Report to/Rapport au :

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Comité de l'agriculture et des affaires rurales

and Council / et au Conseil

31 March 2010 / le 31 mars 2010

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 : Richard Kilstrom, Acting Manager/Gestionnaire intérimaire, Development Review-Urban Services, Inner Core/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains, Unité du Centre intérieur

Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424, 22379 Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca

Osgoode (20)

Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0079

SUBJECT:	COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW 2008-250: APPEALS TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD FOR SELECTED LANDS WITHIN GREELY VILLAGE

OBJET :	RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE GÉNÉRAL 2008-250 : APPELS INTERJETÉS À LA COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES MUNICIPALES DE L’ONTARIO CONCERNANT DES TERRAINS SÉLECTIONNÉS DANS LE VILLAGE DE GREELY

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend City Council approve:

1. The amendments as described in item 1 of the Details of Recommended Zoning in Document 1, for lands shown in Document 2, to resolve appeals to By-law 2008-250, and forward a by-law incorporating the required amendments to the Ontario Municipal Board; and,

2. The amendments as described in item 2 of the Details of Recommended Zoning in Document 1, for lands shown in Document 2, and forward a by-law incorporating the required amendments to City Council.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales recommande au Conseil d’approuver :

1. Les modifications telles que décrites au point 1 de Détails du zonage recommandé dans le Document 1, en ce qui concerne les terrains indiqués dans le Document 2, afin de résoudre les appels au Règlement 2008-250 et de transmettre un règlement incorporant les modifications requises à la Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario; et,

2. Les modifications telles que décrites au point 2 des Détails du zonage recommandé dans le Document 1, en ce qui concerne les terrains indiqués dans le Document 2, et de transmettre un règlement incorporant les recommandations requises au Conseil municipal.

BACKGROUND

On June 25, 2008 City Council adopted the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2008-250 that affects all properties within the City of Ottawa. A total of 76 appeals were received, however 16 were disqualified, as the appellants had not made any submissions on the Comprehensive Zoning By-law prior to its adoption.

Regarding the appeal by Sunset Lakes Development and Sunset Lakes Owners Association, aspects of this appeal have been dealt with in a previous appeal reports. This report deals with the remaining properties that are under appeal.

Approval of the recommendations in this report would permit a By-law to be brought forward to the Ontario Municipal Board for approval at a pre-hearing to be held on May 10, 2010 to resolve this appeal.

DISCUSSION

Appeal 26 - Sunset Lakes Development and Sunset Lakes Owners Association (Sunset Lakes)

The properties affected by this appeal are located in Greely village and these properties were zoned Private Open Space (O2) under the former Osgoode Zoning By-law 2003 - 230. Under Zoning By-law 2008-250, the lands are zoned Parks and Open Space Zone (O1), with the following uses permitted: community garden, park, and environmental preserve and education, and O1 [621r], which permits all of the preceding uses and a place of assembly limited to a club, generally reflecting the open space zone under the former Zoning By-law.

In a previous Appeals Report, a resolution regarding some of the properties under appeal was reached. For these properties, a number of the uses formerly permitted by the Osgoode Zoning By-law that were in keeping with the range of uses contemplated in the Open Space zone and subzones in By-law 2008-250 were reinstated. This resolution was accepted by the Ontario Municipal Board at a pre-hearing on February 25, 2010.

Remaining at issue is the zoning for four Blocks on three separate Plans of Subdivision for lands shown on Document 2. The appellants have indicated that these lands should have been zoned DR – Development Reserve, rather than being zoned Open Space through the Comprehensive Zoning By-law process.

In Zoning By-law 2008-250, the purpose of the DR – Development Reserve zone is to,

“(1) recognize lands intended for future urban development in areas designated as General Urban Area and Developing Communities in the Official Plan, and future village development in areas designated as Village in the Official Plan;

(2) limit the range of permitted uses to those which will not preclude future development options; and

(3) impose regulations which ensure a low scale and intensity of development to reflect the characteristics of existing land uses.”

The permitted uses in the Development Reserve zone include: agricultural use, community garden, emergency service, environmental preserve and education area, forestry operation, group home, home-based business, marine facility, one detached dwelling accessory to a permitted use,

park, secondary dwelling unit.

The former Osgoode Zoning By-law did not provide a zone for lands that are intended for future development. As this zone was not available under the former Osgoode Zoning By-law, the appellants have stated that the lands were zoned O2 – Private Open Space, by default during consideration of plans for development of the lands. Further, the appellant states that these parcels were intended for future development.

