STATEMENT
REQUIRED FOR PLANNING ACT MATTERS SUBMITTED POST JANUARY 1, 2007
DÉCLARATION POUR LES questions SOUS
LA Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire PRÉSENTÉES APRÈS LE 1ER JANVIER
2007
The Chair read a statement relative to the Zoning By-law Amendments
listed as item 1, 2, 3 and4 on the agenda.
He advised that only those who made oral submissions at the meeting or
written submissions before the amendments were adopted could appeal to the
OMB. The applicant may also appeal the
matter if Council does not adopt an amendment within 120 days (zoning) and 180
days (Official Plan) of receipt of the application.
REFERRALS AND DEFERRALS
REPORTS ET
RENVOIS
PLAN OFFICIEL ET ZONAGE - 280, CHEMIN DIDSBURY
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0013 KANATA
NORTH (4)
(Deferred from
the meeting of 12 January 2010/ Reporté de la réunion du 12 janvier 2010)
(This matter is subject to Bill 51)
A letter dated 8 February 2010 was received from Katherine Freeman,
Canadian Tire Real Estate Ltd, and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Miguel Tremblay, Fotenn Consultants was present in support of the
application.
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend Council:
1.
Approve an amendment to the Kanata Town Centre
Site-Specific Policies in Volume 2-B of the City of Ottawa Official Plan to
amend Special Policy Area 3 of the Low Density Employment Area for the property
known as 280 Didsbury Road, as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 4.
2.
Approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to
change the Urban Exception 1412 provisions that relate to the property
known as 280 Didsbury Road, as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 3.
CARRIED
PLANNING
and growth management
URBANISME et Gestion de la croissance
ZONAGE - 314, 316, ET 318, CERCLE ABBEYDALE
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0014 Kanata
North (4)
(This matter is subject to Bill 51)
Doug Smeathers, Minto Communities Inc., was present in support of the application.
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve:
1. An amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250
to change the zoning of 316 and 318 Abbeydale Circle from Residential Third
Density Zone Subzone X, Special Exception 1016 (R3X[1016]) to Residential First
Density Zone, Subzone V, Special Exception 738 (R1V[738]), to permit single
detached dwellings as shown in Document 1; and
2. An amendment to the Zoning By-law
2008-250 to change the zoning of 314 Abbeydale Circle from Residential Third
Density Zone Subzone X, Special Exception 1016 (R3X[1016]) to Residential First
Density Zone Subzone V, Special Exception xxxx (R1V[xxxx]), to permit single
detached dwellings and to change the corner side yard setback from 3.0 metres
to 2.6 metres as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
ZONAGE - 3358 et 3362, promenade carling
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0017 Bay
(7)
(This matter is subject to Bill 51)
The following
correspondence was received by the City Clerk and is held on file:
·
Copy of a petition submitted by the Crystal Beach/Lakeview Community Association
(CBCLA) containing the names of 199 residents
·
Two letters dated 8 February 2010 from Ruth Tremblay, President of the
CBCLA
·
E-mail dated 9 February 2010 from Kate Twiss
·
E-mail dated 8 February 2010 from Rick Nelson
·
Letter dated 4 February 2010 from Paul Williams
·
E-mail dated 4 February 2010 from Lynne McFarlane
·
E-mails dated 3 February and 7 February from Peggy McGillivray
·
E-mail dated 28 January 2010 from Geoffrey Gurd
Simon Deiaco, Planner
II, provided an overview of the proposed Zoning By-law amendment and staff’s
rationale for approving the application.
He did so by means of a Power Point presentation, which is held on file
with the City Clerk.
In response to
questions from Councillor Hume, Mr. Deiaco explained that the original intent
was to re-zone the site to a R2M sub-zone, and modify that sub-zone. After some analysis, staff felt it would be
easier and more appropriate to modify the base standards of the R2L sub-zone. In either case, a site-specific zone is being
created, including the recommended performance standards. Council could direct staff to modify the R2M
with the same performance standards; however, the modifications would have the
same result in either zone.
Councillor Cullen
noted that he had held a public meeting with the community association,
developer and area residents to review the proposed development, and some
modifications were made to the original proposal as a result. The rear yard setback was increased by half a
metre, and the proposed rear-yard balconies were eliminated in recognition of
the impact on the neighbours to the immediate south.
In response to
questions from Councillor Cullen Mr. Deiaco provided the following information:
·
The Planned Unit Development (PUD) use that is to be added to this
site-specific exemption pertains to the form of development. The proposed configuration of five buildings
comprising 10 units is considered to be a PUD.
·
There is no further opportunity for increased density or building form on
this site as a result of the PUD use, as it is limited to the proposed
permitted use, in this case a semi-detached dwelling.
·
The PUD does not change the performance criteria, including the
additional setback and the exclusion of rear balconies.
·
With regards to the whether the development would jeopardize the City’s
right of way on Carling Avenue, it was noted that this section of Carling
Avenue is designated and protected for road widening, and staff are in
discussions to determine what the ultimate widening will be.
·
There are some site-specific circumstances where the City may take less
than is required. The City will also
ensure that, should the site be developed, no encroachment of structures into
the right of way will be permitted.
