2. ZONING - 8 ROBERT KEMP STREET

ZONAGE - 8, RUE ROBERT KEMP

Committee recommendation

(This application is subject to Bill 51)

That Council refuse an amendment to the Zoning By law 2008 250 to change the zoning of 8 Robert Kemp Street to permit the severance of the lot into three individual lots.

Recommandation DU Comité

(Cette demande est assujettie au Règlement 51)

Que le Conseil refuse une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 visant à changer la désignation de zonage du 8, rue Robert Kemp afin de permettre la disjonction du lot en trois lots individuels.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 9 October 2009 (ACS2008-ICS-PGM-0195).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 27 October 2009.

Report to/Rapport au :

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

and Council / et au Conseil

09 October 2009 / le 09 octobre 2009

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe,

Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability/Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités

Contact Person/Personne-ressource : John Smit, Manager/Gestionnaire, Development Review-Urban Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424, 13866 John.Smit@ottawa.ca

Gloucester-Southgate (10)

Ref N°: ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0195

SUBJECT:	ZONING - 8 robert Kemp Street (FILE NO. D02-02-09-0012)
OBJET :	ZONAGE - 8, rue Robert kemp

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council refuse an amendment to the Zoning By law 2008 250 to change the zoning of 8 Robert Kemp Street to permit the severance of the lot into three individual lots.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil de refuser une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 visant à changer la désignation de zonage du 8, rue Robert Kemp afin de permettre la disjonction du lot en trois lots individuels.

BACKGROUND

The subject property is a corner lot on the south and west sides of Robert Kemp Street in the Kemp Park Community. There is a detached dwelling positioned near the bend in the street leaving large yards at the side and rear. The Kemp Park Community is generally characterized as having large lots with frontages ranging from 30 to 45 metres. There are some lots that have been severed into smaller lots throughout the park including the lot directly south of the subject property at 5 Kemp Drive.

Kemp Park was developed in the late 1950s. Each house was serviced by private wells and septic systems that required large lots in order to function properly. In 1999, the former of City of Gloucester changed the zoning standard from larger lots (30 metres on un-serviced lots and 20 metres on serviced lots) to allow for lots as narrow as nine metres with lot areas as small as 555 square metres. Public water was installed in 1974 and sanitary sewers in 2003.

Council in 2008 approved a new Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the City, which replaced the former City of Gloucester Comprehensive Zoning By-law. The new Zoning By-law made changes to the lot provisions requiring lots to be 20 metres in width and a minimum of 900 square metres in size.

The lot size regulations were arrived at following discussions with Kemp Park representatives and residents over a three-year period prior to the adoption of the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law. It was agreed that the change in the former Gloucester Zoning By-law permitting minimum lot widths of nine metres was too small, did not reflect the majority of lots with widths between 30 and 45 metres, and would result in future infill that would not be in keeping with the established built form of the neighbourhood. Staff acknowledged that the former minimum lot width requirement of 30 metres was also too high now that the area is serviced. As a result, a minimum lot width of 20 metres was chosen as a reasonable standard, and one that would be in keeping with the established large lots throughout the subdivision.

The Owner appealed the lot width and lot area provisions established by the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law to the Ontario Municipal Board on the grounds that the City did not properly notify the people of Kemp Park that the Zoning provisions were to change. Their understanding was that the new By-law would not make any changes to the provisions of the former municipal Zoning By-laws affecting Residential zones. This was the case within most of the city. Council approved the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and since the Owner did not make a submission to the Planning and Environment Committee or Council prior to the approval, his appeal was not given any standing and was rejected.

The Owner made applications to the Committee of Adjustment to sever two lots and requested variances from the Zoning By-law. However, the Committee turned down the variances. The severances also failed and the Owner has appealed the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Purpose of Zoning Amendment

The property is zoned R1CC in the Zoning By-law. This requires that each lot have a minimum of 20-metre widths and 900 square metres of lot area. The application requests that the zoning be changed to R1Q with an exception added to the lot with the existing house to permit a rear yard set back of two metres. The R1Q zones allows minimum lot widths of 12 metres and minimum lot areas of 360 square metres.

