STATEMENT
REQUIRED UNDER THE PLANNING ACT
At the start of the meeting,
Chair Hume read a statement required under the Planning Act, which advises that anyone who intends to appeal the
proposed Zoning By-law Amendments listed as Items 1 and 5-12, and the proposed
Official Plan Amendments listed as Items 16 and 17, 3must
either voice their objections at the public meeting or submit their comments in
writing prior to the amendments being adopted by City Council on 14 June
2006. Failure to do so may result in
the Ontario Municipal Board dismissing all or part of the appeal.
POSTPONEMENTS AND DEFERRALS
RENVOIS ET REPORTS
planning and growth
management
urbanisme
et gestion de la croissance
PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS
APPROBATION DES DEMANDES D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE
1. zONING - 2301 tenth line road
zONAGE - 2301, CHEMIN tenth line
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0069 cumberland (19)
Ms. Cheryl
McWilliams, Planner, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch, Planning and
Growth Management Department (PGM), spoke to a brief PowerPoint slide
presentation providing the Committee with an overview of the staff report. She advised that staff’s recommendation
remains the same, that is to add a gas bar and a car wash to the existing uses. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is
held on file with the City Clerk.
The following
persons were then heard:
Ms. Leah Bradley, a resident of
Louis Toscano Drive, spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation. Her property faces the proposed development
and, at the time it was purchased, there was no indication that a gas bar/car
wash would be built. Ms. Bradley and
her husband feel that permitting this use will decrease the value of their
property, and will contribute to noise and light pollution. When asked by Chair P. Hume to clarify
whether she was opposed to the car wash, Ms. Bradley said she was opposed to
the entire project, since half the street will be affected by the car
wash. With regard to the proposal to
add a drive-through use, and in reply to a question from Councillor A. Cullen, Ms.
Bradley stated that she did not support this feature, since the operator of the
fast food outlet is not known at this time and some of these operations attract
youth and vandalism.
Mr. Herman Excell, who resides
next door to the proposed development, spoke about the fact that Tenth Line
Road will develop into a four-lane roadway, leading to further decreases in
property values. Adding a gas station
to the site will ensure that property values decrease even further and, should
he decide to sell his property, he would not get its true value.
Ms. Alexandra
Mayer, a resident of Louis Toscano Drive, said there had been no indication,
when she purchased her home in November 2004, that a zoning amendment was being
contemplated. She provided a chronology
of events leading to a public meeting held by Councillor Rob Jellett, where
various issues were discussed, and where Minto Developments agreed to
re-evaluate its plan. Ms. Mayer has a
petition with over 90% of the signatories opposed to the rezoning. She said residents feel the development is
too close to houses and represents a danger to children and pets. There is also the potential for a 24-hour
operation with noise and odours coming from the garage. As well, property owners face increased
insurance premiums due to the proximity of a gas station. Ms. Mayer concluded by saying that, while
the revised concept plan was an improvement, the addition of 8 metres to the
roadway now makes it unacceptable to her.
Councillor G. Bédard asked what it was about the
8 metres that troubled Ms. Mayer. She
responded by saying that this would bring the development that much closer to
her house and since Minto will not provide fencing, the property owner will
have to install it at their own expense to protect children and pets.
In reply to a
question from Councillor Jan Harder, Ms. McWilliams explained that the
additional 8 metres has to do with 10th Line Road Environmental Assessment (EA)
process and the upgrade of that road from a rural to an urban profile. Ms. Karen Currie, Manager, Development
Services East/South, added that the revised concept that is before the
Committee was submitted through the Ward Councillor’s office last
Thursday. She said the road widening
and other matters of concern could be addressed through the site plan
process. Councillor Harder expressed
the view that the proponent has made every effort to address residents’
concerns and she felt that the proposal was acceptable, since many of the
outstanding issues could be addressed at the site plan stage.
Councillor
Jellett asked Ms. Mayer to ensure that a copy of the petition is provided to
the Clerk prior to the June 28th Council meeting.
Maxine Séguin, of Louis
Toscano Drive, said her property faces the proposed site and that her
objections are the same as those of the previous speakers.
Mr. Rod Price,
representing Minto Construction, pointed out that, until recently, the
proponent was unaware of the negative fallout related to this project. With regard to notification, property owners
were advised once the rezoning plan was conceptualized. The proponent has met with the community,
incorporated the feedback received into new conceptual plans and believes that
community concerns can be addressed at the site plan stage. Mr. Price added that the 8 metre road
widening was an element that came as a surprise to him.
The Ward Councillor, Rob Jellett, thanked the
residents for appearing before the Committee.
He said that, even though Minto had advised some property owners through
agreements, many people were not aware of this rezoning application. The Councillor stated that Minto has done a
great job trying to address the community’s concerns by providing a revised
plan, however the 8 metre setback required to meet the possibility of a
right-turn onto the Blackburn Bypass makes a huge difference. Councillor Jellett asked that his colleagues
not support the staff recommendation, in light of the concerns expressed by the
public present today.
Councillor Alex
Cullen asked that a separate vote be taken on the proposal for a single
drive-through.
That a single drive-through be included as a
permitted accessory use
LOST
NAYS
(6): A. Cullen, M. Bellemare, G. Bédard, D. Holmes, B. Monette, P. Feltmate
YEAS (3): G.
Hunter, J. Harder, P. Hume
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Cumberland Zoning By-Law
to change the zoning of 2301 Tenth Line Road from "CCN" Commercial
Convenience Neighbourhood to "CCN-X'X'" Commercial Convenience
Neighbourhood - Exception 'X' as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in
Document 2 and as amended by the following:
CARRIED
YEAS (5): J.
Harder, G. Hunter, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, P. Hume
NAYS (4): M. Bellemare, G. Bédard, A. Cullen, B. Monette
2. response to council motion relating to
concerns in completing development related works
rÉPONSE À LA
MOTION DU CONSEIL RELATIVEMENT AUX PRÉOCCUPATIONS SUR L’ACHÈVEMENT DES TRAVAUX
LIÉS
À L’AMÉNAGEMENt
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0088 CITY-WIDE
/ À L'ÉCHELLE DE
LA VILLE
This item was re-scheduled to the 27 June 2006 meeting.
REGULAR ITEMS
POINTS RÉGULIERS
PUBLIC
WORKS AND SERVICES
SERVICES ET TRAVAUX PUBLICS
SURFACE OPERATIONS
OPÉRATIONS DE SURFACE
3. HARMONIZATION - MUNICIPAL TREES AND
NATURAL AREAS PROTECTION BY-LAW
HARMONISATION – RÈGLEMENT SUR LA PROTECTION DES ARBRES ET DES AIRES
NATURELLES DE LA VILLE
acs2006-pws-sop-0004
Councillor Diane Holmes
signaled her intention to bring forward a Motion, calling for Hydro Ottawa’s
ability to trim the City’s trees. She
noted that Hydro’s standards change from time to time, at times after 10 years
with significant trimming and sometimes after 5 years. The Motion calls for Hydro to acquire better
arboricultural skills and to work with the City to mutual satisfaction. The City Forester, Craig Huff, said that
staff had been trying to get Hydro to come to the table, and he agreed he would
pursue this matter with them.