·
This site meets the City’s by-law requirements for visitor parking.
·
Issues with regards to storm water drainage would be addressed as part of
the site plan process
Councillor Cullen
wished to note that he was not in favour of the widening of Carling Avenue.
Ruth Tremblay, President of the
CBCLA, spoke in opposition to the report recommendations. By means of a PowerPoint presentation, she
outlined the rationale for the CBCLA’s objection to the proposed redevelopment. She raised the following points:
·
There are too many exceptions required to make the PUD work in the
proposed zone.
·
The proposed development encroaches into the right of way. The Community Association asks that PEC
postpone any decision of the re-zoning application with a PUD until such time as
the City surveyor can attend the site and take measurements to ascertain where
the City’s right of way is in relation to the proposed redevelopment, and
report back to PEC.
·
The proposed redevelopment site will be the first of its kind backing
onto the bungalows of Crystal beach.
There would be undue loss of privacy for residents living behind and
adjacent to the proposed development, and it would obstruct the breeze from the
Ottawa River from reaching nearby residents.
·
There is little green space in the proposed development compared to the
rest of the Crystal Beach community.
·
The proposed development is not compatible, as it will not enhance the
community nor co-exist without causing undue impact on surrounding properties.
·
There is a risk of flooding, as the storm water system along Carling
Avenue has insufficient capacity to receive all the storm water from the site
without restriction. The construction of
this and other proposed developments can be expected to aggravate the potential
flooding situation.
Ms. Tremblay
requested that Committee reject the re-zoning with a PUD, as a PUD is not
permitted in an R2 Zone, there are no R2 zones in the Community and the density
of the development is too large for the site.
She indicated that the community association supports the compromise of
allowing the rezoning to R2M, but with a limit to the number of dwellings to
six doors (three semi-detached units).
She provided a list
of items that the community association would like to be included in the Site
Plan approval process and requested that the Site Plan come back to Committee
and Council for approval.
In response to
questions from Councillor Feltmate with regards to the concerns raised about
flooding, Ms. Tremblay referenced the site servicing analysis conducted by
Erion Associates, which indicates water will have to be stored in the roof, and
expressed her concern that these systems sometimes fail.
Chair Hume spoke to
the delegation’s request to have the Site Plan approved by Committee and
Council. He advised that in most cases
communities will have more leverage to deal with local issues under the
delegated Site Plan approval process, where approval rests with the local
Councillor who is often more sensitive to community needs. He suggested bringing the Site Plan back to
Committee as a last resort if all other means have not worked in the
community’s favour.
Danielle Ladelpha, resident, spoke in
opposition to the report recommendations.
She advised that her property is located south of the subject property,
and her backyard abuts the proposed development. By means of a series of photographs, Ms.
Ladelpha showed how her property would be impacted by the proposed
development. She raised the following
points:
·
The developer proposes to build a 6’9” fence, which is insufficient to
block the development, which will be very invasive.
·
The existing large trees are likely not to survive the excavation, as
they are quite close to where the building will be, and any replacement trees will
not be full, mature trees. Even if the
trees do survive, they do not provide any privacy in the winter when the leaves
are off.
·
The living room windows of the proposed development would be overlooking
her property
·
Her property value will suffer if this development proceeds.
·
She had invested much time, effort and money into her backyard, and would
receive no compensation for the impacts of this development.
·
She suggested this was an issue of money, as the developer stands to make
a great money from the development and the City will achieve higher tax
revenues through intensification, but this will be at the expense of the
neighbours
She concluded by
thanking Committee for their time and reiterated her opposition to the
redevelopment as it stands.
In response to
questions from Councillor Hunter as to why she felt there was a right to
privacy due to trees on another property, Ms. Ladelpha noted that the developer
had said they would maintain the trees to provide privacy; however, she
questioned whether that would really be possible.
She posited that
while the development was not to her advantage, it was to the City’s advantage
due to the additional tax revenue that will be generated. Councillor Hunter
suggested this revenue would lower taxes for everyone else. He also proposed that with southern exposure
living rooms, such as those that would face the delegation’s property, people
tend to keep their blinds closed, as they also want privacy.
Barry Padolsky, Barry Padolsky
Associates Inc. Architects, spoke as the applicant in support of the report
recommendations.
Carl Madigan, owner of the subject property, was also present. Mr. Padolsky provided the following
information with regards to the proposed development:
·
The developer wishes to develop 10 units, similar in footprint and
concept to the Uniform development on the next block.
·
The proposal meets the requirements of the existing R1FF zone in terms of
the height, side yards and rear setback requirements. The existing Zone requires a 7.5 metre rear
setback, and this development will provide an eight metre setback. The development will not exceed the existing
permitted height is 9.5 metres, and will provide the required side yards.
·
The existing R1F zoning permits coverage of 45 per cent of the lot, and
this development will cover only 36 per cent.
As currently zoned, the site can be developed for two houses with the
same massing and height as the proposed development.
