DOCUMENT 5

Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law – Urban Area

Staff Responses to October 22, 2007 Submissions

Part 1 – Administration, Interpretation and Definitions
Sections 1-9: Administration
Section 3: Non-Conformity and Non-Compliance
Section 9: Transition
Sections 10-28: General Rules of Interpretation
Section 24
Sections 29-46: Interpreting Zoning Information
Section 54: Definitions
Area and Site Affected	Comment	Discussion	Staff Recommendation	Committee Recommendation
City-wide	Remove “one lot for zoning purposes” from the definition of a”shopping centre” and place under Section 93 – Shopping Centres (North American Properties & First CapitalRealty)	Concur	Delete “one lot for zoning purposes” where noted in (b) of the definition and create new subsection 93 (2) to indicate that shopping centres must be considered as one lot for zoning purposes
City wide	Introduce definition for high watermark (Conservation Authorities)	Concur, need new definition to implement re-introduced Section 69	Provide new definition for highwater mark

Part 2 – General Provisions

Section 55: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures

Section 56: Adequate Municipal Services

Section 57: Corner Sight Triangles

Section 58: Flood Plain Overlay

Area and Site Affected

Comment

Discussion

Staff Recommendation

Committee Recommendation

120,160,170 Hearst Way 915-940 Klondike

Revise flood plain boundary on these sites (Arnon Properties) (Novatech)

Concur - the boundaries will be revised

Revise boundaries in accordance with mapping provided by MVCA

East side of Rideau River, John Street block

Retain less restrictive provisions of floodplain provisions in former Ottawa Zoning By-law (Timburwal Developments Inc.)

The Conservation Authority has advised that since there are no dykes in New Edinburgh, more restrictive provisions are appropriate and reflect the new Provincial Policy Statement regarding development on hazard lands. Further development beyond what is permitted by the floodplain overlay will require Committee of Adjustment or rezoning application.

Do not support change

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

Staff Recommendation

Committee Recs

City Wide

Re-introduce Section 69 that was originally part of May 2006 release but simplified. (Conservation Authorities)

Concur, it is appropriate to have watercourse setbacks to implement Official Plan policy, however, the OP policy should be implemented for other developments subject to site plan control, plan of subdivision and rezoning through those processes.

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: 1. Except for flood or erosion control works, or a public bridge or a marine facility, no building or structure, including any part of a septic system, which does not require plan of subdivision, rezoning 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.

Section 70: Significant Wetlands and Natural Environment Areas in EP Zones – Development on Abutting Lands

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 This section of the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law deals with the Greenbelt or the Rural area.

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

Area and Site Affected

Comment

Discussion

Staff Recommendation

Committee Recommendation

Centretown

- does the description of parking requirements in the bylaw mention the cash-in-lieu-of-parking application procedure for meeting part or all of the requirement without providing on-site parking? - will a list of all changes to the draft bylaw, including to the requirements for particular lots, which are approved by Planning and Environment Committee, be provided to all stakeholders for their review and comment before the bylaw is finalized for approval by City Council?David Gladstone

As agreed to with the stakeholder during deliberations on the 1998 Ottawa ZBL, reference to another process under a different Section of the Planning Act may not be discussed nor regulated in the zoning by-law, including cash-in-lieu. A pamphlet was created on parking that included a brief description of cash-in-lieu, its purpose and process, and this pamphlet satisfied this stakeholder in 1998. Staff agree to release final version of the draft By-law for public viewing prior to its adoption. An addition public hearing will be held as well

No change required

Stittsville

Parking should be increased to 1.2 per stacked dwelling and apartements, as exists in Goulbourn By-law (Stittsville Community Association)

Proposed requirement will be 1 space per stacked dwelling and apartment plus 0.2 per unit for visitor in Area C. Current requirement is 1.5 spaces per unit. This is a small reduction and is considered appropriate.

