (Jim Davies, Mark MacGowan) |
A single wind turbine accessory to another land use is
regulated by this Section. The proposed setback distance for an accessory
wind turbine with a power rating higher than 1 kilowatt has been established
based on Ontario and international standards to address noise and vibration
issues. The draft by-law specifies a minimum setback from any dwelling unit
or residential zone the greater of 250 m or a distance equal to seven times
the rotor diameter. From a noise perspective, this means at a distance of 250 m, a typical wind turbine
produces a sound pressure level of about 45 dB(A) (decibels), a sound level below the background noise level produced in a home or office. There is no
specific height limit for these structures when located on a lot larger than
0.8 hectares- the necessary height will be depend on the type of terrain and
physical obstructions to wind availability. On smaller lots the height may
not exceed the maximum height permitted for an accessory structure in that
zone. |
Do not support change |
|
A wind turbine farm is classified as a “utility installation”, subject to the provisions of Section 91 of the draft zoning by-law (similar to geothermal or solar heating plants, hydro power station, etc. as it is part of the grid.). The restrictions on a wind turbine farm (height, setbacks) are established through a Provincial review process, which requires a wind resource assessment, an environmental assessment, compliance with Provincial construction and installation standards, grid connection standards, provision of road access and safety lighting. As well, there is an established Provincial community consultation process for such proposals. |
No change required |
||
Section 56: Adequate Municipal Services |
|||
Section 57: Corner Sight Triangles |
|||
|
Section 58:
Flood Plain Overlay |
|||
|
Section 59: Frontage on a Public Street |
|||
Section 60: Heritage Overlay |
|||
Section 61: Holding Zones – Additions |
|||
Section 62: Minimum Distance Separation
|
|||
Section 63: Part-Lot Control |
|||
Section 64: Permitted Projections Above the Height Limit |
|||
Section 65: Permitted Projections Into Required Yards |
|||
Section 66: Provisions for the Handling and Transfer of Propane and Natural Gas |
|||
Section 67: Residential Use Building Setback from Mineral Aggregate Zones |
|||
Section 68: Setbacks from Railway Rights-of-Way in Rural Zones |
|||
Section 69: Setbacks from Waterways and Flood Control Works |
|||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City Wide |
Reinstate Section 69 but in a simplified version to
require standard setbacks from watercourses for all development.
(Conservation Partners) |
Concur that reinstating this requirement in the Zoning By-law but modified to simplify the regulations, as it currently the situation in many existing Zoning By-laws is necessary in order to implement Policy 4.7.3 of the Official Plan. |
Re-introduce Section 69 but in a simplified version. |
Section 71: Temporary Uses, Buildings or Structures During Construction |
|||
Section 72: Wellhead Protection Area Overlay |
|||
Part 3 – Specific Use Provisions |
|||
|
|
|||
General Comments |
|||
Section 80: Adult Entertainment Parlours
|
|||
Section 81: Airport Zoning Provisions
|
|||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
Carp Airport and Environs Ward 5 |
Section 81 should be relocated to Part 2, General Provisions. This Section must be expanded to direct the public to reference the appropriate Transport Canada document and to advise the
public of the relevant runway classifications at Carp (and Rockcliffe).
Runway 10-28 at Carp should be protected as a "4C CAT 1" Runway.
Runway 4-22 at Carp should be protected as a "1C NON-INSTR" Runway. |
Concur, it is more appropriate to move this to Part 2. Concur, modify wording to ensure proper references. |
Move Section 81 to Part 2. Insert reference to appropriate document that regulates
development adjacent to Carp and Rockcliffe Airports. |
Section 82: Community Garden |
|||
|
Section 83:
Reserved |
|||
|
Section 84: Kennels |
|||
Section 85: Outdoor Commercial Patios |
|||
Section 86: Parking on Place of Worship Sites |
|||
Section 87: Rapid Transit Network |
|||
Section 88: Security Huts for Diplomatic Missions |
|||
Section 89: Small Batch Breweries |
|||
Section 90: Snow Disposal Facilities |
|||
Section 91: Utility Installations |
|||
Section 92: Wayside Pits and Wayside
Quarries
|
|||
Part 4 – Parking, Queuing and Loading Provisions |
|
|
Section 100: General Parking Provisions |
Section 101: Minimum Parking Space Rates
|
Section 102: Minimum Visitor Parking Space Rates |
Section 103: Maximum Limit on Number of Parking Spaces near Rapid Transit Stations |
|
Section 104:
Shared Parking Provisions |
|
Section 105: Tandem Parking Provisions |
Section 106: Parking Space Provisions |
Section 107: Aisle and Driveway Provisions for Parking Lots and Parking Garages |
Section 108: Steep Driveways |
Section 109: Location of Parking |
Section 110: Landscaping Provisions for Parking Lots |
Section 111: Bicycle Parking Space Rates and Provisions |
Section 112: Provisions for Drive-Through Operations |
Section 113: Loading Space Rates and Provisions |
Section 114: Parking Credits |
Part 5 – Residential Provisions |
|||
|
|
|||
Section 120: Accessory Satellite Dish or Accessory Amateur Radio Antenna in Residential Zones |
|||
Section 121 : Bed and Breakfast Provisions
|
|||
Section 122: Conversions |
|||
Section 123 : Front Yard Setback Reductions |
|||
Section 124: Garden Suite Provisions
|
|||
Section 125 : Group Home Provisions |
|||
Section 126: Heavy Vehicles and Recreational Vehicles Associated with a Residential Use |
|||
Area and Site Affected
|
Comment |
Discussion |
Action |
|
City-wide |
Verbal comment was made expressing concern for the removal of a regulation that currently exists in old West Carleton that permits front yard parking of certain heavy vehicles, including boats, RVs and trailers for camping on waterfront lots. The reason for the regulation is to reflect existing developments where the dwelling is located back from the front property line a great distance so as to be closer to the waterfront, which results in less room on-site to park such vehicles. (K. Black) |
Concur. Moreover, from an environmental perspective, and in conjunction
with proposed setbacks from watercourse regulations for development, it is
considered good planning to permit some front yard parking, where there is
not enough room in an interior side yard, or in other yards where the tile
bed might locate, so that parking must not be required to park in the rear
yard adjacent to the watercourse. |
That Table 126 - Maximum Number of Vehicles Permitted to be Parked, Columns I and II – be modified to permit the parking of recreational vehicles, a trailer for camping or a boat, on lots abutting a watercourse, and where the interior side yard is less than 3 metres wide, in any yard other than a minimum required front yard in Residential Zones, and limited to one or two vehicles depending on the zone and location |
Section 127: Home-Based Business Provisions |
|||
Section 128: Home-Based Businesses in RU
and AG Zones
|
|||
Section 129: Home-Based Day Care |
|||
Section 130: Non-Residential Uses in Residential Zones |
|||
Section 131: Planned Unit Development |
|||
Section 132: Rooming Units in Private Dwellings |
|||
Section 133: Secondary Dwelling Units |
|||
Section 134: Shelters |
|||
Part 6 – Residential Zones |
|
|
General Comments |
Section 167: RM – Mobile Home Park Zone |
Section 168: RM Subzones |
Part 7 – Institutional Zones
|
This section
of the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law deals with the Urban area only.
|
Part 8 – Open Space and Leisure Zones |
|||
|
|
|||
Sections 179: O1 – Parks and Open Space Zone
|
|||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
Greely, Block 24, Plan 4M-1158 Ward 20 |
Woodstream Phase 1 should be zoned Private Open Space (O2) Zone. (Sunset Lakes) |
The proposed zoning boundaries reflect those show in the current Osgoode By-law |
Do not support change |
|
Greely, Block 60, Plan 4M-1305 Ward 20 |
Block 60, Plan 4M-1305 may more appropriately be zoned as DR. This zone did not previously exist in Osgoode. (Sunset Lakes) |
The proposed zoning boundaries reflect those show in the current Osgoode By-law. |
Do not support change |
Section 180: O1 Subzones
|
|||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
Lands East of Hawthorne from Hunt Club to Leitrim Roads Ward 10 |
The O1O zone passes over National Capital Commission (NCC) Greenbelt lands that are zoned Agricultural and Environmental. Utility installations are permitted in all zones. We agreed that, in order to address Trans Canada’s concerns, an exception would be added to the AG and EP zones that recognizes the primary agriculture and environmental uses, but specifies the required setbacks and building restrictions within the pipeline right-of-way. (NCC) |
Concur- replace the O1O Subzone on these lands with an exception that retains the provisions of the O1O Subzone, while permitting agricultural and environmental uses. |
Change zoning on these lands to replace the O1O Subzone
with an exception that contains the provisions of the subzone while allowing
agricultural and environmental uses |
Part 9 – Environmental Zones
|
|||
|
|
|||
Sections 183: EP – Environmental Protection Zone
|
|||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
City wide |
Suggest an overlay similarly to a flood overlay but indicating that an EIS is required for lands designated Rural Natural Features in the OP. Also, in the sections with zoning designed for new development within Rural Natural Features, a note or footnote that an EIS is required if the area is designated as a rural natural feature. A
note stating the following should also be included: Official Plan Section
3.2.4 on RNF's provides that "Any development within or adjacent to
these lands must be assessed in terms of its impact on the area's natural
features, particularly impacts arising from the extent of disturbance and the
location of buildings." We feel that the zoning by-law should
include as much information re the requirements for development of a lot as
feasible. (Amy Kemptser) |
The lands designated Rural Natural
Features in the Official Plan have been zoned RU – Rural Countryside Zone.