·
The developer is seeking not only to maintain the existing trees on the south
property line, but also to intensify that coverage to ensure there is a visible
screen in the winter and the summer. It is in the interest of the developer to
retain the trees along the south property line, for the benefit of the
neighbour to the south and those purchasing the units.
·
The original intent was to have balconies on the second floor overlooking
the south. Those have been removed at
the request of the community association.
Mr. Padolsky
concluded by suggesting the proposed development was moderate intensification
with good architecture. He emphasized
that he would not have taken on the project if he did not think it was moderate
intensification that would work for the community, noting he has refused other
projects in the past on those grounds.
In response to
questions from Councillor Doucet with regards to potential loss of trees, Mr.
Padolsky explained that, as the sanitary servicing would come from the
southeast corner of the building, there would likely be some trees lost there. However, the developer will replace those
trees and add a hedge as part of the Site Plan process. He noted that every effort would be made to
ensure the foundations do not cut the existing tree roots and. If necessary, the south foundations would be
put on piers to ensure the basement would not obstruct the roots.
In response to
questions from Councillor Hume, Mr. Padolsky reiterated that the setback for
the proposed development would exceed the requirement under the existing zoning
by half a metre, and two houses could be built under the current zoning with
similar massing to the proposed development, which could be three stories high
and have windows in the rear.
In response to questions
from Councillor Feltmate regarding the flooding concerns raised by the
community association, Mr. Padolsky suggested there may be some
misunderstanding of the servicing report.
He explained that the servicing report recommended that storm water management
be handled on the site. The proposal is
to put a 600 millimetre super pipe under the ground to retain water to meet the
City standards. The servicing report
indicates that these measures would meet the 100 year flood, and would be
required by the City during the site plan application. He confirmed that the units are to have flat
roofs.
Ted Ladelpha registered to speak
in opposition to the report recommendations, but was unable to attend.
Councillor Cullen
noted that the development application had created a great deal of conversation
in the Crystal Beach/Lakeview community.
He noted this would be the second or third example of such a development
occurring along this particular stretch of Carling Avenue; however, the
previous one backed on to the St. Thomas school site and thus did not impact a
residential property as this one would.
He noted the impact of the proposed intensification would not be
traffic, as the property’s single entrance would be off Carling Avenue, thus
avoiding traffic flowing into the interior of the Crystal Beach/ Lakeview
community. He noted that if Committee
refused the rezoning, and the zoning remained R1FF, the issues of massing and
setback would remain, as there could be two buildings within 7.5 metres of the
property line with the same height as this proposed development.
He reiterated that
there was a public meeting with the community where their concerns were heard,
and the applicant adjusted the setback by half a metre and eliminated the rear
balconies, and while these were small concessions, they were indeed
concessions. He suggested the issue
comes down to intensification. This
intensification represents a change for the Community, and the concern is with
a precedent being set along Carling Avenue, as there are many similar-sized
lots.
He referenced the
Official Plan (OP) policies that encourage intensification, particularly along
major arterials and major transit routes, noting Carling Avenue is a major
arterial, and due to its desirable location and views, further development
pressure can be expected along the corridor.
He reiterated the concerns of the community, and suggested the concerns
were understandable.
He noted the
Community was willing to accept a compromise of six units, but acknowledged that
was not the application before Committee.
Councillor Hunter
indicated his reluctant support for the re-zoning. He suggested the City’s policy of
intensification made it hard for developers to find any space for
development. As most of the school sites
have been developed, if developers do not acquire large lots such as these,
they cannot build. He submitted that his
concerns with the development were site plan issues, such as the siting of the
building. While he would prefer to see
the buildings oriented perpendicular to Carling, he indicated he would leave
that to the ward Councillor to address as part of Site Plan. He noted the units fronting on Carling would
be very attractive due to the view, but the rear ones would have less traffic
noise. He suggested the layout of the
development would pose challenges to snow clearing and parking larger
vehicles. He also noted there is no
storage space or places Community gathering.
He concluded that the proposal was supportable in light of the City`s OP
policy of intensification, as the lot is under built.
Committee then
approved the report recommendation as presented.
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change
the zoning of 3358 and 3362 Carling Avenue shown on Document 1 from Residential
First Density Subzone, R1FF to Residential Second Density Subzone, R2L[****],
as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
ZONAGE - 1630, CHEMIN STAR TOP
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0035 Alta Vista (18)
(This matter is subject to Bill 51)
Sandy Schaffhauser, Fotenn Consultants, was present on behalf of
the applicant in support of the report recommendations.
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend
Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of
1630 Star Top Road from IL (Light Industrial) to IL H(32) [xxxx] (Light
Industrial – Height 32 metres – Exception), as shown on Document 1 and as
detailed in Document 2
CARRIED
The Chair advised that for this Official Plan
(OP) and Zoning By-law Amendment, only those who made oral submissions at the
meeting or written submissions before the amendments were adopted could appeal
to the OMB. He noted the applicant could
also appeal the matter if Council did not adopt the amendment within 120 days
(zoning) and 180 days (OP) of receipt of the application.
