|
Planning and Development Committee Comité de l’urbanisme et
de l’aménagement Minutes 32/ Procès-verbal 32
Thursday,
27 June 2002, 9:30 a.m.
le jeudi 27 juin 2002, 9 h
30 Champlain
Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West
Salle Champlain, 110, avenue
Laurier ouest |
Present / Présent : Councillor / Conseiller G. Hunter
(Chair / Président)
Councillor / Conseillère J. Stavinga
(Vice-Chair / Vice-présidente)
Councillors / Conseillers M. Bellemare, A.
Cullen, D. Eastman
J. Harder, P. Hume, A. Munter
Absent / Absent : Councillors / Conseillers E. Arnold, S. Little (Regrets)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
DÉclarations D’IntÉrÊt
No declarations of interest were filed.
CONFIRMATION
OF MINUTES
RATIFICATION DES
PROCÈS-VERBAUX
Minutes 31 of the Planning and Development Committee meeting of 13 June 2002 were confirmed.
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SERVICES
D’AMÉNAGEMENT
BUILDING SERVICES
DIRECTION DES SERVICES DU BÂTIMENT
1. PRIVATE ROADWAY DEDICATION – 520 ROCKLEDGE ROAD
AFFECTATION DE RUES
PRIVÉES – 520, CHEMIN ROCKLEDGE
ACS2002-DEV-BLD-0023
The Committee considered departmental report dated 23 May 2002 and approved the recommendations contained therein.
1.
That the Committee recommend
Council approve the amendment the former City of Ottawa By-law 115-80,
respecting private roadways, by adding the following street names to Schedule
“A” of the by-law when all conditions have been met:
OASIS
PRIVATE
HIGHWOOD PRIVATE
PONDSIDE PRIVATE
2.
That an agreement be executed
between the City and the property owner as required by and containing all of
the standard conditions of By-law 115-80.
Carried
2. SIGNS BY-LAW MINOR VARIANCE – 2900 WOODROFFE AVENUE
DÉROGATION MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL SUR
LES ENSEIGNES – 2900, AVENUE WOODFOFFE
ACS2002-DEV-BLD-0019
The Committee considered departmental report dated 21 May 2002 and approved the recommendations contained therein.
1.
That the Planning and
Development Committee recommend Council refuse a Minor Variance to Signs By‑law
2-99 of the former City of Nepean, to allow proposed ground signage for this
property with a height of 6 metres instead of the maximum permitted height of 3
metres and with a sign face area of 14 square metres instead of the maximum
permitted area of 7 square metres.
2. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve a recommended Minor Variance to Signs By‑law 2-99 of the former City of Nepean, to allow proposed ground signage for this property with a height of 4 metres instead of the maximum permitted height of 3 metres and with a sign face area of 10 square metres instead of the maximum permitted area of 7 square metres provided that existing road allowance signage located on Woodroffe Avenue in front of this site be removed.
CARRIED
3. STREAMLINED
PROCESS FOR ViewING and Release of
Building Permit Records
PROCESSUS RATIONALISÉ
POUR LA CONSULTATION ET LA DIFFUSION DES DOSSIERS DE PERMIS DE CONSTRUIRE
ACS2002-DEV-BLD-0017
The Committee considered departmental report dated 30 April 2002 and approved the recommendations contained therein.
That the Planning and Development
Committee receive this information report that is intended to advise of
improvements to the access for viewing, and for
releasing of building permit records.
Carried
PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY
POLITIQUES D’URBANISME, D’ENVIRONNEMENT ET
D’INFRASTRUCTURE
4. PRELIMINARY DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF OTTAWA - RELEASE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
VERSION PRÉLIMINAIRE DU PLAN
DIRECTEUR DE LA VILLE D’OTTAWA – PUBLICATIONS POUR COMMENTAIRES
ACS2002-DEV-POL-0022
Mr. Ned Lathrop, General Manager, Development Services Department, provided a brief introduction before Lesley Paterson, Program Manager, Planning Policy, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy, and Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy, added comments. The document before Committee provides a first review of the preliminary draft of the Official Plan (OP). It is a continuation of Charting a Course, initiated with the summit. It is very much an interactive process with the public; to build a ground-up OP. The City will be going out to the public on numerous occasions to gauge public reaction, input and listen as the new plan is created. To that extent, he attended at various community associations to discuss the process and received suggestions for the creation of a greener OP, one more sensitive to communities, to community input, which looks at policies and principles that not only encourage good growth and smart growth, but also deals with community interaction and concern about neighbourhoods. Communities are not NIMBYs, but pro good development. The question is how to create a vision for the City that is pro good development and to interact with not only the architectural community but also the business community to achieve the goals and objectives of a city, which will be held as one of the best in the world.
Mr. Jacobs advised that the release of the draft OP was the result of a process from the early days of Transition and this Planning and Development Committee of the new City of Ottawa. Staff worked on a very accelerated time frame to bring forward the new vision and new OP since it was very important to set a standard and draw a line in the sand for the city. He acknowledged the incredible effort by Richard Kilstrom, Lesley Paterson and other staff to produce the draft within the tight time lines. There will continue to be a lot of time and thought through the process. It was an incredible team-building exercise and will assist in building and working with the community to deliver the final product at this time next year. He turned the meeting over to Ms. Paterson to walk the Committee through the report. The Committee is looking at the draft OP and consultation process today. It is a work in progress and will be reviewed more closely with the community as it goes through a very extensive consultation program.
Ms. Paterson provided a slide presentation, which would be distributed to members of Council separately. She would not be talking about the policies or the plan, but the structure of the Plan and the process. She drew the Committee’s attention to a key word on the cover as alluded to by Mr. Lathrop. It is a “preliminary” Draft Official Plan and invitation for discussion. The intent is to get people involved in discussing how we want to approach policies. There are many ways of writing an OP and addressing the issues. Staff recognizes that and if it can just get people around the table discussing them, it feels that it has been successful.
Ms. Paterson advised that the time lines have been changed from those previously presented. There will be significant consultation during the summer and fall, with public consultations and workshops. A public meeting is proposed for early-November, which would not be a public meeting under the Planning Act. It would be an opportunity for the public to provide comments directly to Councillors. A revised Draft OP will be produced in January for the public meeting under the Planning Act in February for Council in March 2003. The previous time-line had a new draft in place for November, which was impossible. In fact this time-line is extremely ambitious in itself. Staff wanted to maintain the March deadline.
A re-wording of the fourth recommendation clarifies the recommendation. The OP offers quite a change in policy. It does not provide for country lot subdivisions, or country lot severances in the general rural area. There may be many other ways of approaching that issue, but in the interim staff was concerned there might be a flurry of applications in anticipation of a change in policy. That was the rationale for the recommendation.
Chair Hunter noted there were a number of speakers and Councillors had questions on the presentation, but that discussion would be limited to the four recommendations, which he read aloud. From the list of delegations, there was concern related to recommendation 4.
Councillor Brooks referred to the revised recommendation 4. His question was focused on b) and how that impacts on bonafide farm retirement lots and/or in-fill lots in the rural area. Ms. Paterson responded it did not apply to in-fill lots, retirement lots or village lots. It applies to country lots; those 2-acre lots. Councillor Brooks received confirmation that if a farmer wanted to take off a 2-acre retirement lot, it would be fine. But, if he wanted to sever a lot off 2 acres, that would not be fine. He received further confirmation that a country lot plan of subdivision would be put on hold; that, if anyone wanted to proceed they would need to proceed to the OMB.
Councillor Cullen referred to green space. He questioned what form of consultation staff was pursuing in that regard. Ms. Paterson clarified that staff chose to designate different kinds of land. There are important natural areas designated as seen in previous plans, such as Natural Environment Area A, and staff is suggesting urban natural environment areas. Within that green space network, staff has included river corridors, parks and open space; with different policies applied to different components. The reason being that it is easier to argue for or against when a set of criteria is applied. Staff has provided existing designations and the green space network that would provide. In the past, there were debates over natural areas, but there were never any debates over urban areas that are important simply because they are green space. Some believe those should be protected, others believe they should be developed, which is the kind of discussion anticipated.
Councillor Cullen referred to the Pinecrest Creek Corridor specifically and asked if the consultation will look for answers or provide answers. Ms. Paterson responded that some answers will be provided. All the work has not been completed. All of the urban natural areas will not be designated by the end of the summer because that requires a number of field seasons to complete. Staff will have proposals with regard to other green areas. Councillor Cullen questioned whether discussions will touch on lands perceived as green space, but which are in reality future homes. Ms. Paterson responded that had to be clarified, which is the point of bringing maps and plans to public meetings in the fall to delineate those areas. In response to a further question related to the issue of design, Ms. Paterson advised it was very much process beyond the plan and a discussion today about what the zoning by-law might do in the future. The Zoning By-Law and OP are inextricably linked. Consultation will entail whether there is sufficient trust in the process to allow some relation in zoning to allow innovative development or must protection be so rigid as to prevent such innovation.
Councillor Stavinga had questions with regard to recommendation 4 and public consultation and outreach. Prior to that she received clarification, specifically Munster Hamlet, that the recommendation would not impact matters that were in process. Councillor Stavinga next referred to Table 1 - Vacant lot inventory for Villages and General Rural Area and the potential lot supply. Ms. Paterson responded that if the City did not approve a single lot in the rural area, there is potential for 15,000 more houses. With 30,000 houses currently in the rural area, it represented a 50% increase without approving a single lot. Staff is aware there are many reasons for undeveloped lots and the actual viable supply may not be that large. As well, there are between 1,400 and 1,500 lots in process that have not received draft approval, which wouldn’t be impacted by this recommendation. Ms. Paterson confirmed that the review would look at current supply and if the City is going to permit some country lot subdivision, where will that take place. What are the criteria? How will it be managed so that there is not unlimited potential that overwhelms the countryside? Councillor Stavinga also received confirmation that staff is basically putting an interim measure in place until such time as consultation can take place with a final decision to be made early next year. Responding to a further question by Councillor Stavinga related to the workshops in September/October and the Special Planning and Development Committee meetings scheduled for October, Ms. Nora Gorman clarified the two-day meeting will occur in November. She circulated a revised framework for the public consultation this morning. That would be the last stage of consultation and is planned for early November with firm dates to be established. Councillor Stavinga referred to the public meeting on February 13th and suggested that rather than a one day marathon meeting, perhaps it could be timed for specific items and expand over two days. Ms. Paterson agreed that in reality there would be enough people making presentations that it will cover two or three days and could be spread through the evening and afternoon, but eventually the Committee would be sitting for at least one day. Councillor Stavinga reiterated the opportunity to have those events happen with themes; albeit compartmentalized themes.
Relative to web site activity, Councillor Stavinga received confirmation that staff was cognizant of the limited ability of some users, specifically in the rural areas. Ms. Gorman also acknowledged that it would ensure that any graphics on the web are easily turned off reducing the download time in the rural areas or for individuals with dial up access.
Councillor Stavinga asked if the modules would always reflect back to the Charting the Course with that connection to demonstrate the threads are connected to a very strong foundation. Ms. Gorman confirmed that was the case and noted that in the document circulated today on the revised framework for the consultation, one of the documents being provided to all Councillors and in all workshops is a Charting a Course principles document. Those linkages will be built in and it will be a topic of discussion throughout the breakout sessions and modules since it’s very important. At the end of the Ottawa 20/20 process, it was imperative that the linkages and relationships be abundantly clear.
Finally, on the matter of connectivity to communities regarding Ward and Councillor workshops, would there be sufficient resources from the Development Services budget to facilitate the process from a budgetary perspective to work together in this initiative? Mr. Jacobs responded there was a budget specifically dedicated to the OP, as well as consultation, and staff will be working with the Councillors and interested groups to ensure those monies are used effectively and support the initiatives to the greatest extent. Councillor Stavinga felt it was important to use Councillors’ connections to reach the community and work together to ensure the public is not overloaded with consultations.
Councillor Eastman referred to the moratorium proposed and Council’s adoption of the OP in March 2003. But, normally there is an 18 month to two year OMB process afterwards. When would the moratorium effectively end? Ms. Paterson confirmed the moratorium, which is in effect a Council position, would end with the March 2003 decision. Council would make a decision on the continued application of that recommendation. Responding to a question on “private” communal servicing, Ms. Paterson advised that the intent of this recommendation was not to apply to private communal servicing. Private communal servicing tends to occur in projects where there aren’t permanent residents, such as a campground; or with one owner operating that system, making it easy to remedy problems. Councillor Eastman suggested there was a feeling by many that communal servicing holds the key to future development in the rural areas, villages, etc. and had understood there was an intent to get a pilot project underway. Ms. Paterson advised there was a major initiative ongoing with regard to ground water management strategy but it was also looking at changes in technology with regard to communal systems with more information forthcoming as it progresses. But the approval environment for systems in Ontario has become so rigid and difficult that staff is reluctant to embark on these systems because legally the City must own and operate them.
Mr. Lathrop added that over and above that, there are areas currently being looked at for serving, one of which is in Manotick in terms of an ongoing issue. There will be opportunities within the existing framework to use perhaps as a demonstration system, if necessary. Mr. Jacobs added that staff will continue to explore through the ongoing rural wastewater studies and if an opportunity presents itself to pilot a technology, he did not see this policy would stop that. It simply says the City needs to take a second look and ensure it is moving in the right direction, with a full analysis.
Councillor Eastman’s final question is that, in past OPs, the urban view has been projected onto the rural areas, without an awareness of the reality of the farming community, with farm consolidations and the need to move quickly from product to product, livestock to cash crop and back again or real village life. He questioned how an urban dominated Council can ensure the views and wishes of the rural community is honoured because the urban projection has always caused difficulties. Mr. Lathrop responded since he had lead a rural municipality for most of his planning life and within the context of an overall regional plan, took some exception to the comment that it was an urban dominated lifestyle and plan in Cumberland. There were certainly concerns over environmental issues, wastewater issues and conservation land, but he did not feel that adversely impacted the farming community. It meant that staff needed to be proactive and recognize there were issues in the farming community that were a priority and this plan clearly identifies those issues. He has said a number of times that issues in the rural area and the farming community are important; and, when those are brought to the City’s attention need to be addressed up front and are very paramount in the new city’s life. He did not see this as a conflict. Wastewater protection is paramount not only from the City’s own concerns, but from Walkerton and it is being driven by the Province. The City has been a leader, with ongoing studies, in terms of determining concerns with ground water protection, which is very much a farming concern for cattle, water protection amongst others. The City is being pro-active and it is a concern that has to be addressed and viewed as paramount.
Councillor McNeely received confirmation that the Cumberland OP consolidation was complete and questioned whether the general rural would be frozen. Ms. Paterson responded that the recommendation applies only to residential country lots and the new draft preliminary OP permits those uses to continue. It permits severances for non-residential uses in the general rural area, which would mean no change.
Mr. Lathrop wished to comment on the communal systems, which largely comes out of the Walkerton enquiry over it’s insistence on clean water. The evolution is leaning towards communal systems in rural area as a preferred solution. There is a concern the new OP will eventually evolve around a communal system in villages. The concern revolves around who will fill the gap if the developer walks away. So the protection is that the municipality will assume the fall back responsibility. But, the municipality does not want to assume just any system. It wants a system that is of a good and durable quality since otherwise it is assuming a liability, which the general taxpayer will inherit. Those are the issues, which are evolving as a policy around rural development. Rural growth is going to move away from very large scattered lots to concentrated rural development in villages that can be more easily serviced, but a different lifestyle and lot size from typical suburbia and downtown.
On the moratorium regarding new applications for country lot severances or country lot subdivisions, which would be in place for approximately nine months, Councillor Bellemare questioned how many of these types of applications were received over the past year and how many would be affected during the 9 month period. Ms. Paterson responded that by the end of 2001, 38 applications had been submitted and not yet draft approved, accounting for 1400 lots. Since the beginning of 2002, two subdivisions were submitted totalling, 149 lots. Recognizing that any Council refusal of formal applications might be appealed to the OMB, Councillor Bellemare questioned how confident was staff that such a Council policy would be upheld by the OMB during this period and would that 9 month period be considered to be a reasonable period of time. Mr. Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Development Law, pointed out that Council in March 2003 will be making a determination whether or not to permit country lot severances in country lot subdivisions, so the City is not just talking about up until March 2003. Council may make a decision it should be longer. The city has had some success in the past 18 months in defeating, for various reasons, applications for either subdivisions in the rural area or an urban expansion in Stittsville. While he could not promise success, the Board will hear the City and look at the number of lots that presently exist. The OMB will see a process in place whereby the City is presently considering it’s needs and at the end of the day, there is a reasonable chance of convincing the Board that to deal with these is premature.
Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering, indicated today was a day that the development and consulting community has been looking forward to for a long time, probably since the announcement of amalgamation. It is seen as an opportunity to consolidate the various OP documents struggled over the last 18-24 months and he looked forward to participating in this process. He anticipated spending the summer months trying to figure out the draft OP and provide comments back to staff. In terms of the recommendations before Committee today, he was particularly interested in revised recommendation 4. He strongly recommended approval of recommendations 1-3. With respect to recommendation 4, there was an interesting difference between the various types of applications identified to be put on hold or to establish some sort of a moratorium. 4 a) speaks to applications to expand the urban boundaries or village boundaries. Those would be OPA applications, establishing either new policies or new land use designations in either the former Region’s OP or the local OPs, or more likely. 4 c), when related to the extension of essential services to the rural area, an OPA process, is a very significant change in terms of policies and designations established by the former Councils of the Region and the various area municipalities. Those differ dramatically from the applications referenced in 4 b), which speaks to subdivision applications and severance applications that are in the process or may be in the process, or applications that are pending that would conform to existing policy. His first question to the Committee is why treat these applications different than any other development applications that might be processed by the municipality? His second concern is, what makes an application “new”? On behalf of a number of clients, he is presently in discussions with staff on applications for various properties. He had provided the Coordinator with a letter from one of his clients, Andrews Brothers Construction, which is on file, on a subdivision application, in the former Township of Osgoode. It’s not reasonable for his clients to be cut off part way through the process and the concern is the definition of “new”; has the application been filed; and, has the application been “deemed complete”. He was working on a number of projects that would not meet that definition and was gravely concerned the recommendation would cut off those applications. The simplest way to deal with this is to simply delete recommendation 4 b) from the report. There may be some discussion of further modifications to the wording to address the concerns, but there will be some difficulty in doing that. As noted, in the six months of 2002, there were only two applications. There has not been a wave of applications in the first six months and he was not sure there was a risk there was going to be a wave of applications over the next eight months as the process progressed.
Mr. Lathrop read the letter presented and did not think there was a problem according to the revised policies in dealing with this application. Mr. Chown was not necessarily referring to only that application. Mr. Lathrop clarified that the intention is that if the application will expand the boundary of a village by an OPA, the answer is no, it will have to wait. If it is within the existing village boundaries, then it is okay. Where is the dilemma? Mr. Chown referred to country lot applications, not village applications. Mr. Lathrop advised that the recommendation stated it was unreasonable to expect the City would continue to allow marginal land to be developed in the interim of looking at a policy which will perhaps say development should not be allowed to continue in the rural area, but it should consolidate because of wastewater issues, storm water issues, but more importantly because of servicing issues.
Councillor Eastman understood the delegation to ask whether the OPA process will be honoured, under the Planning Act. Mr. Lathrop responded that the application can be made, but hoped that the Committee and Council position will be not to look or respond to those applications until a comprehensive overview of the direction of growth in the urban and rural area is completed. The developer has the right to appeal the matter to the Board and the Board can hold a hearing. Legal advised there was a good case under due diligence, with the OP review, and that the OMB will take that into consideration and will likely listen and agree to wait until after the City has completed it’s due diligence. Mr. Chown indicated he was in pre-consultation with staff on a number of applications not yet filed. If Council adopts the recommendation, his understanding is that those applications, which his clients have spent thousands of dollars on, will not be processed.
Councillor Stavinga wanted to clarify her understanding of the development approval process approved by Council last year, which included pre-consultation as an integral component. As such, it was her understanding that when pre-consultation begins, the process has been initiated. Over the last year applicants were encouraged to carry out pre-consultations and not to fill out the applications until it’s been shown there has been pre-consultation. Mr. John Moser, Director, responded that the development review process is built on one of the principles of pre-consultation. Staff does ask that there be pre-consultation; it isn’t a mandatory part of the process, but certainly expected. It doesn’t always happen but staff does pre-consult with a number of people, with no consequences.