The implementation of the Official Plan policy requiring an EIS
(Environmental Impact Statement) is intended to be implemented through the
development application process (lot creation, zoning by-law amendment or
variance or site plan control approval). The purpose of an overlay in the
zoning by-law is to provide for additional regulations to the base zone, not
to provide notification of requirement for a study. It is understood that the public
needs to be made aware of this requirement and to refer to schedule A in the
Official Plan to determine if their lands are within or adjacent to a Rural
Natural Features designation, and if they need to submit an EIS, but adding
another overlay which is simply a “flag” will make the draft Zoning By-law
more difficult to read and would lead to additional request for other such
flags to be inserted into the Zoning By-law (ie. airport overlays). Further
the addition of a note, while easily done and exists in the draft by-law to a
limited extent, would have to be inserted in all rural zones, not just the RU
zone. The problem that arises then is that the greater the number of notes
that are inserted, the greater the expectation that other related notes
should be added to the draft Zoning By-law. It is anticipated that such
requirements should be identified through contact with City staff through the
pre-consultation process. |
Do not support adding an overlay to identify areas
within or adjacent to a designated Rural Natural Feature or a note in all
zones. |
|
City wide |
We have concerns regarding the intent and tone
of these sections. On one hand, the need to recognize and
protect important environmental features is addressed, while on the
other hand regulation of development is also discussed. Permitted uses seem
to favour environmental preserves or education facilities, and the
section on sub-zones addresses the establishment of "one detached
dwelling". But, the connotation of "development" is
considerably more than this, and so the term needs to be more fully
discussed and defined, specifically as it relates to EP zones.
The note at the end of Part 9 states that "Development in an EP zone... may be regulated under the Conservation Authorities Act and, in addition to a building permit...may require a permit from the Conservation Authority or other authority having jurisdiction over the regulated area". Such a vague and "soft" requirement is, in our opinion, unacceptable. In an EP zone, should not approval by a Conservation Authority be mandatory? (North West Goulbourn Community Association - NWGCA) |
The EP zone was intended to limit
permitted uses to those with minimum environmental impact. In the EP subzones, uses such as utility
installations, detached dwellings and agricultural uses were permitted
primarily to recognize existing legally established uses. Any proposed new development would be
evaluated on the basis of the policies of the Official Plan. The wording in the note has been
reviewed by the Conservation Authority and the use of the word “may” was
considered appropriate. Most times, approval will be required by the
Conservation Authority but not in all cases. This is just a note to advise or
flag additional information, it is not a regulation. |
Do not support change |
Section 184: EP Subzones
|
|||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
3339 Klondike Road Ward 21 |
Do not support the proposed EP2 zoning as it is not consistent with the RU-Rural Countryside zoning to the south and east; should place this lot in the RU Zone as well (Denis Labelle) |
Proposed EP2 zoning reflects the Official Plan Natural Environment Area designation of this property (site borders on the Marlborough Forest)- the area to the south and east is designated as General Rural Area, thus the RU zoning. Note that the EP2 subzone permits one detached dwelling fronting on a public street, along with an agricultural use and home based business, so the existing dwelling remains conforming. The difference between the existing A2 zone and the proposed zoning with respect to permitted land uses are that the following uses would no longer be permitted: cemetery, kennel, livestock sales barn and private landing field. |
Do not support change |
Part 10 – Mixed Use/Commercial Zones
|
This section
of the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law deals with the Urban area only.
|
Part 11 – Industrial Zones
|
This section
of the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law deals with the Urban area only.
|
Part 12 – Transportation Zones
|
|||
|
|
|||
Section 207: T1 – Air Transportation Facility Zone
|
|||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
Lester Road/Airport Parkway Ward 10 |
We
would also like to ensure that the area north of Lester Road and east of the
Airport Parkway but west if the CPR right of way (and south of Hunt Club
Road) receives protective zoning rather than the T1A and I1E it is (I
believe) now zoned. This area is nesting habitat for several species of
turtles and therefore should be protected as the area east of the CPR
now is. (Amy Kemptser) |
This area has been zoned T1A to reflect Macdonald-Cartier International Airport designation in the Official Plan. For this area to be zoned as EP – Environmental Protection zone, a review of the lands needs to be undertaken, and determination of their environmental value confirmed and identified in the Official Plan. The lands east of the CPR are designated Natural Environment Area in the Official Plan and this is why they are designated EP in the draft Zoning By-law. |
Do not support change. |
Section 208 : T1 Subzones
|
|||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
Carp
Airport Environs Ward 5 |
Impose
height limit on lands in vicinity of Carp Airport to ensure that no buildings
or structures will create a flight safety hazard. (Novatech) |
The draft
Zoning By-law includes Schedule 11r which brings forward existing height
limits adjacent to one corner of the Carp Airport. Imposing additional height
limits surrounding airport requires significant additional work that is not
enabled through current Official Plan policies. Novatech has been advised of
this and will pursue this through the review of the Official Plan. |
No
change required at this time. |
Part 13 – Rural Zones |
||||
|
|
||||
General Comments |
||||
Section 211: AG –
Agricultural Zone
|
||||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
|
4591 Mohr’s Road Ward 5 |
Include an exception to the "AG-Agricultural Zone", exempting this property from the provisions of Section 67 which requires a minimum setback from an ME-Mineral Aggregate Zone of 30 metres, to implement in perpetuity the decision of the Committee of Adjustment on August 9, 2002 (Margaret Chown) |
A reduction in the required setback from a Mineral Extraction zone from 120 metres to 30 metres is currently in effect and this approval under the draft Zoning By-law transition provisions would continue for three years after the adoption of the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law. However, the draft, harmonized provisions now require a minimum setback of 150 metres instead of the current 120 metres. Given this, it is felt appropriate to indicate in the zoning of the property the reduction in setback from the new higher standards for residential uses from a mineral extraction pit. |
Add an exception to the AG zone indicating that the minimum setback from a Mineral Extraction zone is reduced from 150 to 30 metres. |
|
Section 212 : AG
Subzones
|
||||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
|
4028 Vaughan Side Road Ward 5 |
The subject site is not an existing farm lot and therefore should not be zoned AG3, rather I feel it should be classed as RU. (L. Austin) |
This property was proposed to be zoned AG3 based on land
use seen from air photos and an interpretation of the location of the
Official Plan’s limit of the Agricultural Resource Area designation. A more detailed review using the LEAR
score for the property would indicate it would more appropriately be zoned
RU, the same as the neighbouring property to the west. |
Change from AG3 to RU zone
|
|
Section 213: ME – Mineral
Extraction Zone
|
||||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
|
City wide |
From
the present wording, it appears as though interim uses would be permitted on
land designated MR that do not restrict, in any way, the future
potential for aggregate extraction "on the lands or neighbouring
lands". Again, why is there a reference made
to "neighbouring lands"? Indeed, the intent should
be to permit interim uses on lands designated as MR that
do not jeopardize the future right to extract aggregate from those same
lands. What goes on in neighbouring lands should not be restricted by
the MR designation. (NWGCA Inc.) |
The wording in the zone purpose
statement makes reference to interim land uses on “lands or neighbouring
lands”; with the comment that thus applies to lands outside of the Mineral
Aggregate designations. This is not
the intent, the reference to interim land uses is to mean on a property or an
adjacent property all of which are within the designation (MR zoned
area). To avoid this the wording will
be changed to “lands within the MR zone”. |
Reword to clarify intent is only for properties within
the zone |
|
Section 214 : ME
Subzones
|
||||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
|
City Wide |
In
our opinion, this item is unclear. It
indicates that the purpose of ME is to "allow a limited range
of permitted uses which are related to or compatible with mineral extraction
operations, as well as interim uses that would not sterilize the potential
for future mineral extraction operation on the lands or neighbouring
lands". From the wording in the latter part of the statement,
it would seem that the intent (or desire) is to carry out mineral
extraction operations on neighbouring lands at some point in the future,
and this goal should not be hampered. We are not sure that is the actual
intent, but clarification is required. Why are neighbouring lands brought
into this statement at all? In fact, it would seem from item