Concurrent Applications

Minor Variances D08-02-08/A-00331 to D08-02-08/A-00333 and Consents to sever D08-01-08/B-00361 and D08-01-08/B-00362 where denied at the October 15, 2008 Committee of Adjustment Hearing. The applicant made an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, which has not yet been scheduled to be heard. The appeals are on hold until the outcome of this application is finalized.

DISCUSSION

Official Plan

The Official Plan designates this property as General Urban Area, which permits a wide range of housing types to meet the needs of all ages, incomes and life circumstances. This designation covers a large part of the urban area and is meant to capture the entire range of housing types from high density apartments to single detached homes. The policies associated with this designation requiries that consideration be had for the scale of the development and design to ensure that it is appropriate and compatible with the neighbourhood.

Section 2.2.3 in the Official plan directs intensification to locations with significant development potential; specifically: the Central Area; Mixed-Use Centres; Employment Areas; Enterprise Areas, Developing Communities; and Mainstreets. The objective is to provide for a mix of uses and intense compact development along the rapid-transit network, major roads and commercial streets to take advantage of existing community infrastructure. Within the General Urban Area opportunities for intensification exist and will be supported, although such opportunities are generally at a much smaller scale than in the areas stated above.

The Official Plan states that intensification can occur on single lots or on properties that are underdeveloped. Infill can occur even if it is not the same or similar to the development around it as long as it can coexist without causing undue adverse impact on surrounding properties. The Official Plan policies require development to have regard for the scale and the character of the neighbourhood. This implies that there maybe limits to the degree of intensification that may be achieved within General Urban Areas.

Staff have recently conducted a review of the Official Plan, which resulted in Official Plan Amendment 76 and has made changes to the wording of the policies. City Council has approved this amendment and is awaiting the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing's approval. The preamble has been rewritten to emphasize the philosophy behind the urban growth strategy. It states that by directing major intensification to the Central Area, along Mainstreets and within Mixed-Uses Centres associated with the rapid-transit network, the stability of neighbourhoods within the General Urban Area is enhanced. Further, this plan requires that intensification proposals have full regard for the existing built context and a full understanding of the impacts the proposal will have on both the immediate and wider surroundings. The policies state the interior portions of stable, low-rise residential neighbourhoods will continue to be characterized by low-rise buildings. The City supports intensification in the General Urban Area where it will enhance and complement its desirable characteristics and long-term renewal.

Appropriateness of the Proposed Zoning

Since 1999, when the former City of Gloucester amended the Zoning By-law to permit nine-metre lot widths in this neighbourhood 11 lots have been severed creating 15 new lots. In some cases the rear yard of a corner lot was servered to create a new building lot and in other cases lots have been created between existing houses. The effect of these infill projects has had mixed success. Some of the projects coexist with the existing character while others do not. Notably, the lots with very narrow frontages have been the least successful in achieving intergration.

The key provision of the Zoning By-law that effects neighbourhood character is lot width. This influences character by determining the proportion of the front façade, which is devoted to the garage and entrance and the space between houses. Lot area and to some extent lot coverage also contributes to the sense of space, which effects neighbourhood character as well.

The zoning standards for Kemp Park were changed in the new Zoning By-law due to the disparity between the dimensions of the existing lots and standards permitted under the former City of Gloucester Zoning By-law. The new standards are more in keeping with large lots, while still allowing some infill. The subject property, for instance, could be divided into two lots, which would fully comply with the R1CC zone.

Council has addressed this matter in the past. On May 28, 2008 Council approved motion 37/18 regarding consents to sever in Kemp Park and to confirm that the appropriate minimum lot widths for Kemp Park is 20 metres and that Council direct staff to appeal any decision of the Committee of Adjustment to grant a severance with a frontage of less than 20 metres.