Vice Chair Peggy Feltmate
asked whether mountain biking is allowed in city-owned natural and
environmental areas regulated by the by-law.
Having heard from Mr. Huff that this was not allowed the Councillor
suggested that the community needed to be better informed about this
prohibition so that this doesn’t turn into an issue that generates conflict.
Councillor Gord Hunter
expressed the belief there is an under-estimation of the value of the City’s
recreational forests. He said he was
concerned with the protection of municipal natural areas and the Consent to
Enter permit (as described in Part III, Section 14). The Councillor questioned whether the by-law should contain a
clause that allows a responsible person to apply for the issuance of a Permit
to Enter on behalf of groups, such as Scouts or Guides. The Director, By-law Services, Ms. Susan
Jones, said that the general legal definition of a person would allow such
application to be made on behalf of these groups. In reply to the Councillor’s question about the by-law preventing
volunteers from working in these areas, the City Forester said he would welcome
volunteers and be prepared to put them in touch with departments that could use
their services. Councillor Hunter
wanted to know whether staff could absolutely guarantee that there will be no
additional requirements in the budgets of the next four years to enforce the
by-law. Mr. John Manconi, Director,
Surface Operations, said his service is working on a management strategy
related to the 20/20 Master Plan, and will be providing a report for feedback
from by-law staff, prior to the 2007 budget
Councillor Feltmate asked
how mountain bike groups could go about accessing these areas. Mr. Huff spoke about a management plan for
the Marlborough Forest, the Torbolton Forest and the South March Highlands,
noting this is not yet complete, but there will be public consultation to
ensure that multiple uses are allowed in these areas. When asked about the consequence of passing the by-law at this
time, and the impact on the people who use the forests now. Mr. Huff pointed out that a number of
municipalities had tree protection by-laws and the current by-law is an effort
to harmonize these so there is consistency across the City.
Councillor Feltmate wanted
to know how By-law services would react to complaints about plants being
destroyed. Ms. Jones said her staff would
work with Forestry staff to identify and lay charges against the culprits. She added that she did not expect a
significant increase in the workload, noting that the department gets
approximately 50 complaints per year and these also relate to private properties.
Councillor Feltmate wondered
whether approval of the by-law should be deferred for one month, to allow
consultation with less passive user groups such as the Ottawa Mountain Bikers’
Group, to make them aware of their responsibilities in these areas. Chair Peter Hume pointed out that by-law
services would not likely be acting against people using the system of trails
that run through the natural areas. Mr.
Huff confirmed this was correct and he added that staff would work with any
person to repair any damage that was done.
Councillor Holmes suggested
that staff be directed to consult with the interested public group and work
with them to ensure they are aware of the by-law requirements.
Councillor Georges Bédard
asked whether, under Section 11, Tree Removal by City, a tree breaking into a
foundation is considered a dangerous tree.
Mr. Manconi made reference to the Tree Foundation Damage Policy, noting
that, if this happens, the onus is on the property owner to prove the tree
caused the damage. When asked by
Councillor Bédard to define a dangerous tree, Mr. Manconi stated that the
City’s experts would define what is a dangerous tree. He made reference to a five-step process that includes
geotechnical surveys and assessments by independent engineers. He added that, specific to foundation
damage, the City of Ottawa is on the leading edge of studies in this
field. He agreed with Councillor Bédard
that the cost to homeowners can be onerous, but there are also costs to the
City.
Councillor Bédard expressed
the view that Section 12 (3) (c) penalizes the public twice: they pay for the
sewer repair, to replace the tree and, likely, for taking it down in the first
place. Mr. Huff said the City has to be
compensated for the loss of urban forest cover and the funds collected go back
into the tree planting budget. A
valuation formula is used and covered under the Road Activity By-law. Councillor Bédard did not feel this was a
good way of doing business, and he agreed with Chair Hume’s suggestion to ask
Utilities staff to bring back a report on this aspect of the by-law.
The Committee heard from Ms.
Iola Price, Chair, Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee, in
support of the by-law. She expressed
the view there should be circumstances where charges could be waived if this
was required. Ms. Price called the
by-law an important step in saving forests and green spaces from wanton
destruction. The By-law will ensure
staff has the tools to deal with mountain bike and All Terrain Vehicle operators
who cause damage. She agreed with
Councillor Holmes about dealing with Hydro about how they manage tree trimming
around their wires. She urged the
Committee to support the by-law, and to let City staff clarify some of the
discrepancies alluded to today.
Councillor Hunter asked
whether the OFGAC was willing to undertake the consultation with user
groups. Ms. Price said that the
committee would be pleased to help, but it has no resources and it is prevented
from discussing the contents of any staff reports until the appropriate Council
members receive them. She emphasized
that she supports any efforts at public outreach in this regard.
Chair Hume presented two
Motions for consideration. Councillor
Hunter suggested that the name Hydro One, an agency that covers a large part of
the rural areas, be added to the Holmes Motion.
Moved by D. Holmes
That staff be directed to review the existing tree
trimming standards used by Ottawa Hydro / Hydro One with a view to
incorporating good arboriculture practices in their operations and amend the
by-law, if appropriate.
CARRIED
Moved by P. Feltmate
That staff be directed to work with natural area user
groups with a view to informing them of the by-law requirements and how to
enjoy the natural areas within the framework of the by-law and arboriculture
standards.
CARRIED
That Planning and
Environment Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend
to Council that the proposed Municipal Trees and Natural Areas Protection
By-law, attached as Document 1, be approved with an effective date of 1
September 2006.
CARRIED
as amended
4. Water Efficiency PLAN: PHASE i (2007 –2009)
PLAN DE VALORISATION DE
L’EAU : PHASE 1 (2007 - 2009)
Mr. Ken Brothers,
Director, Utility Services, Public Works and Services Department (PWS),
introduced Mr. Fel Petti, Manager, Environmental Programs and Technical
Support, PWS, and Sally McIntyre, Program Manager, Environmental Programs,
PWS. Mr. Brothers then gave a brief
PowerPoint presentation providing the Committee with an overview of the staff
report. A copy of the presentation is
held on file with the City Clerk.
Responding to
questions from Chair Peter Hume, Mr. Brothers indicated that low-flow, 1.6
litre toilets are the standard for new developments. He added that the second and third highest water users are
washers and showers. Chair Hume asked
whether staff had explored, with Hydro Ottawa recommending Energystar compliant
appliances in terms of being water and power-efficient. Mr. Brothers said that opportunities for
partnership were discussed, but he felt the biggest impact would be from shower
heads and low-flow toilets. Providing
incentives for “big ticket items” such as washers was not part of Phase 1
focus.