Councillor Stavinga questioned how many items were actively being pre-consulted; and staff may not have that answer now, but Mr. Chown raised a valid point. Mr. Jacobs responded that it was very difficult to pin down when pre-consultation effectively starts. If a formal application is received with resulting discussion with staff prior to this motion being approved by Committee and Council, it would form part of a response back to Committee on whether it does or it doesn’t conform, or a direction is given. There will always be an interpretation required when an application actually starts. A brand new application with no discussion is clearly caught by the recommendation. If there has been on-going discussion it will be reflected in any report that comes back to this Committee.
Councillor Munter followed on the questions of consultation/negotiation and received confirmation that would not guarantee an outcome on an application. The legislative process commences when the formal application is filed. Councillor Munter suggested that the wording in the process be changed from pre-consultation to preliminary negotiations.
Responding to a question by Councillor Cullen, Mr. Chown advised that he referred to 2 or 3 clients.
Vern Rampton, Deerwood Partnership, Dunrobin Partnership, has lived in the rural Ottawa area since 1969, and in conjunction with other partners has done a fair bit of country estate lot subdivision development since 1974. His expertise or knowledge only applies to the western part of the City, West Carleton, adjacent Kanata and Goulbourn. He also participated in all Regional plan reviews. He asked the Committee to reject recommendation 4 b), which applies to severances and country estate lot subdivisions. One of the first reasons to reject is that in the mid-90s, about 2 or 3 years was spent discussing the present Regional OP. All the interested parties worked together to put in place a plan to deal with development protection of environmental rural areas and criteria for designing subdivision, respecting environmental concerns. Every effort was made to get an all-encompassing plan for the rural area that everybody could and did accept. Now there is an arbitrary decision to suspend this Plan, without any public consultation other than today. You will outrage the rural landowners more than the developers. It is unjust, undemocratic and against the Planning Act in spite of what Mr. Marc says. It is certainly a betrayal and will not build any trust between landowners and developers in the rural area and the City. There is no need for this restriction because each and every concern that comes up in a subdivision application, or to a lesser degree in a severance, can be handled through the guidance direction by the present plan and procedures. There is a pre-consultation guideline. There is a check of all the surrounding land uses that might affect the development; quarries, landfills, agricultural operations, airports, wetlands, flood plains, site history for contamination, environmental constraints, full-fledged hydrological, etc. He put his concerns into memos to senior planning staff and received correspondence back from Mr. Lathrop and Ms. Paterson, who raised a couple of items. One was the water supply focused by Walkerton. All these things that need to be checked for a rural subdivision are not allowed near pollution sources, landfills, large-scale commercial agriculture operations. He didn‘t see that in West-Carleton for example. He agreed that the one half and one acre unserviced village lots were always an invitation for disaster. The other issue raised was the impact on rural areas, which are a mosaic of large areas of protected farmland. There are no thrashing machines anymore; there are all sorts of drying facilities. Large areas of forests, wetlands and rural natural areas are protected. There are many forested areas that people don’t want to develop. The other components are the villages, commercial strips, quarries, etc. and low-density housing. The country estate lot subdivisions are generally in treed areas, at least in West Carleton. There are nodes around Richardson Side Road, March Road, etc. You can drive along these roads and wouldn’t know there were country estate lot developments. They are a distinct part of the rural countryside and provide a variety of housing choices the high-tech industry sector wants. The other reason presented was the oversupply of lots. He had a problem with Table 1.
Councillor Munter asked if Mr. Rampton’s objection was principally philosophical or did he have an application in the queue? Mr. Rampton responded it was both. He had a pre-consultation meeting with staff who advised on the application.
Councillor Eastman questioned Mr. Rampton on the impact to rural employment, the small contractors, framers, cement companies, pavers, etc., who responded it would be serious. In country estate lots most people either build their homes, with the exception of Lanark Homes, or get a contractor. They hire the smaller contractors; framers, plumbers, as opposed to the urban builders who have a factory process. On the numbers contained in the chart regarding the availability of building lots, Mr. Rampton commented that most severances are probably in the family. When country estate lots are sold 25% are built on in the first 6 months, 50% on the next 6 to 24 months and he did not know about the other 25%. He did an analysis in 1999 for an application in West-Carleton/Kanata, with 600 total lots approved. There were 200 unbuilt lots, but only 60 were available for sale. So, of the 2000 lots available, there are really not 2,000 lots available for purchase. Councillor Eastman opined the numbers were misleading and cited Constance Bay, with an old village plan that showed 50-foot lots. People don’t build on those, they tend to buy two of them and maybe build a house.
Alan K. Cohen, Soloway, Wright, thanked staff for the clear presentation. Public consultation means going out to the community to determine whether or not something being put forward is appropriate. When a moratorium is imposed, the consultation process will never be viewed as having been fair or complete. He was present to speak on behalf of Minto and an application to amend the OP. Insofar as the country lot severances and subdivisions are concerned, the comments, sentiments and anger put forward by the last speakers are representative of many of the people who will feel completely disenfranchised, not by the content, but by the notion there is going to be no consultation and they’re going to be prohibited from doing what they have been allowed to do, and to come in and speak to staff and engage in a process. When Mr. Marc spoke to the ability to go to the Board to have the moratorium upheld, he didn’t speak to what others will be forced to speak to, and Mr. Cohen coined the phrase, as the artificiality of consultation, when you have imposed a moratorium, clearly hell-bound to do something. That is the way it will be read and that he suspected was the result.
In terms of the application to amend the OP, his client applied 5 or 6 months ago. The application has not been processed fully, but it has been deemed complete. He hoped that when the application came before Committee, it would be viewed in the context of the existing OP, that there would be due process, deliberation and a decision. When Committee determines there will not be, then it would come back to the conversation from the last Planning Committee meeting; there will be no decision. It will force an appeal to the Board. There will be complaints about appeals to the Board without a decision and the City will put itself in the very position it considered inappropriate on June 13. He invited the Committee not to do that. If Committee has to reject Minto’s application for the expansion of the urban area, which he hoped was not the case, the process should be followed, with a rationale and then his client will think about what the appropriate step is. Don’t force the developer to appeal on the basis of no consultation moratorium. In fact in the eyes of many and a lot of people in the rural municipalities, the City/Council is making the decision.
Councillor Munter believed Mr. Cohen was mixing two things. There are country estate lot subdivisions with small number of units and there are applications to redesignate 1,000 acres, which is a major development. Given Minto’s supply of land throughout the City of Ottawa, from a planning point of view and, knowing the City of Ottawa was engaging the community in a new OP exercise, and because Minto is a good corporate citizen, it would want to be part of that process, and allow the new City to adopt new policies, and determine whether or not to make the application for the 1000 acres. What was the rush? Mr. Cohen opined that Minto and others realized that the expectation of the availability of land to provide the housing that will be required cannot be accommodated, notwithstanding what has been presented today on land supply, the development community wants to be responsible to ensure that the provision of housing is available to the public in an orderly
Councillor Stavinga recounted that in 1995 the Township of Goulbourn had an application of over 1,000 acres to expand the village boundaries for the Village of Stittsville. The Council of the day used as a tool a moratorium, which did not accept those applications. They did not process those applications because they wanted to develop a Stittsville community development strategy in terms of the vision of the community. In response to a question by the Councillor, Mr. Cohen indicated he was aware of the process and the tool used by Goulbourn Township with regard to its vision of the village in twenty years.
Janet Bradley, spoke on behalf of Land Ark Homes, which is a builder of estate lot subdivisions. Recommendation 4 b) is of serious concern to them. The immediate concern may have been addressed by the application and the amendment to the wording, which has been suggested by Lesley Paterson today, but she was seeking clarification. Land Ark Homes has an application filed and pending, but it is not deemed complete, which means there are still a few consultant reports, which have to be filed. She was taking from the words of Mr. Lathrop, ‘that if an application has been filed, received by the City, for a subdivision and a zoning it will be considered grand fathered’. She put that on the record with respect to her situation for Land Ark because it’s not deemed complete. She wanted to follow on comments made by Messrs. Rampton and Cohen. At the time of the 1997 Regional OP, an extensive review and consultation was undertaken as to when estate lots would be allowed. People acquired rights as a result of that consultative process and relied upon them. The City is now proposing that notwithstanding those rights, it will not process their applications based on those rights. The City does have the right to change policy, but the Planning Act establishes a way to change that policy; with more study, more review, more consultation and what is proposed is to take that step before that happens, which is contrary to the Planning Act and established policy at this City where consultation is always considered important. If the City is going to take that big draconian step, it needs to determine if the issues are so important it justifies such an unusual step. Staff has said it is justified for two reasons. One, if the step is not taken people will be so fearful the City will prohibit these uses, it will be inundated with phony, frivolous applications to be in the door before the step is taken. Will that happen? Right now, the process basically says that $50,000 will be spent before that application is made. The application fee is $11,000 for an estate lot subdivision. An engineer is needed for a storm-water report, terrain analysis, a hydro geological analysis, an archaeological analysis and an environmentalist for an environmental study. If the application is a whim, or frivolous, the developer will not throw away $50,000. The City will not be inundated over the next 9 months because of the process. The second reason given is that there are already too many lots in the inventory. From Land Ark’s point of view, they are builders, not developers. They do not want to develop estate lot subdivisions; they simply want to buy them and build beautiful houses that win awards. A lot of that 2000 inventory hasn’t been developed because it is not appropriate. There are new conservation controls that can no longer be met and other problems. It is undesirable land for many reasons. The Land Arks of the world would not be applying if there was a big inventory there. So for this type of land use, residential lot, mixed-use residential the City is trying to provide, there are not very many lots out there. Staff has not provided the extreme rationale to take this big step. She strongly recommended that recommendation 4 b) not be approved.
Rob Pierce, represented Fotenn Consultants Inc., addressed recommendation 4, specifically. While Fotenn understands and appreciates that review of the country lot development is appropriate as part of the OP review, some recognition must be given not only to the applications that have formally come through the door. However, the applications or the consideration for the pre-consultation stage is important and he suggested the recommendation be modified such that that is recognized. The pre-consultation stage is a formal part of the development process, with plans and planning rationales. There is an extensive amount of work and expense to the land owner to come to the pre-consultation meetings and present a development and enter into those discussions. For example, when a plan is submitted it entails preparing supporting planning rationale, plans of survey, terrain analysis, hydro geological study, grading, storm water site management, tree planting and conservation plans, arranging of environmental impact studies, if needed, and other studies. If Council is deferring decisions on those applications, you will not be receiving applications since developers will not want to spend money to enter into those and make the applications as Ms. Bradley has stated. It is an expensive and long process. The deferral of these applications, and particularly for those at the pre-consultation stage, which they have two in particular, plus one which has already been submitted; that is, in the latter stages of the technical circulation. It would be preferable that recommendation 4 b) be modified to give Council the latitude to be able to consider the applications and process them in accordance with the existing policies that they and their clients have been proceeding under, particularly those at the pre-consultation.
In response to a question of clarification from Chair Hunter, Mr. Pierce suggested that the recommendation should allow Council to be able to decide applications on their merit, not necessarily as a broad-brush deferral.
In response to a further question of clarification by Councillor Hume to Mr. Lathrop, that the Planning Act requires that Council consider all zoning and OP applications, the applications would come forward to Committee, but staff would recommend that Council not proceed with them since they would be premature. Mr. Lathrop added that the only difference is that normally an appellant would put together all the background information to bring forward a credible OPA, re-zoning, or subdivision. Staff and Council is forewarning the development industry that for expansion to the urban boundaries, an OPA for those issues itemized in recommendation 4, the City is not in a position to process them because it is going to be looking at a comprehensive overview of the OP and the entire process over the next 9 months. They would still come forward since a formal Council position is required on each application to bring to the Board if they are appealed, but staff would not be vetting them in the normal process.
Ross Nicholson indicated all his questions were answered through the presentations and the discussions.
Pierre Dufresne, addressed the Committee, as a member of the Builder Developer Council and a director for the Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders’ Association, who participated within the overall process in the charting a course document and the preliminary draft OP through the 20/20 coalition, which is a coalition made up of different business associations including his association, BOMA, the Ottawa Board of Trade, and others. To date they focused on two separate issues, the boundaries and densities issue and the provision of infrastructure and also related to the generation of revenues for infrastructure issue. Leading up to the new OP this was the first document that spells out some of the intent of how the policy will be translated, implemented and affect the industry. While wishing to continue participating in the 20/20 coalition, it would like to be recognized as an independent group as well on behalf of the Association. Having seen the document for the first time on Friday and upon a cursory review, it will affect the way business is conducted, notwithstanding the policy objectives, but just the practicality of processing and reviewing development applications, the outcome and how subdivisions will be designed, etc. They would like to be identified as a separate group for the public consultation process. They would like to go through each part of that document in detail and hopefully at the end of the day come up with some constructive advice and/or concurrence at the November Planning Committee meeting. So far the consultation has been very open, but he needed to comment on recommendation 4. The industry was not advised this recommendation was coming forward, although there were rumours. He did not advocate a position to expand an urban boundary or to approve a subdivision application or the extension of any type of infrastructure. He read the recommendation and equated it to an OPA without due process because the City is trying to take away people’s rights to make an application and have it processed through proper channels. He concurred with Mr. Cohen’s suggestion that this forces or causes some of the development industry to cynically by-pass the planning approval process governed by Council and jump to the OMB. It is clearly something the City does not want, which came out at the last meeting and is something the industry doesn’t necessarily want either because it likes to do business with Council and staff. He asked that the item be deferred to allow proper consultation with the industry for the next Planning Committee meeting and discussion of its merit.
Responding to a question regarding the time required to bring forward a subdivision, such as Leitrim, Mr. Dufresne advised that it had been twelve years and was ongoing. Councillor Stavinga suggested that nine months in the great scale of things was not difficult. Mr. Dufresne was speaking from a procedural perspective and that process was being interrupted unfairly. The industry would like the opportunity to listen to staff and better prepare for when this matter was decided upon. Councillor Stavinga acknowledged that highlighting Leitrim was unfair given the complexities, but in her eight years in local politics, subdivision or significant development takes longer than nine months, more like years. Mr. Dufresne accepted in approved urban areas, it takes well beyond nine months to register a subdivision.
Councillor Munter noted that normally Committee is receptive to the Home Builders Association’s requests for deferral, but there’s a problem from the perspective of the possible rush of applications. If it were deferred to the next Committee meeting and to Council in August, there would be a 60-day window for applications. How did he suggest that be dealt with? Mr. Dufresne responded that he wanted to focus on the process, which he equated to an OPA, or the City was effectively by-passing proper consultation with the industry, the public and perhaps avenues of appeal. There is a good relationship and trust with staff on the consultation for the new OP, having overcome previous cynicism over the smart growth summit process. This change brings it back to the cynical nature that the industry was being by-passed and not properly considered. He asked that it be deferred so that that process can be undertaken.
Harold Keenan totally disagreed with the rural aspect of recommendation 4. He agreed with Councillor Eastman that it is penalizing the rural area. There was nothing in the document about penalizing the urban section in the same way. If the OP and Zoning is complied with, you are two-thirds of the way there. To knock them off at the knees on their subdivision application is wrong. There are many studies required in the urban area. The time frame suggested is nine months, but that extends into years. The last OP took four years to complete, with appeals etc. March or April 2003 is suggested, but from experience, matters in election years get postponed. With the election and a new Council, you’re talking probably five years down the road, unless a mandatory date is set rather than at the time of OP. The development industry does not have any other alternative other than the OMB. From a financial and City point of view, it isn’t the proper way. There should be consultation and due process, with the last resort being the OMB. The City has suggested the OMB should be done away with, where would that take the process? What is being presented is that there will not be any more rural development other than in the villages. That was completely against the intent of the Regional OP and the local Ops, which recognized that people want diversity and that not everybody wants to live in the City or a village. He addressed the numbers; that there were 109 severances and country lots in Gloucester and the village growth potential of 210. He knew Gloucester well and didn’t know where the 210 potential growth is in the village areas. Gloucester is certainly being penalized under the scenario.
Councillor Stavinga addressed the comments relative to the approved country lots, which are not moving for whatever reason. She questioned whether staff would be flexible if a proponent was proposing a country lot estate development in one area, but yet owned land in another area in the table one, to undertake an exchange, recognizing the total numbers and changing circumstances? Mr. Jacobs would never suggest that staff wouldn’t look at changing circumstances, but did not see that as being a workable proposal. He did not feel it would likely come forward. Keeping in mind there may be some dispute on the numbers in the table and even if half the lots are not buildable, there is still a significant inventory.
Chair Hunter recounted that recommendation 4 was similar to the moratorium dealt with in the 1995/96/97 Regional OP and that mentioned by Councillor Stavinga in Goulburne. It was not new and should not have been a surprise to anyone. Two areas were chosen where there seems to be urban boundary expansion and country estate lot creation that is a 180 degree turn in policy from the existing Regional Plan to the new City of Ottawa Plan; therefore, he could see there may be a need for a moratorium. But, to former Councillor’s Keenan’s point were there not similar changes in the urban policy areas with similar moratoriums? Ms. Paterson suggested the recommendation to not consider urban boundary expansions was an urban impact. There probably weren’t any equivalent 180-degree turns. The key issue in the urban area is how to achieve compact urban development. It is being dealt with on a community-by-community basis and the policies are being developed through the community design plan, which is why the controversy is not in front of the City now because it’s not addressed in the OP.
Mr. Lathrop noted that if one were to look inside the urban boundary, based on the Council discussion on densification, staff would indeed be looking at issues where vacant lots are being identified for intensification. For example, in the past, where the City may have accepted townhouse developments as a downzoning from an existing R5 or R6, staff may not agree that the townhouse development was a down-zoning, it may recommend that the level of density be maintained or increased where deemed reasonable. Chair Hunter noted that was previously done, but staff hasn’t considered them premature and deferred them. That was the difference. Applications were still processed and a position taken. Mr. Lathrop suggested the only gray area is in the rural country lots, which are a permitted use in the Regional OP in marginal designations. In those areas due to issues not only related to growth and it’s impact on the rural area, but also to water issues and Walkerton and a myriad of issues around expansion of urban boundaries it was a good idea to have a moratorium in place for nine months.
Councillor Munter opined the issue before Committee is that of good planning and as pointed out by the Chair, it is not unprecedented and not unusual as the City moves towards a new OP for a new City. The question before Committee today is, are there pressures of applications that may run counter to new policies to beat a new OP that some may or may not like. On the two key issues that have arisen, the expansion of the urban boundary and the rural lot development, there is enough land in the City, in the urban area and the rural area to permit development for many years, let alone to have a short pause of 8 or 9 months. He provided the example of Kanata, which according to the chart has sufficient land for 3-6 years development. He did not receive a satisfactory response from the Minto representative on the question of the urban boundary expansion. He understands that Minto wants to add 1,000 acres of some of the best agricultural land in Eastern Ontario to the urban boundary, but Minto, in Kanata alone, owns many years of developable land. The City is not running out of land to develop and is not in a position where there is an urgency in the market that justifies last minute attempts to circumvent what may be in the new OP. There needs to be debate on the OP and policies set for the new City. Then the City can accept applications from the developers who want to expand the urban boundary, build estate lot subdivisions or whatever else. The staff recommendation is really about making the OP mean something and be a serious effort to come up with a good plan for the new city.
Councillor McNeely noted there were significant changes for the general rural contrary to the response he was previously given. Although he was not aware of the history, there was a need for lots for home-based industries, hobby farms, market gardens; and, in the general rural, changes were made for that purpose. The freeze was an abrupt change and there should be an opportunity for people to satisfy the need. There should be a transition period. The need was identified and satisfied over a long period and before it can be used, it is taken away. Ms. Paterson had misunderstood the previous question. The recommendation affects residential. If Councillor McNeely was referring to a severance for residential use that could accommodate a home based business, it would be impacted for the 9 month period because it would be a residential severance.
