|
10. 267 (269) Kirchoffer AVENUE
and 271 Kirchoffer AVENUe – Committee of Adjustment Appeal 267
(269), AVENUE Kirchoffer et 271, AVENUE Kirchoffer – Appel À la dÉcision du
ComitÉ de dÉrogation |
That Council instruct Legal Services
to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board to ensure that the proposed
developments be compatible with the neighbourhood.
Recommandation modifiÉeS du Comité
Que le Conseil dirige les Services
juridiques de se présenter devant la Commission des affaires municipales de
l’Ontario afin d’obtenir l’assurance que les aménagements projetés seront
compatibles avec le quartier environnant.
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager, Planning, Transit and the Environment report dated 6 October 2008 (ACS2008-CCS-PEC-0020).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 14 October
2008.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Planning
and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
6 October 2008 / le 6 octobre 2008
Submitted
by/Soumis par: Robert Tremblay, Committee Coordinator /
Coordonnateur de comité
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Tim Marc,
Senior Legal Counsel
613-580-2424, 21444, Tim.Marc@ottawa.ca
|
Ref N°: ACS2008-CCS-PEC-0020 |
|
SUBJECT: |
267 (269)
KIRCHOFFER AVENUE AND 271 KIRCHOFFER AVENUE – COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
267 (269), AVENUE KIRCHOFFER
ET 271, AVENUE KIRCHOFFER – APPEL A LA DECISION DU COMITE DE DEROGATION |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve that Legal Services be instructed to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board in opposition to the applications respecting 267 (269) Kirchoffer Avenue and 271 Kirchoffer Avenue.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement recommande au Conseil d’approuver la décision de demander au
personnel des Services juridiques de se présenter devant la Commission des
affaires municipales de l’Ontario pour s’opposer aux demandes concernant les
propriétés situées au 267 (269), avenue Kirchoffer et au 271, avenue
Kirchoffer.
BACKGROUND
On 23 September 2008, Councillor Feltmate submitted the following Notice of Motion on behalf of Councillor Leadman:
WHEREAS the owners of
267(269) Kirchoffer and the owners of 271 Kirchoffer have applied to the
Committee of Adjustment for minor variances and consents to sever;
AND WHEREAS, having regard
to the neighbourhood, the resulting development individually and collectively
would not be appropriate and is not minor in nature;
AND WHEREAS, having regard
to the Official Plan, in particular policies 2.5.1 and 4.11, the proposed
development individually and collectively is not in keeping with the general
intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
THAT City Legal Services be instructed to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board
in opposition to the applications respecting 267 (269) Kirchoffer and
respecting 271 Kirchoffer.
DISCUSSION
A confidential assessment of the case is being provided separately by Legal Services.
Planning, Transit and the Environment and Legal Services staff are aware of this motion and will respond to any questions at the meeting.
This item will be advertised as part of the Public Meeting Advertisement in the daily newspapers on the Friday preceding the Community and Protective Services Committee meeting.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
It is estimated that the services of a planner will cost in the range of $15,000 to $25,000. Funds are available in the professional services budget of Planning, Transit and the Environment.
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 – Confidential Memorandum from the City Solicitor to be issued separately and held on file with the City Clerk.
DISPOSITION
Legal Services will advise the applicant and the resident of the direction received from Committee.
267 (269)
Kirchoffer AVENUE and 271 Kirchoffer AVENUe – Committee of Adjustment Appeal
267 (269), AVENUE
Kirchoffer et 271, AVENUE Kirchoffer – Appel À la dÉcision du ComitÉ de dÉrogation
ACS2008-CCS-PEC-0020 kitchissippi
(15)
Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, indicated that a confidential memorandum was provided in response to the notice of motion. He suggested that the Committee might move in camera to receive solicitor/client advice. He circulated photographs of the streetscape and subject sites.
Moved by B. Monette:
That the Planning and Environment Committee
move in camera to receive advice
subject to solicitor/client privilege.