The application requests that the property be rezoned to sub-zone R1Q. This sub-zone allows lot widths of 12 metres and lot areas of 360 square metres. This subzone would not be appropriate, as it would reduce the zoning standards to allow smaller lots with respect to area than what was permitted under the former City of Gloucester Zoning By-law. This would potentially allow the lot with the existing house to be further divided into two, allowing the applicant to develop four lots where there was one.

This proposed amendment is not appropriate under the polices of the Official Plan and the type of infill does not correspond with the character of the neighbourhood nor with the motion approved by Council to confirm 20-metre frontages in Kemp Park. Staff recommend that this application be denied.

CONSULTATION

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation. Details of the consultation can be seen in Document 2.

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Should this matter be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, it is anticipated that a three-day hearing would result If the recommendation is carried, expert testimony could be provided from within staff resources.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

This application was processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendment applications.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Location Map

Document 2 Consultation Details

DISPOSITION

City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the owner/applicant, OttawaScene.com, 174 Colonnade Road, Unit #33, Ottawa, ON K2E 7J5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code: 26-76) of City Council’s decision.

Planning and Growth Management Department to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services and undertake the statutory notification.

Legal Services to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.

LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT 1

CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 2

NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS

Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Zoning By-law amendments. No public meetings were held in the community.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

The By-law was changed without notice to Kemp Park residents. Kemp Park Community Association (KPCA) made application and was successful changing the By-law. KPCA does not speak for all residents. I was not notified that the By-law was being changed. (Notices were not mailed, emailed or posted on the community mailbox area).

Response: Changes made to the zoning standards where available to the public prior to Council making its decision as part of the City of Ottawa’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Process. This process took three years to complete consisting of many public meetings which were advertised in the local media and all the information regarding the changes to the zoning standards where available online or at many municipal facilities. Due to the number of properties throughout the City, mailing or direct contact with each Owner was not possible nor was it required under the regulations.

The Kempark Property Owners Association (KPOA) canvassed its membership regarding this application and found that a majority of the members were not in favour of the proposed amendment.

Reponse: Staff is recommending that this application not be approved.

I am concerned that this application will set a precedent of allowing the current By-law to be ignored. This will result in the extensive construction of large homes on small lots thus destroying the nature and character of Kempark.

Response: Any Owner is able to make an application to rezone their property and Zoning applications are reviewed and judged under their own merits. The Official Plan permits intensification in General Urban Areas as long as the scale respects the character of the neighbourhood around it.

I thought that this By-law was settled. I don’t want this By-law to change.

Reponse: Staff is recommending that this application not be approved.

ZONING - 8 ROBERT KEMP STREET

ZONAGE - 8 CHEMIN ROBERT KEMP

ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0195 Gloucester-Southgate (10)

(This application is subject to Bill 51)

The following written correspondence was received and is held on file with the City Clerk:

· Memorandum to PEC dated 26 October 2009 from Rick O’Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor

· Email dated 19 October 2009 from Shane Delorme

· Letter date 21 October 2009 from Nancy and Graham Ritchie

· Email dated 22 October 2009 from Ed and Arlo Boyce

· Letter dated 23 October 2009 from Phyllis Klimpel

· Letter dated 23 October 2009 from Bev Clark

· Letter dated 24 October 2009 from Doris M. Dobson

· Letter dated 24 October 2009 from E.L. Foulds, G.C. Foulds, and C.L. Foulds

· Letter dated 25 October 2009 from M. Trower

· Email dated 25 October 2009 from Mark and Kim Faubert

· Letter dated 26 October 2009 from Maureen Kemp

· Letter dated 26 October 2009 from Margaret and Charles Bell

· Letter dated 26 October 2009 from Patricia Rusk

· Email dated 26 October 2009 from Hannia Saeed Zaman

· Email dated 26 October 2009 from George Nour

· Email dated 26 October 2009 from Joanne Leclair (Sowieta) and Dwayne Leclair

· Letter dated 26 October 2009 from Marietta and Peter D’Alessio

· Email dated 26 October 2009 from Pat & Tony Della Valle

· Email dated 27 October 2009 from Colleen Ryan

· Email dated 28 October 2009 from William Noel

· Email dated 26 October 2009 from Frank Milito

· Email dated 2 November from D. Depper

Steve Belan, Planner II, spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. John Smit, Manager of Development Review (urban) and Richard Kilstrom, Manager of Policy Development and Urban Design, were also present.