Councillor Gord
Hunter asked about the difference between Ottawa and Gatineau in terms of
pricing as an incentive for conservation.
Mr. Brothers said he was not certain that this assessment was done, but
he averred that metering water usage tends to generate greater awareness of the
amounts used and full metering is the way to go in terms of
accountability. Councillor Hunter
pointed out that replacement toilets are to be available across the City, to be
funded from the water reserve fund that is paid by municipal water users. He asked where was the fairness in this for
municipal users when residents of rural areas draw water from their own wells,
discharge into their own septic systems and don’t contribute to the water
reserve fund. He expressed the view
that rural residents should be excluded from this program since they don’t
contribute. Mr. Brothers responded by
saying that rural residents will receive water efficiency kits and they make a
contribution through the Hauled Liquid Wastes Program through cyclical drainage
of septic tanks and sending the effluent for treatment to Robert O. Pickard
Centre. He added that, from an
administrative perspective, there are benefits to providing leadership across
the city.
Councillor Alex
Cullen asked whether staff considered giving discounts for high volume
users. Mr. Brothers said staff is
looking at tiered pricing, to see whether this will capture high end users thus
deferring capital costs for infrastructure replacement. He confirmed, in response to a further
question from Councillor Cullen, that the City of Toronto offers a lower
incentive for the 1.6 litre toilet as opposed to the 4.8 litre, adding that the
1.6 litre model was chosen for the pilot program and will be the subject of a
future report to Committee and Council.
Councillor Cullen asked about the delivery of water efficiency kits,
noting that Envirocentre is already a partner, and suggesting it be used for
this purpose. The Councillor also
expressed the hope that Ottawa Community Housing would be a high priority as a high
end user, and that staff address this early on in the process.
Councillor Diane
Holmes asked whether staff work in concert with the City arborist to encourage
people to water their trees as opposed to watering their lawns, which become
dormant and spring back to life. Ms.
McIntyre said there is close coordination with Mr. Huff’s office in this
respect.
Councillor Michel
Bellemare said it seems like most high end users are in the
commercial/institutional area and he asked for the breakdown between residential
toilets and high end users. Mr.
Brothers responded by saying that 20% of the $600,000 budget would be for
toilet replacement ($120,000), 30% would go to High Volume Users, up to a
maximum of $10,000 with the balance going towards education and promotion. Mr. Brothers cited 1,300 as the number of
homes participating and 15 as the number of high volume users. In response to Councillor Bellemare’s
question on the verification to be done, Mr. Brothers said staff do not intend
to deal with retailers but will ensure that a streamlined, verifiable process
is in place.
The Committee
heard from Mr. Paul Koch, member of the Environment Advisory Committee
(EAC). He said that the EAC has
approved the report in principle. He
expressed the committee’s ongoing concerns with the fact that it cannot see the
final report details until these are released to the Members of Council. He expressed the hope that senior staff will
allow advisory committees to work with staff on the development of reports when
they have the expertise to do so. Mr.
Koch put forward the view that subsidies are not always the best in terms of
return on investment and that the economics of supply and demand must be better
understood. He also encouraged City
staff to utilize the services of the Envirocentre, as previously discussed.
Afterwards, the
Committee considered the report recommendations:
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve:
1. The 3-year Water Efficiency Plan: Phase I (2007-2009) that consists of the
following elements:
a) A financial-based Incentives Program;
b) A Waterwise Promotional Campaign;
c) A City Facilities Retrofit Program;
d) Annual monitoring and assessment of program
effectiveness; and
e) Annual reporting of program results to Council.
2. Inclusion of capital funds in the Draft 2007 Budget to enable
implementation of the Water Efficiency Plan: Phase I, as set out herein.
3. Accept for information Annex B – Evaluation of the 2005 Summer Waterwise Campaign.
CARRIED
PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS
APPROBATION DES DEMANDES D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE
5. ZONING - 1501 HUNT CLUB ROAD
ZONAGE, 1501, CHEMIN HUNT CLUB
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0119 GLOUCESTER-SOUTHGATE (10)
Mr. Prescott
McDonald, Planner, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch, Planning and
Growth Management Department (PGM), spoke to a PowerPoint presentation,
providing the Committee a brief overview of the staff report. A copy of this presentation is held on file
with the City Clerk.
The Ward
Councillor, Diane Deans, addressing residents’ concerns about rapid
urbanization and this green space being eaten up by housing, asked that staff
comment on whether there were any means by which the City could prevent the
urbanization of this piece of property now that it has been declared surplus to
the needs of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board.
The Acting Deputy
City Manager, Planning and Growth Management, Mr. John Moser, indicated that,
in order to prevent development, the City would have to acquire the property. Councillor Deans wanted to know where this
property would rank in terms of the City’s desire to purchase it. Mr. Moser replied that the property would
rank low, based on the staff report and on the work staff have done on an
acquisition policy for open spaces. He
confirmed for Councillor Deans that the property could not be protected from
urbanization with the limited funds the City currently has.
The Committee
heard from Mr. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, in opposition to the
development. The speaker has collected
150 signatures on a petition within 3 hours, and he assured the Committee that,
given additional time, he would be able to gather many more signatures from
residents opposed to development. Some
of the reasons people gave for their opposition include:
·
They were not informed about the process;
·
There are concerns about safety, traffic, speeding;
·
There is no indication as to when the development will be built out;
·
The increase in noise and dust pollution;
·
The loss of green space to people and to wildlife;
·
The concern about the social damage to follow;
·
The rapid pace of urbanization occurring throughout the City;
·
The devaluation in value of the adjacent properties.
Mr. Nazemroaya
asked that the process be halted and that the City purchase the land from the
developer at a fair price. He posited
that the amount quoted by Councillor Deans, $13 million, would be recovered
through taxes.
Responding to a
question from Councillor Diane Holmes, Mr. Nazemroaya admitted he was not aware
of the value of this property, but was in favour of finding ways to buy it so
that everyone is happy. Councillor
Holmes expressed the view that the City should have reciprocal agreements with
the school boards that would allow it to purchase properties declared surplus
to the boards’ needs for a nominal fee, and vice-versa.
Dr. Erwin
Dreessen, Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital, said the GACC’s view is
that no development proposal should be applied until the next round of Urban
Natural Areas is presented to the Committee at the end of June. The area is highly treed and provides
significant green space to residents of Greenboro and South Keys. Dr. Dreesen called the argument that the
property is not significant ludicrous since the Community values it, and
destroying this woodlot would mean a great loss to the City. Dr. Dreesen said this would also belie that
claim that Ottawa is a green and livable city, one of the goals of the Official
Plan. He suggested that, if the
property cannot be purchases, it should be left as low density, to ensure the
preservation of as many trees a possible and a modicum of urban forest.
