|
1. 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
|
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED
That Council approve the amendments
hereinafter described, for the 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:
1. Rezone the 01 zone (Blocks 34, 36 Plan 4M-1295) to V1E
(617r) as shown in Document 2, and;
2. Rezone the 01 [621r] zone (Blocks 43, 44, Plan 4M-1306,
Block 60, Plan 4M-1305) to V1E[617r] as shown in Document 2.
RECOMMANDATIONS
MODIFIÉES DU COMITÉ
Que le
Conseil municipal approuve les modifications décrites ci-après relativement aux
terrains indiqués dans le document 2, afin de régler les appels interjetées à
l'égard du Règlement municipal 2008-250, et de faire parvenir à la Commission
des affaires municipales de l'Ontario un règlement municipal incorporant les
modifications nécessaires :
1. rezoner
la zone 01 (pièces 34 et 36, plan 4M-1295) à V1E[617r], tel que le montre le
document 2;
2. rezoner
la zone 01[621r] (pièces 43 et 44, plan 4M-1306, pièce 60, plan 4M-1305) à
V1E[617r] , tel que le montre le document 2.
Documentation
1. Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Report dated 20 May 2010 (ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0058).
2. Deputy City Manager’s report
(Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability) dated 31 March 2010
(ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0079 - Follows the above
as Attachment 1).
3. Extract
of Draft Minutes, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, 27 May 2010.
Report to/Rapport au :
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Comité d'agriculture et des affaires rurales
and Council / et au Conseil
20 May 2010 / le 20 mai 2010
Submitted by/Soumis par : Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Committee
Comité de
l’agriculture et des affaires rurales
Contact Person / Personne-ressource : C. Zwierzchowski, Coordinator, Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee / Coordonnateur, Comité de l’agriculture et des
affaires rurales
Legislative Services, City Clerk and Solicitor’s Department / Services
legislatifs, Direction du greffier municipal et chef du contentieux
(613) 580-2424, ext. / poste 21359
Christopher.Zwierzchowski@ottawa.ca
|
|
Ref N°: ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0058
|
|
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 RECOMMENDATION
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend City 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.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de
l’agriculture et des affaires rurales recommande au Conseil
d’approuver 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.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of 22 April 2010, the Agriculture and
Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) considered an original report pertaining to Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 2008-250:
Appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board for Selected Lands Within Greely Village
(appended as Attachment 1, ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0079). At
that meeting, the Committee considered two recommendations within the
above-noted report separately. The
second, asking that Committee recommend Council approve that, “…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.” was approved by
Committee, was forwarded to City Council for its meeting of 28 April 2010 (ARAC
Report 52, Item 1), and was subsequently approved by Council.
As a courtesy to the proponent,
who was unable to attend the ARAC meeting of 22 April 2010, Committee deferred
consideration of the first part, that, “…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.” to its meeting of 27 May 2010 to allow the
proponent to properly address the Committee regarding his concerns.
DISCUSSION
All pertinent
information is included in the original report referenced below at “Attachment
1” and an extract of Draft Minute from ARAC's meeting of 22 April 2010 is
included at “Attachment 2” for point of reference.
CONSULTATION
As per original report,
attached at “Attachment 1”.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)
As per original report,
attached at “Attachment 1”.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
As per original report, attached at “Attachment
1”.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
As per original report, attached at “Attachment
1”.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Attachment 1 - Deputy City Manager’s report (Infrastructure
Services and Community Sustainability) dated 31 March 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0079).
Attachment 2 - Extract of Draft Minutes, 22 April 2010.
DISPOSITION
As per original report,
attached at “Attachment 1”.
ATTACHMENT 1
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
|
|
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
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 
ATTACHMENT
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 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.
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,
DEFERRED
to May 27, 2010
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.
CARRIED
as amended
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-CMR-CCB-0058
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0079
(Original report deferred from meeting of
22 April 2010 /
Rapport original reporté de la réunion
du 22 avril 2010) osgoode (20)
(This
application is subject to the provisions of Bill 51.)