(3) that restrictions are going to be imposed on ME lands which
would minimize the impact on the surrounding/neighbouring areas, rather
than "preserving" them for mineral extraction. (NWGCA
Inc.) |
The wording in the zone purpose
statement makes reference to not sterilizing the potential for mineral
extraction operation on “lands or neighbouring lands”; with the comment that
this thus applies to lands outside of the Mineral Aggregate
designations. This is not the intent,
the reference is meant to apply to a property or an adjacent property all of
which are within the designation (ME zoned area). To avoid this the wording will be changed to “lands within the
ME zone”. |
Reword to clarify intent is only for properties within
the zone |
|
Section 215: MR – Mineral Aggregate Reserve Zone
|
||||
Section 216: MR Subzones
|
||||
Section 217: RC – Rural
Commercial Zone
|
||||
Section 218 : RC
Subzones
|
||||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
|
5699 Longshadow Street Ward 20 |
Request that the site specific zoning for the subject lands (RC[436r]) include both a restaurant and an artist studio as per the current zoning; note that only the restaurant use has been added. (Princiotta) |
Concur- add “Artist Studio” to Column IV of exception [436r] as a permitted use to reflect the provisions of the current zoning by-law affecting the lands know municipally as 5699 Longshadow Street. |
Add
“Artist Studio” to Column IV of exception [436r] as a permitted use |
|
|
7268 Parkway Road Ward 20 |
We would like to ensure that all
of the permitted uses intended by the former Township of Osgoode council are
permitted on this site including a grocery store, retail and office uses,
etc. (Sunset Lakes) |
The subject site is currently
zoned C4[280] in the Osgoode By-law. Exception 280 restricts land uses to:
amusement arcade; artist studio; assembly hall, place of recreation or
amusement; automobile fuel sales; bake shop; bank; catering establishment;
clinic, medical, health and veterinary; club, private; day nursery; dry
cleaning/laundry outlet; equipment rentals; library; office, business;
office, government; pub or restaurant; retail store; second hand shop;
school, instructional (dance, fitness, music, tutoring); service shop,
business or merchandise or personal; and tourist establishment. The proposed
zoning is RC[153r]. This zoning permits all of the uses allowed under the
current C4[280] zone. |
No change required. |
|
|
5594 and 5600 First Line Road (Lot 3, Concession 1, Rideau) Ward 21 |
Repeat of previous request for recognition of existing uses and new uses on these adjacent properties. Additional request for specific clarifications [D.
Dods] |
Most of the comments have already been addressed in Document 2 of ARAC
report ACS2007-PTE-POL-0062. New comments for clarification, which are agreed to, are: -reference to “lawn/garden equipment” be changed to “”lawn, garden and
landscaping, equipment” -where reference is to sales, or sales and rental, or sales, service
and rental it should be clear in all cases that is “sales, service and
rental” - the words “portable generators” be changed to “generators” Request for rental and storage business with no restriction on type of
storage or size was made; this continues to not be supported by planning
staff. If a request is made via the
Councillor’s office for an additional use to this RC[174r] zone to permit the
existing storage that takes place on site, such would be supported by
staff. The request has been made again for a rezoning of the north property at 5594 First Line Zone. As stated in Document 2 of ARAC report ACS2007-PTE-POL-0062, this request is not supported, as it is contrary to both the Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement 2005. |
Support clarification of uses as indicated. Do not support requests for warehouse with no
restrictions Do not support proposed rezoning of 5594 First Line
Road |
|
Section 219: RG – Rural General Industrial Zone
|
||||
Section 220: RG Subzones
|
||||
Section 221: RH – Rural Heavy Industrial Zone
|
||||
Section 222: RH Subzones
|
||||
Section 223: RI – Rural
Institutional Zone
|
||||
|
Area and Site Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
|
1491 Manotick Station Road Ward 20 |
Request that the specific inclusion of the list of accessory uses that is currently permitted for the site-specific zone or written confirmation that they would all be permitted. (Princiotta) |
This comment has
already been addressed in Document 2 of ARAC report ACS2007-PTE-POL-0062.
“The terms “retirement home” and “residential care facility” are defined to
include accessory or ancillary uses such as medical,
counselling, personal or recreational services to serve the residents. The one requested accessory use “animal
sanctuary and duck pond” (now classified as an “environmental
preserve and educational area limited to an animal sanctuary and duck pond”) is unique and
will be added to the RI5[473r] exception zone for this site. |
Modify exception by adding “ environmental
preserve and educational area limited to an animal
sanctuary and duck pond” as a permitted use.
|
|
Section 224 : RI
Subzones
|
||||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
|
Greenbelt |
Consider urban zones for the Nepean Sportsplex – Confederation High School site (L2 rather than RI4), open space lands north of the Queensway-Carleton Hospital (L1 rather than RI4) and the Queensway-Carleton Hospital itself (I2 rather than RI). Our reasoning is that these uses are not really suited to a Rural Institutional zone, and are more urban in character due to their scale and to their location on the inner edge of the Greenbelt, next to major urban developments. (NCC) |
Because the lands in the Greenbelt
fall under the rural portion of the draft Zoning By-law, rural zones had to
be applied in order to be able to produce a rural extract of the draft Zoning
By-law. |
Do not support change. |
|
|
Queensway – Carleton Hospital Ward 8 |
The 20 metre maximum height, as is currently permitted, should be incorporated for the RI zone at this location and lot coverage increased. (NCC) |
Concur, an increase from the
standard 12 metre height limit to 20 metres and increase in maximum lot
coverage from 30 to 50% for this property is appropriate given the site’s
location in proximity to the urban area. |
Create exception to reflect increase lot coverage and place increased height limit on zoning map. |
|
Section 225: RR – Rural Residential Zone
|
||||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
City Wide
|
There should be one standard for all estate lot
subdivision in the City with a minimum lot size of 1 acre. (D. Porecha)
|
The OP does not allow country
estate subdivisions at smaller than a minimum lot size of 2 acres (either new
ones or a re-subdividing of existing as proposed here). |
Do not support change
|
|
Section 226: RR Subzones
|
||||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
|
Lots 39, 40, 58, 59 & 60, on Plan 689, part of Lot 1, Concession 8, (Torbolton) Ward 5 |
Request that Lots 39, 40, 58, 59 & 60, Plan 689, being part of Lot 1, Concession 8, (Torbolton) be rezoned as the proposed RR5 zoning will not permit the development of these lots despite the fact that development would be permitted under the current provision of the West Carleton By-law. (F. Cogan) |
City property information indicated that this one property, for which the RR5 zone would be appropriate. Further research shows that this is not correct and these lots have not merged in title but exist as individual legally transferable lots and therefore the RR10 zone is the appropriate zoning. |
Change
from RR5 to an RR10. |
|
|
1325 Millburn Crescent Ward 19 |
I want to raise objections to the proposed zoning change (RR1 r9) to 1325 Millburn Crescent in Cumberland. I understand the proposed new zoning for this property is an exception (r9) to the general zoning (RR1) in the area. Whereas most properties in the area will have a minimum .8 hectares requirement, this property will be one of only seven properties to have the minimum 1.5 hectares requirement. (Mike Nakashoji) |
Concur, modify zoning of the lands zoned RR1[9r] along Minongue Drive, Milburn and Royal Maple Drive be changed to delete the 9r exception. |
Modify zoning to eliminate 9r exception zone. |
|
|
2715 Richardson Side Road Ward 5 |
Proposed RR3[521r] zoning places existing firewood cutting/drying/ sales operation, and existing livestock operation in a non-conforming situation, and would prohibit a proposed accessory dwelling house and a planned dog kennel; lands should remain in a zone similar to the existing RU-Rural Zone (Bruce Sheaves) |
Concur- no objection to placing this property in an RU Zone, which would recognize the existing uses |
Change
zoning of the subject lands to RU[521r] |
|
|
1019 River Road Ward 20 |
Change proposed RR5 zoning of property to allow existing retail business selling archery and hunting supply. (Dan Faubert) |
Concur, the existing zoning of the property is about 2/3rds commercial and 1/3 residential and the zoning line cuts through the existing building. It is appropriate to zone the property one zone, which would allow the existing commercial use on the property while still allowing the residential use. |
Change zoning to RC1 with an exception permitting only
the following uses: retail store as
specified in Section 217 but adding the sale of archery and hunting products,
equipment or supplies; detached dwelling and dwelling unit. |
|
Section 227: RU – Rural Countryside Zone
|
||||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
|
Lot 4,W1/2 lot5 and lot 6 (Fitzroy) Ward 5 |
What happened to the underground storage (Subspace) as a permitted use, as agreed to at our OMB hearing. (R. Copeland) |
The OMB appeal in question was in regards to the former
Regional Official Plan, not the zoning by-law. The new 2003 Official Plan,
Section 3.2.4 Rural Natural Features and Section 3.7.2.3 General Rural Area,
continues the policy of allowing for underground mining subject to the
undertaking of an Environmental Impact Study favourable to the proposed use
and approval of a rezoning amendment by Council.