Councillor Cullen commented that the City was releasing the document for public consultation. It was not the OP. Nine months from now there will be an OP and there will be many changes. There needs to be consultation. He objected to the notion that by presenting a moratorium during the public consultation process was tantamount to decision. He had strong views on green space; housing; but, he was one member of ten at Committee; and, one member of 22 at Council, and whether his ideas survive during the process was another story. Recommendation 4 deals with a temporary 9-month moratorium and staff advised there were approximately 15,000 rural/country lots, available for development, another 1,400 in the process. An application will not be rejected, but considered premature. At the end of the day the regular process would flow. Adopting the moratorium will not jeopardize planning in the rural part of the community. The moratorium simply provides a level playing field.
Councillor Stavinga addressed the vacant lot inventory, particularly in the Goulbourne area, with a considerable land inventory for years to come. The concern over a temporary holding pattern is unfounded because it provides an opportunity to reflect on community growth. There was a concern the City was setting something in stone; that builders were not being heard, respected and being bypassed. It was interesting since she heard citizens saying that for the last eight years, as it related to development applications. The same thing was being said from very different positions. She cited different examples to support approval of recommendation 4 and she believed there was strength in the OP process by accepting the recommendation. Responding to a question by Councillor Stavinga, Ms. Paterson stated the intent of the recommendation is to not encourage applications that would otherwise not have been made. Councillor Stavinga supported the process laid out, but had amendments to recommendations 2 and 3, to reflect the new information provided by staff with regard to the consultations as well as the time line.
Responding to questions by Councillor Harder and Chair Hunter related to applications being submitted and recommendation 4, related to processing, Mr. Marc advised there were still two outstanding appeals to the 1997 OP; one by Brookfield and one by Dell both bordering on Stittsville. So there are such matters out there, which have not been pressed on to the Board by the applicants. With respect to applications to amend the urban boundary, he opined the board will be more supportive of the City having taken a comprehensive approach, more than the country lot severance and subdivisions. Responding to a further question, he advised that with respect to the two outstanding appeals the City has a position and if Dell Corporation or Brookfield Homes were to ask for a Board hearing, it would not come back to Committee. With respect to new applications, he would harken back to the answer given by the General Manager that a report would be brought forward to Committee. Development Services would determine whether it would bring forward a report or whether it would schedule a public hearing. If a public hearing is not scheduled, it allows them to get to the Board faster because if a public hearing is not scheduled within 45 days of receiving the application, they can proceed to the Board and not wait the 90 days. A public hearing provides the public a much broader opportunity to address the Committee, than if it were simply the establishment of a City position.
Chair Hunter opined that the policy may stop a flood of applications, but if it doesn’t, they by-pass the public hearing process and go to the OMB. The Board might ask the applicant if it received due process before the City’s Planning Committee, who would respond in the negative – they then get a stamp of approval. It is perhaps well intended, but it circumvents due process for both sides. It also tries to make future OP policies retroactive, which is wrong. There is a playing field that is open now and with rules for that game on that playing field and those are the rules until the rules are changed. It should not be put in place.
Moved by Councillor Stavinga:
5. That the Planning and Development
Committee recommend Council approve the Official Plan Public Consultation
Framework as shown in the revised Document 2 as presented on June 27, 2002.
CARRIED
6. That the Planning and Development
Committee recommend Council approve the revised Official Plan Review Process as
shown in the revised Document 3 as presented on June 27, 2002.
CARRIED
4. That the Planning and Development
Committee recommend Council adopt the position that the following applications
be considered premature and be deferred pending adoption of the City’s new
Official Plan:
a)
Any existing or new
application to expand the urban boundary or a village boundary;
b)
Any new application
for a country lot severance or country lot plan of subdivision; and
c)
Any new application
for public communal services or central service extensions to the rural area.
CARRIED
YEAS (5): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Hume
NAYS (2) Councillors Harder, Hunter
The Departmental recommendations were approved as amended.
1.
That the Planning and
Development Committee approve release of the preliminary draft of the City of
Ottawa Official Plan for public review and consultation.
2.
That the Planning and
Development Committee recommend Council approve the Official Plan Public
Consultation Framework shown in revised Document 2.
3.
That the Planning and
Development Committee recommend Council approve the revised Official Plan
Review Process shown in revised Document 3.
4. That the Planning and Development
Committee recommend Council adopt the position that the following applications
be considered premature and be deferred pending adoption of the City’s new
Official Plan:
a)
Any existing or new
application to expand the urban boundary or a village boundary;
b)
Any new application
for a country lot severance or country lot plan of subdivision; and
c)
Any new application
for public communal services or central service extensions to the rural area.
CARRIED
as amended
5. DOWNTOWN OTTAWA URBAN DESIGN STRATEGY PHASE I – TERMS OF REFERENCE
PHASE I DE LA STRATÉGIE DE
CONCEPTION URBAINE DU CENTRE-VILLE D’OTTAWA – CADRE DE RÉFÉRENCE
ACS2002-DEV-POL-0018
Gerry LePage, Bank Street BIA, and Catherine Boucher, CCOC, were present and satisfied with the departmental recommendations contained in the report dated 29 May 2002.
Moved by Councillor Munter:
Whereas
in the ‘Consultation’ section of the report, it states that the Terms of
Reference (Document 1 of the report) may be revised pending consultation with
the National Capital Commission, this consultation has now occurred, and the
Terms of Reference have been revised to incorporate some minor changes
suggested by the NCC.
Therefore
be it resolved that Document 1 of the report be removed and replaced with the
revised Document 1 dated 24 June 2002.
CARRIED
The recommendation was approved, as amended.
That
the Planning and Development Committee approve the consultant terms of
reference for the Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy Phase I as shown in the revised Document 1, dated June 24,
2002, which incorporates minor changes
suggested by the NCC.
CARRIED as amended
Councillor Hunter
dissented on the item, as amended.
6. INTERIM MEASURES TO CONTROL TREE CUTTING AND TO DEVELOP A TREES BYLAW
MESURES PROVISOIRES
EN VUE DE CONTRÔLER LA COUPE DES ARBRES ET D’ÉLABORER UN RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL SUR
LES ARBRES
ACS2002-DEV-POL-0021
Ronald Daigle was present in support of the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 15 May 2002.
The Committee approved the recommendations contained in the report.
That Planning and
Development Committee recommend Council approve that:
1.
Development Services Department recruit a consultant to implement
the proposed interim solutions for tree preservation in consultation with
Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department;
2.
Staff prepare a draft Trees Bylaw under the Municipal Act, to be
tabled with Committee and Council for public consultation in the fall; and
3.
That the Trees Bylaw be developed in two stages:
a) preparation of a draft bylaw that applies to the urban and village areas, presented to Planning & Development Committee in the fall of 2002;
b)
develop a recommended approach in rural areas through consultation
with rural stakeholders during the fall of 2002 with a report to follow by the
end of the year.
CARRIED
CORPORATE SERVICES
SERVICES GÉNÉRAUX
Secretariat Services
Services de secrétariat
7. ATTENDANCE - CITIES PLUS
conference
PARTICIPATION - CONFÉRENCE CITIESPLUS
ACS2002-CRS-SEC-0058
The Committee approved the
recommendation contained in departmental report dated 10 June 2002.
That the Planning and
Development Committee approve the attendance of Councillor Elisabeth Arnold at
the Citiesplus conference to be held in Vancouver, British Columbia, on
September 17th and 18th, 2002.
Carried
The Committee
adjourned at 12:45 p.m. and re-convened at 1:30 p.m.
POSTPONEMENTS AND DEFERRALS
REPORTS ET RENVOIS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
SERVICES D’AMÉNAGEMENT
BUILDING
SERVICES
DIRECTION
DES SERVICES DU BÂTIMENT
8. MUNICIPAL ADDRESSING STUDY – DUPLICATE STREET
NAMES/SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT
ÉTUDE SUR L’ADRESSAGE MUNICIPAL – NOMS DE RUE
EN DOUBLE/RAPPORT SUPPLÉMENTAIRE
ACS2002-DEV-BLD-0022
Mr. Don Brouseau, Project Leader for the Naming and Numbering Project, advised that the report was a follow-up to the Duplicate Street Names Report considered by Planning and Development Committee on 13 September 2001 and by City Council on 26 September 2001. At that time 144 street names were changed and implemented. The decisions regarding a number of specific streets were deferred to give the community a final opportunity to provide input. Subsequently, December 12th City Council considered and approved a motion to reconsider the decision for George Street in the Township of Osgoode to Moses Street. He provided a brief presentation on the departmental report dated 14 May 2002. With respect to community consultation, circumstances pertaining to each of the outstanding streets are unique, in terms of whether the community simply wanted to time to confirm the new name, to determine the level of support for the recommended name or to be given the opportunity to re-consider the issue. To develop the best course of action, staff contacted each of the affected Ward Councillors. In most cases, the Councillor consulted and discussed the issue with the community. Staff responded to inquiries, provided information and worked with the community representatives. Decisions were communicated to staff either directly or through the Councillors office. Decisions were in the form of petitions, letters, with community signatures, and, as said, directly from the Ward Councillor and provided examples.
Chair Hunter suggested that the Committee might best work through Document 3, as contained in the report, as it proceeds through any amendments. Recommendation 1 recommends approving the street name changes detailed in Document 3, pps. 77 and 78 of the agenda; and, three technical amendments, from staff, related to Treadwell Road, Shirley Street and Agatha Street. He noted he had heard controversy with respect to Lilac and Sunset and suggested the Committee proceed through the recommendations contained in Document 3 to determine if there was consent to agree with those on the list, including the technical amendments to dispose of them and focus discussion on the areas of dispute.
Recommendation 1
1.1 That By-law 2001-391
be amended to changed “Alcide Street” to “Alcide Avenue”
CARRIED
1.2 That the legal description within Schedule “A” be amended to
include “Cummings Lane”.
CARRIED
1.3 That the existing name “Porter Street” (former City of Ottawa) be renamed “Cole Porter Street” and that an implementing by-law be submitted for enactment.
CARRIED
1.4 That the existing street name “Main Street” located in
Stittsville, former Township of Goulbourn, be renamed “Stittsville Main Street”
and that an implementing by-law be submitted for enactment.
CARRIED
1.5 That the existing name “Riverside Drive”, Manotick (former
Township of Rideau) be renamed “North Riverside Drive” and that an implementing
by-law be submitted for enactment.
CARRIED
1.6 That
the street name “Lilac Lane” in the former Township of Cumberland be retained
and that the proposed name “Magnolia Lane” for the street located in the former
City of Ottawa be changed to “Old Lilac Lane”.
CARRIED
Joy Adamsson (Lilac Lane, Cumberland) was present in support of the above recommendation.
1.7 That the street name be changed from “Prospect Avenue” to “Old Prospect Road”.
CARRIED
Moved by Councillor Stavinga:
a) WHEREAS Item 17 of the Planning and
Development Committee Report 14 Issue 231 of Document 1 of the City Council
meeting of September 26, 2001 approved the street name change from “Sixth Line
Rd.” in the former City of Gloucester to “Treadwell Rd.”;
AND WHEREAS, City Council enacted By-law 2001-400 formally
accepting, assigning and describing “Treadwell Rd.” as a municipal highway;
AND WHEREAS as part of the public consultation process the optional
street names “Treadwell” (early writer for the Bytown Gazette [1841]) and
“Goudie” (a pioneer family in Gloucester) were circulated to the affected
owners and occupants for consideration;
AND WHEREAS the owners and occupants did not respond to the
circulation of the optional street names,
AND WHEREAS “Treadwell” was recommended over “Goudie” as the
spelling would present less confusion;
AND WHEREAS upon notification of the new street name the sole
business, The Top Generation Club, located on “Treadwell Rd.” has requested the
City consider changing the name to “Generation Crt.” in recognition of the
business name and that no other residents or businesses would be affected;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that Schedule “A” of By-law 2001-400 be amended by deleting the name
“Treadwell Road” and adding the name “Generation Court”
CARRIED
Correspondence dated 26 June 2002 was received from John Saunderson, President, and April Mackie, Vice-President, Top Generation Club, 4373 Treadwell Road, Gloucester, confirming support for the Club’s choice of name for the former Sixth Line Road – “Generation Court” has more historical significance than “Treadwell Road”.
Moved by Councillor Stavinga:
b) WHEREAS Item 17 of the Planning and
Development Committee Report 14 Issue 109 of Document 1 of the City Council
meeting held on September 26, 2001 approved the street name change for “Henry
St.” in the former City of Gloucester to “Shirley St.”;
AND WHEREAS, City Council enacted By-law 2001-400 formally
accepting, assigning and describing “Shirley St.” as a municipal highway;
AND WHEREAS the rationale for the new name was that “Henry St.” is a
natural extension of the existing Shirley St.;
AND WHEREAS during the installation of the new street signs it was
determined that the existing signs for “Shirley” have the suffix “Ave”;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that Schedule “A” of By-law 2001-400 be amended by deleting
after the name “Shirley” the suffix “St and adding the suffix “Ave.”
CARRIED
c) WHEREAS Item 17 of the Planning and
Development Committee Report 14 Issue 243 of Document 1 of the City Council
meeting of September 26, 2001 approved the street name change from “St. Paul
St.” in the former Township of Cumberland to “Agatha St.”;
AND WHEREAS, City Council enacted By-law 2001-391 formally
accepting, assigning and describing “Agatha St.” as a municipal highway;
AND WHEREAS as part of the public consultation process the optional
street names “Agatha” and “McAdam” were selected from the list of reserved
names held by the Township and circulated to the affected owners and occupants
for consideration;
AND WHEREAS the owners and occupants did not respond to the
circulation of the optional street names,
AND WHEREAS “Agatha” was recommended over “McAdam” as a clear and
unique name and to avoid potential confusion with other existing street names
beginning with “Mac” and Mc”;
AND WHEREAS upon notification of the new street name the sole
resident located on “Agatha St.” has requested the City consider changing the
name to “Tina St.” in recognition of her given name and that no other residents
or businesses would be affected;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that
Schedule “A” of By-law 2001-391 be amended by deleting the name “Agatha Street”
and adding the name “Tina Street.”
CARRIED
1.8 That the street name
“Moses Street” (formerly George Street, Osgoode) approved by City Council
through enactment of by-law 2001-401 be changed to “Old George Street” and an
implementing by-law be submitted for enactment.
The Committee heard from the following delegation on the above matter.
Michael McMahon, provided a Commemorative Booklet entitled “From Then to Now – 1880 – 1980 – Osgoode Village”. Mr. McMahon was present in opposition to the proposed street name change to Old George Street.
At the request of Chair Hunter on the history, Mr. Brousseau advised that the community originally put forward the request to re-name the street “Moses Street”. A petition was brought forward since the last Committee meeting with 21 of 22 households in support of re-naming the street “Old George Street”.
Mr. McMahon advised that the last petition was 50/50 to re-name Prince George Street. He added there was significant history to the name Moses. William John Moses and his wife, depicted in the booklet he distributed, were residents who owned lots in 1908 and built the lumberyard by the railway track. They provided work for farmers in the community during the winter by hauling logs to the lumberyard, created cheese boxes, built lumber for many of the houses in the village and produced the block for constructing houses. Many refer to it as the Boyd block, but the Moses and Brownlees also constructed these blocks. Pp. 12 and 13 of the pamphlet provides detailed information on the Moses family. They owned all of the land adjacent to the railway on the west side of George Street, which was not named George Street then. He is in opposition for the reason alluded to earlier that some find the name Moses offensive. There are significant historical facts to back up the preference for the Moses name, with minimal impact because of general mail delivery. In terms of stationary, there are Canada Post re-address forms. “Moses” has more historical significance than “George”, which was point number four in the duplicate street name exercise. The OTB did significant research and recommended Moses for another street at the time. He alerted them to the fact it was more historically accurate to consider it for his street. There are many senior residents who would like to see recognition paid as well. There are many historical names on streets; e.g. Boyd, Dowd; and, he wanted to see the Moses name recognized.
Councillor Stavinga referred to the August departmental report discussed in September 2001, which made reference to George Street in Osgoode Village. The staff comment spoke to the petitions for Moses and Prince George; both received 58% support. Moses Street has a historical significance; it is a single word, unique, easy to pronounce and clear for emergency services. Were these petitions received independently, since there was overlapping? Mr. Brousseau responded that was the case. Staff reviewed each petition and crossed out, but the latest petition always supersedes. Ms Sandra Garnett, Manager, Legal and Service Integration, responded that the first petition had 50% support. The second received 58% support. Councillor Stavinga responded, to clarify the muddy waters, that a third petition was circulated, with the Ward Councillor, after the deferrar, which gave it Old George Street.
Councillor Thompson confirmed that Mr. McMahon lives in the original home of Mr. Moses, which spurred him further. There was considerable debate and contention regarding the original petition, with great community interest to re-examine it. That is why a new petition was circulated and with all due respect to Mr. McMahon, there was conclusive evidence the current residents would prefer the name “Old George Street”, with 21 to 1 in favour. He had to defer to the majority who supported the change to “Old George Street”.
The staff recommendation to change the name to “Old George Street”
CARRIED
Councillor Harder raised the matter that originally “Old” was not the proper approach for safety and other reasons. Mr. Brousseau responded confirmed the original criteria and naming guidelines were to avoid double-barrelled names and pursue unique names. The particular project is unique in the sense that the City was forced into it by amalgamation. These names would not be acceptable in a new subdivision under the guidelines; but some latitude was permitted, particularly toward the end in trying to appease communities. It was certainly not the preference of staff. In that vein, he added for clarification, there was 58% support for the two names originally suggested and the Team recommendation was that Moses was less confusing, being a single unique name rather than a double-barrelled name.
Councillor Bellemare asked if the name “Moses” could be added to the City-maintained list of potential names developers could consult, and be reserved for a future road in the Osgoode Village area. Mr. Brousseau confirmed that Committee could take it as direction to staff. Councillor Thompson felt that Councillor Bellemare’s suggestion was excellent since the family was concerned the name not lose its place in the Village history.
Sunset Boulevard
1.9 1. That
“Sunset Boulevard” in the former Township of Osgoode retain the existing street
name; and,
2. That the
street name “Sunset Boulevard” in the former City of Ottawa be changed to one
of the following options:
Option 1: That “Sunset Boulevard be changed to
“Sunset View Boulevard”; or,
Option 2: That an acceptable name supported by a majority of the affected residents and submitted be the community prior to consideration by City Council be adopted as the new street name.
Chair Hunter asked if staff was recommending a particular option. Mr. Brousseau responded that staff was open to the community preference. Staff supported the original Sunset View, in terms of its view over the lake, but anything that was not duplicated within the City was acceptable.
Councillor Doucet wished to clarify that it was reported in the news media the community had accepted Old Sunset, which he thought was the case two weeks ago, but was not. No acceptable name was communicated to him from the community, save Sunset Boulevard. He would speak to the issue once the Committee heard from all the delegations.
George Hunter emphasized that when this matter was before Committee last September, the recommendation was in the format presented and reflected nine criteria, with no indication any one criteria would be weighted. The assumption made by residents, and underscored in discussions with City staff, was that all criteria would be applied equally. Subsequent to the September meeting, residents were provided through Councillor Doucet with a copy of a memorandum dated March 4th, 2002, from Ms. Gregoire to Councillor Doucet. He read two small parts of that memorandum. It responded to Councillor Doucet’s question relative to weighting. Firstly, “the Project Team’s review affected streets in the context of each factor from the criteria. Each street was researched to obtain information on the number of residents and businesses, the establishment date, subdivision approval, by-law enactment, any historic background, landmark status, theme status, submissions from the community, historians and local historical societies. The Teams evaluated each street on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all available research information.” It made a second point. “Consistently streets with a greater number of residents and businesses were recommended to retain their existing name. Streets with duplicate names that had a fairly even number of residents/businesses were then evaluated on the basis of the other criteria; for example, historical significance, date of creation, theme, known landmarks, etc.” It was on the receipt of this memorandum that he and his fellow residents were aware of weighting. That what really predominated the nine criteria was not equality, it was the number of residents/businesses on a given street. That disturbed them. It raised a number of questions on the integrity of the process as it is applied to Sunset Boulevard in Ottawa. Why wasn’t the process open and transparent? Secondly, why wasn’t the City frank with residents when they sought clarification on the application of criteria? Thirdly, what is the conceivable internal logic to a process, which engages people, work and considerable expense in gathering information, which has no bearing on a decision? Fourth, why would Civic leaders ignore historical, cultural and environmental values in deference to the simple denominator of numbers affected? Fifth, what does this say about the values in this City? Residents realized it was the eleventh hour and commended the Committee on the process endured; but had to address the application of the process to their street. The process was not transparent, sensible, fair or respectful of the community values shared in the great City. On behalf of his fellow residents, he urged the Committee to re-visit the Sunset Boulevard situation; and, understood the residents of Greely just as staunchly defend theirs. The Committee should inflict the proper process that should have occurred in the first instance.