Do not support change

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

Area and Site Affected

Comment

Discussion

Staff Recommendation

Committee Recommendation

Section 108

Remove this provision from by-law as it is addressed by Private Approach By-law (Novatech)

Provision should remain in zoning by-law as requested by Engineering staff; however, agree that proposed amendment to limit slope to 6% is too restrictive

Delete proposed 6 % limitation

Section 109: Location of Parking

Section 110: Landscaping Provisions for Parking Lots

Section 111: Bicycle Parking Space Rates and Provisions
Area and Site Affected	Comment				Discussion	Staff Recommendation		Committee Recommendation
1512 Walkley	Increased Bicycle Parking Requirement, this site would require 86 bicycle parking spaces. Recommend that the by-law should reflect our Site Plan approval (Richcraft Homes)				The requirement is considered appropriate.	Do not support change
4025 Canyon Walk	Increased Bicycle Parking Requirement, this site would require 33 bicycle parking spaces. Recommend that the By-law should reflect our Site Plan approval. (Richcraft Homes)				The requirement is considered appropriate.	Do not support change
City wide	Bicycle parking for schools should be by number of students rather than gfa (Tom Trottier)				Difficult to apply zoning to number of students. Proposed rate of 1 per 100m2 considered appropriate.	Do not support change
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
Section 127: Home-Based Business Provisions
Area and Site Affected		Comment	Discussion				Staff Recommendation			Committee Recommendation
Citywide		Do not allow or limit the opportunities for home-based businesses in “adult lifestyle” communities (Katharine Elliott)	If workers show up at start or end of day and park legally, it is not an issue. If the radio in the garage is a violation of the noise by-law, we would deal with it that way.				Do not support change
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
Area and Site Affected		Comment		Discussion			Staff Recommendation		Committee Recommendation
City-wide		Delete prohibition on rooming houses, rooming houses, converted, shelters and group homes located in PUDs so that both affordable housing as well as supportive housing choices are available (CCOC, Ottawa Social Housing Network)		Concur			Amend paragraph 131 (1) (b) to remove the liste3d exclusions, so that the clause would read: “(b) it consists only of uses that are permitted in the zone or subzone; and”

Section 132: Rooming Units in Private Dwellings
Section 133: Secondary Dwelling Units
Area and Site Affected	Comment	Discussion	Staff Recommendation	Committee Recommendation
City-wide	-reword 133 (3) to ensure that a secondary dwelling unit is not permitted as-of-right on a varied lot (Hintonburg Community Association) by using following wording: (3) a secondary dwelling unit is not permitted on a lot that does not meet the lot width or lot area requirements as set out in Tables 156A, 158A, 160A, 162 A, B and 164 A and B	The intent of (3) is to flag the idea of a secondary dwelling unit locating within a dwelling type which is smaller than the minimum required lot area or lot width established in the residential zone Tables. The proposed rewording of (3) does not respond to the concern of locating these units in dwellings on small lots. Regardless of whether (3) is reworded, if the Committee of Adjustment grants variance (s) to a dwelling type noted in any one of those Tables, then the varied size will become conforming in respect of lot width or lot area (whichever is varied), thus still rendering the possibility of the creation of a secondary dwelling unit within the dwelling type to which the lot size variance has been granted.	Do not support change
Section 134: Shelters

Part 6 – Residential Zones
General Comments
Area and Site Affected	Comment	Discussion	Staff Recommendation	Committee Recommendation
City Wide	The zoning by-law is imposing intensification policies on established residential neighbourhoods. Objects to the minor variances approved by the Committee of Adjustment. (J. Jones)	The proposed zoning by-law is carrying over existing residential zone provisions. The Committee of Adjustment is governed by Section 45 of the Planning Act and is separate from City Council.	No change required
Ward 12	Restore amenity space requirement. Restore landscape open space requirement for small apartment developments. Should be no reduction of rear yard setback of 7.5 m.	Feedback received during consultation was that indoor and outdoor amenity space requirement may not reflect todays current trends in the larger developments. Felt this was best left to Site Plan Control process. Larger developments have retained the 30% landscaped open space requirement, for smaller developments, eliminated as at a minimum, side yard requirement and the new requirement for no more than 50% of the front yard to be driveway, will provide some landscaping in smaller developments. Unsure about rear yard setback, most residential zones require a 7.5 m rear yard setback.	Do not support change
Section 155: R1 – Residential First Density Zone
Section 156: R1 Subzones
Area and Site Affected	Comment	Discussion	Staff Recommendation	Committee Recommendation
Stittsville	Existing R1-16 zoning requires 6.5 m rear yard and 4 m front yard, while proposed R1Q[944] requires 7.5m and 4.5m respectively; this should be corrected (Monarch Homes)	Concur – modify [944] to reflect existing R1-16 zoning.	Modify exception [944] to include a 6.5 m rear yard and 4 m front yard requirement
Clearview Avenue & Island Park Drive	Rezone City owned parcel of land located in the middle of the block bounded by Clearview Avenue, Island Park Drive & Patricia Avenue from R1P to O1. (Scott Segerson)	The subject parcel is currently zoned R1H in the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law. The proposed R1P zoning reflects the intent of the existing zoning for this site.	Do not support
Section 157: R2 – Residential Second Density Zone
Section 158: R2 Subzones
Section 159: R3 – Residential Third Density Zone