According to Zoning By-law No. 266 of 1981 of former West Carleton Township the current zoning of these lands is Rural (RU) and the draft Zoning By-law also proposed the lands continue to be zoned Rural (RU). Development of underground storage/mineral extraction will require a site-specific re-zoning application. |
Do not support change |
|
|
3041 Regional Road 174 Ward 19 |
Would like to keep permission in zoning to allow a “sports and recreational facility” at this location. (Phillip Eyre) |
-the existing WR-Waterfront
Residential Zone and other residential zones under the Rural Cumberland
Zoning By-law do permit an "Outdoor Private Recreational/Sports
Facility", e.g. a rink, tennis/badminton courts. The definition of this use states, “This
facility shall not include any commercial activities”. The existing Rural Recreational/Commercial
zone, not the zoning of this property, is used in the Cumberland Zoning
By-law to permit uses such as “Go-Kart or Snowmobile Track” and “Mini-Putt
Golf Course or Driving Range”. Such a
facility open to the public is not permitted on the property under the
current zoning. -the Official Plan states
that "new recreational
commercial uses" in the General Rural Area designation require a
rezoning, and this policy has been implemented in the draft zoning by-law.
Any proposal to develop new recreational facilities on this site should be
subject to a rezoning application. |
Do not support change |
|
|
389 Vances Side Road Ward 5 |
Wood burning boilers should not be permitted to emit harmful chemicals and should be subject to appropriate safety and health regulations Noise emanating from yard maintenance and other noisy equipment should be banned on weekend and statutory holiday evenings after 5 p.m. (Dr. Jan Galuszka) |
Neither of these matters can be addressed legally in a zoning by-law, as enabled by Section 34 of the Planning Act. Noise issues are dealt with under the Noise By-law; note that the City has no by-law in effect to address wood burning boiler emissions (may be a Provincial jurisdiction if there is a health or environmental problem) |
Do not support change |
|
Section 228 : RU
Subzones
|
||||
Section 229: VM – Village
Mixed-Use Zone
|
||||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
|
City Wide |
Delete Section 229 (1)(b) which excludes building outlets, lumber dealers and automotive parts and accessories sales from the definition of retail store in the VM zone. (Bev Millar) |
Agreed – staff will delete this provision of the VM zone so that building outlets, lumber dealers and automotive parts and accessories sales are included in the definition of retail store. Section 3.7.1, Policy 6(g) of the Official Plan states that: “in the case of uses requiring large land areas for outdoor storage, sale or service of goods, other than uses that do not operate year-round and can be considered a common component of a permitted use, such as a garden centre in association with a retail use: i) such uses are only located on an arterial road but not located in identified core area or mainstreet locations; ii) most of the site’s street frontage is occupied by buildings; and iii) the visual impact of outdoor storage or parking on adjacent uses and from the street is minimized through appropriate means.” In order to ensure that this policy is properly reflected in the by-law a new provision restricting outdoor storage in the VM zone will be added. This new provision will state that: “outdoor storage is permitted subject to: a) the principle building occupying 65% of the street frontage for a minimum depth of 3 metres; b) not being located in a required yard; and c) being completely enclosed and screened from a public street, and from residential or institutional zones.” Restrictions on outdoor storage in village “core areas” will be developed through the community design process. All existing situations of outdoor storage in the proposed VM zones that do not meet this new provision will be grandfathered. |
Delete Section 229 (1)(b) Add a provision to Section 229 stating that “outdoor storage is permitted
subject to: a) the principle building occupying 65% of the street frontage for
a minimum depth of 3 metres; b) not being located in a required yard; and c) being completely enclosed
and screened from a public street, and from residential or institutional
zones.” |
|
Section 230 : VM
Subzones
|
||||
Section 231: V1 – Village Residential First Density Zone
|
||||
Section 232 : V1
Subzones
|
||||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
Greely, Plan 4M-1343
Ward 20 |
West Beach Subdivision, Plan 4M-1343 should be zoned
V1E(617r). Please note that on the
existing map it is shown as Leisure Lake Road; this has now been renamed West
Beach Way. (Sunset Lakes)
|
West Beach Subdivision, Plan 4M-1343 was re-zoned through Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2007-300. The on-line maps only show by-law amendments up to 2007-299. This zoning change will be incorporated into the next release of the by-law. |
No change required |
|
Greely, Block 58, Plan 4M-1305
Ward 20 |
Block 58, Plan 4M-1305 was rezoned by the Woods Lake
By-law and should be zoned V1E(617r). (Sunset Lakes)
|
Concur, re-zone lands to V1E[617r] to reflect current Osgoode zoning. |
Re-zone lands to V1E[617r] |
|
|
166 Rivington Street, Carp Ward 5 |
Rezone lots 81, 82 and 83 to be consistent with the higher density residential development zoning encouraged in the Community Design Plan for the Village of Carp and would also be consistent with the zoning of all the adjacent properties. (Theresa McKeown) |
The proposed zoning for the zoning lots in question has been modify in the September 2007 release of the draft by-law from V1M to V3I to reflect to the intent of the Community Design Plan for the Village of Carp. |
No change required |
|
Section 233: V2 – Village Residential Second Density
Zone
|
||||
Section 234 : V2 Subzones
|
||||
Section 235: V3 – Village Residential Third Density Zone
|
||||
Section 236: V3 Subzones
|
||||
Part 14 – Other Zones |
|
|
Section 237: DR – Development Reserve Zone
|
Section 238: DR Subzones
|
Part 15 – Exceptions |
|
|
Section 240: Rural Exceptions |
Part 16 – Appendices – Administrative Lists and Processes |
Part 17 – Schedules |
Part 18 – Zoning Maps |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Area and Site
Affected |
Comment
|
Discussion
|
Action
|
|
RCMP campus just south of St Joseph Boulevard Ward 2 |
The zone label for the RCMP campus just south of St Joseph Boulevard, should be RC10(264r); it currently shows RC(264r). (NCC) |
Concur – change label to be
RC10(264r) |
Modify zone code to read RC10(264r) |
|
City wide |
Due to the modifications to the EP primary zone and subzones (in particular, EP3), there are mapping corrections required for environmental sites in the Greenbelt. This will ensure that the most restrictive zone, the EP zone, is applied to these sites. (NCC) |
Concur – assign EP zone to applicable sites. |
Assign EP zone to applicable sites. |
|
1105 March Road Ward 5 |
There are three parcels associated with this address, two are zoned RI5 H (15) and one is zoned RI5. (Ottawa Catholic School Board) |
Modify zone code to reflect the appropriate 15m height limit across the entire site. |
Add H(15) to site |
|
5536 Bank Street Ward 20 |
There are three parcels associated with this address, two are zoned RI5 H (15) and one is zoned RI5. (Ottawa Catholic School Board) |
Modify zone code to reflect the appropriate 15m height limit across the entire site. |
Add H(15) to site |
|
1145 Stittsville Main Ward 6 |
The zoning on the site is currently listed as R3Z [728]. This parcel should reflect the new institutional zoning. (Ottawa Catholic School Board) |
This comment deals with a site located within the urban area. This proposed change will be considered during the revisions for the urban portion of the by-law. |
Applies to urban area, not rural area of draft Zoning
By-law |
|
Fernbank Development Lands Ward 21 |
Although a portion of these future development lands have been designated as “Development Reserve” there is still a portion of the lands on the eastern side that has a zoning of “Agricultural” or “AG”. We assume this land will ultimately be zoned as “DR” but would request clarification on this issue. (Ottawa Catholic School Board) |
The DR zone boundary will be revised once the urban boundary has been refined through the Fernbank Community Design Plan. At that point, all lands located within the boundary, including the school site, will be zoned DR or another appropriate zone. However, until the boundary has been refined, an AG zone will be applied to the portion of the site that is in the rural area. |
No change required |
|
2717 8th Line Road, Metcalfe Ward 20 |
The City has identified the size of this property as 2.93
acres. Please be advised that the
Board acquired additional land in the early 1970’s and the actual size of the
property is approximately 6.08 acres.