The following
correspondence was received and is held on file with the City Clerk:
·
E-mail dated 9 February 2010 from Xuan Zhu
·
E-mail dated 8 February 2010 from Maureen Taylor
·
E-mail dated 8 February 2010 from John Parrott and Lauri Smith
Tim Marc, Senior
Legal Counsel, provided an overview of the proposed Zoning By-law and Official
Plan amendments. He was joined by
Francoise Jessop, Program Manager, Zoning Studies. Mr. Marc provided the following details by way
of background:
·
Subsequent to Council’s approval of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law in
June 2008, some 60 appeals were received by the City.
·
One of the major appeals was from TDL (Tim Hortons), a key aspect of which
pertained to permissions for drive-throughs and restaurants.
·
A series of pre-hearings were held on the Zoning by-law and at no time
did anyone seek to be involved in the TDL appeal, either in support of or in
opposition to the City’s position.
·
A hearing was scheduled for December 2009. After exchange of witness
statements, the City was approached and agreed to undergo mediation in front of
the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB.)
·
The parties underwent mediation in December 2009, discussing the issues
and policy ramifications with respect to where drive-throughs and restaurants
might be permitted within the City, having regard to OP policy.
·
At the conclusion of the three days of mediation, a settlement was
arrived at that staff was prepared to recommend. PEC was subsequently briefed In Camera on December 8, 2009.
·
The settlement respects existing OP policy and allows for some increased
permissions for drive-throughs where there is arguably no OP policy in place to
prohibit them.
·
There are two areas of the City, the Central Area and Villages, where
staff felt policy should support prohibitions on drive-throughs. The proposed OP policy will discourage
drive-throughs within those two areas.
Mr. Marc highlighted
that one of the more contentious areas pertained to local commercial
zones. He suggested the City does not
have a strong OP policy basis to prohibit drive-throughs in those areas;
however, staff has legitimate concerns with respect to performance standards. As part of the settlement, drive-throughs
would be permitted in local commercial areas, but staff would be able to bring
forward a Zoning by-law to Committee and Council to establish performance
standards.
Acknowledging it is
Committee’s right to make changes, he suggested that the settlement be viewed
as a package. He advised that, while TDL
had indicated they would not object to the proposed amendment by Councillor
Feltmate with regards to Hearst Way, he did not know what the position of TDL
would take on any further changes.
Mr. Marc also wished
to clarify that Drive-throughs are a defined use in the Zoning by-law whereby
one can take advantage of the service by not getting out of the car. They are not limited to restaurants, and can
include a diverse range of services including the drive-through book drop off
at the Greenboro Library.
Michael Polowin, solicitor on behalf
of TDL, was present in support of the report recommendations. He noted that Councillor Feltmate’s proposed
amendment had been explained to him and he suggested it would not change his
characterization of the nature of the overall settlement.
In response to
questions from Councillor Doucet, Ms. Jessop confirmed that there would be no
changes to the potential for drive-throughs in his ward as a result of the
settlement. She explained that the
ability to build drive-throughs in Capital Ward is currently very limited, as
most of Bank St. is a Traditional Mainstreet zone, which does not permit
them. She clarified that drive-throughs
are currently permitted in the Arterial Mainstreet areas of the ward; however,
there would be no change to those permissions as part of the settlement.
Moved
by P. Feltmate:
That report number ACS2010-ICS-PLA-0025 is amended by
making the following change to Document 2 – Details of Recommended Zoning:
1.
In Document 2 –
Details of Recommended Zoning, add the following text to (s) Section 204 (1)
(a) IL 1, after the words, “permitted uses”:
“except for the lands zoned IL1 or IL1[XXX] along
Hearst Way.”
That there be no further
notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning
Act
CARRIED
Committee
then approved the report recommendations, as amended:
That Planning and Environment Committee and
the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve and adopt an amendment to the
Official Plan to provide policies regarding permissions for drive-through
facilities in the Central Area and Village designations, as detailed in
Document 1;
2. Approve amendments to Zoning By-law 2008-250
regarding permissions for drive-through facilities and restaurant uses, as
detailed in Document 2, and forward a by-law incorporating the required
amendments to the Ontario Municipal Board.
3. Amend
report number ACS2010-ICS-PLA-0025 by making the following change to Document 2
– Details of Recommended Zoning:
i. In
Document 2 – Details of Recommended Zoning, add the following text to (s)
Section 204 (1) (a) IL 1, after the words, “permitted uses”:
“except for the lands
zoned IL1 or IL1[XXX] along Hearst Way.”
4. That
there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act
CARRIED,
as amended
RÉGLEMENTATION DES DÉMOLITIONS - 358, AVENUE
ARLINGTON
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0034 SOMERSET (14)
Moved by D. Holmes:
WHEREAS incorrect recommendations are listed
under Item 6 in the agenda index;
AND WHEREAS the correct recommendations are
listed in the Staff report beginning on Pg. 65 of the Agenda;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning and
Environment Committee approve the recommendations outlined in the staff report.