Section 160: R3 Subzones
Area and Site Affected	Comment	Discussion	Staff Recommendation		Committee Recommendation
146 Mountshannon	Increased Interior Side Yards Setback from 1.5m to 4.5m. Recommend that the By-law should reflect our Site Plan approved 1.5m Interior Side Yard Setback. This Site is ‘dual zoned’. Recommend that the By-law should reflect two separate zoning areas, one for our site (R3Z[939]) and one for the adjacent school site (I1A). (Richcraft homes)	This is a mapping error. The site, which is zoned R3Z[939], should have been zoned R3Z[1193] Staff agree to create two separate zones for this site.	Change exception from [939] to [1193], which has a 1.2m interior side yard setback requirement. Revise map to create new boundary line between school to be zoned I1A H(15) and the vacant site to be zoned R3Z[1193].
608 River Road	By-law 2005-312, enacted March 09, 2007 is not reflected, zoning was amended to Rc-3 and OS (Richcraft homes)	By-law 2005-312, enacted March 09, 2007 is fully reflected in the by-law. Rc-3 and OS became R3VV and O1.	No change required
Ward 18, 2013 St. Laurent Blvd	Rezone lands to reflect existing non-conforming gas station (Allright Automotive Repairs Ltd.)	The lands in question have been zoned residential and the existing use has been non-conforming for the past 20 or more years. The approach used in the draft zoning by-law is to harmonize the existing zoning by-laws, and only to rezone lands where there are supporting policies in the Official Plan. As there are no such policies in this case and the surrounding area is residentially zoned, it is recommended that the use remain in its legally non-conforming status.	Do not support change
75 Scissons Road	That the zoning of the lands known municipally as 75 Scissons Road be modified to reflect amending By-law No. 2005-107. (Muirfield Homes)	Agree – this by-law amendment was missed during the first round.	Modify zoning of 75 Scissons Road to reflect amending By-law No. 2005-107.
Section 161: R4 – Residential Fourth Density Zone
Area and Site Affected	Comment	Discussion	Staff Recommendation	Committee Recommendation
Centretown	Have the allowable height limits increased by more than 0.8 m compared with the current zoning bylaw in any part of the area bounded by Gloucester Street, the Rideau Canal, Catherine Street, and Bronson Avenue (David Gladstone)	Where heights were 13.8 and 13.5 m, these are now the standard 14.5 m height. This height limit was established following consultation with various stakeholders whereby it was determined that, combined with the trends towards higher ceilings and Building Code changes that now permit using wood frame construction techniques (which require greater floor to ceiling clearances), it was necessary to provide additional flexibility in height limits. This new limit, however, does not change the requirement that buildings cannot be higher than 4 storeys in the new R4 zone.	Do not support change
Citywide	Concerned that major uses are set by subzone rather than by zone as in current by-law (loss of distinction between apartments in R4 and R5 Zones( Hintonburg Community Association)	The R4 and R5 zones were grouped together to a new R4 zone as the existing R4 zone applied to limited areas in former Ottawa. The former R4 zone is grouped into a number of new R4 subzones that restricts the number of apartment dwelling units, whereas the other R4 subzones does not.	Do not support change