Ms. Carol Ruddy,
Planner, Policy
Development and Urban Design Branch, Planning and Growth Management Department,
Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability Portfolio, spoke to a
brief PowerPoint slide presentation which served to provide the Committee with
an overview of the report (held on file with the City Clerk).
Ms. Ruddy outlined that this report deals
with an appeal to the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw (CZBL), passed by Council on
25 June 2008. She explained that at its meeting of 22 April
2010, the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) considered and
approved the first of two recommendations within the report, but deferred
consideration of the second, dealing with four blocks of land on three Plans of Subdivision with which the appellant
has remaining concerns. Ms. Ruddy said
the appellant did not agree with the staff recommendation to rezone these lands
to Development Reserve Exception, preferring a zoning of Residential. She further explained that staff had agreed
to a Development Reserve zone for the appellant’s other properties with
an Exception, but that they did not support a Residential zone
for the remaining blocks (formerly zoned Open Space), as staff believed
this would be in contravention of the CZBL process, whose purpose is to achieve
the harmonization of former municipalities’ zoning bylaws, and to implement
current City of Ottawa Official Plan (OP) policies.
At this point, Councillor El-Chantiry assumed the Chair, as Councillor
Thompson had indicated he wished to introduce the following Motion for
Committee’s consideration.
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee recommend City Council approve the amendments hereinafter described,
for the 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:
1. Rezone
the 01 zone (Blocks 34, 36 Plan 4M-1295) to V1E[617r] as shown in Document 2,
and;
2. Rezone
the 01[621r] zone (Blocks 43, 44, Plan 4M-1306, Block 60, Plan 4M-1305) to
V1E[617r] as shown in Document 2.
Responding to a request for comment from Councillor Jellett, Ms. Ruddy
said she could not support the above motion, as she believed it inappropriate
to rezone the lands Residential, as these subdivisions had been approved
by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on the basis of established criteria
regarding the number of lots and because of hydrogeological concerns. She offered that until further studies
confirmed it would be safe to add extra lots without impacting the servicing on
adjacent lots, it would be imprudent to approve the requested zoning. Further, Ms. Ruddy believed to do so would
amount to a free rezoning, circumventing the standard rezoning process
involving a technical review of the hydrogeology, proper notification to
neighbouring properties, and a public meeting, following which the application
could be judged on its own merits. She
confirmed for Councillor Jellett that if hydrogeological studies indicated there
were no problems, this could be deemed an appropriate land use, at least in
terms of servicing.
Mr. Paul Webber, Bell, Baker, LLP, on behalf of his
client, Mr. Dan Anderson, explained that the subject lands were the “leftover”
pieces of rural subdivisions in which not all of the land had been used. He noted the former Township of Osgoode had
zoned the properties 02 - Private Open Space, whose permitted uses
currently (because the CZBL zoning had been appealed) include “an amusement
park, campground, driving range, golf course, marina, private park, recreation
centre, trailer park, accessory building and use, including a clubhouse,
refreshment stand and counter, cafeteria, retail store, and accessory single
detached dwellings”, none of which made any sense for the leftover lots
surrounded by single-family homes. Mr.
Webber explained that the purpose of the 02 zoning was to act as a
placeholder, and noted the Greely Community Design Plan (CDP) had designated
the subject lands Residential as opposed to Open Space. He added that the policies for Open Space
in the CDP had identified true parks within its Schedules, and that no new
parkland had been identified for the subject lands.