Ms. Debbie Belfie, on behalf of
the applicant, Larco, pointed out that this property has been zoned for
residential development for many years.
The proposed subdivision has been laid out to ensure compatibility with
Official Plan and area policies ensuring compatibility with the existing
neighbourhood. The applicant has
ensured there are neighbourhood linkages from pathways to Hunt Club Road and is
proposing a moderate increase in density.
Ms. Belfie spoke of the proponent having submitted an Environmental
Impact Study, with on-site investigation determining that the trees were mainly
non-native, and there was nothing of significance in Ontario: neither were
there any rare or sparse species thereon.
She stated there are plans to re-green the site in compliance with the
City’s building policy. She re-stated
her belief that this is a significant development that respects the area with
similar zoning to the north, west and east.
The following
correspondence was circulated to Committee members:
1. e-mail dated June
01/2006 from Mr. Peter Sloan regarding the placement of a sidewalk on the east
side of Cahill Drive: a dedicated left-turn lane on Hunt Club Road: the west
bound 60 km speed limit along Hunt Club Road (not 80km);
2. e-mail dated June
12/06 from Dr. Shawn Hayley, a resident of Greenboro, re: (1) the maximal
preservation of vegetation/wildlife and (2) the types of structures being built
should be approved by the Committee such that all residents are in agreement.
The report
recommendation was then brought forward:
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning
By-law to change the zoning of 1501 Hunt Club Road from R1D and L2 to R3F and
L2 as shown in Document 2.
CARRIED
6. zONING - 400, 402 and 404 MacKay STreet
zONAGE - 400, 402
ET 404, RUE mackay
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0116 rideau-rockcliffe (13)
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning
By-law to change the zoning of 400, 402 and 404 MacKay Street from R5B-p
H(11.0) (Low-rise Apartment Zone) to R5B-p H(12.2) [XX] (Low-rise Apartment
exception zone) as shown on Document 1 and as detailed in Document 3.
CARRIED
7. zONING - 2848 Cedarview Road
zONAGE - 2848, chemin Cedarview
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0109 bell-south nepean (3)
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning
By-Law to change the zoning of 2848 Cedarview Road from Future Growth -
(FG) Zone to Residential Mixed Use - (RMU) Zone, Parks and Recreation - (PRP)
Zone, and to Conservation - (Con) Zone as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
8. zONING - 4020 and 4022 Strandherd Drive
zONAGE - 4020 et 4022,
promenade strandherd
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0110 bell-south nepean (3)
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning
By-law to change the zoning of 4020 and 4022 Strandherd Drive from Future
Growth (FG) to Residential Mixed Use Exception (RMU Block XX) and to
Residential Sixth Density Exception (R6A Block XX) ; from Residential Fifth
Density (R5) to Parks and Recreation
(Public) (PRP) and Residential Mixed Use Exception (RMU Block XX); from
Institutional (I) to Residential Sixth Density Exception (R6A Block XX); and
Residential Fourth Density (R4) to Residential Mixed Use Exception (RMU Block
XX) as shown on Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
9. ZONING - 1056 KLONDIKE ROAD
ZONAGE - 1056,
CHEMIN KLONDIKE
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0104 KANATA (4)
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning
By-law to change the zoning of 1056 Klondike Road from Rural Community
(RCM) to a Special Rural Community Zone (RCM-X) as shown in Document 1 and
detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
10. ZONING - 47 Brady Avenue
ZONAGE - 47, AVENUE bRADY
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0124 KANATA (4)
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning
By-law 161-93 to change the zoning of part of 900 Second Line Road to be known
as 47 Brady Avenue from R5A to R5A-exception as shown in Document 1 and as
detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
11. zONING - 432 sTATEWOOD dRIVE
zONAGE - 432 PROMENADE STATEWOOd
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0127 kanata (4)
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning
By-law 161-93 to change the zoning of part of 900 Second Line Road to be known
as 432 Statewood Drive from R3A-3 to R3A-exception as shown in Document 1
and detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
12. zONING - 10 Cedarow court
zONAGE - 10, cour cedarow
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0101 Goulbourn (6)
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Goulbourn
Zoning By-law 40-99 to change the zoning of 10 Cedarow Court from Highway
Commercial (CH) to Highway Commercial - Exception as shown in Document 1 and
detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
13. subdivision - PART OF 4784 and 4798 BANK STREET,
4738
and 4742 BANK STREET AND OTHER LANDS IN LOTS 17, 18, 19
and 20, CONCESSION 4, RIDEAU FRONT
lOTISSEMENT - UNE PARTIE DU
4784 ET DU 4798 DE LA RUE BANK, DU 4738 ET DU 4742 DE LA RUE BANK ET D'AUTRES
TERRAINS DES LOTS 17, 18, 19 ET 20, CONCESSION 4, FAÇADE RIVIÈRE RIDEAu
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0123 GLOUCESTER-SOUTHGATE (10)
Ms. Cathlyn Kaufman, Planner, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals
Branch, Planning and Growth Management Department (PGM), spoke to a PowerPoint
presentation, which provided the Committee with an overview of the staff
report. A copy of this presentation is
held on file with the City Clerk.
Councillor Diane
Deans asked for consideration of an amendment to Document 3, condition 31B to
address the cut-through traffic residents believe result from the stage 2
development to the north.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Iola
Price, Chair, Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee, began by stating that society does not value wetlands. They are living organisms that cleanse the
water and are sinks for greenhouses gases; they provide shelter and sustenance
to wildlife. Ms. Price said it was
probable there is a plume of contaminated water headed for the Phase 2
development, and there may be contaminated water under the houses built during
Phase 1. Water levels that were
supposed to be stable have risen, and trees have drowned. Ms. Price put forward the view that the
development should not precede subdivision approval. The EAC would prefer that the City defer the entire subdivision
approval process as opposed to the re-delegation of authority.
Ms. Price
indicated that, because there are many discrepancies between the evaluation
done by the City and the consultant and the one done by Mr. Albert Dugal,
botanist, the site should be re-evaluated.
She posited that it would rank higher if a re-evaluation were
undertaken. Ms. Price suggested there
be a buffer and compensation for the damage done to the wetland that was
supposed to be protected. She spoke
about damage in terms of construction debris scattered throughout the channel at
Findlay Creek, saying the developer is not living up to his responsibility of
having to clean up construction debris.
Ms. Price
said the risk assessment is flawed and the assumptions made about safety issues
and the movement of contaminants from the former Gloucester landfill were
wrong. She pointed out that the City
has the authority to ask for a re-assessment of contaminants moving from the
groundwater into people’s basements and the precautionary principle has to be
applied. Ms. Price asked for the Committee’s
support for a Motion asking that:
·
the City defer approval of the entire
Phase 2, or as a minimum, defer approval of parts 1 and 2;
·
require the City and the developer to
alert residents to the potential hazards of living within the zone of influence
of the former Gloucester landfill;
·
re-evalute the Urban Natural Areas
(UNA) for site 108;
·
create a small passive woodlot in part
2 along Findlay Creek as partial reparation for the damage to the wetland.