Section 162: R4 Subzones
Area and Site Affected	Comment	Discussion	Staff Recommendation	Committee Recommendation
Ward 10, Deerfield Village	Quadraplex is not listed as a permitted use in the R4Z zone.  We are requesting confirmation that it is a permitted use within the "apartment dwelling, low rise" definition.   Alternatively a quadraplex dwelling should be added as a permitted use.  (Canada Lands)	The term “quadruplex” is no longer used. The definition of "apartment dwelling, low rise” means a residential use building of four or fewer storeys in height containing four or more principal dwelling units. As such, a “quadruplex” can be classified as an "apartment dwelling, low rise", which is permitted in the R4Z zone.	No change required
	Remove minimum landscaped area provision and yard setbacks (Equity Realty Group)	Section 123(2) and Section 156 of current former Ottawa Zoning By-law do have requirements for a 30 % landscape open space requirement for apartment buildings and have the same yard setbacks as is proposed in the draft Zoning By-law, these are not new requirements. Stacked dwellings (and now also planned unit developments) also have a requirement for 30% landscaped open space.	Do not support change
	Request maximum height of 14.5 m for those properties not under a heritage overlay (Equity Realty Group)	The current zoning for the property is R5D with a heritage overlay and a height limit of 10.7 metres, and the height limit has been increased to 11 metres. A height limit of 14.5 metres will apply to apartments or stacked townhouses if the affected property is not under a heritage overlay.	No change required
Section 163: R5 – Residential Fifth Density Zone
Section 164: R5 Subzones
Area and Site Affected	Comment	Discussion	Staff Recommendation	Committee Recommendation
460-480 Brigitta Street (Claridge Homes)	Ensure that amending By-law Nos. 2005-107 and 2007-386 be reflected in the new zoning by-law	These will be reflected; and in addition the lands affected by 2007-386 will be placed in an R5 zone with a maximum height limit of 20 metres to reflect the current maximum 6 storey limit.	Incorporate amending by-laws, as detailed under Discussion
Ward 12, 40, 100 and 110 Boteler	Recognize existing development through a site-specific exception to permit existing height or remove maximum 25 m height (Arnon Corp.)	The proposed zoning is R5C, the previous zoning had a floor space index of 2.5 and this was substituted for a maximum height of 25 metres, in error. Site should be re-zoned to reflect existing heights.	Rezoned 100 & 110 Boteler Street respectively as follows: -R5C H(39) -R5C H(36)