In response to questions from Councillor Deans, Mr. Belan provided the following information with regards to the zoning history of the area:

· In 1999, the former City of Gloucester changed the Zoning in the Kempark neigbourhood to allow nine-metre frontages, whereas most of the properties in the area were 30 to 40-metre frontages.

· City sewers were installed after amalgamation, which allowed for intensification. Approximately 11 severances were made, creating 15 new lots in the neighbourhood, some with frontages as low as nine metres.

· The new Comprehensive Zoning By-Law changed the width requirement from nine metres to 20 metres. The applicant stated he was not fully notified, and was not able to make his application prior to this.

In response to questions from Chair Hume with regards to the Zoning change that took place as part of the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law, Mr. Smit explained that there was involvement amongst the community that resulted in that change. Residents of the Kemp Park community had raised concerns given that the zoning approved by the former City of Gloucester had the potential to drastically change the fabric and character of the neighbourhood, and the Official Plan was directed towards ensuring that within residential areas, the zoning would be respectful of the established character and pattern of development. He suggested the former municipality might have gone too far in trying to accommodate intensification. He agreed that this change was not characteristic of the approach taken with the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, which largely carried over the provisions in place under the former municipal Zoning By-laws. Rather, this was an exception.

In response to questions from Councillor Qadri with regards to the concerns around the information provided to the Community during the Comprehensive Zoning By-law process, Mr. Kilstrom explained that the new Zoning by-law was widely publicized, but individual notices were not provided to homeowners. This area was not prevented from having the broad knowledge that every other part of the City received during the Comprehensive Zoning By-law review. He confirmed that this change was not addressed in any of the anomalies and minor corrections reports brought forward to Committee since the passing of the By-Law.

With regards to the public consultation for this particular application, Mr. Smit explained that the Council-approved policy for rezoning applications was complied with, and if the application is subject to Bill 51, there is also a requirement to provide notice to property owners within a 120-metre radius, as well as requires posting an on-site sign.

Hugh Hope spoke in support of the staff recommendation, by means of a PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. He referenced a survey undertaken in March 2009 of Kemp Park residents, which indicated a clear majority did not favor the rezoning of the subject property. He noted that residents like their large lots and streetscapes as they are. Mr. Hope briefly reviewed what the Kemp Park surrounding area looks like, which is characterized by spacious lots and shade trees. He suggested that to accept this rezoning application sets a precedent to do the same with other properties. He proposed that excessive infill in this area will have negative impacts, including reducing the City’s urban forest. He also noted that infill homes are built 24-30 inches higher than neighbours, which could result in surface water runoff and flooding impacts on neighbours. He asked that the Committee support the staff recommendation and reject the re-zoning application.

Peter Lineger, resident, noted that his property abuts the applicant’s. He noted that he has been an outspoken opponent to rezoning the lot sizes in Kemp Park, and has made verbal and written submissions to this effect in the past. He wished, however, to express his disagreement with the process undertaken in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law, noting it was not fair, open or transparent and there was insufficient notification. He noted that the applicant made it clear that he wanted to sever this property, and suggested it would be unfair to deny him this now. With regards to the application, he noted that, while the planning staff maintains it does not fit in with the character of the park, he noted his neighbours had severed his property into three lots and, while he was opposed to them at the time, they are now beautiful homes that fit in with the character of the neighbourhood.