Councillor Alex
Cullen sought additional clarifications from staff about the “zone of
influence” to which Ms. Price alluded.
The Manager, Development Services East and South, Mr. Karen Currie, said
that staff would need to refer to the Ministry of the Environment’s (MOE)
identification, because staff has nothing that specifically defines the zone of
influence area.
The Acting
Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals, Mr. Larry Morrison, said he
did not recall any directive from the MOE that the City put notice out to its
residents. He added it was always
staff’s understanding, as a result of the work done by Transport Canada, that
the Leitrim zone was outside the area of influence.
Ms. Price,
responding to a further question from Councillor Cullen, said that the actual
movement and direction of the “plume” was not her area of expertise. She stated she has a diagram showing where
some scientific experts believe the plume is moving and, if this is correct,
Council has a role to play in applying the precautionary principle to ensure
there is no future liability for the City.
Chair Peter Hume
said the seeming evidence there is a toxic plume troubled him, and he wanted to
know where it is and where it isn’t.
Mr. Morrison stated that the federal government is responsible for
groundwater clean up, and the City has been assured there is no problem. The federal government has monitoring wells
and officials would have been in touch with city staff if any problems had
arisen. Mr. Morrison noted that, at the
northwest corner (Leitrim/Albion) some wells are still operating and the
federal government is monitoring what is going on in the area.
Responding to subsequent questions from Chair
Hume, Ms. Currie confirmed that the Project Manager has been hired and she
indicated that the June and July reports would be provided to the EAC. The Planner, Ms. Kaufman, added that the
developer has responded to concerns about construction debris.
Councillor Deans
thanked staff for reassuring those present, and the residents of the area, that
ongoing monitoring shows the standards meet the applicable Ontario Drinking
Water Standards set by the MOE. The
Councillor did not believe that people with unverified credentials should be
making inferences and drawing maps to frighten others: information has to be
provided based on facts.
Councillor Jan
Harder asked who had drawn the map alluded to by the speaker. Mr. Albert Dugal, wetland expert and
botanist (ret), said he had drawn the map, based on having seen Transport
Canada reports stating that the plume was 300 metres east of Albion Road, and
that dioxane had been found in one of the test wells east of Albion Road. He spoke of being able to provide data to
the committee showing there is dioxane under the Tartan lands.
Mr. Dugal then
read from a written statement, on behalf of the Sierra Club of Canada, requesting
that, because of the extensive damage to the core, or “protected” portion of
the Leitrim Wetland cause by construction activity, the Sierra Club requests
that approval of the Plan of Subdivision for Parts 1 and 2 be deferred until an
independent panel of experts had had time to review al the proponent’s
consultants’ reports and determines the likelihood of additional negative
impacts. Mr. Dugal averred that Dr.
Frederick Michel, Director of Environmental Science, Carleton University, was
the ideal person to head such a panel.
The complete text of Mr. Dugal’s presentation is held on file with the
Committee Coordinator.
Philip Martin,
Biologist, spoke about the Area-Wide Risk Assessment (AWRA) conducted by Franz
Environmental for Transport Canada in 2003, and he highlighted a number of
areas that need urgent attention:
·
It ignored the growing body of evidence that
indicates a connection between proximity to landfills and adverse health
effects;
·
Knowledge of the toxic materials in the former
Gloucester Landfill Site is incomplete, because no records were kept of the
types of waste thrown there;
·
Reports done in 2001 and 2002 show those toxins
such as 1,4 dioxane, diethyl ether, toluene and others were migrating onto the
Tartan property.
Mr. Martin stated
his concern with the responses from Transport Canada, indicating they have no
concerns about these issues and no need to modify any of the AWRA’s
conclusions. He put forward three
recommendations on behalf of the Sierra Club of Canada, namely:
·
Defer acceptance of the plan of subdivision until the AWRA has been
re-done according to up-to-date scientific models;
·
Rescind recent changes in threshold safety levels regarding toxins in
the Gloucester landfill site until proper scientific justification for the changes
is made;
·
The City of Ottawa require the developer to live up to the requirement
to alert the residents, new and potential, about the proximity to the
Gloucester landfill site through the subdivision agreement.
The complete text of Mr. Martin’s presentation
is on file with the Committee Coordinator.
Dr. Erwin
Dreessen, Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital (GACC) echoed the
concerns of the previous speakers. He
added that the Ontario Municipal Board had erred in 1984 when it determined the
wetland’s boundaries.
Dr. Dreessen
continued by saying that UNA 106 was not evaluated in the first round, and it
affects Findlay Creek as a cool stream.
This will impact on the Department of Oceans and Fisheries (DFO)’s
classifications. He stated that, according
to an inventory done by Mr. Dugal, the area contains ten regionally-significant
plants and trees, and it needs to be rezoned.
Dr. Meg Sears,
PhD,
read from a prepared statement, on file with the Committee Coordinator. She presented the following three
recommendations, in support of denying approval of Stage 2 until:
·
Contamination of peat is examined by an independent panel and analyses
of peat for Gloucester contaminants are carried out according to the panel’s
recommendations;
·
Contamination of shallow and deep groundwater, and artesian water is
examined by an independent panel and further water analyses for Gloucester
contaminants are carried out according to the panel’s recommendations;
·
An independent panel, particularly mathematical modeling of vapours in
basements, and the conclusions regarding acceptable levels of contaminants in
the groundwater review the Area Wide Risk Assessment (AWRA).
Councillor Deans asked whether Councillors
could get an update with staff following up with the MOE and with Transport
Canada, to address some of the comments made today that residents might find in
the morning papers. Mr. Morrison drew
that Committee’s attention to the staff report, where it is indicated that
Transport Canada states there is no need to modify the conclusions of the Area
Wide Risk Assessment. He added that, if there were something here that was
critical to the health of residents, Transport Canada would be taking steps to
prevent the development from occurring.
Responding to comments related to the indoor transfer of contaminants,
Mr. Morrison said the monitored wells have shown levels so low that other
common household products would have a higher impact that those of 1,4
dioxane. He indicated that an update
would follow, as requested.
Mr. Pierre
Dufresne, Tartan Developments, pointed out that the Ottawa Health Department is a
member of the Transport Canada committee to evaluate and monitor the former
Gloucester landfill site. He went on to
say, in response to comments made, that phases 1 and 2 of the subdivision are
all in compliance with the Community Design Plan with no deviations, consistent
with City of Ottawa policies. With
regard to the creation of a passive woodlot, Mr. Dufresne stated that 238 acres
of wetland under Tartan’s ownership, and at one time designated as urban land,
would be transferred to the South Nation Conservation Authority. The speaker averred that the sedimentation
control and best construction procedures are utilized. The DFO, which evaluates and monitors, are
satisfied that all deficiencies have been addressed. Construction debris is cleaned up on a weekly basis. Mr. Dufresne addressed the allegations of
contamination by saying there is ongoing monitoring, and if there were an
issue, the developer would be the first to know and the first to deal with
it. He did not believe that an
independent panel was needed, since all regulatory bodies are satisfied with
work done to date.