Ward 14, 349 MacLaren St		Add “parking lot” as a permitted use for the site (TKS Holdings)		Parking lot added as permitted use in new exception [1357], which also includes provision from old exception [479]. New zone is R5B[1357] H(19).		Added exception to permit parking lot
8911 North Service Road		Increase height from 85.8 asl to 101 asl to reflect approved minor variance as development is a phased development and three year transition is not long enough.		Minor variances are not reflected in the Zoning By-law. A three year transition period is considered appropriate for all approvals. Phased projects longer than 3 years for issuance of building permit will require a new application to the Committee of Adjustment.		Do not support change
Section 165: R6 – Residential/Service Commercial Zone
Section 166: R6 Subzones
Section 167: RM – Mobile Home Park Zone
Section 168: RM Subzones
Part 7 – Institutional Zones
Section 169: I1 – Minor Institutional Zone
Section 170: I1 Subzones
Section 171: I2 – Major Institutional Zone
Section 172: I2 Subzones
Part 8 – Open Space and Leisure Zones
Section 173: L1 – Community Leisure Facility Zone
Section 174: L1 Subzones
Section 175: L2 – Major Leisure Facility Zone
Section 176: L2 Subzones
Section 177: L3 – Central Experimental Farm Zone
Sections 179: O1 – Parks and Open Space Zone
Section 180: O1 Subzones
Part 9 – Environmental Zones
Sections 183: EP – Environmental Protection Zone
Section 184: EP Subzones
Part 10 – Mixed Use/Commercial Zones
General Comments
Section 185: AM – Arterial Mainstreet Zone
Area and Site Affected	Comment		Discussion		Staff Recommendation			Committee Recommendation
Colonnade/ Merivale	Extend O1P Zoning to cover east portion of AM[291] Zone (Ontario Realty Corporation)		Concur		Rezone lands to O1P
1980 St. Joseph Blvd.	Expand list of permitted uses to include gas bar and car wash as per Arterial Mainstreet policies of OP (Canadian Petroleum Products Institute)		Proposed AM3 Zoning reflects existing Cm Zone resulting from St. Joseph Blvd. study		Do not support change
1988 St. Joseph Blvd.
Section 186: AM Subzones
Area and Site Affected	Comment		Discussion		Staff Recommendation			Committee Recommendation
2084 Montreal Road	That the zoning of the lands known municipally as 2084 Montreal Road be modified to reflect OMB Decision No. 1689 issued June 19, 2007. (DCR Phoenix c/o Janet Bradley)		Agree - modify AM2 zoning to reflect OMB decision.		Modify zoning of 2084 Montreal Road to reflect OMB Decision No. 1689 issued June 19, 2007.
800 Montreal Road	Request a special exception to the proposed AM5 zone to remove the 25m height limit. (Canada Lands)		The current zoning for the subject site is CE5 F(1.0). The F(1.0) effectively restricts the height on the subject site. The subject site is on an Arterial Mainstreet as per Schedule B of the Official Plan. The proposed AM5 zone imposes a height limit, but doubles the FSI to 2.0 (with the additional option of going to 3.5 with underground parking) so no development rights are lost.		Do not support change
Section 187: GM – General Mixed-Use Zone
Area and Site Affected	Comment		Discussion				Staff Recommendation		Committee Recommendation
1481 Greenbank Road	-retain “one lot for by-law purposes” from existing zoning -eliminate maximum parking requirement near transit stations for this site to allow further additions (ECL Properties)		-Concur -Do not support- additions can still be built provided maximum parking still met				-Revise zoning to specify “one lot for zoning purposes -Do not support
Carlingwood Shopping Centre	-remove 70,000 m2 gross leasable floor area limitation as it is not required in the new OP (Carlingwood Shopping Centre owners)		-Do not support- floor area limitation was subject of major study and OMB hearings; OP also states expansions of Major Urban Facilities such as this should be subject to an zoning by-law amendment process				Do not support
555 and 591 March Road	-allow employment uses as well as recreational and athletic facility, drive- through facility, as per existing zoning -allow complementary commercial uses (restaurant, day care, convenience store, medical facility, personal service business, bank, automobile service station and gas bar)(555 March Road Inc.)		-Concur with permitting gas bar and recreation and athletic facility -note that restaurants and drive-through facilities are already permitted in the proposed GM Zone, as are day care, convenience store, medical facility, personal service business and bank (automobile service station is permitted in exception [1084]) -also, GM Zone permits employment uses such as office, research and development centre and technology industry				Revise zoning to permit recreation and athletic facility and gas bar
15 Colonnade Road	-zoning should be IL or IG and not GM as is proposed, to reflect zoning in rest of Colonnade Business Park (Novatech)		-these lands are designated as General Urban Area and not Employment Area in OP; GM is most appropriate zone				Do not support change
5734 , 5754 Hazeldean Road	This property has a proposed zone of GM14 H(11). They request that zoning allow retail uses. (Phil Sweetnam)		Addressed in Template The current zoning specifically prohibits personal service business and retail, except for building supplies, furniture store, equipment rental and automotive parts. Given that this large landholding is very close to the Stittsville Village mainstreet, allowing the potential for a significant amount of retail should be reviewed in more detail through a rezoning application rather than through the Comprehensive Zoning By-law process. However, personal service business will be allowed.				Personal service business added but prohibition on retail other than the type of retail that is currently permitted retained
334 Dundas, 319 and 325 Palace; 91, 95, 97 and 103 Selkirk	Please make corrections to the map to identify the correct zoning – for 334 Dundas – GM[177] F93.0) H (42) Other listed properties: GM F(3.0) H(42) (remove the exception [179] that should have only applied to the corner lot) Request maximum height of 52 metre rather than 42 m to reflect 14 storey building, with first floor 4.2 m and other floors 3.6 with 1.0 m parapet. Request no landscaped area requirements as none required under C2/A Add those uses currently permitted under C2/A but no longer permitted under proposed GM to 319 and 325 Palace; 91, 95, 97 and 103 Selkirk.		Agreed, maps to be corrected for the various properties as detailed under Comment 14 storeys is equivalent to 42 metres, and a request to increase height should be subject to a site-specific rezoning request which is not contemplated in this Project The current C2/A zoning does require a minimum 1.5 m landscaping strip where abutting a residential zone; or a 1.5 m high fence. The landscaping requirements proposed for the GM zone are in keeping with the good urban design principles, vis-à-vis better street visibility and reduced impact on abutting lands, for commercial areas and parking lots. Concur				Modify maps as detailed under Comment Do not support change No change required Create a new exception to permit additional uses: amusement centre, cinema, theatre, hotel and parking lot.