CARRIED
That the
Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the demolition of 358 Arlington
Avenue, subject to the following:
1. The Registered
Owner shall seed/sod the property and install bollards around the perimeter to
maintain the property as open space, and to prevent the use of the property for
other interim uses until the time of construction of the replacement building. The foregoing shall occur within three months
of execution of the Agreement, failing which, the City will undertake this work
and enter on the collector’s roll the sum of the costs incurred to perform this
work. The registered owner shall
maintain the property in accordance with the Property Standards By-law.
2. That the
Registered Owner enter into an Agreement with the City of Ottawa, to be
registered on title, including the forgoing conditions, and pay all the costs
associated with the registration of the said Agreement. At such time as a building permit is issued
to redevelop the site and the replacement building is in place, the Agreement
will become null and void and will be released upon request by the owner. The
owner shall pay all costs associated with the registration of the release from
this Agreement.
accord de lotissement standard modifié et conditions d’approbation du
plan provisoire
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0036 City Wide/à l'échelle de
la Ville
Moved by P. Feltmate:
WHEREAS
additional time is needed for staff to brief Committee members on the changes
outlined in the report;
AND
WHEREAS the development industry has requested additional time to provide
comments in response to the report;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this item be deferred to the April 27, 2010 meeting of the
Planning and Environment Committee
CARRIED
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve the following:
1.
The
new standard Subdivision Agreement as shown in Document 1.
2.
The
Standard Conditions of Draft Plan Approval as shown in Document 2.
3.
That
the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management in consultation with the
City Solicitor be authorized to modify the terms and conditions contained in
Documents 1 and 2:
(a)
to
add site specific conditions where appropriate based on the information
provided by the applicant and the consultation process, and;
(b)
to
make revisions of a technical or administrative nature.
DEFERRED
OTTAWA BUILT HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR Le PATRIMOINE BÂTI
D’OTTAWA
8. DESIGNATION OF THE BRADLEY/CRAIG
FARMSTEAD, 590 HAZELDEAN ROAD UNDER PART IV OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT
DÉSIGNATION DE LA
FERME BRADLEY/CRAIG, SITUÉE AU 590, CHEMIN HAZELDEAN, AUX TERMES DE LA
PARTIE IV DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0021 Rideau
Goulbourn (21)
An e-mail dated 8 February 2010 was received
from David Flemming, Heritage Ottawa, and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Sally Coutts, Planner II, provided an overview of
the proposed designation, by means of a Power Point presentation. She provided an overview of the history of
the site of the rationale for designation of the Bradley-Craig farmstead under
the Ontario Heritage Act. Specifically she focused on the
characteristics of the barn that merited designation and the potential for its
adaptive re-use. A copy of the staff
presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
Jay Baltz, Chair of the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) spoke in
support of the report recommendations. Chris
Mulholland, Vice-Chair, was also present.
Mr. Baltz raised the following points:
·
The importance of the Bradley/Craig Farmstead lies in its status
as a rare, well-preserved example of the second wave of buildings on a working
farmstead in continuous use since the earliest days of settlement.
·
It is of clear importance as a reminder of the historical
development of the area and its role as an important agricultural region. .
·
The farmhouse is an excellent, well-preserved example of Gothic
Revival style and its retention and adaptive re-use will add interest and
variety to the nearby planned commercial development.
·
The barn is a well preserved, very rare example of a working dairy
barn from the 1870s. The unusual
features of this barn make it especially worthy of heritage designation and
preservation, and the structure exceeds the tests for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.
·
At the OBHAC meeting, objections were raised on behalf of the
current owner to the designation of the barn.
The objections did not question the Statement of Cultural Heritage
Value, or the factual accuracy of the Staff report or its conclusions; rather
the objections centred on economics the relative importance of intensification
vs. heritage.
·
With regards to the owner’s economic arguments, it is OBHAC’s
position that, while preserving the barn would indeed be less profitable than
removing it, it is OBHAC’s position that the cost is small relative to the
overall benefit, as the house and the barn are on a very small portion of the
total land, and retaining the barn will clearly affect only a very small part
of the redevelopment planned for this large parcel.
In additions, as the zoning on
this land has been changed from agricultural to a Mixed Use zone, a very large
private benefit has already accrued for the landowner.
·
With regards to the arguments raised with regards to the
requirement for intensification, it was noted that the Provincial Policy
Statement does not qualify its requirement for preservation of heritage
dependent on how much development is planned for the site.
·
OBHAC is of the opinion that, as the parcel proposed for
designation is small relative to the total size of the parcel to be developed,
and commercial development is proposed for nearby parcels as well, very
substantial intensification will be accommodated in this area even with the
proposed designation.
·
Adaptive re-use of the barn is possible within a commercial
context, and is likely to inspire a better-designed commercial development.
A copy of OBHAC’s comments is
held on file with the City Clerk.
David Flemming, Heritage Ottawa, spoke in support of the report recommendations. He raised the following points in support of
designation:
·
The Statement of
Cultural Heritage value fully meets and exceeds the criteria for designation in
all three categories: design or physical value; historical or associative
value; and contextual value.
·
To exclude the
barn in its original 19th Century configuration would be tantamount
to rejecting the property’s historical significance as a farmstead. The barn should remain on the site close to
the farmstead as it would not have the same effect if taken out of context if
moved elsewhere.