Councillor Munter commented that generally the process worked, but was back with apparently no conceivable solution, unlike other street name changes. He suggested no street have the name Sunset Boulevard, since no agreement was apparent. Mr. Hunter did not feel that would be acceptable to anyone. Obviously, the two streets concerned are identified, but the real issue is which street should be entitled to use the existing name?
Heather Bradley, Co-Chair, Sunset Boulevard Residents’ Association, read a statement endorsed by every household on Sunset Boulevard in Ottawa, most of whom were present today, which was circulated to the Committee, with an attached petition. “We the residents of Sunset Boulevard in Ottawa do not accept the proposed re-naming of our street to Sunset View Boulevard or any other name.
The proposed re-naming of our street is being unjustly imposed on us. The process specific to our street has been flawed, unfair and not transparent from the beginning. It was you, the Planning and Development Committee that approved the process for renaming and you have not even followed your own process. On September 13th, 2001, this Committee told us it was interested in finding the best solution and that a decision would be delayed pending further input from the community. Despite continual efforts to be involved, this has not happened. The notice to community residents this month stated that the review was done with community input. Which community would this be? We wrote to you immediately following the September 13th meeting asking what the process and stating that we wanted to be involved. We received no response to that letter and we have not been included in any community review process subsequent to the Committee meeting of last September. We’ve have made every effort possible to make your process work. We have had solid street support. Solid community support, we have submitted to you a petition of close to 600 names. We have participated in your process every step of the way. But not once were treated fairly. Not once in over a year did you accept the information we presented to you at your public consultation meetings. Our earlier petitions fell on deaf ears, so did the additional historical information presented. At the same time, not once did we miss or take lightly the public consultation process.
We were also told that there were nine criteria for duplicate street naming and when asked if there was preferential weighing of criteria we were told that there was none. Yet the report of your officials, which we received third hand last month, states that there is one criteria that outranks all others and that is the number of residents. You run a government which has a stated commitment to public involvement and public access to information. We have been profoundly disappointed in our attempts to participate and to access information. We have significant number of outstanding letters that have not even been acknowledged let alone answered. We want to know who was on the evaluation committee and how these participants were appointed. We have yet to receive a response to our October letter asking to be involved in the review process that you asked for. In reality, the input of the residents of Sunset Boulevard in Ottawa has been ignored from the outset. We, the residents of Sunset Boulevard came into the duplicate street naming process two years ago. It all started when 15-year-old Robin Copestake circulated up and down the street with her petition to save the name of our street. We all signed, but at the same time told her that it was impossible that anyone would consider changing our street name. The name had been around since 1862. But Robin was not taking anything for granted and she started the ball rolling. Mrs. Elaine Minty, and Mrs. Diana Wood and several other representatives of the street attended the earliest public consultation meetings with their site plan that firmly establishes our routes in 1862. They left every meeting in frustration because no one was listening. Many of us thought that this issue struck at the heart of the entire street and uniquely united young and old. There was no hesitation we needed to coordinate our efforts and participate every step of the way. And so we did. We came into the process, united by our desire to preserve our street name, and to demonstrate to the youth of the street that the city process works. We are still united in our conviction to preserve our street name however, we now hold one further conviction in common which is a serious concern for the quality of governance in our City. This is the legacy that this process has left for the residents of Sunset Boulevard, for our children, aged 6 to 16, who became involved in government for the first time through their efforts to preserve their street name and for our senior citizens, who have contributed so much to their City over many decades. To date the Committee has refused to allow our community to be involved in the street naming process. As a result, we believe that an independent third party review of the process specific to the two Sunset Boulevards is required.
Therefore the residents of Sunset Boulevard in Ottawa are asking that the Planning and Development Committee defer the renaming of our street and request an INDEPENDENT third party review. The community should be involved in establishing the terms of reference for this third-party review. The residents of Sunset Boulevard in Ottawa believe that this issue might best be settled through the dispute arbitration process.”
Councillor Harder appreciated the community came out both times in such great numbers, but questioned why they would attack the governance when other streets didn’t; and, why both times the community did not treat the Committee or the process with respect. She questioned why Sunset Boulevard in Ottawa was the only street in the whole City that is of that opinion. Ms. Bradley wondered that as well. The community felt from the very beginning their attempts to participate were skewed and perhaps it had something to do with the Councillor in Greely living on the Greely street.
Councillor Thompson took exception and indicated it was unfair and totally out of order for that to be addressed at this meeting; and, that the fact he held political office would impact on the decision.
Councillor Stavinga referred to the document before Committee in September. The public document before Committee, accessible on the web and at the meeting, specifically stated that one of the principle objectives from the outset was to minimize impact on the affected individuals and businesses as a result of required names changes. Ms. Bradley responded they knew it was one of the criteria, but if it were the only criteria then the entire process would have been done on numbers.
Nina Drystek understood residents were told to change their street name to Sunset View, which she did not feel was right. She has enjoyed living on the street for 13 years, as have her neighbours. Sunset Boulevard is not just pavement and housing; it is the people living there. She understood they lost their street name because of population. For over one year, every resident has worked to save the name, though it would seem to make no difference. The community was told in the beginning that nine points of equal value were to be considered. She did not understand why that was not imparted at the beginning.
Vanessa Wen has been a resident of Sunset Boulevard in Ottawa her entire life. Her street has always been unique. The thought of changing the name of her 140-year-old street that precedes confederation is absurd. However, she was not before Committee to go over the criteria or process of evaluation for the naming of streets. She feels confident her neighbours have given City Council enough information on its flaws and defects. She wanted to present her views as a 17-year-old in the political system. She is disappointed. Studying civics in school, the political system was presented as pleasing its public by dealing with issues in the fairest way possible. Over the past two years this was not reality. She no longer questions the apathy of today’s youth towards politics. City Council set the naming process and the community followed them for two years. Council did not. How can she be expected to continue supporting such a flawed government? She would be passing on to her peers everything she learned from this experience. It is not something neither she nor her neighbours will forget. She should be encouraged to become more involved and act upon her concerns, not discouraged to the degree of wanting to watch the new City fall apart. She has seen that nothing done by her neighbours has had any impact on the final decision. It was as though the decision was pre-determined. Is this how all issues are dealt with? She hoped this was an exception to the system. She asked that the Committee pass a motion for an independent third party review. It was a final opportunity for her opinions to be proven wrong; that the Committee can make the right choice.
Councillor Munter raised the suggestion the proposal to change the name of the street is evidence the City of Ottawa is falling apart? Ms. Wen responded that if that is the way the government is running, she believed something was wrong.
Councillor Harder questioned why Sunset Boulevard should be dealt with differently from the 100+ streets processed. Ms. Wen believed there was a flaw in the process; because if everything was followed fairly, the community would not need to be present today. Councillor Harder provided an example. There was a street in Osgoode named Acres Road. There is a street right beside Bayshore in Nepean, close to the Queensway also called Acres Road. Because no one leaves on Acres Road near Bayshore, which is a major exit off the Queensway, but nine people live on Acres Road in Osgoode, the name of the street in Nepean was changed to Holly Acres Road. It also had historical meaning. That was as an example of how Sunset Boulevard in Ottawa was treated the same.
Councillor Stavinga hoped that Ms. Wen did not remain sceptical through the process and did not become cynical and not participate in the democratic process, which is valued in Canada and not available in many countries. There has been a fairness and transparency of process. Although there are differences of opinion, decisions have to be made and it does not mean that voices were not heard.
Mary Jane Lipkin, Co-Chair, Sunset Boulevard Residents’ Association, remarked the issue was not about the fairness of the overall process because it clearly worked well in many instances and for that she applauded City staff and Committee. The residents’ concern is of the treatment of their situation. The community’s sentiments should not be taken lightly as they are strongly held. A third party independent review should not be of any particular threat to anyone. The residents would live with the outcome of that review because it would be seen as fair, objective and unbiased contrary to the sentiments surrounding the current process. Their street is, in fact, a boulevard, which should carry some weight when the word boulevard is used. She apologized if she offended anyone, but it was her job as Co-Chair of the Residents’ Association to share with the Committee the views of her neighbours. One point was the approach of evidence and reasoned arguments in the assessment of their particular street. She pointed out there was broad-based community support, with a petition of over 600 citizens mentioned by Ms. Bradley, as well as the Glebe Community Association, the Dow’s Lake Residents’ Association and the Glebe Historical Society. Reflecting on all that support, it brings new meaning to the term you can’t fight City Hall. The question in residents’ minds as they leave, is why has the situation been handled in this way? Some would think it was an example of incompetence and in some sense; it is a tempting explanation because at the bottom of the street, a new sign has been placed declaring it Sunset Boulevard, which is somewhat ironic when of the nine criteria; the cost of replacing signage was one. The residents cannot actually think it is incompetence and she reiterated a point made by Ms. Bradley, which is that it may boil down to one thing, who lives on what street. Therefore, the residents are asking for a third party independent review. The residents would like to be involved in the terms of reference and will live by the outcome of that decision.
Councillor Harder felt she had to make a statement since it was asserted a number of times. Councillor Thompson did not lobby her or any one that she was aware of and at the first meeting he did not sit at the Committee table.
Chair Hunter questioned what residents expected the independent third party panel/person to review. Ms. Lipkin responded that the residents would like to look at the evaluation of the criteria to both streets. She addressed a point made by Councillor Stavinga, which was the broad impact on residents, which residents’ understood as looking at impact in a broad way, not just pure numbers. It had to do with cultural values, precedence and history. Residents were told when they asked for clarification that the criteria was applied in that umbrella, equally. In that sense, the residents don’t feel the assessment of either has been fair and that would be the key in the independent third-party review. Chair Hunter questioned that the third party review would still have the same chart staff looked at. Ms. Lipkin responded, with due respect, that the report did not reflect the new information included by the residents. Residents would be able to look at a grid prepared and assessed by someone, objectively, without a history attached to the file. Chair Hunter declared Committee had the new information and in many key areas ranking did not change. Ms. Lipkin exampled there was no reference to their petition; it says they have a petition of 28 names and the petition presented it in September, which included more names. Chair Hunter commented that either side could have presented a petition of 3,000 names, but it was not one of the criteria. He read out the criteria and noted the statistics were close, but it is hard to argue with what staff accomplished; and, they are independent and do not have an interest. Ms. Lipkin referenced that Council would take into consideration additional information and to the residents the petition should have been included. This is where a number of Councillors remarked that the process evolved as it progressed and there was not the evolution the residents’ thought would emerge.
Maria Clancy was asked to speak on behalf of the residents of Sunset Boulevard in Greely and Lorette Ernst was also present, but would not be speaking. She did not think that two years ago this issue would become such an emotional and divisional. Last September she was one of the last individuals to speak. Quite a number, many seemingly from one family, and a young child from Sunset Boulevard in Ottawa had already spoken. One speaker declared the Ottawa street was more deserving because it was fully established and showed pictures of the street in Greely; the highlights of which were empty lots, for sale signs and lack of trees, maintaining that a boulevard described a broad tree-lined street. A kindly grandmother went to an obscure office on the fourth floor of a building on Sussex and discovered a City plan from the last century showing Sunset Boulevard near Dow’s Lake in Ottawa. Residents of Sunset Boulevard in Greely never disputed the street in Ottawa was older. If that had been the sole criterion for decision, then there would not have been any complaints from the rural residents. Most of the long-standing residents of Sunset Boulevard in Greely, although not enamoured of such a decision, would have accepted it and gone on with their lives. A number of other factors were also considered. When all the factors were evaluated the first time, it was proposed that Sunset Boulevard in Ottawa should be re-named. Those residents, however, did not agree with the decision and felt the process was flawed. They suggested Sunset Boulevard in Greely should be re-named Sunset Lakes Boulevard in keeping with the community. The fact that the Sunset Lakes development was so named because it was on Sunset Boulevard appears to be irrelevant. After all the presentations were made in September, the residents of Greely were told the process would be reviewed because the Ottawa residents maintained errors had been made and once the data was re-evaluated a decision would be handed down in approximately three months. It has now been nine months and the recommendation remains the same; Sunset Boulevard in Greely should retain the name and the one in Ottawa should be re-named Sunset View Boulevard. The Ottawa residents are still unhappy and suggest the process was unfair and should be repeated. It is time to settle the issue once and for all. A recommendation was made, the data re-examined and stands. Criteria were established and used for all street name changes proposed. To change criteria or weight the age of a street above all others invalidates the whole process. An arbitrary decision could have been made to keep the name of the oldest street and changed the other one. Greely residents are reasonable, but their patience is wearing thin. Make the right decision and let them get on with their lives and other important issues.
Correspondence was also received from Gary and Katherine Woodworth, Gordon Brown and Julie Brusse and Tim Penner, Sunset Boulevard, in Greely.
Councillor Harder suggested that if “Old” was good on Old Sunset, what about Sunset Boulevard South and Sunset Boulevard North? Ms. Clancy responded that personally it would probably be acceptable. Mr. Brousseau indicated the preference would be not to have two street names starting with the same name, so North Sunset or South Sunset would be better. Councillor Harder did not feel that would be acceptable. Mr. Brousseau opined that emergency services could deal with it as long as it was unique. The only suggestion is that to add the prefix to Sunset would assist in differentiating. Councillor Harder questioned if there was an appeal process to the Committee/Council decision at the OMB. Mr. Brousseau responded there was no appeal process under the Municipal Act for this.
Councillor Doucet commented the process worked well across the City. There were 169 names and the only one that created a big problem was Sunset Boulevard in his Ward. He addressed the importance of the process seeming fair and just. The age of street was incorrectly put at 1922 rather than 1862, which is a big difference. There were a number of meetings between himself, staff and the community. At a meeting with Mr. Hunter, Mr. Scrivens, Mr. Brousseau, Mr. Lister and his assistant, the question was asked point-blank whether the dominant criteria was the number of residents on the street? If the answer had been yes, it would have been over. The answer was no, that all criteria was equally weighted. From that moment, all of these problems unfolded. There was the continued feeling the street had not been treated fairly and there was an assurance that staff would look at the name again and weight the process so residents could understand very clearly. He has a lot of sympathy for the residents of Sunset. They were treated badly and it is especially distressing because this is about building a new City and saving the parts of an old City as much as possible. The process was not seen as fair by this particular street. The residents have asked for a third-party evaluation. It would be a unique endeavour and involve some cost, but in terms of community building and putting to bed any suggestion the City has not conducted the process in the most open, fair and reasonable way, it is the only way to proceed. The other route is to impose a name. He was not open to that; it is destructive for Sunset and the City, so he would be advancing a motion through one of the members of the Committee the City proceed with an independent review.
Councillor Thompson was aware that members of the Committee were sensitized to the dilemma. He wanted to re-emphasize that he took exception to the fact that he was deemed to be the pressure factor in this decision because he lived on the street, which was not the case. He spoke to a number of young people who live on Sunset Boulevard and they would be equally upset if the democratic process was not followed and met with approximately 20 on his property and they wondered why the City was going through this process. He would find it difficult to try to explain why the process was not working, if the Committee did not follow procedure. Staff made a fair and reasonable decision following a process that worked. The criteria was followed with 150 streets and yet, in this particular case, it has been suggested the process did not work and staff and Council did not execute their task. It is regretful some people have taken that position. This is the second time it has been reviewed with the same result. If Committee/Council does not accept this recommendation, a bad message is being sent out to those other 150 streets that were re-named. There is a dedication of the residents and he asked the Committee to support the staff recommendation and let it move up to Council for decision. He did not feel, as was alluded to, that there was a winner / loser, the process is a winner here. One street gets to keep the name through a proper process.
Councillor Stavinga provided some context on the manner in which she would be rendering her decision. As many know, there was a real fear in her community of the loss of names, particularly in the Villages of Stittsville and Richmond. The Village of Richmond has been in existence longer than the City of Ottawa, having been established after the war of 1812. There was a real concern for the loss of streets such as King, Queen and Murray and how could population in Richmond compare to the streets in the City of Ottawa where there are that many more people? As much as she was reluctant about the process, she always reiterated it had to be transparent. As the process evolved, as much as there was a reluctance to accept it, there was a willingness to accept the objectivity established by the framework. For example, King Street in Richmond, established in 1818, same number of residents in Richmond as Ottawa, but very clearly in the decision that came forward from staff, was the recognition the street was defined in 1818, whereas the street in Ottawa it was 1950, so the Village of Richmond kept King Street. However, it was not the same case for Queen Street, because Queen Street in Richmond had much fewer residents, but was established around the same time, 1818 / 1820, but Queen Street in former Ottawa had more residents and businesses. The residents came up with a alternative that could retain the significance of that Queen, the wife of King George III, Queen Charlotte, which was the name the Village of Richmond came up with as a community. So, in essence the community was able to keep its history, but respect the fact it had to deal with the name changes. She was disturbed with some of the comments made with process, but she could appreciate and hear them. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Having said that she was prepared to accept the staff recommendation that it be changed to Sunset View Boulevard and that Sunset Boulevard be retained in the Osgoode community because she believed the process was fair. There was ample opportunity for reflection; it is time to make a decision.
Councillor Harder toyed with the idea of Sunset North / South, keeping the two names and the legal implications and received an opinion on the liability to the City, which was the reason for the process in the first place. In speaking to Councillor Stavinga’s comments, she was right, everyone has had to make changes in this entire new City. It does not matter where you came from. It does not mean one part of the City is better than another, but there should have been a willingness to accept some things and, in this case, there has not been. That is why it is the very last street to be dealt with. Her only option is to support Councillor Stavinga in her motion. She wished the communities had come up with something on their own as in 150 +/- streets, but it is obviously not going to happen. She was disgusted by some of the comments thrown at the Committee through the process. The same rules were applied to everyone else in this process and no one in any corner of the City has more value than anyone else.
Councillor Munter was astonished at the intensity of the fervour of the debate on this matter. The Committee has definitely heard many passionate discussions on many life and death issues and this one has taken him aback. As a result, trying to come up with a compromise is not possible since both sides are profoundly entrenched and there is so much hostility between the residents of the two sets of Sunset Boulevard. Frankly, he was quite sincere that neither get Sunset Boulevard and there be two new street names. He would move that a coin be flipped and that the Mayor do so at the next Council meeting and the representatives of both streets observe the process. It is what is done when an election is tied, for example, and it is one way to resolve this difficult issue. Obviously, no one will be happy. One side will clearly walk away unhappy no matter what the decision.
Chair Hunter noted the Councillor mentioned the process to flip a coin is used in the event of a tie in an election, but this is not a tie. When you look at the criteria, they are very close. Of the nine criteria, five are either non-applicable or ties, three lean slightly towards Greely and one leans heavily towards Ottawa. His nod goes to the Sunset Boulevard in Greely.
Councillor Doucet spoke in favour of Councillor Munter’s motion to flip a coin. It is a time-honoured way of resolving a dispute that has no real clear balance one way or the other. He spoke to his community, who is willing to accept a coin-toss and it would be a sign to both communities that in this very difficult situation, it is fair, transparent, open and honest. He was unhappy how the process lead to acrimony between the two communities and both communities had good cases.
Councillor Bellemare voiced that tossing a coin was one way to try to resolve the issue, which has been exhausting for all parties. He did not feel the numbers were there to approve that route, but he had some difficulties with other proposals presented. He hoped both communities maintained a sense of humour on the issue and was ready to support the coin toss, but in the absence he would be willing to support the original staff recommendation. The whole issue would be resolved at Council.