The Draft Plan of Subdivision agreements do not contain conditions regarding the planned use of the subject lands, or that the subject lands are to be retained as private open space. Given the lack of a development reserve zone in the former Zoning By-law, and that it was not possible to recognize lands for future development under the former Zoning By-law, staff have agreed to recommend a Development Reserve exception zone for the subject lands, permitting a community garden, park, and, environmental preserve and education area. These uses are compatible with adjacent residential uses and will not preclude future development options. An accessory detached house, a secondary dwelling unit and a group home, uses that are typically permitted in the DR zone, will not be permitted as further study of the operation of wells and septic systems is required to confirm that a residential use could be accommodated on these parcels. Staff note that the required park land dedications under the Planning Act have been met through the dedication of other lands in the subdivisions.

The subject lands are designated Residential in the Greely Community Design Plan. The proposed permitted uses will be in keeping with the uses contemplated for this designation, as Section 4.2.4 of the Community Design Plan states that Generally Permitted Uses from Section 3.1 of the Official Plan are permitted in the Residential designation. Section 3.1 of the Official Plan includes Parks and Leisure Areas as a generally permitted land use in all Official Plan designations except for some environmental designations and Agricultural Resource Areas. Finally, Section 3.7.4 – Villages of the Official Plan includes public open space as a permitted use in villages.

Staff note that the zoning boundaries for lands owned by Sunset Lakes along Village Centre Place and Vista Villagio Street in Greely village do not properly correspond with property boundaries for these parcels of land. Staff are taking this opportunity to correct these incorrectly implemented zoning boundaries, as detailed in item 2 of Document 1 and as shown in Document 2.

CONSULTATION

The appellants affected by the changes noted in Documents 1 and 2 have been notified of the date of the public meeting.

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)

The Ward Councillors are aware of the recommendations in this report.

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

These recommendations, if carried, will facilitate the resolution of appeals currently before the Ontario Municipal Board.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 2 Site-specific Lands affected Maps

DISPOSITION

Regarding Recommendation 1, Planning and Growth Management Department to prepare the implementing by-law and forward to City Manager’s Office, Legal Services.

Legal Services to bring forward report and by-law to the Ontario Municipal Board at the May 10, 2010 pre-hearing.

Regarding Recommendation 2, Planning and Growth Management 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.

DOCUMENT 1

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING

1. Appeal by Sunset Lakes Development and Sunset Lakes Owners Association (Sunset Lakes) for lands within Greely Village for Plan 4M-1306 Blocks 43 and 44 (on Pebble Trail Way east of Stagecoach Road), Plan 4M-1295 Blocks 34 and 36 (on Apple Orchard Road east of Spartan Grove Street), Plan 4M-1305 Block 60 (Woodstream Drive at Suncrest Drive)

1. a) Rezone the O1 zones to DR [371r] as shown in Document 2,

b) Rezone the O1 [621r] zone to DR [371r] as shown in Document 2,

c) Add a new exception, DR[371r] to Section 240 with Column IV –

Land Uses Prohibited to read:

all uses except for:

- community garden

- environmental preserve and education area

- park

2. Lands along Village Centre Place and Vista Villagio Street (Parts of 7531, 7555, 7564, 7574, 7577 and 7601 Village Centre Place and part of Lot 73 Registrars Compiled Plan 902)

1. Rezone Area A from O1 [315r]-h to VM3 H(10.7) as shown in Document 2.

Rezone Area B from VM3 [317r]-h to VM3 H(10.7) as shown in Document 2.
Rezone Area C from O1 [315r]-h to VM3 H(10.7) as shown in Document 2.
Rezone Area D from VM3 [317r]-h to O1 [315r]-h as shown in Document 2.
Rezone Area E from O1 [315r]-h to VM3 [317r]-h as shown in Document 2.
Rezone Area F from VM3 [324r]-h to VM3 [317r]-h as shown in Document 2.

SITE-SPECIFIC LANDS AFFECTED MAPS DOCUMENT 2

COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW 2008-250: APPEALS TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD FOR SELECTED LANDS WITHIN GREELY VILLAGE
RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE GÉNÉRAL 2008-250 : APPELS INTERJETÉS À LA COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES MUNICIPALES DE L’ONTARIO CONCERNANT DES TERRAINS SÉLECTIONNÉS DANS LE VILLAGE DE GREELY
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0079 osgoode (20)

(This application is subject to the provisions of Bill 51.)

The Committee received a brief PowerPoint slide presentation from Ms. Carol Ruddy, Planner, Policy Development and Urban Design Branch, Planning and Growth Management Department, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability Portfolio, which served to provide the Committee with an overview of the staff report (held on file with the City Clerk).