Committee Discussion
At this time, the
Committee considered a Motion from Councillor Diane Deans, put forward by
Councillor D. Holmes:
That Document 3 be amended
to include the following additional condition:
31(b) In accordance with condition 31, Meadowlilly
Drive shall not connect to Stalwart Drive until such time as Kelly Farm Drive
is extended to Leitrim Road, or Findlay Creek Drive is extended to Albion
Road. Alternatively other measures may
be implemented to allow construction phasing to proceed while ensuring that
cut-through traffic does not impact the existing built neighbourhoods. Any alternative shall be subject to review
through public consultation and presented for approval to Planning and
Environment Committee.
CARRIED
Councillor A.
Cullen asked that the 11 May 2006 recommendation from the Environmental
Advisory Committee be referred to staff for investigation. Councillor Gord Hunter felt that the Motion
assumes guilt in advance, and he suggested it be re-worded.
Councillor Jan
Harder asked for a staff comment. Mr.
Larry Morrison said staff are doing monthly monitoring and wants to understand
what the alleged violations would be.
Councillor Harder indicated that this area has been studied since 1994
and since staff are monitoring on a monthly basis, she could see no reason for
additional expenditures.
Moved by A. Cullen
That the Environmental
Advisory Committee recommendations re: Findlay Creek Village development Phase
2 and 4 (dated 16 May 2006 and italicised below) be referred to staff
for investigation and appropriate action.
WHEREAS, despite the
appointment of a Project Manager to monitor and inspect the development of
Findlay Creek Village for violations of authority and good environmental
practice, the developer has apparently continued with a variety of violations
as evidenced in Attachment B (Visit to the Leitrim Wetland, by Mr. Dugal);
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
THAT the City of Ottawa carry out a formal review of these violations, demand
corrective action where necessary and seek appropriate punitive damages from
the developer.
CARRIED
YEAS (5): A. Cullen,
B. Monette, M. Bellemare, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate
NAYS (3): J.
Harder, G. Hunter, P. Hume
Councillor Cullen
put forward the OFGAC recommendation.
Councillor Hunter said he could not support stalling a process that has
been subject to an OMB decision many years ago, when it is possible to protect
the development through existing processes.
Moved by A.
Cullen
That the
Committee defer approval of the entire Phase 2 (preferred option) bus as a
minimum, defer approval of parts 1 and .2.
LOST
NAYS (4): J.
Harder, G. Hunter, M. Bellemare, P. Hume
YEAS (4): A.
Cullen, B. Monette, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes
LOST
Speaking to the
second part of the Motion, Councillor Diane Deans asked that the Committee not
support it. She stated that, if the
City is going to raise fear in its residents, these fears should be well
founded, and this is not the case at this time.
Moved by A.
Cullen
That the
Committee require the City and the developer to alert residents to the
potential hazards of living within the zone of influence of the former
Gloucester landfill (as per the letter from the MOE of 16 May 2006 that
“….appropriate measures have been implemented by Transport Canada and the City
of Ottawa to communicate to local residents.”
LOST
NAYS (7):B.
Monette, J. Harder, G. Hunter,. P. Feltmate, M. Bellemare, D. Holmes,
P.
Hume
YEAS (1): A.
Cullen
Speaking to the
OFGCA suggestion of creating a small woodlot, Ms. Susan Murphy, Planner,
Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy, said there are currently
several woodlots in private hands that would deserve more protection. This parcel was evaluated independently in
2005 and it received a low evaluation in terms of the Urban Natural Areas. Staff would recommend exploring this
possibility through the Tree Protection program.
In light of these
comments, Councillor Cullen agreed to withdraw the last part of the Motion.
The Committee
then considered the report recommendation, as amended by the foregoing.
That the Planning and Environment Committee
authorize the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to grant Draft
Subdivision Approval for the Subdivision Application for Part of 4784 and 4798
Bank Street, 4738 and 4742 Bank Street and other lands in Lots 17, 18, 19 and
20, Concession 4, Rideau Front as shown on Document 2 and to the Draft
Conditions outlined in Document 3.
CARRIED
as amended
14. SITE PLAN - 2170 Mer
Bleue Road
plan d'implantation - 2170, chemin mer bleue
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0095 INNES
(2)
Ms. Cheryl McWilliams, Planner, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals
Branch, Planning and Growth Management Department (PGM), gave a PowerPoint
presentation to provide the Committee an overview of the staff report. A copy of this presentation is held on file
with the City Clerk.
Chair Peter Hume advised that a Motion has been
put forward to defer consideration of this item until the Innes Rezoning and
Development Group, local Councillors and FoTenn Consultants have completed the
Community Visioning Exercise in which they are presently engaged. The Motion also requests that the Committee
of Adjustment defer its consideration of the minor variance until after the
visioning exercise and final disposition by the Committee of the snow disposal
facility.
Councillor Alex Cullen asked whether there were
any implications to the City in terms of timing. The Acting Deputy City Manager, Mr. Richard Hewitt, said that a
positive response from the Committee of Adjustment may lead to an appeal to the
Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and to a three-to-six month delay in design and
construction. The site would not be
used this coming winter, but would be in 2007-08, and any deferral could
jeopardize that timeline. Mr. Hewitt
recommended that the Committee of Adjustment application be allowed to proceed.
On a suggestion from Councillor Cullen, Chair
Hume agreed to split the Motion.
Councillor Diane Holmes asked about capacity at
other snow disposal facilities in the east end. Mr. John Manconi, Director, Surface Operations, Public Works and
Services, said the City is facing some pressure with the closing of the Bayview
facility and the end of nighttime operations.
Public Works and Services have been advised that the temporary sites
will need to be fitted with engineering elements and as sites are being closed,
operating costs are increasing.
In response to a further question from
Councillor Holmes, Mr. Manconi stated that, in 2002, Council approved a
strategy calling for fully engineered sites, and while some funds are
available, there are no funds to retrofit any existing sites. The pressure caused by longer hauling
distances is also a factor.
Moved by B. Monette
WHEREAS the Innes Re-zoning
and Development Group with the support of Team Ottawa Orléans, the Orléans
Chamber of Commerce, the Eastern Ontario Chamber of Commerce, private sector
landowners and the Ward Councillors are currently conducting a Visioning
Exercise at considerable expense for the Orléans Industrial Park,
AND WHEREAS the working
group on the Visioning Exercise has met once and has already held one public
open house,
AND WHEREAS more meetings
are planned over the summer and the Innes Re-Zoning and Development Group will
be bringing the final results of the Visioning Exercise to Planning and
Environment Committee for discussion and approval in the Fall of 2006,
AND WHEREAS the Committee of
Adjustment is to meet next week to debate and decide on a minor variance to
reduce a 304 metre setback for the snow disposal facility from residential use
to 149 metres,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
THAT Planning and Environment Committee defer its decision on this item until
after the Visioning Exercise for the Orléans Industrial Park has been completed
and brought before Committee.