·
The property
represents the last vestige of rural heritage characteristics on Hazeldean
Road, which has been given over to residential and commercial development.
·
The importance
of this site was recognized by the former City of Kanata, which included it on
their heritage reference list.
·
Intensification
is a reason to include the barn in the designation, as the neighbourhood will
be home to thousands of people, many of whom will have no appreciation of the
City’s agricultural or rural heritage.
Mr. Flemming concluded by suggesting this was
one of the most exciting opportunities Council has had to designate a property
under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Miguel Tremblay, Fotenn Consultants, and Lisa Dalla Rosa, Richcraft Group of
Companies, spoke on behalf of the landowner, Richcraft Homes. He indicated that he had made similar
comments before OBHAC, and would not be questioning the heritage value of the
farmhouse or the barn. He put forward
the following two requests for Committee’s consideration:
·
The first request is that the not be designated at the present
time. Instead, Richcraft would be
permitted three years to market the property and look for a tenant in the
absence of a heritage designation. If
after this period they are unsuccessful in obtaining a tenant, discussions
could be undertaken to relocate the barn to another site. Acknowledging this is not an optimal
scenario from a heritage preservation perspective, it would provide an
opportunity to retain the structure and still find a suitable tenant.
·
The second request is that the parcel being considered for
designation be reduced to something more manageable for the developer, given
staff has already acknowledged that the outbuildings have less value and thus
should not be designated.
Mr. Tremblay outlined the following points in
support of the developer’s position:
·
With regards to
the policy context of the proposed designation, he noted the lands are
designated Arterial Main Street. This
Zone in the OP is intended to accommodate very intensive development, in this
case of a commercial nature.
·
The lands are
also designated Mixed Use Centre in the Fernbank Community design Plan
(CDP). The mixed use designation is
intended to meet the everyday needs of the new residents, and these lands play
an important role in meeting the everyday needs of the future residents of both
Fernbank and the Kanata West lands to the North.
·
OBHAC’s
assertion that the parcel being designated is small compared to the lands owned
by Richcraft could be somewhat misleading.
Of the parcel purchased by Richcraft, the likely extent of the
Commercial designation only about a depth of 190 metres. Thus, the designation being requested for an
area of approximately four acres represents about 26 per cent of the available
commercial lands, which is significant.
·
Richcraft, who has some experience with heritage structures, does
not think they will necessarily be successful in finding a tenant if a heritage
designation is on the building. They
would like the opportunity to work with future tenants in the absence of a
designation and then come back and portions could be designated.
·
The barn will be competing for tenants with purpose-built retail
space in the same development and nearby.
North and South of Hazeldean Rd, there would be approximately two
million square feet of retail.
·
One option could be for the City to acquire the barn and relocate
it 500-600 metres south to the proposed district park that is part of these
larger lands owned by the developer. He
proposed that Richcraft would gladly relocate it to the district park so the
City could use it as a changing or washroom facility. This is one example of the discussions that
could take place.
·
As to why Richcraft did not appreciate the implications of the
heritage buildings when they acquired the land, it was suggested they relied in
large part on the Fernbank CDP. While
the CDP highlights these lands as areas of interest that likely meet the criteria
to be designated under the Heritage Act,
another passage speaks to the structures and indicates relocation would be
possible, as it states “The existing heritage structure should be incorporated
into the development or relocated within the community.”
·
Richcraft also likely did not appreciate that the City would be
looking to designate a full four acres of commercial land.
Councillor Qadri noted that
during the Fernbank CDP discussions, the policy implications of designation
were taken into account, and it was his understanding that through the CDP
intensification level was taken into consideration when in designing an overall
intensification policy for the area. Mr.
Tremblay acknowledged that his involvement with the CDP had been shorter than
the Councillor’s; however, having reviewed the CDP in light of another appeal,
and I don’t have any direction that the intensification policies would discount
this area. He suggested Richcraft could
have reasonably expected these lands would be available for development under
the CDP policies, and the CDP policy referenced earlier seems to indicate that
the barn could be relocated.
Councillor Qadri understood
that through the CDP discussions, this property was always to be saved as a
special interest piece of property, and did not recall any discussions of
relocation. With regards to the
potential of relocating the barn to the district park, acknowledging there were
appeals underway, he suggested the park would be of insufficient size to
accommodate what the City was already planning, much less the barn. Mr.
Tremblay noted his involvement in the appeals related to the district
park. He reiterated that he would like
the opportunity to work with the City’s Parks and Recreation to see if they
might want the building. He noted
Richcraft’s heritage architect suggested smaller rooms or compartments could be
built within the larger structure, which could be used for a snack bar or
change rooms in support of what the City has planned on the site.
In response to questions from
Councillor Monette with regards to the feasibility of moving the barn without
damaging, Ms. Dalla Rosa explained that it is possible, based on a structural
report obtained by Richcraft. Mr.
Tremblay noted that the nature of the barn construction is such that would
probably have allowed it to be relocated on farm properties, as its wooden
dowel system with pegs and holes.