Councillor Thompson appreciated the offer to flip a coin, but he felt the City would be held to ridicule and was not a fair way to resolve the issue. Councillors are elected to make decisions, the staff report was presented, there was debate, and the vote has to be based on the staff report.
Councillor Stavinga recommended the coin toss be voted down, as a total and complete abdication of the Committee’s responsibility. She could now go to her community and say the next time there is a fair process, make sure you don’t compromise and maybe at the eleventh hour the community will realize the Council will not want to make a decision and will ask for a coin toss. She asked the Committee to look at the facts and what the City has committed to throughout the years and support the motion that the street name Sunset Boulevard in the former City of Ottawa be changed to Sunset View Boulevard and get on with Committee and community business.
Moved by Councillor Munter:
That
Committee and Council recommend that this issue be resolved by lot; namely,
that he Mayor flip a coin to determine which street will be named Sunset
Boulevard.
LOST, tie vote
Yeas (3): Councillors Munter, Bellemare, Hume
Nays (3): Councillors Stavinga, Harder, Hunter
Moved by Councillor Stavinga:
That the staff
recommendation 1.9 be approved:
1.9 1. That “Sunset Boulevard” in the
former Township of Osgoode retain the existing street name; and,
2. That
the street name “Sunset Boulevard” in the former City of Ottawa be changed to one
of the following options:
Option 1: That “Sunset Boulevard be changed to “Sunset View Boulevard”.
CARRIED
Yeas (4): Councillors Stavinga, Bellemare, Harder, Hunter
Nays (2): Councillors Hume, Munter
The Committee approved the report as amended.
1.
That the Planning and
Development Committee recommend Council approve the street name changes
detailed in recommendations 1.1 – 1.9 of Document 3, subject to the
following amendments:
a) WHEREAS Item 17 of the Planning and
Development Committee Report 14 Issue 231 of Document 1 of the City Council
meeting of September 26, 2001 approved the street name change from “Sixth Line
Rd.” in the former City of Gloucester to “Treadwell Rd.”;
AND WHEREAS, City Council enacted By-law 2001-400 formally
accepting, assigning and describing “Treadwell Rd.” as a municipal highway;
AND WHEREAS as part of the public consultation process the optional
street names “Treadwell” (early writer for the Bytown Gazette [1841]) and
“Goudie” (a pioneer family in Gloucester) were circulated to the affected
owners and occupants for consideration;
AND WHEREAS the owners and occupants did not respond to the
circulation of the optional street names,
AND WHEREAS “Treadwell” was recommended over “Goudie” as the
spelling would present less confusion;
AND WHEREAS upon notification of the new street name the sole
business, The Top Generation Club, located on “Treadwell Rd.” has requested the
City consider changing the name to “Generation Crt.” in recognition of the
business name and that no other residents or businesses would be affected;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that Schedule “A” of By-law 2001-400 be amended by deleting the
name “Treadwell Road” and adding the name “Generation Court”
b) WHEREAS Item 17 of the Planning and
Development Committee Report 14 Issue 109 of Document 1 of the City Council
meeting held on September 26, 2001 approved the street name change for “Henry
St.” in the former City of Gloucester to “Shirley St.”;
AND WHEREAS, City Council enacted By-law 2001-400 formally
accepting, assigning and describing “Shirley St.” as a municipal highway;
AND WHEREAS the rationale for the new name was that “Henry St.” is a
natural extension of the existing Shirley St.;
AND WHEREAS during the installation of the new street signs it was
determined that the existing signs for “Shirley” have the suffix “Ave”;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that Schedule “A” of By-law 2001-400 be amended by deleting
after the name “Shirley” the suffix “St and adding the suffix “Ave.”
c) WHEREAS Item 17 of the Planning and
Development Committee Report 14 Issue 243 of Document 1 of the City Council
meeting of September 26, 2001 approved the street name change from “St. Paul
St.” in the former Township of Cumberland to “Agatha St.”;
AND WHEREAS, City Council enacted By-law 2001-391 formally accepting,
assigning and describing “Agatha St.” as a municipal highway;
AND WHEREAS as part of the public consultation process the optional
street names “Agatha” and “McAdam” were selected from the list of reserved
names held by the Township and circulated to the affected owners and occupants
for consideration;
AND WHEREAS the owners and occupants did not respond to the
circulation of the optional street names,
AND WHEREAS “Agatha” was recommended over “McAdam” as a clear and
unique name and to avoid potential confusion with other existing street names
beginning with “Mac” and Mc”;
AND WHEREAS upon notification of the new street name the sole
resident located on “Agatha St.” has requested the City consider changing the
name to “Tina St.” in recognition of her given name and that no other residents
or businesses would be affected;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that Schedule “A” of By-law 2001-391 be amended by deleting the
name “Agatha Street” and adding the name “Tina Street.”
d) That Option 1, in
Recommendation 1.9,2., Document 3, be approved.
2.
That the Planning and
Development Committee recommend Council enact implementing by-laws as detailed
in the Disposition.
CARRIED
as amended
PLANNIG AND
INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH
DIRECTION DE L’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES
D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE
9. Official
Plan And Zoning By-Law Amendments,
2200 Portobello
Blvd.
Modifications au
plan directeur et au règlement municipal
de zonage – 2200, boulevard portobell
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0118
Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
The Committee approved the recommendations
contained in departmental report dated 23 May 2002.
That the Planning and Development Committee recommend
that Council:
1.
Approve Amendment No. 36 to the Official Plan of the former City of
Cumberland, Urban Section, as it relates to two parcels of land located at the
northwest and southwest corners of Portobello Blvd. and Blackburn By-pass
Extension, as detailed in Document 3;
2.
Approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 1-84, of the former City of
Cumberland, to rezone land located at the northwest corner of Portobello Blvd.
and Blackburn By-pass from “D-R” and “R1H” to “R3D-X5”.
Carried
10. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE FORMER CITY OF KANATA, ZONING BY-LAW 168-94 AND DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL – 111 HOPE SIDE ROAD
DEMANDES DE MODIFICATIONS
DU PLAN DIRECTEUR DE L’ANCIENNEVILLE DE KANATA ET DU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL DE
ZONAGE 168-94 ET APPROBATION DU PLAN DE LOTISSEMENT – 111, CHEMIN SECONDAIRE
HOPE
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0107
Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone
who intended to appeal this proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law
Amendment, or the Planning and
Development Committee’s decision on the proposed subdivision, to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their
objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to
the amendment being adopted by City Council.
Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the
OMB.
Mr. Doug Kelly was present in
support of the report dated 23 May 2002.
The Committee approved the recommendations contained in the report.
That
the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council:
1.
Adopt the application to amend
the Official Plan (LOPA 68) of the former City of Kanata to change a
Neighbourhood Commercial and a Low Density Residential designation to High
Density Residential-Exception and Medium Density Residential designations
within the Bridlewood Community, as detailed in Document 4, and that this
Official Plan Amendment be forwarded to the Ontario Municipal Board for
approval.
2.
Adopt the application to amend
the former City of Kanata Zoning By-law 168-94 to rezone 111 Hope Side Road to
a Residential Type “4B-8” and Residential Type “5A-4” zone, and that this
Zoning By-law amendment be forwarded to the Ontario Municipal Board for
approval.
3.
Request that the Ontario
Municipal Board delegate approval authority of the Draft Plan of Subdivision
for 111 Hope Side Road to the Director of Planning and Infrastructure
Approvals.
CARRIED
11. ZONING AND OFFICIAL PLAN – 300 GOLDRIDGE DRIVE
RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE ET PLAN DIRECTEUR
–300, PROMENADE GOLDRIDGE
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0098
Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
The Committee approved the recommendations contained in the report dated 17 May 2002.
That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council
1.
Approve and adopt the
application to amend the Official Plan of the former City of Kanata from
Institutional to Residential Medium Density, as it applies to 300 Goldridge
Drive
2. Approve
the application to amend Zoning By-law 167-93, the By-law of the Marchwood Community,
former City of Kanata as it applies to 300 Goldridge Drive from Institutional
to Residential Type 3A, Residential Type 4B and Open Space Type 1.
CARRIED
12. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW OF THE FORMER
WEST CARLETON TOWNSHIP – 1251 HOWIE ROAD
MODIFICATIONS
PROPOSÉES AU PLAN DIRECTEUR ET AU RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE DE L’ANCIEN CANTON DE
WEST CARLETON – 1251, CHEMIN HOWIE
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0116
Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council or the proposed subdivision is granted draft approval by the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
Mr. Tim Chadder was present on behalf of the developer in support of the recommendations contained in report dated 24 May 2002.
The Committee approved the
recommendations contained in the report.
That the Planning and
Development Committee recommend that Council:
1.
Approve and adopt the application to amend the former Township of
West Carleton Official Plan to permit residential development as detailed in
Document 2.
2.
Approve an amendment to former Township of West Carleton Zoning
By-law to zone the site “RCL-47”-Country Lot Residential Zone, Special
Exception 47 Zone, and Open Space- 3 Zone to allow the development of an 8 lot
residential subdivision.
CARRIED
13. ZONING – 134 SALISBURY STREET
ZONAGE – 134, RUE SALISBURY
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0121
Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 27 May 2002.
That
the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve an
amendment to the former Township of West Carleton By-Law 65/94, to zone 134
Salisbury Street from “R1” – Residential Type 1 to “R4” – Residential Type 4
zone to permit a semi-detached dwelling.
Carried
14. ZONING – 5701 FALLOWFIELD ROAD
ZONAGE – 5701, CHEMIN FALLOWFIELD
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0099
Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 17 May 2002.
That the Planning and Development Committee
recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Goulbourn’s
Zoning By-law 40/99 from Agricultural (A1) Zone to Agricultural – Temporary Use
(A1 (T1)) Zone for the property located at 5701 Fallowfield Road.
CARRIED
15. ZONING - 1000 VISTA BARRETT PRIVATE
ZONAGE – 1000, RUE PRIVÉE VISTA BARRETT
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0126
Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
Messrs. Doug Grant, Iain Stewart and Doug Barker, Delcan/Parkbridge Communities/ D. A. Barker Associates, were present in support of the recommendation contained in report dated 2 June 2002.
The Committee approved the
recommendation contained in the report.
That the
Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve an amendment
to Zoning By-law 16-1971 of the former Township of Osgoode to amend the
definition of Mobile Home to permit modular homes to be installed with
alternative provisions only for property located at 1000 Vista Barrett Private.
CARRIED
16. ZONING – 4120A-L RIVERSIDE DRIVE
ZONAGE – 4120A-L, PROMENADE
RIVERSIDE
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0120
Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
Mr. Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, advised that John Smit and Roger Hunter were present. Mr. Hunter would provide a brief presentation on the proposed amendment contained in report dated 5 June 2002 and respond to any questions.
The Committee heard from the following delegations.
Annette Nicholson, General Counsel, Ottawa Macdonald Cartier International Airport, advised the particular concern with this property is the one new house being proposed. In particular, the concern is the part of the staff report that tortures the wording of the policies that are designed to protect the airport in order to say this proposal complies. As the Committee is aware, the Airport Authority is opposed to any re-zoning to permit any noise sensitive development within the 30 NEF NEP contours. The Provincial Policy against noise sensitive development within those contours supports the Authority. Shortly after the Provincial Policy was released in 1997, the Authority entered into long, difficult, detailed negotiations with the developers, the Cities of Gloucester, Nepean, Ottawa and the Region to develop the Airport Operating Influence Zone (AOIZ). The AOIZ was developed to bring the OP’s of the Region and the three cities into conformity with the Provincial Policy. It took well over a year and many meetings. Once agreed to, it required the approval of three City Councils, the Region, the Province and the OMB. The months of work and hard bargaining that lead to the creation of the AOIZ and the establishment of the boundaries involved striking a lot of balances and making a lot of compromises. Everybody put water in their wine and one of the things the Authority was very clear about, was that each time the Authority met with the representatives of the Cities and the Region, the Authority asked where the exceptions would come from. The idea was to deal with it all then, so that everybody would know what was allowed and what wasn’t allowed. The Authority was putting what everyone used to call a line in the sand to make it very clear, to avoid this kind of situation. What is being proposed today is an exemption from the policies of the AOIZ. It requires the re-zoning to permit the construction of a new house. The AOIZ specifically allows new construction if it involves infilling that does not require re-zoning. The circumstances here make the situation very difficult and, in particular, the failure of the landowner to be advised that the zoning was being changed in 1998; and, as a result, she could understand the temptation to make this exemption. The issue raised is that it is just one house. Each additional request for exemption brought forward will involve maybe just one, maybe three, maybe only six. Each will make it harder to refuse the next and each successful exemption will embolden others to come forward. In the end, there will be many exemptions and the purpose of the zone will be lost.
Each house built within the area is affected by aircraft noise represents real potential for genuine and strongly felt noise complaints. If you are made uncomfortable by the thought of trying to entertain your friends in an outdoor barbeque with aircrafts beaming overhead, you’re entitled to that view. And, if you find that you misunderstood the situation when you bought that house and it becomes very difficult to live there, you will complain and look for restrictions on aircraft operations. It is human nature and happens. It may not come from this current resident; it may come from the next one. But, aircrafts do make noise. This property is across the street from the airport, not miles away. Talking to her colleagues in other airports, airports in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto are all facing class-action suits from nearby homeowners affected by aircraft noise. The threat from development too close to an airport is real and not speculative. It builds up over time, from a series of small applications. It is hard to say no, but we do it every time. Since 1998 we’ve been asked many times about proposed exemptions. The decision belongs to the City. The Authority asks that if the City approves the exemption, it makes it very clear it is not opening the door to more. Her concern, as a lawyer is the Committee is the proposition that it complies with the policies in the zone, which it does not. The language of the zone was tortured to come to the conclusion it complies by saying that only one criteria needs to be involved because of the use of the word “or” and she provided an example. No, in a situation where you say you should not, if a), b) or c), means you don’t the minute one of them is hit. This one requires a re-zoning and it says you should not do this if it involves a re-zoning. So, let us not pretend there is compliance. The Authority is aware staff is working quite hard not to create a precedent. The staff report must be either rejected or made very clear it was a violation of the AOIZ Policies, but the extenuating circumstance is something else; perhaps the issue of the failure to notify in 1998.
To staff, based on the presentation, Councillor Stewart was aware that staff was confident this would not set a precedent and asked for comment. Mr. Lindsay responded that he was involved in the creation of the AOIZ, as he represented the City of Gloucester, and came up with the OP Policies and would not dispute what Ms. Nicholson said in that a lot of time, effort and work went into establishing these policies to protect the airport operations. The three governments at the time passed OPAs to entrench these policies. This was not taken lightly in the context of this report. Staff primarily looked at the fact this was a legally established use at one time. Through a process in the former City of Ottawa, certain rights were lost. Staff feels it is unique since he was aware of the situation in Gloucester and did not see anything that would parallel this situation where a new comprehensive zoning by-law did not recognize the existing use of parcels of land. In essence, staff is re-instating property rights, which existed prior to the 1998 City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law. Staff did not envision any further dividing of lots and will be respecting the AOIZ because it is in the best interest of the Committee and Council. Councillor Stewart highlighted it was very clearly outlined in the report there were conditions to building and that staff was quite aware the property will be in a noisy location. In the report it indicates there has never been a noise complaint from this area. Responding to a further question, Mr. Lindsay opined the people who currently possess the lands are well aware of the airport and its operations and will not be registering complaints. Ms. Nicholson’s concern is that this is a zoning by-law amendment and could be the first of many. Staff wanted to assure that these circumstances would not be duplicated with any other lot in the AOIZ. Councillor Stewart agreed.
Donna Allen, President, Uplands on the Rideau Association, has lived in her home for 35 years. She supported the re-zoning of 4120 A-L Riverside Drive because she lives there, and as a community and individuals, they were not notified of the zoning change in 1998. She has never complained to the Airport or to anyone about the airport in the 35 years she has lived there, nor did she intend to. They are effectively an independent community, on a private right of way, and she knows she speaks on behalf of all in support of Mr. Jiriunas being allowed to built his home at 4120-L, which is the furthest away from the highest NEF of the airport noise. The request for exemption is for all in the community, not for one, because they had to be exempted now since they were now zoned environmentally sensitive and not really allowed to be there, so the exemption is for all the community and for Mr. Jiriunas to be allowed to build a home.
The following individuals were present in support of the staff recommendation:
Robbyn Plumb; Gabriel Lessard; Shirley Gilchrist; Val Ashoor; Bill Seabrook; Greg Carter; Milan Kuchta; Ladas Jiriunas.
A letter dated 25 June 2002 was received from Ross Fumerton, 4120J Riverside Drive, in support of the recommendation.
Councillor Stewart asked the Committee to support the staff recommendation. What happened to this community was very sad. Even if they had seen the generic 2020Z rezoning notice in the paper, it would not have helped because the Committee approved the staff recommendation for no change. The change happened bizarrely on the floor of Council and staff did not comment. There was no record other than the fact it was approved. The community could not have spoken at Council. It was done without any process and up to Committee and Council to correct. She wanted to assure the airport that this is not the beginning of a string of applications. It is a unique application and it is unfortunate it has not been possible to completely close the gate on this zone and the exceptions that have come forward, but she was absolutely convinced it will not set a precedence and the airport has nothing to fear from it and asked for the Committee’s support.
Moved by Councillor Munter:
That
the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment
to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998, to change the zoning of the
properties at 4120A-L Riverside Drive from
Environmentally Sensitive Area, ES Zone to Environmentally Sensitive Area ES
[EXCEPTION] Zone, with provisions to re-establish residential uses as
permitted uses, as set out in Document 2.
CARRIED
17. ZONING – 145 RICHMOND ROAD
ZONAGE – 145, CHEMIN RICHMOND
ACS2002-DEV-APR-105
Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
Ms. Amy Kempster, Greenspace Alliance, Messrs. Don Kennedy and Richard Levitan, representative and owner, were present in support of the recommendation in the report dated 30 May 2002.
The Committee approved the recommendation contained in the report.
That
the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve the
application to amend the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998 to change
the zoning of 145 Richmond Road from a Small Scale Industrial Zone IS[301]
F(1.0) to a Residential Townhouse Exception Zone (R3J) and a Community Leisure
Exception Zone (L3A) to allow a residential planned unit development and
parkland as detailed in Document 2 and shown on Document 3.
CARRIED
18. Zoning
– Lands At The Northeast Corner Of
The Intersection Of River Road And Earl Armstrong Road
Zonage–terrains situés
à l’angle nord-est de
l’intersection des
chemins river et earl armstrong
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0114
Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
Mr. Paul Van Steen, Urbandale, was present in support of the recommendations contained in the report dated 17 May 2002.
The Committee approved the recommendations contained in the report.
That the Planning and Development Committee
recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Gloucester Zoning
By-law to change the zoning of the lands shown on Document 2 from Hc –
Commercial Highway Zone to CC(E34) – Community Commercial Zone (Exception 34).
CARRIED
19. ZONING – FOR LANDS ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIVER ROAD AND EARL ARMSTRONG ROAD
ZONAGE – TERRAINS SITUÉS À L’ANGLE
NORD-EST DE L’INTERSECTION DES CHEMINS RIVER ET EARL ARMSTRONG
ACS2001-DEV-APR-0115
Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
Mr. Paul Van Steen, Urbandale, was present in support of the recommendations contained in the report dated 17 May 2002.
The Committee approved the recommendations contained in the report.
That
the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment
to the former City of Gloucester Zoning By-law to change the zoning of the
lands shown in Document 2 from HR – Holding Residential Zone to CC(E34) –
Community Commercial Zone (Exception 34).
CARRIED
20.
ZONING – 4689 AND 4705 LIMEBANK ROAD
ZONAGE – 4689 ET 4705, CHEMIN
LIMEBANK
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0112
Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
Martin Flood was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 22 May 2002.
The Committee approved the recommendations in the report.
That
the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment
to the former City of Gloucester’s Zoning By-law to rezone 4689 and 4705
Limebank Road from Future Growth, ‘Fg’ and Agricultural Restricted Zone 2 ‘Ar2’
to Future Growth (Exception 2),
‘Fg(E2)’ and Future Growth (Exception 3 ), ‘Fg(E3).