Please note that the change in size may have an impact on the zoning
of this parcel. (Ottawa Catholic School Board) |
The change in size will not have an impact on the zoning of this parcel. |
No change required |
|
15 de
Niverville Drive Ward 10 |
It appears that that proposed zoning for Uplands Catholic School is “RI” which does not include the height suffix that has been added to the majority of our other schools. (Ottawa Catholic School Board) |
Modify zone code to reflect the appropriate 15m height limit across the entire site. |
Add H(15) to site |
REVISED
DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW – RURAL AREA AND GREENBELT – PUBLIC MEETING
AND APPROVAL
VERSION RÉVISÉE DU
RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE PRÉLIMINAIRE – SECTEUR RURAL ET CEINTURE DE VERDURE
ACS2007-PTE-POL-0062 CITY WIDe / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Francoise Jessop, Program Manager, Zoning Studies and Area Planning Central, Planning Branch, Planning, Transit and the Environment spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which served to provide the Committee with a concise overview of the staff report and the time lines for the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Ms. Jessop went into details in the presentation, stating why it was necessary to develop this new by-law and the fact that 36 zoning by-laws were presently in effect. A copy of this presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
In response to Chair Jellett’s question on the time line for the final
report, Ms. Jessop stated that it would be forthcoming in January 2008, after
the comments and written submissions had been received and Council had received
it in December.
Chair Jellett and Councillor Brooks stated the importance that the
residents of the rural areas read the report and become informed on what the
new by-law entails.
Councillor El-Chantiry inquired if any examination had been done with
respect to waterfront properties, such as in Constance Bay for example,
regarding the use and storage of automobiles, boats, wood and etcetera on those
properties. Ms. Jessop stated that the
subject had come up previously during public meetings and she anticipated it
might be raised at the November 8th meeting in Carp. She added that some form of accommodation is
being contemplated.
Mr. Dan Faubert,
resident of River Road in Manotick stated his concerns regarding his property,
which is currently zoned as mixed residential and commercial, and would, under
the new by-law, change to residential use only. This would restrict his current usage of the property regarding
bows and arrows and he would like to see it remain as is. With regards to another matter on a creek
flowing by his property, which had been redirected by the former Regional government,
Councillor Thompson stated that he had engaged in discussions with Mr. Faubert
and with City staff and that it could be looked at again with the City’s Legal
Department but he felt it to be mainly a dispute between property owners.
The Chair suggested he speak directly with Ms. Jessop to address his
concerns.
The hearings continue on this report at the November 8th and
November 22nd meetings.
That Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee:
1. Hold
a public meeting on the City of Ottawa Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law -Rural
Area and Greenbelt in accordance with the Planning Act.
2. Recommend
Council approve:
(a) the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, volumes 1 (text and
schedules) and Volume 2 (zoning maps) – September 2007 noted in Document 1;
(b) staff recommendations noted in the Action Column IV of
Document 2 - Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Rural Area and Greenbelt -
Summary of Comments on the May 2006 version and Modifications; and
(c) the Additional
changes to the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law – Rural and Greenbelt Area as
noted in Document 3.
3. Upon Council approval of
the new comprehensive zoning by-law, and in the event of appeals to the Ontario
Municipal Board (OMB), the most restrictive provisions of either,
(a) the existing zoning by-laws of the
former municipalities, or
(b) the new comprehensive zoning by-law,
will apply until such appeals are disposed of by the OMB.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS TO BE CONTINUED AT THE MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 8 AND 22, 2007
REVISED
DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW – RURAL AREA AND GREENBELT – PUBLIC MEETING
AND APPROVAL
VERSION RÉVISÉE DU
RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE PRÉLIMINAIRE – SECTEUR RURAL ET CEINTURE DE VERDURE
ACS2007-PTE-POL-0062 CITY WIDe / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Francoise Jessop, Program Manager, Zoning Studies and Area Planning Central, Planning Branch, Planning, Transit and the Environment spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which served to provide the Committee with a concise overview of the staff report and the time lines for the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Ms. Jessop went into details in the presentation, stating why it was necessary to develop this new by-law and the fact that 36 zoning by-laws were presently in effect. A copy of this presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
Mr. Mark MacGowan, resident of Mohrs Road brought forth his concerns regarding wind farms and stated that standards should be instituted now in the by-laws before major wind farm projects are built. He felt that the City of Ottawa could learn from mistakes made by other jurisdictions worldwide. A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
In response to Councillor El-Chantiry’s question on whether the City of Ottawa had a policy on the set back distance of wind turbines from homes and roads, Ms. Jessop stated that the draft by-law had set it at 250 metres, which is the world standard. In Mr. MacGowan’s presentation he had stated that 750 metres would seem a logical and safe limit.
Chair Jellett inquired if the 250-metre standard could be reviewed and increased and Ms. Jessop stated that her and her colleagues would review this and report back at the November 22 meeting.
With regards to wind turbines used for farm use only, Chair Jellett stated that it might be more prudent to view these differently that those used for commercial energy sales.
Councillor Brooks stated that the City of Ottawa should do its research and homework now since there is no doubt that some cases may be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board. Councillor Brooks also stated that restrictions on height, noise, vibrations and set back limits should be researched and set now, as this will also affect property values.
Mr. Philip Eyre, resident Regional Road 174 expressed his concerns with regards to his property on Regional Road 174 and the existing uses permitted. He would like to add RU5 to this site, which would allow for sports and recreation facilities and related commercial activities with defined terms to provide restrictions for future use. A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
Chair Jellett suggested that Mr. Eyre contact his office to work out more details on his proposal.
Mr. Murray Chown, spoke on behalf of his widowed mother, Mrs. M.I Chown, who owns a 1 acre property in Mohr Corners. He stated that in 2005 there was an offer to purchase the property but the sale had not taken place. The concern here is the mineral extraction zone of a property nearby which extends 100 metres beyond the property which influences the zoning of his mother’s property. In August of 2002 a Committee of Adjustment decision adjusted this to 30 metres but because this variance was never acted upon the privileges were lost. Mr. Chown is looking for a site-specific exception.
Ms. Jessop stated in response to Councillor El-Chantiry’s question that any exception would have to be site-specific as requested by Mr. Chown. Chair Jellett stated that this could be put into a motion at the November 22 meeting.
Mr. Murray Chown, representing Mr. John Phillips and West Capital Developments, expressed concerns with regards to the zoning surrounding Carp Airport and why special provisions for it are not reflected in the zoning by-law as they are for the Ottawa International Airport since the Carp Airport area needs to be protected as well for existing and future operations. He also stated that the former Township of West Carleton had placed height restrictions on properties located in the area of the runway approaches and wants to ensure that these are maintained if not expanded.
Ms. Jessop stated that the height restrictions are reflected in the draft by-law and Councillor El-Chantiry stated that his office would work with Ms. Jessop and Mr. Chown to possibly expand these height restrictions as well as other requests with regards to the Carp Airport development and operations.
Mr. Leslie Austin, resident of Vaughan Side Road presented his case with regards to his property, which is proposed to be zoned AG3. However, he states that his lot is less than the 10 hectares, which is the minimum size used for this designation and would therefore request a different designation similar to those of surrounding properties, which have the same soil.
Ms. Jessop stated that she would come to the
meeting on November 22 with a resolution that would be mutually acceptable to
all parties.
That Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee:
1. Hold
a public meeting on the City of Ottawa Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law -Rural
Area and Greenbelt in accordance with the Planning Act.