CARRIED
Councillor
Rob Jellett made reference to the “limited capacity” of other snow disposal
facilities, noting that Michael Street has a capability of 1.1 million cubic
metres, and never in the last 16 years has the capacity exceeded 400,000 cubic
metres. He spoke about the setback
requirements, noting that the current setback is 304 metres while the City is
asking for 149 metres, a significant variance.
Councillor Jellett expressed the view that Planning and Environment
Committee and Council need to make a final decision on the snow disposal
facility, then implement the variance.
Councillor Gord Hunter asked whether it
wouldn’t be preferable to know if the Committee of Adjustment will approve the
variance before commencing planning for the site. He wanted to know what would happen if the City spent a
considerable amount of money trying to find a perfect site, only to be refused
by the Committee of Adjustment. Mr.
Hewitt said this was the concern: if the variance is not approved, the snow
disposal facility could not be located in Mer Bleue without rezoning the site.
Councillor Rainer Bloess said he thought there
was an unresolved Official Plan (O.P.) issue related to snow disposal
facilities. Ms. McWilliams indicated
that the OMB has ruled on appeals to Section 3.9 of the O.P. dealing with snow
disposal facilities and has made slight modifications to the O.P.
Councillor Bloess then asked about employment
lands, more specifically whether staff are being consistent in putting a snow
disposal facility at this location. The
Councillor said he did not believe this would give the land any status as an
employment area. Ms. Karen Currie,
Manager, Development Approvals East and South, advised that, prior to
amalgamation, the former City of Gloucester zoned the site as Industrial,
promoting industrial uses fostering employment. She added that whether the site has employment potential could be
the focus of discussion, however aside from the setback question, the only
process this is subject to is site plan approval.
The Chair then presented the second half of the
Motion:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and
Environment Committee request the Committee of Adjustment defer its
consideration of the minor variance until after the visioning exercise and
final disposition by the P&EC of the snow disposal facility.
LOST
NAYS (4): A. Cullen, J. Harder, G. Hunter, P.
Feltmate
YEAS (4): B.
Monette, M. Bellemare, D. Holmes, P. Hume
15. aPPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE LOWERTOWN
WEST HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AT 224‑226 DALHOUSIE STREET/126
GUIGUES AVENUe
dEMANDE DE NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION
DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE LA BASSE-VILLE OUEST AUX
224-226, RUE DALHOUSIE/126, avenue GUIGUES
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0132 rideau-vanier (12)
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend that Council approve the application for new construction in the
Lowertown West Heritage Conservation District at 224-226 Dalhousie Street/126
Guigues Avenue in accordance with the plans filed by Douglas Hardie Architect
Inc. included as Documents 3 to 7 as received on May 2, 2006.
(Note : Approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be
construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.)
CARRIED
Planning, Environment and
Infrastructure Policy
Politiques
d’urbanisme, d’environnement et d’infrastructure
16. BARRHAVEN SOUTH COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN
AND OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
pLAN DE CONCPETION
COMMUNAUTAIRE D
E BARRHAVEN-SUD ET MODIFICATOIN AU PLAN OFFICIEL
ACS2006-PGM-POL-0042 BELL-SOUTH NEPEAN (3)
Ms. Cheryl Brouillard, Planner, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals
Branch, Planning and Growth Management Department (PGM), introduced Mr. Dana
Collings, Program Manager, Urban Design & Area Planning (East/South) and
Mr. Ted Fobert and Ms. Bev Jensen, FoTenn Consultants. Ms. Brouillard and Ms. Jensen gave a
PowerPoint presentation that provided with an overview of the staff
report. A copy of the PowerPoint is on
file with the City Clerk.
The Committee
Chair, Peter Hume, asked why the Community Design Plan (CDP) does not show
where the major community facilities are to be located. Mr. Kevin Wherry, Parks and Recreation
Branch, Community and Protective Services, stated that the Long Range Financial
Plan (LRFP) has included a recreation complex for South Nepean for some
time. This facility is to be located
within southeast Nepean, preferably on an arterial road. He added that four community parks are also
planned, one of which will have a community centre in the future. Chair Hume asked why these couldn’t be
outlined in the CDP so that the public will know what is being proposed. Mr. Ted Fobert indicated that specific areas
are identified for community parks and other civic uses and are described in
the land use component.
Chair Hume said
he found it difficult to understand why school sites can be identified with
some certainty, but information about the location of community facilities that
is important to the public, is more difficult to find. Mr. Wherry responded by saying that the
Parks and Recreation Branch would undertake a public consultation process, with
the understanding that facilities can be located in any of these sites if and
when funds become available through the LRFP process.
Councillor Alex
Cullen made reference to the proposed 6800 dwelling units and he pointed out
that the 10% for apartments did not reflect the city at large. Ms. Brouillard responded by saying this is
the minimum requirement under the Official Plan. She added that other products would be coming on the market, such
as back-to-back town homes, resulting in more rental units being
available. Councillor Cullen noted
that, as per the OP requirement, the number of jobs should be approximately
8,900 while staff estimates approximately 2000 jobs. He felt this did not meet the OP policies related to making efficient
use of the infrastructure, and would result in the creation of a “bedroom
community” with high traffic volumes in the morning and late afternoon, and
considerably less at other times.
Mr. Collings
indicated that staff balanced the jobs to housing ratio for the greater South
Nepean area and he anticipated that, by 2021, the jobs to housing ratio would
be exceeded.
Councillor Gord
Hunter pointed out that Hwy 416 and Cambrian Way was designated as a potential
interchange, with the Province having to pay for the overpass portion. He reminded those present that, in 1972, the
Nepean had been built on a worked out sandpit on the edge of the then Nepean,
and he expressed the hope that history would be able to repeat itself with the
proposed development.
The Committee
then heard from the following persons:
Marcel Dénommé
(Minto Construction) said Minto owns 23 hectares of land within the CDP
and are in support of the current land use plan. He alluded to having some issues with the wording related to bringing
external services beyond the boundary and stated that negotiations are ongoing
with City staff in this regard.
Mr. James R.
McIninch, Bell Baker LLP, said he represents Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Kennedy, the
owners of lands immediately adjacent to city-owned lands south of the Jock
River, currently used as a family farm operation. Mr. McIninch has provided a letter, circulated to Committee
members, outlining the Kennedy family’s concerns. He said he was content to leave the letter on the record, as there
are ongoing discussions with City staff and the consultants that lead the
Kennedy’s to believe there will be a favourable outcome. Mr. McIninch added, in response to comments
from Councillor Hunter, that the alignment for Greenbank Road runs along the edge
of the Kennedy parcel, making it the key to the ultimate development of the
community. He added that he did not
believe anyone would argue with this contention.