CARRIED
21. ZONING – 5501 LIMEBANK ROAD
ZONAGE –
5501, CHEMIN LIMEBANK
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0113
Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering, was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 17 May 2002.
The Committee approved the recommendations in the report.
That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Gloucester Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 5501 Limebank Road from Ar1 – Agricultural Restricted Zone 1 to Ar1(T5) Agricultural Restricted Zone 1(Temporary Use No. 5).
CARRIED
22. ZONING
- 1717 QUEENSDALE AVENUE
ZONAGE – 1717, AVENUE QUEENSDALE
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0119
Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
The Committee approved the recommendation contained in report dated 17 May 2002.
That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council
approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 333 of 1999 of the former City of
Gloucester to change the zoning of 1717 Queensdale Avenue from Rs3 –
Residential Single Dwelling 3 to Ra1 – Low Density Apartment.
CARRIED
23. ZONING – 4790 BANK STREET
ZONAGE – 4790, RUE BANK
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0085
Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
Ms. Currie advised that Myles Mahon would be providing a brief presentation on report dated 6 June 2002 and respond to any questions
Councillor Cullen pointed out there
was a considerable amount of sensitivity with respect to the wetlands issue
around Leitrim and received confirmation a federal environmental assessment was
taking place, the outcome of which might have an impact on what was being
discussed. The question put to him was
whether it was premature to consider this prior to that outcome. Mr. Mahon responded there were two
assessments currently ongoing. There
was the area-wide risk assessment to deal with the contamination issue and the
advise received is that no one suspects there will be any concerns for
development. Responding to another
question, he indicated a representative from the Ministry of the Environment
was present to answer any technical questions and there was a memo from the
City’s Health Branch that indicates the affects of contamination are
unlikely. The MOE district office does
not feel the issues with contamination should adversely affect the development
in Leitrim. Councillor Cullen referred
to due diligence and it would seem wise to have those assessments concluded and
determinations made, if indeed they are made, before proceeding. Mr. Mahon responded that one of the main
aspects is that there were no adverse health impacts anticipated through the
process for the area. Tartan has a
number of monitoring wells for the Phase II lands they own closer to Albion
Road. There is a large distance between
the landfill site and the area proposed to be developed in Leitrim closer to
Bank Street. Councillor Cullen heard
that the anticipated results of the area-wide risk assessment and the
environmental assessment will not have any effect on this development. Mr. Larry Morrison, Manager, Infrastructure
Approvals, responded by pointing out that, as in the past, when due process was
followed for OPAs, Draft Plan Approval of Subdivision, through the Planning
Act, the federal or provincial agencies were not coming forward objecting
to the zoning. That confirms to staff
they will not object and it was not premature to proceed with the zoning, even
though the studies themselves may not be totally complete. Councillor Cullen commented that the City
anticipates, but does not know there will not be a problem. Mr. Morrison advised that staff was meeting
with Fisheries tomorrow afternoon and were looking at the end of the summer to
have their report completed; and, the overall environmental review by Transport
Canada will probably be available in the early fall. Councillor Cullen suggested that if the Committee deferred the
matter till October, the results would be available and the Committee would be
able to know officially that these assessments were completed and whether or
not there was a problem. Mr. Morrison
declared there was sufficient information currently available that the federal
and provincial agencies would be flagging any difficulty.
Mary Hegan, on behalf of the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), and
its working group, were pleased to provide the study
resulting from many reports and letters and presentations to their Committee by
staff, friends of Leitrim and the Tartan Land Corporation, which is on
file. Paul Koch, EAC Chair, lead the
EAC study on the issue put before the Committee today, but was unable to be
present to speak to Committee. In
reviewing 4-5 inches of documentation, EAC realized that decisions were made in
the past on issues leading up to the zoning amendment before Committee today. Past Councils, provincial authorities, OMB
and federal departments, made these decisions.
Yet, EAC views that the present Council has the responsibility to review
the findings and conflicting recommendations on all the scientific and
technical reports, before making the zoning decision. The present Council is accountable for future impacts on both the
Leitrim Wetlands and public health. As
the city planner outlined, EAC sees three priority issues before
Committee. One, is the wetland
protection and need to protect and maintain the few remaining wetlands within
the City for reasons listed in its brief.
The second main issue is public health; the potential for adverse
affects to human and other animal health from toxic fumes originating from the
former Gloucester landfill site. The
third issue is one of governance and due process. EAC’s specific recommendation on the zoning amendment is that it
be deferred until the City receives the permanent results from Fisheries and
Oceans and the Transport Canada Area-Wide Risk Assessment under the Federal
Environmental Assessment Act. The EAC
Environmental Assessment Committee should continue its work and look at that
documentation and report back when hopefully the zoning question will be looked
at.
If the City proceeds with the zoning
amendments, EAC has a number of other recommendations. One, there have been reports questioning the
total effect of the present storm water management pond. More importantly, is to have a mitigation
plan developed in case the remaining wetland water levels are lowered as some
experts have indicated is a possibility.
And, also, if there are other signs of wetland damage as development
starts. EAC asks that the location of
the Rim Road directly adjacent to the Class I wetlands be looked at since there
currently appears to be no buffer in place to protect the remaining wetlands
and its flora and fauna. EAC asked for
full monitoring plans and emergency response plans with regular reports back to
Council and the public in place before development starts. There appear to be monitoring wells in place
and, as already heard from staff, there are other studies ongoing. There is a certain level of public concern
and interest. This includes a
post-construction plan for monitoring on a long-term basis the contaminants
from the Gloucester landfill that may migrate to and within the housing and the
two elementary schools planned for development. EAC also suggests as part of a monitoring and review process that
Council establish an external panel, with a mix of expertise and perspectives.
EAC has more long-term
recommendations. EAC suggests there be
a complete inventory of remaining wetlands and that they be built into the new
OP and that there be a step by step protocol.
EAC wanted to be on record that it had some recommendations from the
issue before Committee today for future planning.
Philip Martin, provided written comments, which
were circulated to Committee members and are on file with the Clerk. The Leitrim Wetland contains an enormous
range of biodiversity that is not replicated anywhere else in the province of
Ontario. The material supporting this
has not been adequately reviewed. The
city is in danger of losing this wetland because of the inadequacy of the storm
water management system because the housing development is built at the lowest
part of the wetland and it is impossible to drain that area for housing without
affecting the rest of the wetland. He
is concerned that the experts; namely, Clark Top, Frederick Michel and Michael
Woodley, have not been consulted as peer reviewers, although this has been
suggested by many people. These experts
should have the ability and the right to comment on the original consultant
report by Cumming and Golden. There is
a wealth of information in the medical literature to show that human habitation
close to a waste site results in human health problems; notably, teratogeny and
Downs Syndrome. The latest papers by
Martine Fraihate and others have estimated that that risk is at least a third
as great as in an unaltered area. This
hazard does not appear to have been considered at all by Ottawa city officials,
nor by the consultants for Tartan Homes.
There is no mention at all in Cumming Cobourn or Golden consultants
reports. He suggested the decision to
rezone be delayed until the reports dealing with the problems become available
later this year; namely, the Area-Wide Risk Assessment, being conducted by
Transport Canada; and, the Environmental Assessment being produced by the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in collaboration with other federal departments. The latter study, in particular, is a major
study, not just affecting fish. If the
land is rezoned the land value will be raised considerably and add to the cost
of claims that could be made against the City if the land is not developed as a
result of a negative federal decision.
He was also concerned about the
numerous misstatements in the discussion section, on page 202-209, about the
Leitrim Wetland. There are statements
that the area naturalists as represented by the Leitrim Naturalists Group,
which contained representatives of the Ottawa Field Naturalists, have been
somehow in agreement with the boundary set and known as the core wetland. That is not and has never been the case. He drew the Committee’s attention to a
letter written by Mike Murphy, in 1991, specifically objecting to both the
problem of the toxic contamination and the loss of biodiversity. Secondly, there was no health study of any
area residents on Del Zotto Avenue, nor any studies on air quality that would
justify the contention that there has been no expectation of health risks in
the rest of the area. If such studies
have not been done, the statement is highly misleading. He presumed that when such statements are
made there is scientific backing for it and asked for a copy of the data. The recent study by Vrijheid et al concludes
there are substantial health risks for persons living less than 3 k. from a
waste dump. Most of the Leitrim Wetland
is well within this distance. In view
of the ongoing Area-Wide Health Risk Assessment statements made by Mr. Lathrop
about the efficacy of the treatment by Transport Canada at the Gloucester
Landfill Site should be regarded as debatable as well as premature. In view of the studies being conducted,
there is no firm evidence to support the contention of the MOE that development
should go ahead.
Chair Hunter pointed out the
previous two speakers seemed to be under the impression the question was
whether residential uses were permitted, which is not the question. That is a question of OP and it was
designated as urban. The Committee is
dealing with the detailed zoning plan; the density, the location of the
streets, location of parks etc. He asked
that future speakers reserve themselves to the appropriateness of the zoning, which
is the issue before Committee.
Stan Rosenbaum [an e-mail submitting the comments of the Ottawa Field Naturalists from Mr. Rosenbaum was circulated to the Committee, and is on file]. Mr. Rosenbaum commented that the report reflects that a Committee comprised of representatives from the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Conservation Authority and Area Naturalists established the boundary for the Leitrim Wetland in 1991. That statement clearly insinuates that Area Naturalists were a party to the establishment of the boundary and agreed to it, which was not the case. They did not agree to it. One can assume the Area Naturalists were included in the Committee to lend a kind of political credibility to the decision, which was made against their advice. Another statement made in that same paragraph, which said, “the area proposed to be rezoned, is outside the boundary of the Leitrim wetland”. It’s outside the boundary of the area that was parceled off to become the wetland. That’s what remains after the other part is drained and destroyed as a wetland of course. Then the remaining wetland is the wetland. The existing wetland as it stands now includes the area of the storm water pond or water treatment and he delineated it on the map. What’s on the table this afternoon is only a small part of what appears to be the existing wetland, but it does include the storm water treatment area, which would require very deep dredging, and when carried out, there is a significant chance it will not protect the wetland. A Committee established the boundary and the area naturalists did not agree to that but are being quoted as if they did.
The measures proposed to preserve the remaining part of the wetland, is mentioned on the next page of the document. Professionals have raised concerns that the impenetrable liner may itself be impermeable, but due to porosity of subsoils, the berm may be ineffective. He was not aware of any financial provision for eventual repairs to the barrier. And, if there are any future mitigation measures required, they are going to be expensive and this should have been acknowledged under the heading of financial implications which presently state “not applicable”. In view of ongoing federal investigations, rezoning at this time would be premature, as several previous speakers have said.
Councillor Deans wanted to be clear about the paragraph referred to on page 202 of the report pertaining to the Area Naturalists, since he was not the first person who raised it, she wanted to be clear if the statement was accurate. Was it his understanding that the Area Naturalists participated in a Committee to establish the boundary for the Leitrim wetlands in 1991? Mr. Rosenberg responded they participated in a Committee. Councillor Deans was not reading that insinuation in the paragraph. The report indicates a Committee established the boundary for the Leitrim wetland in 1991. Committees make many decisions, but it doesn’t mean everyone sitting around the table agrees with the decision(s). She did not read that the Area Naturalists necessarily concurred with the decision reached. She did not want to leave the impression that staff deliberately misled this Committee or Council in any statement.
In response to a question by Councillor Cullen, Mr. Rosenberg indicated he would support a motion to defer the zoning amendment until after the required permit from Fisheries and Oceans was received and the Transport Canada Area Wide Risk Assessment under the Federal Environmental Assessment Act was completed. But, on further questioning by Chair Hunter, he added that the Field Naturalists did have other objections to the application.
Councillor Stavinga asked if there was further assessment with regard to the wetland boundary since she had found the boundaries reflected in the 1997 Regional OP were not accurate. They were more extensive; and, as a consequence, resulted in debate at Committee on a recent subdivision. She also questioned if the OMB played a role in the wetland boundary. Mr. Mahon pointed out the Ministry of Natural Resources was responsible for the wetland boundaries in Ontario, which are the boundaries used in establishing the area to be designated in the 1997 OP. He was not aware of any evaluations made between 1991 and 1997. The storm water management facilities went through the Environmental Assessment Process and deemed to be sufficient study to determine what could go into the adjacent lands for the wetland. Mr. Morrison added that the boundary, as it exists on the Tartan lands, was defined by the Committee referred to several times. The Ministry of Natural Resources defined the boundary that lies in the Reimer lands at an OMB hearing. So the boundary as it’s know now on the Tartan lands has been in existence for quite some time and reviewed again during the Region’s OP and confirmed to be the actual boundary for the wet land, with no appeal.
In responding to a further question, Mr. Lindsay recalled that when the application came forward it was reviewed in detail by Ministry of Natural Resources, as Mr. Morrison said, as well as this Committee. It would be the detailed review that took place on the Tartan lands; the lands were walked, surveyed, mapped and then provided to the then City of Gloucester with respect to the delineation of the FG zone and the open space corridor. It was a fairly detailed exercise similar to what has occurred and has been occurring in Stittsville. In clarification, the re-zoning proposed by staff respects the boundary as it was defined and included the buffer zone.
Erwin Dreesen, Greenspace Alliance, observed the advice from staff continues to maintain an extremely myopic view of what the Federal Assessment is all about. He referred to page 205, middle of the page, where the staff report says “The assessment addresses only the Fisheries Compensation Agreement for Findlay Creek and will not impact on the approved storm water design.” It was an unsustainable position. He exampled the letter recently received from Ministry Thibault, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and he quoted just a few phrases in the middle of the page, which he distributed and is on file. In the middle of the page it says that “Health Canada and Environment Canada are respectively the two Federal Departments with mandates addressing the potential for contaminant impacts on human health and the ecosystem. Accordingly, says the Minister, I’ve taken the liberty of forwarding copies to his two colleagues, the Ministers of Health and Environment for expert advice as it relates to the Environmental Assessment as prescribed by subsection 12(3) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAC). Transport Canada, Agriculture Canada and Natural Resources Canada have also been contacted for advice and input regarding the screening report. That makes a total of six federal departments now involved in preparing a draft screening report. This clearly demonstrates there’s more involved than fish in Findlay Creek or mere Fisheries compensation agreement is at issue. There are replies from several Ministers that indicate clearly the onus is on the proponent to provide more information because there is not enough information on the record to do a full assessment. DFO has decided to await the outcome of Transport Canada’s Area Wide Risk Assessment before finalizing it’s draft screening report; i.e. the draft screening report will not be forthcoming before the fall. In the words of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans “the draft screening report will provide ample opportunity for public comment”. Transport Canada plans to hold an open house after the peer review of its area wide risk assessment is in. On peer reviews, here is the latest advice from experts at the Geological Survey of Canada, Hydrogeology Section. The advice goes on for ten pages, and there is a documents list and an appendix attached to that. It concludes that the review documents do not provide sufficient data and analysis to conclude that the proposed storm water management facilities will not have adverse effect on water levels in the wetland. It goes on to say the reported base flow data is insufficient. It also says that the hydraulic conductivity of the peat and bedrock are insufficiently characterized. It says finally, the installation of the geo-synthetic clay liner may require significant excavation. Dewatering of this excavation could lower ground water levels in the wetland. There is no indication that this issue has been considered and assessed. Monitoring of water levels in the wetlands following construction of storm water management facilities does not appear to be planned yet would be appropriate. How much clearer can we make it? That the proponent may have to revise his plans, perhaps, even abandon them altogether. Believing that the outcome of this federal assessment will have no impact on zoning and the plan of subdivision is quite a heroic assumption. We therefore urge you to defer consideration of this zoning amendment. In the alternative should Committee wish to go ahead, at least delay passage of the zoning by-law until after final disposition of the Federal Environmental Assessment. This would avoid an appeal to the OMB as a precautionary measure. The OMB would not want to hear this case until final disposition of the Federal Assessment. Finally, the Green Space Alliance and several of its members have submitted detailed comments to staff, and the objections are based on the Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement, on the Regional OP and on Charting a Course principles. In closing, under the current plans identified regionally rare and sparse plant species will be destroyed; in one case, even eliminated from the wetland. Secondly, there’s a mature wood stand with more than 70 trees in 100-200 year old range that will be ruined if the proposed discharge channel is constructed. [Documentation received is on file.]
Pierre
Dufresne, Manager of Land Development, Tartan Land Corporation. The project has a 12
year history and this is the final implementation. Tartan is enacting what was always conceived for the property;
‘Residential dwelling units, parks, schools and storm water management
uses.’ He would be answering some
statements made by earlier presenters that were misconceptions or misleading. First, the designation of the wetland
boundary did undergo an extensive public consultation, not only with all the
technical review agencies with the federal, provincial and regional
levels. All those that have authority,
agreed with the proposal and how to protect the wetland from the effects of adjacent
developments and notwithstanding what was said before, there was a group called
the Leitrim naturalists group that supported the endeavor. That group was made up of members of the
Ottawa Field Naturalists, Sierra club, members of the public, environmental
advocates who have since written letters that have objected to it. There is a letter on file that states they
unequivocally support what was agreed upon.
It does state that it may not be the best-case scenario for them, but
understand that under the planning process it’s a good and fair solution. Tartan has been painted the bad guys, but
undertook the public consultation on wetlands designated urban land purchased
at urban values, with a legal right to develop those lands. Tartan is donating over 230 acres of this
wetland to the South Nation Conservation Authority for a tax receipt and
protecting that wetland, spending millions of dollars on a stormwater
management system that will ensure the protect of that wetland; given up
authority to legally do anything on that wetland, not only through conveyance
but by supporting the former Region to re-designate those urban lands to
wetland, without appeal. Tartan is
providing financial contributions to the South Nation Conservation Authority
and setting up partnerships for them to be able to develop those wetlands in
terms of recreational, passive and educational facilities. Tartan will donate its sales centre to them,
to turn it into a interpretation centre.
These
wetlands will be protected, but the experts with the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment Canada, local, the provincial environment department,
the conservation authority, hydro-geologists, biologists stormwater management
experts, anyone with authority over these lands agree and support what Tartan
is doing. Unfortunately everyone can’t
be convinced, and some of those people know how to very effectively challenge
any type of process that requires public approval. It was suggested this may be premature given the federal
assessment. There are two components to
the federal assessment; there is the fish compensation agreement and tied into
that is the wetland issues and the contamination issue. The technical matters with the fish
compensation agreement and the wetland issues have all been agreed upon with
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; in fact, they dictated what needed to
be done. It was extensive and will cost
more money. Tartan agreed not only to
rehabilitate that part of the fish habitat that will be disturbed by the channellization
of the creek; mitigate against the damage, but also improve and enhance that
fish habitat for the protection of the fish to be able to survive and
flourish. The contamination issue is
not new. That contaminated site was
identified in the 1980s; the landfill was removed. It was identified there are contaminants in both the shallow and
deep aquifers. Testing has been ongoing
to ensure that migration does not come onto the property. Tartan does not want to have contaminated
lands and wants to make sure it is not.
The Ministry of the Environment, the city health department, federal
government departments, Health Canada, Environment Canada and Transport Canada
are all monitoring the situation and have all agreed through their comments on
this federal process that the development should not be precluded or
delayed. Tartan is awaiting the final
copy of the study. Does zoning jump the
cue of the results of this study, no, there is a condition for approval that
determines that the federal assessment process has to be completed prior to the
conveyance of any lot in this subdivision.
So whether this property is zoned or not, it will be enforced. If there is one threat of contamination and
health risk on the property, the Ministry of the Environment has the statutory
authority to shut Tartan down. The
zoning should be approved.
Councillor
Deans highlighted the condition she asked staff to include in the draft plan of
subdivision that says no agreement of purchase and sales shall be finalized
until such time as the approval from the Department of Oceans and the
Certificate of Approval from the Ministry of Environment and Energy are
granted, which Tartan agreed to. She
brought it to the attention of the Committee because it addresses some of the
issues heard around the table in terms of having a condition in the final
subdivision that gives some protection for those approvals.