	Allow 52 m instead of 42 metre height to represent existing 14 storey height limit (Jean Massicotte)		The former Vanier height limit of 14 storeys was made to be equivalent to 42 m (14 times 3 m) for all similar zones to reflect mix of commercial and residential development.				Do not support change
Section 188 : GM Subzones
Area and Site Affected	Comment		Discussion		Staff Recommendation			Committee Recommendation
1200 St. Laurent Blvd.	Remove 77,000 m2 gross leasable floor area limitation as it is not required in the new OP (St. Laurent Shopping Centre owners)		Do not support- OP states expansions of Major Urban Facilities such as this should be subject to an zoning by-law amendment process		Do not support
Section 189: LC – Local Commercial Zone
Section 190 : LC Subzones
Section 191: MC – Mixed-Use Centre Zone
Area and Site Affected	Comment		Discussion		Staff Recommendation			Committee Recommendation
1221 Cyrville Rd	Create an exception to the MC F(2.0) H(48) zone to add medical laboratory, sale and lease of motor vehicles, wholesale establishment and wholesale/retail establishment as permitted uses. Note that these uses are permitted in the current Gloucester zoning. (Sedco Dev. c/o J. Ironside)		Medical laboratory is included within “medical facility” which is a permitted use; wholesale or retail establishment is included in “retail store” which is a permitted use. Automobile-oriented uses such as an automobile dealership if they are currently permitted, will be permitted with future Community Design Plan for Mixed Use Centre reviewing appropriate uses in this area.		No change required Permit automobile dealership.
221 Champagne	Remove 11 metre height limit for lands within 20 metres of an R1-R4 Zone, so that area can be developed to the standards 18 metre height (Metcalfe Realty)		Proposed height limits of 11 m within 20 metres and 20 metres within 30 metres from residential provide a transition to low profile residential zones to the east is appropriate for future redevelopment of property.		Do not support change
Section 192: MC Subzones
Area and Site Affected	Comment		Discussion		Staff Recommendation			Committee Recommendation
Orleans Town Centre	Proposed zoning does not reflect zoning as amended in 2006 and 2007 to accommodate public-private partnership agreement (Novatech)		Concur- zoning to be revised to reflect By-laws 2006-469, 2007-25 and 2007-26 which implement the agreement		Revise to reflect amended zoning
Section 193: MD – Mixed-Use Downtown Zone
Section 194 : MD Subzones
Section 195: SC – Shopping Centre Zone
Section 197: TM – Traditional Mainstreet Zone
Area and Site Affected	Comment		Discussion		Staff Recommendation			Committee Recommendation
450 Bank Street	Permit drive-through on these sites (Canadian Petroleum Products Institute)		Traditional Mainstreet policies do not support permitting drive-throughs; note that drive-through not currently permitted at 450 Bank		Do not support change
42 Montreal Road
747 Richmond Road	Object to the proposed TM H(15). Would like a height limit that accommodates the current proposal, which is under appeal at the OMB (Torgan Group c/o J. Bradley)		Recommend that the property be zoned with a 15 metre height limit, as is currently proposed, to reflect the existing height limit for this site (13.8m). The height may be changed as a result of the on-going Westboro Community Design Plan process.		Do not support change
TM Zones	Permit residential , office and research and development on ground floor, provided not at the front of the building; permit park Stepped back provision should be modified to permit that where the building is set back farther than the minimum required rear yard setback, the stepping back should begin at the storey at which the 45 degree angular plane would be met when set back at the 7.5 metre set back (Brocklebank/Pupp; Brian Karam - 301 Elgin)		Concur		Amend Section 197(1) to add “park “ as listed permitted use Delete paragraph 197 (1) (b) and add it to the subzones where it was intended to apply Delete Section 197 (1) (c) and replace with new 6 metre depth from the front wall of the main building abutting
					(c) ;and create new paragraph (d) and renumber subsequent paragraphs: (c) where in a mixed use building and located on the ground floor abutting a street having direct pedestrian access to the street, residential uses and office and research and development uses must not be located within a the street; (d) where a residential stand- alone building is created, no commercial use is required to be located on the ground floor but may be permitted, subject to paragraph (c.)
					Amend Table 197(g)(ii)(3) to clarify that the required 45 degree angular plane at and above the fourth storey or 15 metres, whichever is greater, is established at 7.5 metres from a lot line abutting an R1 to R4 zone, and not from where the actual building line is located should the building be setback further than 7.5 m.
Somerset Street, west of Bank Street	Existing residential zones should remain residential and not be changed to the TM zone.		All existing residential zone on this section of Somerset Street are proposed to stay residential, however, the northeast corner of Somerset and Kent Street was incorrectly zoned TM.		Change to an R5 zone reflecting the existing R6A[172] H(36.6) zoning of the property.
314 Athlone Avenue	Objects to the wording of exception [103]. Indicates that permitted uses (restaurants, medical facility office, etc.) current allowed under existing R5A[638] zoning have not been carried forward in new [102] exception. (Lynn Erichsen)		This site has a TM zoning, which permits many of the uses allowed in current R5A[638] zone in the base TM list of permitted uses. The remaining uses and provisions are covered in the [102] exception.		No change required
Section 198: TM Subzones