In response to questions from Councillor Deans, Mr. Linegar confirmed that he has lived in Kemp Park for over 20 years and was aware that at amalgamation, the lot changes were changed by the former municipality from 30 metres to nine metres without the knowledge of the residents. Councillor Deans noted that the residents were quite upset by that change and explained she worked with planning staff to rectify it, and it was staff’s recommendation to address the change as part of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law process.

In response to questions from Chair Hume, Mr. Kilstrom explained that, generally, the City carried through the existing zoning into the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law. In this case, the Councillor identified the request for the change, and staff agreed. Councillor Hume noted that other communities may have wanted staff to initiate zoning changes, but were advised that was not the process.

Scott Campbell, resident, spoke in support of the report recommendations, and provided a written copy of his comments, which is held on file with the City Clerk. He noted that most residents choose Kemp Park for its rural lifestyle, with space for privacy, gardens and places for children to play, and many are long-term residents. He provided an overview of some of the zoning history of the area, and expressed concern that dangerous traffic conditions in winter would result from the new laneways and on street parking for the new lots. He noted that the applicant could have severed his property in the eight years prior to the new Zoning By-Law being passed, and challenged the notion that there was a lack of information, noting that this issue had come up at the Planning and Environment Committee public meetings on the Official Plan (OP), deeming it open and transparent. He suggested it was improbable that the applicant, being an expert in the fields would be unaware of the changes.

Andy Elwood, Member of the Kempark Property Owners Association (KPOA), explained that the KPOA is an informal operation where people get together to deal with issues they are concerned about or to support positive approaches to suggestions that have come forward. Occasionally, issues arise where a specific actions needs to be taken, in which case direction is given to the executive on how to proceed. Meetings are held when and if required, which this may not seem like a good way to operate but it has been effective for Kemp Park. He listed in his presentation, several of KPOA accomplishments over the last 30 years and the impacts on their community. In summation, he stated that every citizen has a right and an obligation to look after their own affairs and he felt that did not occur in this situation.

Councillor Hunter asked how the airport felt about this situation, which Mr. Elwood replied that technically they should be part of the airport-influencing zone, which would permit no development at all; however, in the past when the idea was discussed, Kemp Park was cut out of the Airport influencing zone.

Jeff Martin, resident, on behalf of Robert Kemp, KPOA president, read from a written submission, which is held on file with the City Clerk. He indicated the current ample space between houses in Kemp Park allows for surface water to easily make its way to drainage ditches and further in fill would put greater demand on storm sewers in the area. He felt the approval of this application would provide an opportunity for developers to purchase properties in Kemp Park, where they could sever in ways to make the most profit, which in turn would destroy the character of the neighbourhood. He noted in 2008, the City passed By-law 250-2008, which fulfilled wishes of many of Kemp Park residents, preventing tight clusters of homes that did not respect the character and heritage of the existing neighbourhood. He stated the mature trees in the area are filters for pollution and with the planned development for the Leitrim area, the expansion of the Ottawa International Airport on these trees will aid in protecting the residents. He concluded by stating that the KPOA is asking Committee and Council to reject the application.

Dwayne Leclaire, resident, felt the process for this application was not done correctly; he was unaware of the change of the by-law and was not given the opportunity to comment. He felt the process was not transparent; it was not done democratically, it was passed without enough people being made aware. He explained that his issue is not with developers severing lots; it is with the by-law, which he felt infringes on a landowners right to do with his land what he wishes.

Kathleen Willis spoke on behalf of the applicant, George Georgaras, who was also present, in opposition to the report recommendation. Ms. Willis commenced by stating that the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law was to harmonize, consolidate the zoning by-laws of the 11 municipalities, and bring these zones into compliance with the new OP. She explained that as the manager of Uniform Urban Development, the applicant knew there was not to be an opportunity for a dramatic change, which occurred when the passing of nine metre lots were permitted. He used this knowledge in his long-term retirement plan, which was not secret, that he would sub-divide his large lot into three. He was unaware of the change to 20-metre lots noting there was no reason for him to check specifically into Kemp Park because there was no non-compliance with the OP at the time.