Councillor
Cullen explained that the amendment he was putting forward deals with the
required permit, which seems to be covered by the remarks just heard, but also
deals with the Transport Canada Area Wide Risk Assessment under the Federal EA
Acts. This is expected to be completed
by the fall and questioned if the four-month delay would be a problem. Mr. Dufresne responded that Tartan hoped
that some of the processes, which need to be completed to build units, run
concurrent. If Tartan were to wait
until the finalization of that report, the next step would be that the report
would go to the department of Fisheries and Oceans for authorization with
another two month delay for completion and then another couple more months for
the zoning to be completed with the opportunity for appeal. It would end up extending well into next
year so Tartan would prefer that the processes run concurrently. For the protection of the concerns about the
contaminated waste site and the wetlands, if the zoning is approved today and
by council at the end of July, it will not impact or prejudice those concerns
because there are already other protective measures the municipal planning
process and through provincial statute to meet those interests.
Councillor Cullen pointed out that if the decision is appealed to
the OMB, the Board would be unwilling to be seized because of the outstanding
studies, particularly the Transport Canada Area Wide Risk Assessment. Mr. Dufresne responded that although it will
be extremely useful when completed he did not agree the OMB would require that
the studies be complete because Transport Canada are commissioning the studies. They are on the record that they do not want
to see development interrupted; the locally Ministry of the Environment are
also on the record there was no reason to stop development. The area wide risk assessment was an
insurance policy. There was ongoing
monitoring and testing on the property and extensive testing on properties west
of the boundary, with no indication there is a human health risk threat on the
property. All the applicable agencies
agree with that assessment.
Barbara Barr was in support of Couuncillor Cullen’s motion to defer the zoning until after the Federal Environmental assessment which began in February 2000. This is not a simple assessment. Section 5.5.2, Policies for Adjacent Lands of the Regions OP reads, “Council shall 1. Permit development and site alteration on lands adjacent to provincially significant wetlands designated on Schedules A and B, only if the following conditions are met: a) … b) It is demonstrated that the proposed development or site alteration will not have any negative impacts on the natural features or on the ecological functions for which the area is identified as described in the wetlands evaluation undertaken by the Ministry of Natural Resources.” That section of the OP simply reflects a provision in Subsection 2.3.2 of the Natural Heritage Section of the provincial policies statement, so the OMB would definitely be interested if the community was forced to appeal a premature zoning action to the OMB. The item proposed to be adjacent to the provincially significant wetland that has the potential to have a negative impact on it is the storm water management system, the drainage ditch, the pond in the lowest part of the wetland and the discharge channel. Those are proposed to be zoned OS. Natural Resources Canada has substantial concerns about the storm water works. Agriculture and Agri Food Canada soils expert had this to say in a letter to DFO, dated March 7, 2002. “Hence this uncertainty about the adequacy of the hydrologic barrier the protecting the hydrologic conditions of the wetland core still exists. Uncertainty about whether a proposal will result in significant adverse effects is one of the elements that could cause the DFO to refer the proposal to the Minister of Environment for mediation or a panel review. At present, federal departments are indicating uncertainty bordering on no confidence about the ability of the storm water system to exist in the proposed location without draining water from the provincially significant area of the wetland. Basically the federal departments are asking for more information so that they can consider the matter additionally before reaching their conclusions. If staff think this environmental assessment is just about a fisheries compensation agreement they had better consult the case law on environmental assessments. No matter how much you want to see this development proceed, it is inappropriate to pre-judge the results of the federal assessment and she encouraged the Committee to defer the zoning. If Councillors want the federal agencies like the NCC to respect the planning processes the Committee had better be prepared to respect the federal government’s processes.
Correspondence dated 26 June 2002 from Albert W. Dugal was circulated to the Committee
She directed the Committee to a diagram she handed out. She asked a botanist to draw the wetland boundary on top of the zoning. He drew in the boundary of Cumming Cockburn, who is the consultant for the developer. He drew in a similar boundary of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. There’s no dispute that the wetland is this big. So now there is a little artificial kind of line that resulted from an OMB decision, there is the provincially significant wetland. The other wetland is simply to be developed wetland. You have to be careful when you are talking about wetland, it’s the provincially significant wetland. When people have been talking about wetland, they have only been talking about the part that’s going to the South Nations Conservation Authority. This is also wetland. How did the OMB make such a decision? It might have been related to an economic return for the owner. But there is the responsibility of not hurting the provincially significant wetland when working adjacent to it. She pointed out the mature woodland with 70-200 year old trees in the discharge channels of the storm water works. They should be moved elsewhere. Two of the rarer plants are in one of the institutional zones; and, two others are in the storm water pond. She proposed that the wetland portion of the site be zoned OS. In conclusion, she asked for an information and comments session in the community, which is needed, since this is Phase 1 of an entirely new growth area, it ought to demonstrate some smart growth principles, and should be discussed. In a written statement she submitted yesterday, which is on file, she read “ I reason that zoning now before the report of the federal environmental assessment has been issued, creates a no-win situation for everyone because it essentially forces community people to appeal to the OMB which takes the decision-making out of the city’s hands and it inconveniences the developer.” She didn’t think the OMB would rule until the federal report is completed; the reason being that the provincial approval is conditional. One of the conditions is the fisheries and the storm water approval. That doesn’t happen until the environmental assessment is complete and that raises more issues beyond fisheries. She urged deferral.
In response to a question by Councillor Stavinga, Mr. Mahon related that was a boundary originally floated when M&R first did the assessment in 1989. Since then, it has undergone a number of re-iterations and the boundary defined as a significant wetland in the Leitrim area is the one on the zoning map. That was accepted by the Ministry of Natural Resources and went through a public consultation process for the regional OP; and, Gloucester Zoning By-Law, in 1999, in terms of the province and the city. He demonstrated the wetland boundary on the map. Councillor Stavinga commented it was the straightest wetland boundary she had ever seen, but it was defined by decision with regard to certain uses coming into play encroaching on the wetland. In response to a further question by the Councillor, Mr. Mahon clarified that it was a standard condition for a plan of subdivision that the zoning had to be in place and the appeal period expired before the subdivision could be registered. Many of the issues raised today were discussed during the subdivision approval process. It was originally draft-approved in 1994, and revised by the Region in 1996. Since then it needed an extension of the draft approval and at that time Tartan decided to submit a different concept, so there was a revised plan submitted in 2000. It went to the Planning and Advisory Committee, which is a public meeting of the City of Gloucester for the local conditions for the subdivision. The subdivision was approved under delegated authority to staff, in June 2002.
Councillor Stavinga received further clarification that the plan of subdivision is approved and the lands are subsequently re-zoned to implement those decisions.
Moved by Councillor Cullen:
That consideration of the proposed zoning amendment for 4790 Bank Street be deferred until after the required permit from Fisheries and Oceans has been issued and the Transport Canada Area-Wide Risk Assessment under the Federal Environmental Assessment Act has been completed.
LOST
YEAS (3): Councillors Cullen, Munter, Stavinga
NAYS (4): Councillors Bellemare, Hume, Harder, Hunter
Moved by J. Harder:
That the
Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to
Zoning By-law 333-1999 (former City of Gloucester) to change the zoning of 4790
Bank from Fg (Future Growth Zone) to RC3 (Special Mixed Residential), RA1 (Low
Density Apartment), OS (Open Space), and In (Institutional Neighbourhood).
CARRIED
YEAS (4): Councillors Bellemare, Hume, Harder, Hunter
NAYS (3): Councillors Cullen, Munter, Stavinga
24. DRAFT PLAN OF
SUBDIVISION 06T-99029 – BLOCK J (QUARRY
FOREST)
– MINTO DEVELOPMENTS
PLAN DE LOTISSEMENT PROVISOIRE 06T-99029 – Bloc J (QUARRY FOREST)
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0127
Mr. Mahon provided a brief presentation on the departmental report dated 11 June 2002 and would respond to any questions.
Councillor Cullen advised that he would be moving a motion of referral back to staff of the subdivision approval to meet a number of issues.
Councillor Hume suggested there were three options. The Committee could approve the zoning in the subdivision as presented and development can occur on the site. If the Committee doesn’t want development to occur on the site, there were two choices. The City could acquire the property or downzone it as open space, making it protected land in private ownership. Mr. Marc pointed out those were theoretically the three options open to Committee. If Committee were to pursue the third option, it would require the formal zoning process to be followed. Committee could not direct the passage to such a By-Law because this was not a statutory public hearing under Section 34 of the Planning Act. Councillor Hume received confirmation that re-zoning the property as open space was an appealable process. But, the property would still be private property and the only way to bring the property into public ownership was to acquire it.
Councillor Stavinga inquired if the report was vetted through the Forests Advisory Committee. Mr. Mahon responded it had not. The application had a long history. It was originally submitted to the Region in 2000. It was circulated for comments and the tree preservation plan was part of that circulation. It then went to Committee and the OMB. Councillor Stavinga referred to the motion she put forward, carried by Committee, which specifically said the Forests Advisory Committee and the Environmental Advisory Committee review the tree preservation strategy and conservation green space blocks to ensure the City maximizes the preservation of locally significant natural features in the sub-division development. Council subsequently approved that on June 13th 2001, but she was now given to understand that process did not take place. Mr. Lathrop explained that normally staff would have taken the environmental assessment report from the consultant through the two advisory committees. The problem pertains to an OMB decision, which requires a position to the OMB before Aug. 26th. That has pre-empted staff to conduct the circulation to get it through the process. Responding to a further question, Mr. Mahon indicated that Council passed an interim control by-law and requested that an environmental value assessment be completed, which was not completed until the 6th of June. There was insufficient time to consult the advisory committees prior to the report rising to Planning and Development Committee. Councillor Stavinga recognized the bureaucratic hurdles to place items on an agenda, but presentations could have been made to the Advisory Committees, with a subsequent addendum to Planning and Development Committee, with their comments.
Moved by Councillor Cullen:
That the application for draft plan of subdivision approval for
Block J Quarry Forests be referred back to staff to consider the following:
1.
Increasing
the amount of open space and/or environmental easement based on the convention
established by the NOSS;
2. Increasing the amount of open space on the table land outside of the sloped area covered by the environmental constrained lands as determined by the 1.5 safety factor in order to increase the protection of mature trees in consultation with the Ottawa Forests Advisory Committee.
Councillor Hume asked staff for the implications of deferral on the hearing. Mr. Marc advised that staff did not ask for this hearing date, which was originally set for July 15. That would have meant a report would have been walked onto Committee on June 13th and to yesterday’s Council meeting. Staff was successful in obtaining an adjournment, but only until August 26th. He doubted the OM would grant another adjournment. If this motion were passed it would mean the City of Ottawa would not have a position on the subdivision when the hearing commences. Staff would not be able to argue either in favor or against it, nor could it ask for conditions. No position could be taken on the subdivision.
Councillor Munter requested clarification on the matter. This was a draft plan of subdivision, which was normally delegated and when undelegated, required only Committee approval. In that vein, why would it matter when the August Council met, if Committee dealt it with in July? Mr. Marc advised that at the time it was originally considered the plans did proceed to Council and as a result Council took a position on the subdivision. He was concerned that Council would take one position on the Zoning By-Law and Committee would take another, which would leave the City in an untenable position. Given that this item went to Council in June 2001, as a grandfathered one, it ought to return to Council for a City position. In response to a further question of clarification, Mr. Marc advised that the Zoning By-Law and Plan of subdivision were before Committee. The Committee could take a position on the zoning within the confines of By-law 333-5 of 2000 of the City of Gloucester. The Committee wouldn’t pass an implementing by-law. The Board would make those changes. To ask the Board to zone certain land as open space would require a full re-zoning process.
Mr. Marc further clarified the three options open to Committee and Council. Option 1 would essentially adopt the staff report, which would lead to the City supporting draft approval and By-Law 333-5, as revised. Option 2 would proceed along the road of acquisition and that would involve the Committee referring that matter to Corporate Service Committee. Option 3 would have these lands in private ownership but zoned for environmental protection. If the Committee wished to pursue option 3, it would entail adopting a recommendation against draft approval and direct staff to bring forward a zoning by-law that would designate the lands open space. Councillor Munter observed that of the three options, only one can approved and completed in time for the OMB hearing. Mr. Marc confirmed option 3 could not be; and, with respect to Option 2, it was unlikely, but if the City committed to expropriating the lands, Minto would agree to adjourn the hearing. Councillor Munter suggested that information speaks to the need for referral. The likely preferred options were not possible by August 26th. So the argument the City would miss the hearing was irrelevant if the Committee opted for two of the options and there’s interest in understanding those options better. The best option is for the Committee to recommend that Council delegate the decision to Planning and Development Committee as is normally the case for subdivision approvals and that it be dealt with later on that basis.
In response to a question by Councillor Hume related to Option 3, Mr. Marc suggested that if the Committee was seriously considering that option, he would like the opportunity to discuss the matter in-camera with the Committee. Councillor Hume believed that everyone should know the risks in. He would not favour going in-camera.
The Committee heard from the following delegations, on the issue of deferral:
J. P. Unger suggested he might open a fourth option, which might lead to the site being declared a hazardous site not suitable for development which would make it’s commercial value zero and Minto would be very interested in getting rid of it. He raised it at the January OMB hearing and a member of the OMB answered that he could not rule on it, that the City could order a study. He was talking about a safety study. It is a legal requirement mandated in the OP, which has not been done as yet. He had been raising this for more than 2 years and didn’t know why staff has chosen to overlook it. Section 11.5 of the OP states, “Prior to considering a development proposal would require a study to be undertaken if there is a former mine or an abandoned quarry on or adjacent to the site. The study will identify any potential safety hazards, demonstrate that the site can be rehabilitated to mitigate the known or suspected hazards, and establish procedures for site rehabilitation and mitigation of the safety hazard.”
In response to a question by Councillor Munter on the safety study, Mr. Mahon advised there was a policy in the Regional OP that deals with abandoned mines and quarries, etc. The policy is meant to address safety concerns such as someone falling off the edge of the quarry. When Minto submitted the application, they provided evidence that the top of the quarry was fenced. Condition of draft approval number 19 requires that the backyard fencing for the lots in the location behind the quarry face in terms of the setback would be determined by a geo-technical engineer to ensure the setback for the fence was technically feasible and safe in terms of fence construction.
Mr. Unger added that the concerns were much broader and beyond people falling off the sides. Using a map he demonstrated the sides had crumbling rocks and boulders. It is all fractured limestone. They intend to blast, with houses in the area. The area in the municipal map of soil specification is classified as unstable soil. The houses would be sitting on cliff faces already crumbling. This is the kind of safety hazard such a study would look into. It needs to be fenced and he pointed out that the allegedly generous dedication to the City is actually a strip of crumbling cliffs, which would be a liability. There needs to be some mitigation and precautionary measures taken regardless of who owns it. There are reasons for mandating a safety study for a former quarry that has suffered decades and decades of blasting and hammering.
Mary Hegan wanted to be on record that the EAC would like to live up to its responsibilities as approved in a former motion of Council. The next meeting is July 11th and they only received circulated information about four to five days ago and were not in a position to comment. But, if this motion was approved the Committee could comment.
Councillor Stavinga realized that the Committee meets on a monthly basis, but recognized the Committee was provided with a copy of the report this Monday. She asked and received confirmation there would be a willingness to provide information if there was a referral. She noted Planning and Development Committee was meeting twice in July, once as Planning and Development Committee and earlier in a joint meeting with Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee to deal with the Nutrient Management By-law. Was that not an opportunity to have the Committee deal specifically with this item? Mr. Marc responded that taking this report to Committee on the 15th of July would permit it to get to Council on the 24th.
Councillor Munter accepted there was insufficient time for another report to be submitted for the July 15th meeting, but it could come in a different form from the General Manager or whomever, providing the information required to amend the report if that’s what the Committee chose to do.
Joanna Dean, Co-Chair of the Forests Advisory Committee, indicated the Ottawa Forests Advisory Committee would welcome the opportunity to review the material. The Advisory Committee would not be making a formal detailed comment on the report tonight. It only received a copy of the report late Monday at its meeting with no advance warning and, in fact, it wasn’t even a complete copy of the report. They were very lucky to have Deborah Irwin there and to ask her questions to put together the motion she was reading from. They did have several members of the Committee who could have a better look at it and provide some sort of feedback on it if it were referred.
Barbara Buckland had no idea how deferral would affect things at the OMB. She didn’t have enough information. The Committee is ill informed if it doesn’t have the advice from the Ottawa Forests Advisory Committee or the Environmental Advisory Committee. It should not be taken lightly that the hazard study of the abandoned quarry has not been done. This is a piece of property that has been quarried and has not been decommissioned properly. The City doesn’t know what it’ s been filled with. There is an active creek. The City doesn’t know hydrology. This is a natural out cropping, so the outside of the face is very old with very big boulders, fractured and crumbling. The trees are holding it together. None of it has been assessed to determine what will happen when you remove the cover or start to blast. The study also talks about impacting the community and assessing the impact on the surrounding development in the community. The Committee doesn’t have enough information to decide if the subdivision is even feasible or safe. Her preference was to take a position of no. It was not meant for subdivision development and that could be argued as well as the zoning question.
Douglas Kelly, Soloway, Wright, indicated Mary Jarvis, a planner with Minto, was with him. They observed they were back after a year with almost the same recommendation from staff, which was approval. At that time staff said they had all of the technical information required to grant approval. It was deferred to complete a relative environmental assessment. It was interim controlled, which they objected to. Your biologist, Mr. Muncaster, in conjunction with their biologist, did the work. They worked together and Mr. Ellingwood of Niblin Environmental and the report before Committee, which basically says it has some, but not significant, merit. It’s a degraded woodlot.
On the referral, Mr. Kelly indicated the actual open space area on the former easement, which Gloucester didn’t want to accept as open space because they didn’t want the liability, may increase or decrease depending upon the detailed calculation of where that line is. Secondly, in respect to the safety factor and the stability of the soil and the slope, this is rock. Over a hundred bore holes were taken on this site. Their engineering recommendations have gone to staff. Their advice is that it is totally safe and staff has accepted it. Minto is not prepared to give up any more table land to open space. Minto is over the 5% of open space in the subdivision. He did not know what other information is needed to make a decision. If the City wants to acquire the land, then act quickly and decisively to do so because the longer the City waits the more expensive the land becomes.
Ms. Jarvis referred to the comments by Ms. Buckland and Mr. Unger on the safety factor of the quarry face. Minto plans to come through with a site plan application for the bottom of the quarry, which was Block 91 on the subdivision plan. At that point Minto would provide a detailed plan for securing the quarry face. Now, it is pretty much vertical and has been that way as long as Minto has owned it. Over time, there has been some frost action with water getting into crevices, ice expanding and rocks falling. In terms of the pit and the wet area in the pit, a geotechnical study was conducted in 1993 and a bore hole driven into what used to be wet area. Those reports were submitted to staff. The bore hole uncovered that clean fill was used. The city of Gloucester asked Minto to fill it in for safety purposes in the 1980s.
Mr. Kelly added that with respect to option 3, not only would the City have to rezone it, it would have to change the OP designation in both the regional and local OPs, because it is currently general urban area and residential in those plans.
Councillor Hume wanted everyone to understand what the motion does to the City’s position at the hearing on August 26th. Mr. Marc advised that Mr. James McIninch, from Bell Baker, who was retained by the City, will say nothing on the plan of subdivision, neither in favour, opposed, nor on the conditions. Responding to further questions related to the re-zoning, it was confirmed that legal counsel would speak in favour unless Council adopts a new position.
There was general discussion of the various options open to the Committee, one of which was possible acquisition of the land, should it be re-zoned as open space and the source of funding, since the entire natural environment acquisition fund was inadequate to finance such an acquisition. One method suggested was a special levy in the Orleans community, since there was a history of land dedication/exchanges/trades through previous larger subdivisions with Minto that provided for the parks, institutional lands, open space, etc. within the community that provided for the development of the subject lands.
Moved by Councillor Cullen:
That, with respect to recommendation 2, By-Law 333-5 of 2000 be referred to staff to prepare a re-zoning to designate these lands as open space.
Mr. Marc opined that if the Committee referred this back, it was putting the City in an extremely difficult position in front of the OMB.
Moved by Councillor Cullen:
That the meeting of the Planning and Development Committee move In
Camera and suspend the rules of procedure [Section 82 (3)] pursuant to
Section 12(1) (f) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client
privilege, including communications necessary, for that purpose, of the
Procedure By-law.