Part 11 – Industrial Zones
General Comments
Section 199: IG – General Industrial Zone
Area and Site Affected	Comment	Discussion	Staff Recommendation	Committee Recommendation
660-710 Industrial Avenue	Remove 4,000 square metre limit indicated in Exception 1350 for office uses (Metcalf Realty)	Proposed IG[1350] zone reflects existing zoning	Do not support change
Section 200 : IG Subzones
Area and Site Affected	Comment	Discussion	Staff Recommendation	Committee Recommendation
610-710 Industrial Avenue	Remove 4,000 square metre limit indicated in Exception 1350 for office uses (Metcalf Realty)	Limitation is in current industrial zoning through a site specific exception.	Do not support change.
Section 201: IH – Heavy Industrial Zone
Section 202 : IH Subzones

Section 203: IL – Light Industrial Zone
Area and Site Affected	Comment	Discussion	Staff Recommendation	Committee Recommendation
500 Coventry Road	Revise zoning to reflect site-specific Official Plan policy (Bordon, Ladner, Gervais)	Concur- revise zoning to implement policy	Add the following new exception to 500 Coventry Road: “lands may be developed with 100% retail use with a maximum of two stand-alone retail stores to a total maximum gross floor area of 7,779 square metres. Alternatively, should the site not be developed with “stand-alone” retail, office development within buildings having a maximum height of 5 storeys are permitted.”
Section 204 : IL Subzones
Section 205: IP – Business Park Industrial Zone
Section 206: IP Subzones