CARRIED
The Committee resumed in open session. Chair Hume read a replacement motion moved by Councillor Hunter:
That Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve that Legal Services be instructed to appear at the
Ontario Municipal Board to ensure that the proposed developments be compatible
with the neighbourhood.
Chair Hume clarified that if the replacement
motion is adopted, then the City would not appear before the OMB to oppose the
minor variance and consent applications; however it would seek the imposition
of conditions to ensure compatibility.
Mr. Marc confirmed the City would retain the services of a planner to put forth the City’s position with regard to conditions to ensure compatibility. He added that the City would be willing to talk to both the applicants and the community association to see if a mutually agreed upon result could be arrived at.
At the request of the delegations, the Committee recessed for 10 minutes to allow consideration of the motion currently before Committee.
Don Stewart, Kenneth Abraham and Catherine Casserly, representing the Westboro Beach Community Association expressed support for the replacement motion as a positive step forward. They also agreed to take part in future discussions regarding compatibility.
Doug Kelly, on behalf of Tim Fouquier, stated pre-consultation did occur with Planning staff, as emphasized under Bill 51, with discussions on landscaping and compatibility; furthermore, Planning staff had no problem with the applications at the COA hearing. With regard to the design, he confirmed meetings occurred with Planning staff and the Councillor.
Pamela Mountenay Cain and Jim Cain noted that all parties share the wish that the buildings be compatible with the neighbourhood. Ms. Mountenay Cain added compatibility has been a goal of the applicants from the beginning. She indicated it is difficult to support the replacement motion without knowing what the conditions will be. She advised that nine letters of support were received from neighbours, who have seen a streetscape rendering, and stated the building would be an enhancement to the street. Technical issues such as shading and landscaping were looked at with professional advice (architect, planner and lawyer). Shade and drainage studies were undertaken with an investigation on proper setbacks and placement of balconies. With regard to compatibility, the oldest building on the street, a classical clapboard farmhouse, inspired the design. She noted the rules in effect permit a building height of 10.7 metres and 7500 square feet; however, the applicants are planning a semi-detached building totaling less than 5000 square metres, while meeting the City’s intensification goal. She also noted that the Comprehensive Zoning By-law changed the rules but the application was submitted prior to them taking effect. Mr. Cain later commented on the extensive effort to fulfill the infill guidelines with respect to compatibility.
Chair Hume interjected that the conditions would relate to compatibility. They would be worked out through discussions with all parties in the hope of achieving an agreement to present to the OMB. He noted it is standard for the COA to make approval conditional on the plans submitted with the application. He confirmed height is not an issue contemplated as part of the replacement motion.
Mr. Marc informed the Committee that he reviewed the elevations and many of the things that the applicant has mentioned are things that can be imposed through conditions. Issues such as drainage and landscaping could also be addressed.
Tim Fouquier spoke of his professional experience in auditing and the need for transparency, touching on the confidential memorandum and in camera session. He reiterated that the applicants have done everything possible to observe zoning regulations and requirements, including compatibility. He noted that they were invited by Councillor Leadman to present their project, which she described as an enhancement to the community. He noted discussions occurred with an adjacent neighbour with regard to drainage.
Chair Hume explained that the confidential memorandum related to the original motion, brought forward and crafted by Councillor Leadman, on behalf of the Westboro Beach Community Association. Mr. Marc has reviewed the motion and given the Committee advice on how to proceed. He agreed on the issue of transparency but explained that traditionally municipalities do not receive solicitor-client advice in public in order not to prejudice any decision.
Mr. Marc clarified that the Committee of Adjustment is entitled to make independent decisions from City Council.
Mr. Kelly added that his clients have met with Planning staff and are willing to attach the plans to the application, which would be the normal process.
Moved by G. Hunter:
That
Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve that Legal
Services be instructed to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board to ensure that
the proposed developments be compatible with the neighbourhood.
CARRIED as amended