Mr. Rob Pierce, representing
Monarch Corporation, said Monarch owns 27 hectares of land in the designated
area and the developers of Stonebridge.
He indicated that Monarch supports the CDP as it currently stands.
The following documents held on file with the
City Clerk:
1. Barrhaven
South Community Design Plan - 1 June 2006;
2. Transportation
Master Plan -Revised Draft, May 2006;
3. Correspondence dated May 19 and
February 27, 2006 from Ontario Ministry of the Environment;
4. Correspondence dated May 19, 2006 from
Hydro Ottawa;
5.
Comments from the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee
dated May 31, 2006.
6.
Letter dated June 12, 2006 from Mr. James R. McIninch, Bell Baker LLP
Committee
Discussion
Councillor Jan Harder, ward Councillor for
Bell-South Nepean, said she would bring forward a Motion calling for the
reinstatement of the 9th bullet which recommends the “creative use
of the floodplain” along the Jock River corridor, with the consent of the
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.
She said this area would be the heart of Barrhaven because of the growth
to the South. Councillor Harder
indicated her pleasure at having the South Nepean Town Centre CDP approved on
consent, as there have been numerous meetings on both these issues. She also stated she was pleased to hear that
Monarch Construction supports the CDP.
The Councillor pointed out that this would be a major transit hub in the
city, with both the LRT and the extended transitway service. She thanked and congratulated all those
involved in making these plans a reality.
At this point,
the following was presented for consideration:
Moved by J.
Harder
That the “creative use of
floodplain” (as the 9th bullet under Guiding Principles) be
reinstated as a possibility, with approvals by the Rideau Valley Conservation
Authority
CARRIED
(A.
Cullen and D. Holmes
dissented)
Moved
by P. Feltmate
That the following technical amendments be approved:
a) In the French
Recommendation 3 of the staff report, change “tronçon 2” to “tronçon 1”;
b) In the legend of Figure 8
on page 12 of the Community Design Plan document, change the wording of
“Potential Highway 416 Interchange (MTO identified)” to “Potential Highway 416
Interchange (as per the City of Ottawa Official Plan)”;
c) In figure 29 on page 50 of
the Community Design Plan document, delete the word “no” from the phrase
“Cross-section for 32-metre arterial road with no median”.
CARRIED
The Committee then considered the report recommendations, as amended by
the foregoing:
Moved by J. Harder
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve the Barrhaven South Community Design Plan in
Document 8, and the integrated Transportation Master Plan in Document 9, which
have been submitted under separate cover.
2. Adopt Official Plan Amendment No. XX to the City of Ottawa
Official Plan (2003), as detailed in Document 5, to implement the Community
Design Plan.
3. Direct Planning and Growth Management Staff to bring forward
the required Master Servicing Study, Subwatershed Study for the Jock River
Reach 1, and the Conceptual Fish Compensation Plan, for approval.
4. Direct Legal Services to forward the
draft Official Plan Amendment implementing by-law to City Council upon request
from Planning and Growth Management once the studies referred to in
Recommendation 3 have received the required approvals.
CARRIED
17. SOUTH NEPEAN TOWN CENTRE COMMUNITY DESIGN
PLAN
AND OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
modification au plan de
conception communautaire du centre-ville de NEPEAN-sud et au plan officiel
ACS2006-PGM-POL-0050 BELL-SOUTH NEPEAN (3)
That the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve the South Nepean Town Centre Community Design Plan in
Document 8, which has been submitted under separate cover.
2. Adopt Official Plan Amendment No. XX to the City of Ottawa
Official Plan (2003), as detailed in Document 5, to implement the Community
Design Plan.
CARRIED
18. BEECHWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN
AND IMPLEMENTING ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
PLAN DE CONCEPTION COMMUNAUTAIRE DE BEECHWOOD
ET MODIFICATIONS AU RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE
ACS2006-PGM-POL-0037 RIDEAU-VANIER (12),
RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13)
Item postponed at the
request of the ward Councillor.
BUILDING SERVICES
SERVICES DU bâtiment
19. signs minor variance - 2805 carling avenue
dÉROGATION MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT
MUNICIPAL
SUR LES ENSEIGNES - 2805, AVENUE CARLINg
ACS2006-PGM-BLD-0010 BAY (7)
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council:
1. Refuse a Minor Variance application to the Permanent Signs on
Private Property By-law for an internally illuminated ground sign on the
Carling Avenue frontage, with an identification area of 4.5 square metres and a
height of 3 metres, with an additional 0.75 square metres electronic message
centre.
2. Approve a recommended Minor Variance to the Permanent Signs on
Private Property By-law for an internally illuminated ground sign on the
Carling Avenue frontage, with an identification area of 3.7 square metres and a
height of 2.75 metres, with an additional 0.75 square metres electronic
message centre.
CARRIED
20. SIGN BY-LAW MINOR
VARIANCE - 1050 morrison drive
DÉROGATION MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT
MUNICIPAL SUR LES ENSEIGNES - 1050, promenade morrisoN
ACS2006-PGM-BLD-0015 BASELINE (8)
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve a requested Minor Variance to the Permanent Signs on Private
Property By-law to allow two internally illuminated logo wall signs to be
located on the top storey of the north face of the subject building, whereas
the By-law only allows one logo sign per wall face on the top storey.
CARRIED
COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS
POINTS DES CONSEILLERS
COUNCILLOR/CONSEILLÈRE
D. HOLMES
21. DEVIATIONS FROM APPROVED
SITE PLAN 263-265 BANK STREET
DÉROGATIONS AU PLAN D’IMPLANTATION
APPROUVÉ –
263,-265, RUE BANK
ACS2006-CRS-CCB-0046 SOMERSET (14)
Item postponed at the
request of the ward Councillor/
INFORMATION
PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED
INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT
A. ON TIME REVIEW STATUS REPORT
RAPPORTS D’ÉTAPE SUR
L’EXAMEN EN TEMPS VOULU
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0136-IPD CITY-WIDE
/ À L'ÉCHELLE DE
LA VILLE
RECEIVED
B. UPDATE ON PROPOSED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
FOR 4800 BANK STREET
MISE À JOUR SUR
UNE PROPOSITION DE PLAN
DE LOTISSEMENT CONCERNANT LE 4800, RUE BANK
ACS2006-PGM-POL-0040-IPD GLOUCESTER-SOUTHGATE (10)
WITHDRAWN
Inquiries
DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS
OTHER BUSINESS
AUTRES
QUESTIONS
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
The meeting adjourned at 0:00 p.m.
Original signed by Original
signed by
M.J. Beauregard Councillor
P. Hume
Committee Coordinator Chair