2. Recommend Council
approve:
(a) the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, volumes 1 (text and
schedules) and Volume 2 (zoning maps) – September 2007 noted in Document 1;
(b) staff recommendations noted in the Action Column IV of
Document 2 - Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Rural Area and Greenbelt -
Summary of Comments on the May 2006 version and Modifications; and
(c) the Additional
changes to the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law – Rural and Greenbelt Area as
noted in Document 3.
3. Upon Council approval of
the new comprehensive zoning by-law, and in the event of appeals to the Ontario
Municipal Board (OMB), the most restrictive provisions of either,
(a) the existing zoning by-laws of the
former municipalities, or
(b) the new comprehensive zoning by-law,
will apply until such appeals are disposed of by the OMB.
PUBLIC HEARINGS TO BE CONTINUED AT THE
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 22, 2007
REVISED
DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW – RURAL AREA AND GREENBELT – PUBLIC MEETING
AND APPROVAL
VERSION RÉVISÉE DU
RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE PRÉLIMINAIRE – SECTEUR RURAL ET CEINTURE DE VERDURE
ACS2007-PTE-POL-0062 CITY WIDe / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Françoise Jessop, Program Manager, Zoning Studies and Area Planning Central, Planning Branch, Planning, Transit and the Environment spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which served to provide the Committee with a concise overview of the staff report and the time lines for the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Ms. Jessop went into details in the presentation, stating why it was necessary to develop this new by-law and the fact that 36 zoning by-laws were presently in effect. A copy of this presentation is held on file with the City Clerk. The following staff accompanied her:
· Steven Boyle, Senior Project Manager, Transportation Planning
· John Moser, Director of Planning and City Planner
· Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, Legal Services
· Dave Leclair, Senior Planner, Zoning Studies
The Committee heard from the following public delegations:
Responding to a
question from Councillor Thompson, Mr. Boyle explained the re-zoning of the
by-law for the former one zoned rural which applied both to agricultural lands
and to the general rural lands. He
pointed out the changes of uses in Osgoode in respect to the veterinary
establishment, which would not be permitted because of the removal of that use
to re-introduce what will be called animal hospital.
Councillor Thompson indicated that he would
move a motion to exempt 1599 River Road from the draft zoning plan and Mr. Marc
responded that the old zoning by-law cannot continue to apply because it is about
to be repealed, but a motion to add the particular uses would be in order for
this particular property.
Cheryl Doran, Chair, Greenspace Alliance proposed two zoning changes, one to South of
Leitrim road, between Bowesville and High Road and second to the area located
South of Hunt Cub, East of the Airport Parkway. She indicated that the municipal zoning designation should
reflect the policies of the landowner, being the federal government, which
should be environmentally protected at the municipal level. The proposed rural zoning designations need
to be modified and correcting this will enable the city of Ottawa to better
align with the policies and acts of the province and the federal government.
Don Stephenson, D&G Landscaping Inc. and North Gower District Community Association explained that three of the properties as part of D&G’s operation are being downzoned and requested appropriate zoning changes. A copy of Mr. Stephenson’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
In response to a question from the Chair, Ms. Jessop noted that all the submissions that have been received since the public hearing are going to be forwarded to Council on December 7, 2007 but will not be responded to each individually.
Chair Jellett asked staff to comment on the differences between why the three villages in Rideau are V2C as oppose to V1E. Ms. Jessop indicated that the word existing in the by-law would be replaced by permitted and noted that if the current by-law mentions the word duplex or semi, it will be in the V2 zone. Ms. Jessop clarified that if the existing single is built on the minimum required but doesn’t meet the lot size, it wouldn’t be able to get the use. Chair Jellett asked the ward councillor to follow up on this issue with the Community Association.
Amy Kempster, Greenspace Alliance expressed concerns of restrictions on development of Rural Natural Features lands to the zoning by-law. She suggested that the zoning by-law should include as much information regarding the requirements for development, such as notices on maps or a note on the section of zoning designed for country lot estates, which would avoid the possibility that a resident not consult the Official Plan and not realize that there is some restriction on their land.
Ms. Jessop noted the concerns about trying to
get information to the public on the variety of studies that may be needed for
development proposals but unfortunately to start adding additional overlays are
not required and would confuse the regulatory document or by-law.
In response to a question from Councillor
Brooks, Mr. Marc advised that it would be any number of studies required in the
Official Plan that are going to effect the development that can take place on
the land, such as Rural Natural Features but there may be noise or vibration
setbacks from a railway or a road or a number of other studies.
Dwight Eastman
discussed the expansion of the historic hamlet of Kilmaurs and proposed that
the hamlet boundary be revised to allow for the creation of one additional
residential lot on the south-east corner of the hamlet, as shown on a diagram
that he circulated (held on file with the City Clerk), specifically the change
in the boundary to allow the hamlet to be rounded out, and would not conflict
with any surrounding land usages.
Mr. Boyle indicated that such a request would
be contrary to the Official Plan and the planning department would not be
supporting it although the introductory comments are part of the Rural
Settlement Strategy and ARAC may want the planning department to report
back. He mentioned that the Official
Plan speaks clearly against a section of infilling in areas of cluster that is
very much coming from the Provincial policy statement given that the lands are
zoned agriculture.
In response
to a question from Councillor El-Chantiry, Ms. Jessop indicated that the
submission would go to Council and if it is approved, staff would have to see
if there is any appeals to that decision to change the zoning on this property
and it would need an official plan amendment because the policy is against such
re-zoning. Chair Jellett mentioned that
outside of the comprehensive zoning
plan process, there is an additional process, which the applicant could go
through which would be a normal re-zoning or zoning amendment.
Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd, West Capital Developments and as an individual, mentioned that he addressed ARAC a few weeks ago looking for site-specific exception on the zoning of his mother’s property and also expressed concerns with regards to the zoning surrounding Carp Airport. He thanked staff for responding to some of the issues raised by proponents with his changes, the preparation of a final draft of the by-law for review, and the holding of a final public hearing. Mr. Chown addressed the general provision setting a maximum number of parking spaces for uses located within 600 meters of transit stations and also discussed the limitation on showrooms in some of the industrial provisions, noting there are numerous examples of retail and sales within business park and warehouse uses that cannot be accommodated under the 25% limitation set in the by-law.
Allan Graham, AJ’s Catering and Sean Daly,
Duncan Funeral Homes
indicated that Councillor Thompson has been working on his behalf and other
small businesses in the Osgoode ward to get a proper designation to fit within
the regulations of the City of Ottawa.
Mr. Graham was under the understanding that the re-zoning process that
he had applied for back in 1994 prior to amalgamation, was approved and
permitted the operation of his business, but indeed that wasn’t the fact.
Councillor Thompson provided background
information on the Township of Osgoode’s zoning and indicated that with the
help of staff he will move two motions to bring these properties into
conformity.
Following Mr. Dods submission, Councillor
Brooks mentioned that he would be moving a motion in respect to this business.
A number of motions were tabled and reflected below.
Final Version and Final Public Meeting
Moved by Councillor E. El-Chantiry:
That recommendation 1 be
amended to add:
1(b) Direct staff to release the final version
of the draft Comprehensive Zoning by-law after City Council disposition of the
Planning and Environment Committee Recommendations 2 and 3, and that a final
public meeting be held prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning
by-law.
CARRIED
Ms. Jessop confirmed that the final hearing would occur in February 2008 with final adoption by Council in March 2008.
1599 River Road
Mr. Marc mentioned that animal cemetery
should be added because this type of operation would deal with more than just
pets.
Moved by Councillor D. Thompson:
Be it resolved that the
zoning for 1599 River Road be amended to include an exception to permit the
following additional uses:
·
animal care
establishment
·
animal hospital
·
animal cemetary
CARRIED
1751 8th Line Road
Councillor Thompson noted that this is a
property that presently operates as a catering establishment and would have
already been covered had the Township of Osgoode gone ahead with its
comprehensive zoning review but for some reason did not make it to the table.
Moved by Councillor D. Thompson:
WHEREAS the property at 1751 8th Line Road is currently
developed with a catering establishment;
AND WHEREAS the catering establishment does not conform with the
existing zoning by-law;
AND WHEREAS the draft zoning by-law proposes an RR2 – Rural Residential Zone for these lands, which does not recognize this land use;
AND WHEREAS the catering establishment has been part of the community
since 1978;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the draft comprehensive zoning by-law be
revised to apply a site-specific exception at 1751 8th Line Road to
recognize the existing catering establishment.
That pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further
notice be given.
CARRIED
6971 Bank Street
In response to a question from Councillor
Thompson, Ms. Jessop noted that if the owner is a non-conforming funeral home,
there are issues to that and he may have to go to the Committee of Adjustment
to be able to expand. She suggested
that he would be better to be part of the re-zoning as suggested in Councillor
Thompson’s following motion:
Moved by Councillor D. Thompson:
WHEREAS the property at
6971 Bank Street is currently developed with a funeral home;
AND WHEREAS the funeral home currently has a non-conforming status;
AND WHEREAS the draft zoning by-law proposes an RU – Rural Countryside
Zone for these lands, which does not recognize this land use;
AND WHEREAS the funeral home is established within this community;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the draft comprehensive zoning by-law be
revised to apply a site-specific exception at 6971 Bank Street to add the
existing funeral home as an additional use; and
That pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further
notice be given.
CARRIED
Wind turbines
Councillor Jellett stepped down from the
chair and noted that Mr. Mark MacGowan, a resident of Mohrs Road brought
forth concerns at a previous meeting regarding wind farms and requested a
maximum distance of 750 metres for wind
turbines. Councillor Jellett advised
that that distance is a bit excessive but that 500 metres would be more
appropriate.
In response to a question from Councillor El-Chantiry, Ms. Jessop
commented that staff recommended 250 metres in the report, being the industry
standard but staff would have no objection of going to 500 but have not
evaluated the implications and also it does not go against any Official Plan
policy.
Councillor El-Chantiry indicated that if the policy goes to 500 metres,
it would infringe on the wind turbine proposed for Galetta because that
distance would restrict future development.
Ms. Jessop mentioned that staff would have to research the Galetta site
and application to be able to respond but indicated that Councillor El-Chantiry
could exempt the Galetta wind turbine from the 500 standard distance. Mr. Leclair clarified that there is two
different situations, there’s an accessory wind turbine, which would be a
single freestanding on a farm as opposed to a wind turbine farm. He noted that the by-law is currently
written that the 250 metres would only apply to accessory wind turbines.
In response to a request from Councillor Brooks for staff to research
wind farms, Mr. Moser indicated that staff will be looking into the matter
prior to the refresh of the Official Plan and address some of the issues that
have been raised about what are the best standards.
Following staff advice, Councillor Jellett
withdrew the following motion.
WHEREAS Table 55, 6(b)(i) of the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law
requires that accessory wind turbines with a power rating higher than 1
kilowatt have a minimum setback of the greater of 250 metres or a distance
equal to seven times the rotor diameter and 30 metres from any lot line from
any dwelling unit or residential zone;
AND WHEREAS 500 metres is considered a more appropriate setback
distance;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Table 55, 6(b)(i) of the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be amended to require that wind turbines with a power rating higher than 1 kilowatt have a minimum setback of the greater of 500 metres or a distance equal to seven times the rotor diameter and 30 metres from any lot line from any dwelling unit or residential zone.
That pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34( 17) no further
notice be given.
WITHDRAWN
Wellhead Protection Overlay
Councillor Jellett indicated that it is
important to protect the water that residents drink and the zoning by-law
should indicate exactly where the Wellhead Protection areas are.
In response to a question from Councillor
El-Chantiry, Mr. Boyle indicated that the Official Plan Schedule K shows the
Wellhead Protection areas, one east of the Rideau River in Vars, one in Carp,
one in Munster and one in Richmond. The
2006 draft zoning by-law, staff had shown the Wellhead Protection on the three
communities in the west end of the city but it was not shown on the Vars one
because there was some issue of the precision of the mapping.
Mr. Marc noted that as part of the Clean Water Act quite separate
from the zoning process, the issue of source protection will have to be
analyzed through the Source Protection Authority and will come back to this
Committee and Council at a future date.
Moved by Councillor R. Jellett:
WHEREAS the current Draft
Comprehensive By-law does not have a Wellhead Protection Overlay;
AND WHEREAS the previous Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law included a
Wellhead Protection Overlay as Section 72;
BE IT RESOLVED that the previous Wellhead Protection Overlay and the provisions contained in Section 72 as shown in the May 2006 version of Volume 1 &2 of the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be re-instated in the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law.
That pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further
notice be given.
LOST
YEAS (3): Councillors R. Jellett, B. Monette, D. Thompson
NAYS (3): Councillors G.
Brooks, E. El-Chantiry, G. Hunter
Plan 50 PT LOT 1
Councillor Jellett noted that the owner of
the property has an understanding with the City that the property can be
developed but it was omitted in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law.
Mr. Marc advised that staff are in accordance
with the motion since it is a matter that has been going on for some time and
staff are trying to finally bring it to a conclusion.
Moved by Councillor R. Jellett:
WHEREAS the property known legally as PLAN 50 PT LOT 1; RP 50R7063 PART
3 (NORTH SIDE OF LEO LANE); RP 50R7063 PT PART 1; RP 50R6076 PT PART 1 AND; RP
4R20477 PARTS 2 7 8 AND 9; on Leo Lane in the former Township of Cumberland is
currently located within the Flood Plain Overlay;
AND WHEREAS under the former City of Cumberland by-law the property is
presently zoned R1 with a flood plain overlay which allows a single detached
dwelling however the by-law also states that ‘must provide technical evidence
as is required to ensure against flooding or slope instability problems’;
AND WHEREAS the proposed Flood Plain Overlay would generally prohibit
future development;
AND WHEREAS the owner of the subject property has a previous
understanding with the City that the property can be developed;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the subject lands will be exempt from the
provisions of Section 58 (1) & (2) pertaining to the Flood Plain Overlay.
That pursuant to the Planning Act, subsequent 34(17) no further
notice be given.
CARRIED
Staff Notice
Moved by Councillor D. Thompson:
1. That the requirement for a
sight-obscuring buffer where adjacent to a rural zone be added to Column V of
exception [294r] to reflect the provisions of the current zoning by-law as
amended by By-law 2006-267.
2. That the proposed zoning of the lands
know municipally as 6100 and 6116 Gough Road be modified to reflect the true
intent of By-law No. 2006-242 with regards to permitted uses.
3. That the proposed zoning of the lands
know municipally as 1201 Thomas Dolan Parkway be changed from DR1 to RU to
reflect the fact that the subject lands are not located within the Dunrobin
Village Boundary.
4. That the proposed zoning of the lands
know municipally as 5420 Richmond Road and the lands know legally as CON 5RF
LOT 23 TO 24 PT PCL;1 be changed from DR1 to RU to reflect the fact that the
subject lands are not located within the Fallowfield Village Boundary.
5. That the proposed zoning of the lands
know legally as part of the west half of Lot 38, Concession 7 being Part 1 on
Registered Plan 5R-2553 be changed from AG to DR1 to recognize the fact the
subject lands are located within the Village Boundary of Vernon.
6. That the proposed zoning of the lands
on part of Lot 22, Concession 2 (former City of Cumberland) at 5342 Saumure
Road be changed for the north portion of the property from AG3 to RU so that
the whole of the property is in the RU zone.
7. That Section 69 – Setbacks from
Waterways contained in the May 2006 version of the draft Comprehensive Zoning
By-law be re-inserted as modified below:
(1) Despite provisions of the underlying
zone, the following minimum setbacks must be provided to provide a margin of
safety from hazards associated with flooding and unstable slopes and to help
protect the environmental quality of watercourses.
(2) Except for flood or erosion control
works, or a public bridge or a marine facility, no building or structure,
including any part of a sewage system, which does not require plan of
subdivision or site plan control approval, shall be located closer than 30 m to
the normal highwater mark of any watercourse, or 15 m to the top of the bank of
any watercourse, whichever is greater.
NOTE:
Development requiring plan of subdivision, rezoning or site plan control will
be subject to the watercourse setbacks as identified in Policy 4.7.3 of the
City of Ottawa Official Plan.
8. That Section 69 be moved to Part 2,
General Provisions and that the following modifications be made:
§
add the words “the Rockliffe Air Base. Airport
zoning regulations” after the words “of Carp Airport and” in subsection (1)
§
add a new subsection 2 as follows: “(2) Development
in the vicinity of the Macdonald-Caritier International Airport, the Carp
Airport, and Rockliffe Air Base, shall take into consideration guidelines found
in Transport Canada Document TP312E
- Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices as amended. With respect to development in the vicinity
of the Carp Airport, runway 10-28 shall be protected as a "4C CAT 1"
Runway, and runway 4-22 shall be protected as a "1C NON-INSTR"
Runway.”