Councillor Hunter wondered why
designation of the barn building would make it so difficult to relocate
it. He suggested the designation could
an appropriate lever for the City to use to ensure the property owner
negotiates in good faith to relocate the building to another site. He wondered if it would be appropriate to
build a caveat built into the designation resolution that allows for relocation
discussions to take place.
Mr. Tremblay expressed that, in
his experience, once a designation is applied it is quite difficult to remove
or revisit. He maintained the position
of the developer is that the designation is an additional encumbrance that will
be difficult to address, and the developer’s real estate division is of the
opinion that potential tenants won’t want it with a heritage designation. He suggested that withholding the designation
for three years, as requested, would result in a reuse faster than putting a
designation on it. In response to
statements made by the delegation, Ms. Coutts clarified that even though the
larger area is designated, the owner would not need to go back to OBHAC in
order to demolish the outbuildings that are not designated.
Councillor Hunter suggested
designation would be an appropriate lever for the City to have, to make sure
that negotiations around relocation are done in good faith, and expressed his
discomfort with just leaving it up to the developer.
Councillor Wilkinson wondered
why this designation could not be seen as a potential commercial opportunity,
such as the designation of March House.
She suggested this area could incorporate the buildings into something
unique and different from the surrounding strip mall development. She wondered if the developer had looked at
the possibility of such heritage economic development.
Mr. Tremblay proposed that the
developer was indeed considering it to be an opportunity. However they are
asking for the designation to be delayed in order to allow the flexibility to
deliver on that opportunity. He noted
this was not a small piece of property in an already developed area with a
strong retail base, but rather one of the early properties to develop in a
large regional shopping centre; thus the barn will have to compete for tenants
with every other square footage on this corridor. The developer feels the designation limits
the ability to find a tenant. Councillor
Wilkinson suggested it would not be that difficult with the right concept.
Ms. Dalla Rosa noted that the
architect/ heritage specialist hired by Richcraft is currently conducting a
“future use study,” looking at what sort of things could be done with the
existing structure. She suggested that
once the study was completed, the developer would have a better idea of what
could go into barn in that location, or a different location. Mr. Tremblay suggested that, while the barn
is a fantastic structure, it is somewhat problematic to redevelop. He noted March House was an easier type of
structure to deal with. He suggested it
would take time to find a suitable partner, as the building is unique.
Chair Hume noted that the City
had been communicating with Richcraft since 2007 about the designation, and the
staff report indicates no response was received to the letter sent. He wondered
why the developer did not ask for this flexibility at that time or respond to
the City’s letter. Ms. Dalla Rosa noted
Richcraft had received an “intent to designate” letter as soon as they acquired
the property, and they had met with staff.
She noted Richcraft had watched
the Fernbank CDP process to see how this heritage land was going to be
impacted, and referenced the statement previously identified by Mr. Tremblay
that seemed to indicate relocation would be discussed. Mr. Tremblay noted that the Fernbank CDP was
approved by Council in July 2009, and was subject to numerous appeals. Thus he suggested the policy documents
governing the development of these lands are still not fully in place. He proposed that it might have been premature
for Richcraft to have turned a lot of attention to this property in the absence
of an approved CDP.
In response to further
questions from Councillor Hume, Mr. Tremblay advised that they had met with
staff on several occasions, including a site visit, and had raised the same
points with staff and OBHAC that they were raising before this Committee.
Having completed questions
to the delegations, Committee then proceeded to ask questions of City
staff. In response to questions from
Councillor Qadri, Ms. Coutts provided the following assessments:
·
The entire barn is important, including the under-ground
infrastructure, its importance is linked to its location, and its meaning is
derived to a great extent from the relationship with the house and its place
within the farmyard.
·
The barn is constructed such that if were to be moved, in addition
to possibly losing the milking stalls, you would also lose the story that it
tells and the relationship to the house.
·
An analysis has been done, and in order to move the barn it would
probably need to be taken apart and put back together again as opposed to be
moved in a unit. One cannot know for
certain how successful it will be until it is being done.
·
As to whether staff would consider designating just the two
buildings, rather than the whole property, Ms. Coutts indicated Tim Marc,
Senior Legal Counsel, had advised heritage staff to designate parcel of land
they felt was a meaningful associated with the buildings.
·
With regards to the developer’s request to move the line further
removing one line further east, Committee and Council could certainly do
that. However, staff feels it is a
cohesive and meaningful piece of land.
·
Staff would work with any developer who was interested in
developing this parcel of land to achieve their aspirations. It is not clear
why it would be necessary to slice off a piece, as meaningful development could
still take place there within the parameters of a heritage designation.
·
With respect to the possibility of moving the barn elsewhere on
the property, there is always risk associated with moving a building, and
moving it would decrease the significance as it has a historic relationship to
the house.
·
Staff acknowledges that adapting and reusing any building is not
always easy. New uses have to be
accommodated, but in terms of the Ontario
Heritage Act that isn’t necessarily a hindrance. It is the goal of heritage staff to work with
applicants to retain buildings, keep them meaningful, and make them useful well
into the future.