She explained that until June 2008, Mr. Georgaras could have developed his property in the exact manner he is currently proposing. With the irregular means of changing the nine-metre frontage to 20 meters, there was not specific documentation; it was not included in the reports pertaining to the OP, where every public comment was addressed. There was no mention of this matter, as it was considered a staff-initiated change. There or public meeting and no opportunity to comment, by way of a public information session held by the City.

Ms. Willis was aware of the survey that was done and its results, but indicated that it was done by an individual that went door to door, clearly in opposition to the development, which, in her opinion was not an un-biased survey; therefore, she suggested it cannot be used to gauge public opinion.

Speaking to the merits of the proposal, she suggested this was a perfect candidate for an urban infill development. With the recent decision not to expand the urban boundary, this is the type of development that the City needs in all kinds of locations. She noted the lots were created in the 1950’s based on well and septic, and since that time, municipal services have been extended thereby eliminating any technical need for large lots.

With regards to the subject property, Ms. Willis explained that it is a corner lot that can be readily developed without the need to demolish the existing house. This lot can be severed into two additional lots, with frontage on each of the two streets, and the intention is to situate these houses so that the trees that are along the street can be saved.

Ms. Willis showed a slide that outlined the severance occurrences since the establishment of Kemp Park. When it was first established there were 52 lots, over time several lots had been added by severance and presently there is a total of 79 lots. Mr. Georgaras would like to create two more lots, which she felt would not have an impact on the neighbourhood. She noted seven of the original corner lots have already been severed; as well these lots allows severance without affecting the existing housing stock. She informed that neither of Mr. Georgaras’ immediate neighbours objects to his proposal.

Ms. Willis noted the City invested a huge amount of money to bring services to the area and there is the opportunity to use them now without any further public expenditure and without any expansion to the urban boundary. In conclusion, she reiterated the opinion of her client that the process to establish the 20-metre frontage zones was flawed and, as a result, the applicant’s retirement plans have been taken away from him without his knowledge. They feel that the plan meets OP objectives and will match the existing development that is already established in the neighbourhood. It is not going to be opening the door for profitable severances throughout the area and, because this is a corner lot, it has a rare opportunity it do the severances without demolishing any houses. Ms. Willis requested that the staff recommendation be rejected and that the application for re-zoning be approved.

In response to questions from Councillor Deans, Mr. Georgaras informed Committee that he has lived in Kemp Park for 24 years. In 2003, a meeting was held and the former by-law was passed, there were public meetings in Gloucester that he was unaware of as was the Kemp Park Owners Association. Kemp Park is now deemed to be within the urban boundary and which the City of Ottawa has honoured the commitment of the previous City of Gloucester to extend municipal sewers at a subsidized rate.

Addressing questions from Councillor Hunter, Ms. Willis responded that they were trying to keep things simple, pick a zone that already exists, which is the R1Q, but informed that they would be happy to rezone such that the existing residence stays with the wider frontage and the other two lots be spot zoned to accommodate what is being proposed. Mr. Georgaras added he already proposed changing the current proposal to restrictive zoning. Mr. Smit responded that this would be an option; however, the challenge that is presented is that part of property is not severed at this time., which in effect, would have a dual zoning condition.

Upon further questions from the Councillor, Mr. Smit advised that many of the severances and infill that have occurred, was subsequent to the City of Gloucester changing the zoning within the area to reduce from the 30 to a nine-metre frontage.

Councillor Hunter remarked that the owners of Kemp Park, by speaking out against this change, were speaking out against their chance to reap the rewards of having a property where in many cases the land is worth far more than the building.