Part 12 – Transportation Zones
Section 207: T1 – Air Transportation Facility Zone
This section of the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law deals with the Greenbelt or the Rural area only.
Section 209: T2 – Ground Transportation Facility Zone
Section 210 : T2 Subzones
No comments were received on Sections 209 and 210
Part 13 – Rural Zones
This section of the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law deals with the Greenbelt or the Rural area only.
Part 14 – Other Zones
Section 237: DR – Development Reserve Zone
Area and Site Affected		Comment	Discussion		Staff Recommendation	Committee Recommendation
Kanata Research Park		-Rezone lands from DR to IP6 to reflect Employment Area designation (Novatech) -Show revised location of flood plain	-Do not support- premature; currently zoned ER-Estate Residential; need to study area to determine future use -Concur- Floodplain will be revised in accordance with the revised floodplain mapping provided by the MVCA		Do not support Revise floodplain overlay to reflect updated mapping.
Section 238: DR Subzones
Part 15 – Exceptions
Section 239: Urban Exceptions
Area and Site Affected	Comment			Discussion	Staff Recommendation	Committee Recommendation
60,66 Queen	Exception [132] and not [32] should apply (Arnon Properties)			Concur- typo	Revise zoning maps to show exception [132]
875 Carling	-Confirm that FSI is 2.5, and not 2.0 as per exception [23] text -Confirm non-conforming status of existing parking lot (Arnon Properties)			-Concur -Confirmation of an existing non-conforming status is a process for which an application must be submitted, and is not part of the comprehensive zoning by-law process	Revise Part 15 to specify FSI of 2.5 for exception [23]
10 The Driveway	Request that the existing building height of 52.6 m be reflected in the maximum building height (Arnon Properties)			The current by-law indicates a maximum building height limit of 36.6 m for this area. The proposed by-law has simply rounded this off to 37 m. Existing building over this limit are legal non-conforming.	Do not support
1001 Klondike	By-law 2006-286, enacted July 12, 2006 is not accurately reflected as zoning was amended to allow a 4.5m Front Yard Setback, to the main building and 5m to a garage that has a driveway crossing or will cross a sidewalk, whereas; Exception [1306] reads that the Front Yard Setback to a garage is 5m with no mention of a driveway crossing a sidewalk (Richcraft Hones)			Concur, the wording in 1306 does not exactly reflect the intent of By-law 2006-286	Modify the wording for exception [1306] to include the following provision: “Where a driveway crosses or will cross a sidewalk, then the minimum distance from the lot line the driveway crosses to a garage is 5.0 metres”
1695 Merivale Road	-allow retail uses without being on same lot as residential uses (current situation) (Claridge Homes)			-Concur- exempt site from this provision via an exception	Add exception which exempts site from Section 186(5)(b)(i)
Barrhaven Mews Community	Add the following provision to Exceptions [1319] & [1320]: "Access to a lot by means of a rear lane is permitted, provided the rear lane is a minimum of 8.5 metres wide. Where access is via the rear lane, the minimum rear yard setback may be reduced to 0.6 metre, and in no case may the width of the garage, carport or driveway exceed 100% of the width of the rear lot line." (Mattamy Homes)			Agreed – modify exceptions [1319] & [1320]	Modify exceptions [1319] & [1320] as per wording in column 2.
6 and 7 Hinton, 258 Armstrong	Clarify in exception for 6 Hinton that parking for land uses at 7 Hinton is permitted as per existing by-law (Metcalfe Realty)			Concur- correct error	Revise exception [104] to permite use of parking lot by land uses at 7 Hinton
Part 16 – Appendices – Administrative Lists and Processes
No comments received on Part 16
Part 17 – Schedules

Part 18 – Zoning Maps
Area and Site Affected	Comment	Discussion	Staff Recommendation	Committee Recommendation
Rockcliffe Park	Request that PEC approve the amendment of the proposed new Comprehensive Zoning By-law to permit the FSI criteria in the existing by-law to be carried forward into the new by-law and applied to applications to build within the boundaries of the heritage district of Rockcliffe Park. (Alan Cohen/Rockcliffe Park Residents' Association )	When staff met with RPRA, it was at their request that FSI be removed as the regulation had not accomplished what they wanted, which is to permit a building envelope that respects the character of the large lots in RP (although there is a variety in lot sizes in the village). FSI has been removed from residential zones due to the lack of concrete visual cues as to eventual development bulk; e.g. a site with an FSI of 1.0 does not indicate potential height or yard setbacks. Moreover, FSI is often at odds with the building envelope regulations, wherein the height permitted may be higher, but the FSI removes the opportunity to achieve the permitted height, with the latter based on character of existing development.	Do not support change	Motion
Stittsville	Repeat of their request for uph to be placed on existing R4 and R5 sites in Goulbourn; however, their submission is concerned with large development – meaning Greenfield development – and these would be zoned in a Z subzone that does have a maximum lot coverage of 45% (though not the same as uph, but is a density control) Stittsville CA	Addressed in Summary of Comments (Page 89)	UPH has been removed
Rockcliffe Park	Reinstate FSI provisions from existing Rockcliffe zoning by-law (Rockcliffe Park Residents Association)	Concur	Reinstate FSI’s as per existing zoning by-law
Island Park Drive, Patricia, Clearview	Place this open space area in an open space zone; concerned that there are plans to rezone the lands to residential (Joan Dorsey)	The lands on this block are proposed to retain essentially the same zoning as is currently in place	No change required