CARRIED with Councillor Hunter dissenting
Returning to open session, Councillor Cullen withdrew his motions.
On the issue of the plan of subdivision, the Committee heard from the following delegations:
J.P. Unger advised he had already made most of his points. He added a cautionary word. A year ago, Minto’s representative dismissed the safety issue in such a blasé manner, saying blasting was a routine thing, bought at face value by staff. In the January OMB hearing, and speaking under oath, Minto’s geotechnician had to admit there was nothing routine about blasting here. In fact, they demonstrated they had absolutely no experience blasting in former limestone quarries, nor on limestone formations, adjacent to housing that sits on unstable clay soil. So basically the Committee was mislead with assurances that blasting would be routine. Don’t be mislead again. He asked that Committee enforce the legal norms, and order an independent study before further consideration to this application.
Councillor Cullen referred to the conditions of draft approval, contained in Document 2, Condition 5, and asked if these conditions address the issues that were raised by Mr. Unger. Mr. Mahon responded that Condition 5 is a standard draft condition put in all subdivisions to make sure that sub-soils are appropriate for building foundations, etc. and prior to registration they have to provide the detailed engineering drawings to Infrastructure Approvals. On the basting, Mr. Mahon confirmed it was a standard condition, which is not a common condition in Orleans because its mostly clay, but in Kanata it is a typical condition. Councillor Cullen received confirmation that if a developer or owner/developer does not carry this out to the City’s satisfaction, then the subdivision does not proceed.
Mr. Unger cautioned that a study should not be confused with a pre-blasting survey, because a pre-blasting survey is a superficial visual inspection of a site. It really does not check into the fractured nature and underground conditions. He feared that the forests will be erased before it was determined blasting was not safe.
Councillor Stavinga questioned staff on process. She asked if there was a way to specifically state that site alteration cannot occur until certain information is gathered. Ms. Currie advised that many of the conditions, the geo-technical being one of them, would form the basis of the approval of the engineering and servicing drawings for the site. Site disruption wouldn’t occur until those drawings were approved. Some of those stages are implicit in the conditions without specifically saying them. Mr. Morrison could confirm that the process of reviewing the geo-technical study, determining that everything is acceptable and approving the site grading and drainage servicing drawings would all be required before Minto actually started to do that work on the property. Mr. Morrison confirmed that was correct. Staff has to have the soils information, even to do a proper review for the sewer design and road design. All of that information rolls out from the geo-technical study. Responding to further questions related to tree preservation strategy, maintenance of soil stability and enhanced preservation, Mr. Lathrop suggested that if Councillor Stavinga wanted to put in a resolution that those issues be resolved before any trees, destruction takes place, or site preparation work is carried out on the site; and, he was sure Minto would not disagree.
Barbara Buckland was very concerned that a lot of things were not done ahead of approval. She understood it’s normal process but this is not a normal piece of property. It’s a huge hurdle once subdivision is approved and it’s very hard to back-up from that. This is a very different site with a very significant woodlot on it and it would be fair to have this worked out ahead of time. One of these is the option of acquiring the property. Since the land is more difficult to build on, she urged the committee to think of the property as a whole. You may be approving a subdivision plan beside an environmentally hazardous area because despite what Minto has said, it is not known what is in the quarry. Everyone has agreed it is significant and an option to preserve the significant lot is to purchase it. There were never plans to develop that property. There are windows in the process of zoning. It wasn’t zoned intentionally for residential. The original subdivision plan shows 6 phases, these phases are done. A lot of this investigation also affects the option of acquiring the property because the value of the land really is unestablished because there is a lot of grey area around the zoning and feasibility of safely building on this land. Everybody has agreed this is significant, natural space. Any development on that site will destroy the forest ecosystem there. Saving anything by saving that little strip around the edge, does not save anything since its the most insignificant part. The City is getting a degraded slope it might have to spend millions for a retaining wall. Do not approve this plan; have the geo-tech information come in. The public is concerned because once its into that stage there is no way of looking at that and voicing information. The community is not that concerned about the quarry face. There is more concern about the outside, where the rock is, thousands of years old, crumbling, and held together by the trees. A broader study is needed. A pre-blasting study surveys the homes ahead of time to see if there is any damage. Will the community be willing to purchase this property? The community is very willing to help in the management of this property and look at helping to purchase of it. The property owners bought an abandoned quarry and are responsible for de-commissioning it and that involves proper studies, which have not been done.
Councillor Hume referred to General principle 5 of the geo-technical analysis, which is not a pre-blasting survey. If Minto can’t clear that condition, the plan cannot be registered; therefore the site could not be developed. Mr. Lathrop confirmed that if Minto cannot build after they have done all the work, then the trees would still be there. Councillor Hume stated the City would be able to acquire it at whatever residual value it has. Responding to a question, Ms. Currie confirmed that once the information submitted under clause 5 is part of the file, it is publicly accessible. Councillor Hume added that all the geo-technical, detailed information will be available and if Minto can’t build on it because it’s not safe, the City will be able to acquire it at an appropriate rate.
Barbara Barr, on behalf of Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital, believes that a greater and renewed effort should be made to preserve the forest through land trades. Earlier this afternoon, a concept plan for Longfields, which will guide the future disposal and development of city owned vacant lands, was approved. Could the city not consider trading on a lot per lot basis? If there is the will, it can be done. The plan of sub-division does not preserve the habitat of regionally rare and sparse plants species. Instead the proposal is that they will be trans-planted. This is unsuitable thinking and the proper way to try to ensure that rare plants survive is to preserve their habitat. She drew attention to condition 30 on page 221, which says, “the owner shall monitor the condition of the transplanted species and undertake any required mitigation for a period of two years from transplanting.” The Greenspace Alliance contends that this condition is almost meaningless. What is the mitigation for a dead plant and if the plants die nothing happens to the owner or to those who recommended the transplanting. There are no consequences. Something that ought to be considered is compensation for dead plants, if they die within two years. That compensation should be substantial and be deposited in the environmental resource areas acquisition account. Overall, the strategy for this site is tree destruction, not preservation. In the areas where houses will be built, the proposal is to spare only a few specimen trees and then it remains to be seen whether those trees will survive once their habitat of surrounding woodland is removed.
Councillor Stavinga asked to what extent does the City have the ability to seek monetary compensation for regionally significant species being transplanted, since it appears to be a high-risk method? Mr. Marc advised that type of condition can be appropriate, but cautioned the compensation could not be punitive, but would have to be fairly calculated.
Joanna Dean, on behalf of the Ottawa Forest Advisory committee, reiterated she could not comment on this particular report not having seen it early enough. But she wanted to take the opportunity to comment on the wider implications. It suggests the clear need for some comprehensive and forward looking policies regarding Ottawa’s forests and trees. Zoning has changed in 30 years. There is a need for an appropriate inventory of the valuation of trees and tree forest resources within Ottawa and she would like to commend the staff proposals on page 4 of the report for a study of relative value of all urban woodlands city-wide. This kind of study is long overdue and very important. It was hoped it could duplicate what the NOSS (Natural and Open Space Study) did for the city of Ottawa. Hopefully it can improve upon NOSS. There are new ideas and approaches that will be suggested to staff for the protection of forests. This kind of study could lead to the creation of an Ottawa Forest Plan, something that would involve all the appropriate stakeholders, with developed criteria and would include the concept of sustainable development. This would mean a strategic view, without arguing over little pockets of forests and spending hours over particular areas. It would have a long range wide view of the forests resources in Ottawa. And would prevent the whittling away at the little remaining pockets of forests left. She hoped the Quarry Forest issue will help move into the future with a more comprehensive understanding of the forest resources and how to protect them.
Councillor Cullen had a copy of the ESG report, with reference to the evaluation of NOSS. According to the ESG report in their conclusions it says, “consequently the forested area would qualify as worthy protection using a convention established by NOSS.” He noted in the discussion in the report there was some question raised about the NOSS and the ability to use NOSS at the OMB. Is there a middle ground here or someway to use the consultants report and the NOSS designation in the sub-division conditions? Deborah Irwin advised the ESG report did take into consideration the fact that some of the criteria perhaps couldn’t be carried forward because NOSS was done specifically in relation to the former City of Ottawa. But that was accommodated for in the report so it shouldn’t be a concern.
Douglas Kelly noted it was stated last year that all the technical matters were addressed to staff’s satisfaction. Secondly, on soils there have been over 100 boreholes. Submitted with the application in 1993 and 1999 was a soils report. Regarding transplanting of the species, if you read Mr. Muncasters report, ESG, about transplant, and hear Mr. Ellingwood, they are transplanted with a big enough soil area so they are not being planted in a new soil environment; and, monitored for two years. You don’t get rid of all the seeds, but set them aside in the event something goes wrong, they can be replanted; thereby not losing those plants. That’s Minto’s recommendation. That’s the purpose of the a two year monitoring period. And that’s what Mr. Muncaster, who is the City’s consultant, said in his report. Mr. Ellingwood, Minto’s consultant, provided the same advice. On the blasting and safety, Mr. Unger must have been at a different OMB hearing because he called Minto’s soil consultant and geo-technician, who said that it could be done safely without damage to trees in the areas they wished to save.
Councillor Hume clarified that Mr. Kelly called Minto’s soils and structural people, who said it could be done safely. So, Minto will comply with the requirement of the City’s OP to provide a safety study. Mr. Kelly added that Minto felt it had already done the soils, fencing etc. But, in respect to the requirements in the draft condition referred to earlier, 5 & 6, Minto can comply.
Responding to a question by Councillor Kreling, Mr. Kelly indicated once the studies to meeting the conditions are provided to staff, they are provided to the community and the Ward Councillor.
Chair Hunter was aware that Minto purchased a large parcel of land in the 1960’s. In the process of developing, it was considered as a whole. The question of what to preserve arose; waterfront, wetlands, farmland, mineral reserves for forests. Development entails negotiating a balance. The then Township of Gloucester, in dealing with Minto and other developers, came up with a balance. They preserved the waterfront, asked for dedication of lands for school sites, lands along Bilberry Creek for hazard lands and other open space lands for parks and playgrounds. The trade off was to allow Minto Corporation to develop where they did develop which includes already cut forest portions where Bilberry Drive cuts through was forest, now its houses. It is somewhat unfair for people to now live in those houses that were formerly forestlands to come in and say the rest of the forest should be preserved. As much as the Ottawa Forests Advisory Committee would like us to, you just can’t look at the little parcel left in isolation, you have to look at the 30 plus year history of these lands and the deals that were concluded. The City should approve the plan of subdivision; its not an improvement for the City to take that strip of green space, its better in private hands along the slope.
Councillor Kreling provided Councillor Stavinga with an amendment in addition to whatever else is in front of Committee. She has agreed to move three issues for him; one, that a safety plan is contemplated in the OP for abandoned Quarries be provided; and, that this be a condition of this subdivision. Secondly, that the proponent provide these anticipated engineering, geo-technical and other safety studies to the community and the ward councilor; and, thirdly, that the studies may in fact be required for the whole site because of the abandoned quarry, as well as the rock out-croppings in the other area. In fact, there may be a need for this to be all-inclusive and he checked this with staff and it isn’t unusual to ask for that. In the brevity of time here, hopefully colleagues will accept that.
Moved by Councillor Stavinga:
3. That
the following conditions be added to the Draft Plan Approval:
a.
The owner submit the required study with respect to the former pit
and/or quarry on the subject lands;
b.
That all geotechnical/engineering/and safety studies referred to in the
conditions be supplied to the community and the Ward Councillor;
c.
That the studies referred to in Sections 5, 6 and this motion apply to
the whole site.
CARRIED
Councillor Stavinga stated that from her perspective and because of comments made by Mr. Kelly that the last year had been a waste of time and nothing had been achieved. The fact is that as a consequence of the efforts by the people and the community that brought this to the Committee’s attention, there have been significant in-roads. Perhaps, not all in keeping with the vision that he wanted, but an additional 8 conditions were put in place before the Committee, so some ground has been gained.
Moved by Councillor Stavinga:
4. That
Planning and Development Committee approve an additional condition stating that
the owner agrees that no site diruption, works or tree removal be undertaken on
the property until such time as all technical studies and engineering drawings
have been approved by the City.
5. That
Condition 30 be amended to ensure that should transplanting not be effective
appropriate compensation shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City of
Ottawa.
6. That
the Forest Advisory Committee and City Forester further review the Tree
Preservation Strategy and conservation/greenspace to ensure we maximize the
preservation of locally significant natural features in the subdivision
development with a report to be submitted for the consideration of City Council
on July 24, 2002.
CARRIED
The Committee approved the recommendations as amended.
That
Planning and Development Committee recommend that:
1. Council grant draft plan of subdivision
approval for Block J (Quarry Forest) as shown in Document 1 and subject to the
Conditions attached as Document 2, and
2. Council confirm approval of By-law
333-5 of 2000 to permit single family dwellings, as amended.
3. That
the following conditions be added to the Draft Plan Approval:
i)
The owner submit the required study with respect to the former pit
and/or quarry on the subject lands;
ii)
That all geotechnical/engineering/and safety studies referred to in the
conditions be supplied to the community and the Ward Councillor;
iii)
That the studies referred to in Sections 5, 6 and this motion apply to
the whole site.
4. That
Planning and Development Committee approve an additional condition stating that
the owner agrees that no site diruption, works or tree removal be undertaken on
the property until such time as all technical studies and engineering drawings
have been approved by the City.
5. That
Condition 30 be amended to ensure that should transplanting not be effective
appropriate compensation shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City of
Ottawa.
6. That
the Forest Advisory Committee and City Forester further review the Tree
Preservation Strategy and conservation/greenspace to ensure we maximize the
preservation of locally significant natural features in the subdivision
development with a report to be submitted for the consideration of City Council
on July 24, 2002.
CARRIED as amended
Councillor Cullen’s dissented.
25. PROPOSED DRAFT PLAN
OF SUBDIVISION, FORMER CITY OF KANATA - 700 SECOND LINE ROAD.
LOTISSEMENT – 700, CHEMIN SECOND LINE, ANCIENNE
VILLE DE
KANATA
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0123
Alan K. Cohen was present in support of the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 12 June 2002, with the revised condition 20.
Moved by Councillor Cullen:
3. That the Condition 20, Document 2,
be revised to read as follows:
That the owner acknowledges and agrees that the Second Line Road
right-of-way, where it abuts Block 98, may be shifted on the final Plan of
Subdivision to connect to Terry Fox Drive at a location east of its current
alignment, it being understood that the realignment will either be on Block 98
or at a location to the satisfaction of both the City and the Owner. This is subject to the findings and
recommendations of a transportation/alignment study to be undertaken by the
City.
CARRIED
That the Planning and Development
Committee:
1. Recommend that the
Ontario Municipal Board grant draft plan approval to the proposed Plan of
Subdivision pertaining to 700 Second Line Road, as shown on Document 1, subject
to the conditions detailed in Document 2.
2. Direct Development
Services and Legal Services staff to attend the Ontario Muncipal Board Hearing
concerning an appeal filed by Minto Land Development, against the Subdivision
Application for 700 Second Line Road, and further that Committee direct staff
to support the recommendation.
3. That the Condition 20, Document 2,
be revised to read as follows:
That the owner acknowledges and agrees that the Second Line Road
right-of-way, where it abuts Block 98, may be shifted on the final Plan of
Subdivision to connect to Terry Fox Drive at a location east of its current
alignment, it being understood that the realignment will either be on Block 98 or
at a location to the satisfaction of both the City and the Owner. This is subject to the findings and
recommendations of a transportation/alignment study to be undertaken by the
City.
CARRIED as amended
26. CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKING – 325 BESSERER STREET
RÈGLEMENT
FINANCIER DES EXIGENCES RELATIVES AU
STATIONNEMENT – 325, RUE BESSERER
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0092
Mr. Moser advised the department supported the cash in lieu contained in departmental report dated 15 May 2002. The delegation would be asking that the fees be waived, which is not within the purview of staff.
Robert Joubert advised they purchased the building in October 2001 and are in the process of bringing it in line with building requirements. Three offices in the building had been converted to apartments by the previous owner, without a building permit, and subsequent inspection, which brought them to the pay in lieu issue. The building is in the downtown core of Sandy Hill, between Nelson and Friel, one block south of Rideau Street and just a few hundred feet from the Loblaws store on Rideau. It is very close to public transportation and the demand for parking is very limited. There are currently 8 indoor parking spaces, two of which are vacant and 9 outdoor spaces currently vacant. There are no outstanding requests for parking on or off street to the best of their knowledge since they bought the building. There are no tenants using on-street parking permits to the best of their knowledge. They understand that approximately 50% of the locally available on-street parking permits are currently being used. Due to the building’s proximity to the University of Ottawa, there are a number of students who live there who do not own cars and choose to live there because they are within easy walking distance of the University. Similarly, there are a number of tenants who do not own cars, due to the proximity of their employment, shopping, and transportation. They also have a number of retired tenants who choose to live there for the facility of access to health. There is a clinic next door and other services which are offered in the neighbourhood. The apartments were former offices and it would seem evident that there were employees and visitors who used to use those buildings to park on the street. In conclusion they felt they were providing sufficient parking to their tenants, which is not used to its full capacity and were therefore asking that the cash-in-lieu be reduced, as expressed on page 261; to $1.00 per space.
Moved by Councillor Munter:
That the recommendation be
amended to reflect the charge in the amount of $1.00
CARRIED
as amended
YEAS (3): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Hume
NAYS (2): Councillors Cullen, Hunter
The departmental recommendation was
approved as amended
That the Planning and Development Committee approve the application
for Cash-in-Lieu of Parking for a cash-payment-in-lieu of providing two parking
spaces related to the establishment of three additional dwelling units for the
property at 325 Besserer Street in the amount of $1.00 subject to the following
conditions:
a)
The applicant enter into an
agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and that full payment be
received upon execution of the agreement;
b)
The approval be considered null
and void if the provisions of a) have not been fulfilled within six months from
the time of Committee approval.
CARRIED as amended
27. DEMOLITION CONTROL APPROVAL - 53, 55, 57 STIRLING AVE.
APPROBATION AU TITRE DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES DÉMOLITIONS – 53, 55 ET 57,
AVENUE STIRLING
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0122
Gino Zanivan was present in support of the departmental recommendation contained in report dated 30 May 2002.
The Committee approved the recommendations contained in the report
That
the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve the
application for the demolition of the three-unit row dwelling at 53, 55, 57
Stirling Ave.
CARRIED
28. LONGFIELDS – VACANT CITY-OWNED LANDS STUDY
LONGFIELDS – ÉTUDE DES TERRAINS
VACANTS APPARTENANT À LA VILLE
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0094
Erwin Dreesen, Greenspace Alliance, was present in support of the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 3 June 2002.
The Committee aproved the recommendations contained in the report.
1.
That the Planning and
Development Committee recommend that Council approve the “Longfields Concept
Plan” (Document 4) and associated Development Principles contained in this
report, to guide the future disposal and development of City-owned vacant lands
in the Longfields Community.
2.
That the Planning and Development
Committee recommend that Council approve the insertion of a clause in the
Purchase and Sales Agreements for the Longfields City-owned lands to require
the purchaser to proceed with the rezoning of lands as depicted in Document 6.
CARRIED
29. CUMBERLAND MILLENNIUM SPORTS PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE
PLAN DIRECTEUR POUR LE PARC SPORTIF
DU MILLÉNAIRE DE CUMBERLAND – MISE À JOUR
ACS2002-DEV-APR-0103
Dan Botti, Manager, Land Development, Regional Group of Companies, was present in support of the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 18 June 2002, subject to the letter dated 27 June 2002, from David Kardish, Vice-President, Land, The Regional Group of Companies Inc.
The Committee acknowledged the letter received on the item by The Regional Group of Companies Inc. with the condition “respectfully request that Planning Committee acknowledge that the plans for the Millenium Sports Park are sufficiently flexible so as to not preclude the northern transitway alignment or predetermine the selection of the southern alignment as most preferred.” and approved the recommendations contained in the report. Ms. Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals, acknowledged that was acceptable.
That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council
approve the updated Master Plan for the Cumberland Millennium Sports Park.
CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
The Committee adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Committee Coordinator Chair