In response to questions from Councillor Monette as to why the applicant was bringing forward this request at this time, as opposed to several years ago, Mr. Georgaras explained that he did not perceive a need to do so. He consciously and knowingly stayed informed and involved, so he felt there was no reason to apply for a severance. It was only a year ago that he found out that Councillor Deans brought a motion to Council, which was approved on the last day that the Comprehensive Zoning By-law was considered, adding the restriction of the 20-metre frontage and directed staff to file an objection to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) any severance in Kemp Park, which was approved by the Committee of Adjustment with a frontage of less than 20 metres. Upon discovering this, he immediately filed an application to be heard at the OMB, who determined that, because he had not previously participated in the public consultation process, he had no grounds to appeal.

Mr. Georgaras clarified that he had attended every community association meeting in his 24 years living in Kemp Park, has been involved, and volunteered to help the residents of Kemp Park as he had expertise to offer the community. He rejected the charge that he knew what was happening, and as someone in the development industry, he knows how onerous and expensive the re-zoning process can be.

In response to questions from Councillor Monette, Mr. Smit reiterated what Mr. Kilstrom had explained earlier that there was no direct notification to individual property owners, only broad notice.

In response to questions from Chair Hume and Councillor Feltmate as to when in the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law process this change to 20-metre frontage was introduced, Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel it would have been prior to May 2009, although admitted not having the specific information at this time.

DIRECTION TO STAFF:

Staff to provide Committee with information on when the change to 20-Metre frontage was first introduced, prior to this matter rising to City Council.

Mr. R.G. Kemp, resident, spoke in support of the staff recommendation. He read from a written submission, which is held on file with the City Clerk and described the background on the history of the Kemp Park area and the original development of Kemp Park. He wished to preserve this history and asked that the rezoning application of Robert Kemp Street be refused.

Following delegations, the Committee then proceeded to questions and debate. Councillor Deans noted how residents were frustrated that the re-zoning application was before Committee because staff gave the applicant a free zoning. She wondered why this was done, given the applicant had no standing at the OMB. Mr. Marc advised, as indicated in the Memo from the City Clerk and Solicitor dated 26 October 2009, the time span between the OMB’s decision denying recognition of the applicant’s appeals and the motion to bring the zoning By-law into force was approximately 15 minutes. Legal Services staff had explicit instructions from Council to bring the bylaw into force as soon as possible. The applicant’s solicitor indicated she opposed the motion and thought that the appropriate settlement would be to permit Mr. Georgaras to bring an application to the City for re-zoning without a fee in return for his counsel not opposing the Comprehensive Zoning by-law. By-Law 2008-250 came into force unopposed immediately following that agreement. Mr. Marc further confirmed that this was a highly unusual scenario, given the short time period to make a decision, and there was no opportunity to seek direction from Committee and Council.

Councillor Deans noted that the issue has divided the community. She worked with planning staff for eight years to address this issue, and on the recommendation of staff this was done in the context of the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law. She suggested the division is between those who are long-term residents wanting to preserve the character of the neighbourhood, and those who see it as an investment or retirement opportunity. She expressed frustration that once this divisive issue was resolved, the City facilitate its reopening. She suggested that allowing this to happen would open the door to similar actions. In summation she encouraged the Committee to uphold the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw, and support the staff recommendation.

Councillor Hunter acknowledged that the Committee decision would likely reflect the opinion of the Community, with the majority opposing the re-zoning and a minority supporting it. He noted he would be in the minority, as he was in opposition to the staff recommendations. He noted he would have preferred to allow the applicant the one severance on the side next to the property that already had two lots created. He suggested that if the neighbours have infill, it would only be fair to allow this. Referencing two other Communities (Merivale Gardens and Glens), he noted that those communities do not want city services, given intensification and lot severances typically follow. They know that with the expense to property owners of city services, there is no justification to keeping large lots. While he did not blame the Kemp Park owners for wanting to retain the large lots, the City and homeowners have gone to some expense to create conditions that allows for smaller lots, and have the opportunity to recoup some of those costs through extra tax revenue.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council refuse an amendment to the Zoning By law 2008 250 to change the zoning of 8 Robert Kemp Street to permit the severance of the lot into three individual lots.

CARRIED

P. Hume and G. Hunter dissented