Chair Thompson introduced Mr. Paul Webber, Bell, Baker, LLP, to speak to this item on behalf of Mr. Webber’s client, Mr. Daniel Anderson, who was currently out of the country and hence unavailable to address the Committee regarding his subject property. Mr. Webber outlined that with respect to the second part of the report recommendation, i.e., that Committee recommend Council approve “…the amendments as described in item 2 of the Details of Recommended Zoning in Document 1, for lands shown in Document 2, and forward a by-law incorporating the required amendments to City Council.” (including a map, on page 9 of the agenda, outlining a technical correction of boundaries), his client supported its adoption. With respect to the first recommendation, however, i.e., that Committee recommend Council approve “…the amendments as described in item 1 of the Details of Recommended Zoning in Document 1, for lands shown in Document 2, to resolve appeals to By-law 2008-250, and forward a by-law incorporating the required amendments to the Ontario Municipal Board.” (along with three related sketches), Mr. Webber requested its deferral to the Committee meeting of 27 May 2010 to allow Mr. Anderson to attend, to ask that Committee not accept the staff-proposed settlement, and to substitute language contained in the recommendation.

Mr. Webber explained that there was an outstanding appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) regarding this subject area, and that staff’s position of putting this forward as a recommended settlement would not be accepted. Mr. Webber said he was asking for a proper session to allow for an explanation from his client and to ask for a decision from the Committee. He noted that another pre-hearing had been scheduled for 10 May 2010, at which time a hearing date would be set, but in the interim, the hope was for the matter to be settled. Mr. Webber said that because of Mr. Anderson’s absence, he was unable to deal with the matter at today’s meeting, hence the request for deferral. Mr. Webber explained that a misunderstanding existed, between staff understanding that Mr. Anderson was asking for Development Reserve designation, whereas Mr. Anderson was seeking Residential zoning.

Chair Thompson indicated that he had spoken with Mr. Anderson prior to his departure and advised that he would support deferral. The Chair then asked that the Committee support the deferral of Recommendation No. 1 and approve Recommendation No. 2, along with its related technical corrections. Ms. Ruddy indicated staff would have no issues with Recommendation 2 proceeding.

Councillor Hunter suggested withdrawal of the item would be more appropriate than deferral of one part of it, if there were essentially, no agreement on what was supposed to be an agreement. The Councillor further suggested that if the property owner wanted a Residential zoning, it would be more appropriate to apply for a zoning amendment and proceed with a public notification and open public meeting process, as opposed to asking for a negotiated settlement through the OMB.

Mr. Webber said withdrawal had been considered, but noted that there were outstanding appeals dealing with all of the subject properties which needed to be dealt with, and on which the City might or might not wish to take a position. He explained that under the Township of Osgoode’s 02 Zone, which the City of Ottawa categorizes as Private Open Space, Single Family Residential zoning was permitted, but only as an accessory use, which he explained meant the zoning was not specifically-designated, but rather served as a catch-all. Mr. Webber said his client would argue that the change from Osgoode 02 to Ottawa 01 (Public Open Space) was wrong, that the appeal should be allowed, and a request would be made for the OMB to provide a suitable remedy. Acknowledging that the OMB could entertain a number of options, Mr. Webber said the point of appearing before Committee was to ask ARAC to take a position on what such a remedy might be, in the event the appeal was allowed.

Responding to Councillor Brooks’ query as to why Committee and Council could not avail itself of the same options available to the OMB, Mr. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, explained that in the past, the consistent approach of staff, supported by Committee and Council, was that one did not acquire a rezoning through the Comprehensive Zoning process. Rather, the process spoke to taking an existing zoning and ‘translating’ it into the language of a new By-Law, applying Official Plan policies. He suggested Messrs. Webber and Anderson could put forward the argument that the appropriate ‘translation’ would be to permit Residential; but if the OMB were to be convinced that this was not the zoning in place at the time, that this was a substantively new zoning, then it would be the City’s position that such would not be appropriate, subject to a direction from Council.

Following clarification that a request was being made to change the City’s position regarding Recommendation 1, Councillor Jellett said he saw no reason to defer consideration of this matter and with proceeding to the OMB with a new position. He noted that it would be up to the OMB whether or not to approve of the requested change.

Chair Thompson agreed that this could be the case, but asked that Recommendation 2 be deferred as a courtesy to the owner to allow him to address the Committee at its next meeting. The Committee then considered the matter before it.