Mr. Webber remarked that in bringing about the new CZBL, the City had
made changes without engaging in any public processes to do so. He emphasized that this had resulted in the
awarding of designations for some areas while removing them from others, i.e.,
the Greely Village core, designated VM3, Village Mixed-Use Core, which
allows more intensive development, including multi-residential, versus the
removal of all previously-permitted uses for the appellant’s property with the
designation of an 01 - Public Open Space zone, hence the reason for the
appeal. Mr. Webber noted the land
surrounding the subject property was all zoned V1E[617r] Residential,
and declared that there was no reason why these remaining parcels should not
have the same designation. He noted the
OP spoke to the only potential development for these lands being Low-Density
Residential, and that there was no reason to have a Holding zone or
a Future Development zone, emphasizing that Low-Density Residential
would be the only model of development in this part of Greely, to match that of
neighbouring properties.
Noting there had, to date, been 65 points of contact with City staff on
this matter, Mr. Webber said a great deal of time and money had been wasted in
trying to resolve this zoning anomaly.
Emphasizing that there was a hearing fixed at the OMB, Mr. Webber asked
that Committee give Councillor Thompson’s Motion serious consideration.
Mr. Dan Anderson, Owner / Appellant, acknowledged
that all parties essentially agreed with the staff report, save for its
conclusion. He echoed many of Mr.
Webber’s points, and added that extensive hydrogeological work, accepted by the
OMB for all of the subject lands, had indicated no issues with hydrogeology in
terms of either the quality or quantity of water. He noted the Greely CDP had undergone an
extensive, enduring and complete process, and had arrived at one Residential
designation for all of the subject lands, permitting single-family,
private-serviced individual homes. Mr.
Anderson noted that acceptance of a Development Reserve zoning would
result in the need for additional reports, meetings, and circulation, none of
which was necessary. In conclusion, he
said enough time had been spent on the process, which should be concluded.
Councillor Thompson said he appreciated staff’s position regarding due
process, but pointed out that the end result would see residential development
taking place on the subject lands, to complement the surrounding
neighbourhoods, which, in consultation with local residents, he had found was
the preferred type of development. He
suggested that his proposed Motion would be the simplest way of moving towards
this proper conclusion, and he asked for Committee’s support.
Councillor Hunter acknowledged the principles involved regarding the
requested rezonings in the dispute between the property owner and City staff
over the appropriate designation for the remaining parcels left over from
previous subdivision agreements. He
explained that one of the aims in the development of the new CZBL was to ensure
that no-one would receive free rezoning, in that whatever zoning had been in
place originally would be carried forward into the new CZBL, without undue gain
(or loss) of rights. He noted that while
the document sought to be all-encompassing, there had been a number of appeals
to the OMB because not everything could be carried forward due to differences
in zoning between the former municipalities.
While agreeing, in principle, with staff that nobody should receive a
rezoning without going through the required process, the Councillor cautioned
that to adhere to this principle could prove costly to the City. He pointed out that hydrogeological studies
had deemed the water supply to be adequate, which, from a servicing
perspective, could allow the parcels to be subdivided and further developed. The Councillor questioned the value of fighting
this inevitability at the OMB, which could see the City expending greater
resources on consultants and outsourced legal services than it would later gain
in fees. In conclusion, Councillor
Hunter suggested that it would be more pragmatic to allow the rezoning as an
exception to the rule, and save the City’s resources for greater issues.
Commenting on Councillor Thompson’s Motion at the request of the
Vice-Chair, Mr. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, Corporate Development and
Environmental Law, City Clerk and Solicitor’s Department, offered that the
Motion was consistent with what Councillor Hunter had intoned, and caused him
no legal concerns.
There being no further discussion, the Committee considered the report
recommendation, as amended by Councillor Thompson’s Motion.
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee recommend City Council approve the amendments hereinafter described,
for the 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:
1. Rezone the 01 zone (Blocks 34, 36 Plan 4M-1295) to V1E[617r] as
shown in Document 2, and;
2. Rezone the 01[621r] zone (Blocks 43, 44, Plan 4M-1306, Block
60, Plan 4M-1305) to V1E[617r] as shown in Document 2.
CARRIED
as amended