Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement


Minutes 51/ Procès-verbal 51


Tuesday, 13 June 2006, 9:30 a.m.

le mardi 13 juin 2006, 9 h 30


Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest




Present / Présent :     Councillor / Conseiller P. Hume (Chair / Président)

                                    Councillors / Conseillers P. Feltmate (Vice-Chair/Vice-présidente),
G. Bédard, M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, D. Holmes, J. Harder,
G. Hunter, B. Monette






No declarations of interest were filed.




Ratification dES procÈs-verbaUX


Minutes 50 of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of Tuesday, 23 May 2006, were confirmed.



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.





planning and growth management

urbanisme et gestion de la croissance




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




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:




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


ACS2006-PGM-APR-0088                                CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE


This item was re-scheduled to the 27 June 2006 meeting.








OPÉRATIONS DE SURFACE                                                                                            






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.




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.




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)




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.






5.         ZONING - 1501 HUNT CLUB ROAD


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.



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.




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.





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.



9.         ZONING - 1056 KLONDIKE ROAD


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.





10.       ZONING - 47 Brady Avenue


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.





11.       zONING - 432 sTATEWOOD dRIVE                                                         


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.





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.




13.       subdivision - PART OF 4784 and 4798 BANK STREET, 4738


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.




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.




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.




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.




NAYS (4): J. Harder, G. Hunter, M. Bellemare, P. Hume

YEAS (4): A. Cullen, B. Monette, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes



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.”




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.




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.




NAYS (4): A. Cullen, J. Harder, G. Hunter, P. Feltmate

YEAS (4): B. Monette, M. Bellemare, D. Holmes, P. Hume





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.)




Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy

Politiques d’urbanisme, d’environnement et d’infrastructure




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



(A.  Cullen and D. Holmes



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”.




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.





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.









            Item postponed at the request of the ward Councillor.



SERVICES DU bâtiment


19.       signs minor variance - 2805 carling avenue                                   


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.





20.       SIGN BY-LAW MINOR VARIANCE - 1050 morrison drive


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.








263,-265, RUE BANK

ACS2006-CRS-CCB-0046                                                                  SOMERSET (14)


Item postponed at the request of the ward Councillor/






A.        ON TIME REVIEW STATUS REPORT                                                                    


ACS2006-PGM-APR-0136-IPD                        CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE







ACS2006-PGM-POL-0040-IPD                                   GLOUCESTER-SOUTHGATE (10)















The meeting adjourned at 0:00 p.m.




Original signed by                                               Original signed by

M.J. Beauregard                                                  Councillor P. Hume


Committee Coordinator                                       Chair