§
change subsection (2) to (3).
That there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the
Planning Act.
CARRIED
First Line Road (1)
In response to a question from Councillor
Hunter, Mr. Moser indicated that from staff’s perspective, the inclusion in the
categories would be on a site-specific basis and would relate to the 5994 and
5600 First Line Road only and wouldn’t be permitted across the board in that
particular zone.
Moved by Councillor G. Brooks:
That the
Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be amended with respect to the zoning of
Property Lot 3 Conc.1 at 5600/5994 First Line Road, Kars, ON (ward 21, City of
Ottawa) as follows:
Section
2.D – Dealership:
·
to include the following in
§
category 1 – dirt bikes
§
category 4 – landscape
·
to add a category 7 – Power Products.
Further,
that all categories include the following wording - sales, service, parts,
rentals – as permissible uses; and
In
addition, that an auxiliary storage building (5000 sq. feet) be considered as a
permitted use.
CARRIED
First Line Road (2)
In response to Councillor Brooks motion
request, Mr. Marc mentioned that this process is not meant to take into account
changes in zoning that are more properly addressed through a re-zoning
application, however the Committee has the jurisdiction to make the change
sought by Councillor Brooks.
Councillor Hunter expressed concerns with the
significant re-zoning without the benefit of public notice and could not
support the motion to re-zone this property to be a commercial rural as well
but would entertain a re-zoning application sometime in the future.
Moved by Councillor G. Brooks:
To rezone adjacent lot 5994 (2.38 acres) to CR so as to
conform with the CR zone and permissible use of lot 5600.
LOST
YEAS (3): Councillors G. Brooks, B. Monette, D. Thompson
NAYS (3): Councillors E.
El-Chantiry, G. Hunter, R. Jellett
The Committee then considered the
departmental recommendations as amended.
That Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee:
1. (a) Hold a public meeting on the City of
Ottawa Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law -Rural Area and Greenbelt in
accordance with the Planning Act.
(b) Direct
staff to release the final version of the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law
after City Council disposition of the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee
Recommendations 2 and 3, and that a final public meeting be held prior to the
adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law”.
2. Recommend
Council approve:
(a) the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, Volume 1 (text and
schedules) and Volume 2 (zoning maps) – September 2007 as noted in Document 1;
(b) the staff recommendations noted in the Staff Recommendation
Column IV of Document 2 - Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Rural Area and
Greenbelt - Summary of Comments on the May 2006 version and Modifications; and
(c) the Additional
changes to the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law – Rural and Greenbelt Area as
noted in Document 3 and Document 4.
3. Upon Council approval of the new
Comprehensive Zoning By-law, and in the event of appeals to the Ontario Municipal
Board (OMB), the most restrictive provisions of either,
(a) the
existing zoning by-laws of the former municipalities, or
(b) the
new comprehensive zoning by-law,
will apply until such appeals are disposed of by the OMB.
4. a. That the requirement for a
sight-obscuring buffer where adjacent to a rural zone be added to Column V of
exception [294r] to reflect the provisions of the current zoning by-law as
amended by By-law 2006-267.
b. That the
proposed zoning of the lands know municipally as 6100 and 6116 Gough Road be
modified to reflect the true intent of By-law No. 2006-242 with regards to
permitted uses.
c. That the
proposed zoning of the lands know municipally as 1201 Thomas Dolan Parkway be
changed from DR1 to RU to reflect the fact that the subject lands are not
located within the Dunrobin Village Boundary.
d. That the
proposed zoning of the lands know municipally as 5420 Richmond Road and the
lands know legally as CON 5RF LOT 23 TO 24 PT PCL;1 be changed from DR1 to RU
to reflect the fact that the subject lands are not located within the
Fallowfield Village Boundary.
e. That the
proposed zoning of the lands know legally as part of the west half of Lot 38,
Concession 7 being Part 1 on Registered Plan 5R-2553 be changed from AG to DR1
to recognize the fact the subject lands are located within the Village Boundary
of Vernon.
f. That the
proposed zoning of the lands on part of Lot 22, Concession 2 (former City of
Cumberland) at 5342 Saumure Road be changed for the north portion of the
property from AG3 to RU so that the whole of the property is in the RU zone.
g. That
Section 69 – Setbacks from Waterways contained in the May 2006 version of the
draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be re-inserted as modified below:
i.
Despite provisions of the underlying zone, the
following minimum setbacks must be provided to provide a margin of safety from
hazards associated with flooding and unstable slopes and to help protect the
environmental quality of watercourses.
ii.
Except for flood or erosion control works, or a
public bridge or a marine facility, no building or structure, including any
part of a sewage system, which does not require plan of subdivision or site
plan control approval, shall be located closer than 30 m to the normal
highwater mark of any watercourse, or 15 m to the top of the bank of any
watercourse, whichever is greater.
NOTE:
Development requiring plan of subdivision, rezoning or site plan control will
be subject to the watercourse setbacks as identified in Policy 4.7.3 of the
City of Ottawa Official Plan.
h. That Section 69 be moved to Part 2,
General Provisions and that the following modifications be made:
§
add the words “the Rockliffe Air Base. Airport
zoning regulations” after the words “of Carp Airport and” in subsection (1)
§
add a new subsection 2 as follows: “(2)
Development in the vicinity of the Macdonald-Caritier International Airport,
the Carp Airport, and Rockliffe Air Base, shall take into consideration
guidelines found in Transport
Canada Document TP312E - Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices as
amended. With respect to
development in the vicinity of the Carp Airport, runway 10-28 shall be protected as a "4C CAT 1" Runway, and runway 4-22 shall be protected
as a "1C NON-INSTR" Runway.”
§
change subsection (2) to (3).
i. That
there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
5. Be it resolved that the zoning for
1599 River Road be amended to include an exception to permit the following
additional uses:
·
animal care establishment
·
animal hospital
·
animal cemetery
6. Whereas the property at 1751 8th
Line Road is currently developed with a catering establishment; and
Whereas the catering
establishment does not conform with the existing by-law; and
whereas the draft zoning by-law
proposes an RR2-Rural Residential Zone for these lands, which does not
recognize this land use; and
whereas the catering
establishment has been part of the community since 1978;
Therefore
be it resolved that the draft comprehensive zoning by-law be revised to
apply a site-specific exception at 1751 8th Line Road to recognize
the existing catering establishment; and
That pursuant to the Planning Act,
subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.
7. Whereas the property at 6971 Bank
Street is currently developed with a funeral home; and
Whereas the funeral home
currently has a non-conforming status; and
whereas the draft zoning by-law
proposes an RU-Rural Countryside Zone for these lands, which does not recognize
this land use; and
whereas the funeral home is
established within this community;
Therefore
be it resolved that the draft comprehensive zoning by-law be revised to
apply a site-specific exception at 6971 Bank Street to add the existing funeral
home as an additional use; and
That pursuant to the Planning Act,
subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.
8. Whereas the property known legally as
Plan 50 PT LOT 1; RP 50R7063 PART 3 (north side of Leo Lane); RP 50R7063 PT
Part 1; RP 50R6076 PT PART 1 and; RP 4R20477 Parts 2 7 8 and 9; on Leo Lane in
the former Township of Cumberland is currently located within the Flood Plain
Overlay; and
Whereas under the former
City of Cumberland by-law the property is presently zoned R1 with a flood plain
overlay which allows a single detached dwelling however the by law also states that
‘must provide technical evidence as is required to ensure against flooding or
slope instability problems’; and
Whereas the proposed Flood
Plain Overlay would generally prohibit future development; and
Whereas the owner of the
subject property has a previous understanding with the City that the property
can be developed;
Therefore be it resolved
that the subject lands will be exempt from the provisions of Section 58 (1)
& (2) pertaining to the Flood Plain Overlay; and
That pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.
9. That
the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be amended with respect to the zoning of
Property Lot 3 Conc.1 at 5600/5994 First Line Road, Kars, ON (ward 21, City of
Ottawa) as follows:
Section 2.D – Dealership:
·
to include the following in
§
category 1 – dirt bikes
§
category 4 – landscape
·
to add a category 7 – Power Products.
Further, that all categories include the following
wording - sales, service, parts, rentals – as permissible uses; and
In addition, that an auxiliary storage building
(5000 sq. feet) be considered as a permitted use.
CARRIED,
as amended