In response to questions from
Councillor Qadri as to whether the property owner had approached the City to
use the part located closest to Hazeldean Rd, John Moser, General Manager of
Planning and Growth Management indicated he had not been approached by the
owner on that issue. Councillor Qadri
noted the front corner of the property was being used as a construction site,
possibly for the widening of Hazeldean Rd or for Trinity Lands development
across the. Ms. Coutts, while she was
not aware of the construction site referenced by the Councillor, wished to
clarify that although staff is recommending the entire parcel for designation,
this would not preclude new commercial or residential buildings being placed on
the land.
In response to question from
Councillor Feltmate with regards to March House, Ms. Coutts confirmed that it
was moved slightly back on that property.
Staff knew when that building was designated that it was going to be
shifted on the property, but felt that it was of sufficient value that that was
an acceptable approach in that particular instance. It would not have had the same significance
and value if it had been moved to a different site.
Councillor Feltmate noted that,
having been involved with the Fernbank CDP process from the beginning, she
could recall a significant conversation with regards to relocation of the barn,
and was not sure the passage quoted by the delegation really represented what
she recalled as the intent for the property.
Ms. Coutts noted there is another section of the CDP that addresses the
heritage status of the building. She
recalled that it was always included in the CDP with the knowledge that it
would be protected under the Ontario
Heritage Act.
In response to further
questions from Councillor Feltmate, Ms. Coutts confirmed that the
recommendation under the Heritage Act
is for the entire farmstead, and as such anything to be built there would
constitute new construction on a designated property and would have to go
through an approval process. If Council
were to support designation today, but with a slightly different parcel, Mr.
Marc indicated it could be done, and staff would likely need to do a new
reference plan to come up with the proper parcel identifier number.
Councillor Feltmate encouraged
Committee to approve the designation as described in the report, which would
enable the developer and staff to go forward and work on developing the land
under the existing rules.
She suggested there were many
potential ideas for the site, such as a venue for arts activities or community
health facilities. She also felt that
the City would have a certain responsibility on this front, as they are doing
the designation and there are certain needs in that community.
Councillor Hunter reflected on
a number of points. He noted that some
25 years previous the Craig Farm was the subject of an application to the
former Regional Municipality of Ottawa Carleton for designation of that land
within the urban boundary, which was opposed by the regional planning
committee, and Council. The application
went to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB,) where the City depended heavily on
an agronomist’s report that indicated the farm land was some of the richest in
the Ottawa area. When it could not be
justified that there was enough land supply for the population extension that
was predicted, it was ordered that the land be brought in to the urban
boundary. He suggested it was a shame to
see the land becoming urban development, and lamented that, as in other areas
around the City, it was more economically viable for the farmer to sell the
land to a developer than to work it as farmland. He blamed the City’s own policy of
intensification, which does not allow boundaries to grow out to surrounding
marginal land around, which is plentiful.
Councillor Hunter noted that
the former Nepean Council was faced with similar pressures when the expansion of
Barrhaven surrounded two barns, which were ultimately preserved. While the preservation of those barns seemed
to make sense at the time, once residents moved in around them, a new set of
pressures started to exist. One barn was
turned into a party room, and the other remained as a working barn, resulting
in neighbour complaints about noises and smells etc. He noted the farms in the Ottawa area had
gone through a number of evolutions in styles of barns, and farmhouses. He proposed an alternative could be, rather
than leaving these barns eventually become eyesores in urban development, they
could be moved to a campus, such as was done at Upper Canada Village. This way, they would be in a context where
people could understand the evolution of the farm history of Ontario from the
early 1800’s to the present. He
indicated he would support the designation, but hoped in the future there would
be consideration of looking for a place to locate the barn where it is compatible
with its surroundings.
Councillor Holmes indicated she
would be supporting the designation. She
suggested it was the City’s job to try to ensure that some of the City’s
heritage buildings and major historical sites be preserved. She agreed this was a valuable piece of land
from a historical and architectural point of view, and argued that when
developers buy land like this they are assuming the responsibility for looking
after the heritage and the history. She
noted there is new construction all the time in heritage conservation districts,
and staff frequently works with owners throughout the City. As an example, she noted another item of the
agenda that was is an application for new construction in the Centretown
Heritage Conservation District.
She did not expect it to be any
different in this case and expected to see buildings being built in an
appropriate fashion on this location.
Councillor Qadri maintained it
was important to keep the barn in the existing location. He agreed that the buildings located on this
property have a history associated with the area, and moving them somewhere
else into another location would not be ideal.
From a Community perspective, he suggested there were many uses that
could be had on this property in the future, and proposed that designating the property
would not close the door on future development or uses for the barn. He asked Committee to support this staff
report, on the understanding that the City will continue to work with the land
owner to see what can be done on this property in amongst all the other
development that is happening in the community.
Committee then considered and
approved the report recommendation as presented.
OBHAC RECOMMENDATION, AS AMENDED
That the
Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the
designation of the Bradley/Craig Farmstead, 590 Hazeldean Road, under Part IV
of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Cultural
Heritage Value, attached as Document 4, as amended.
CARRIED
9. APPLICATION TO ALTER 390 WOOD AVENUE, A PROPERTY LOCATED IN
THE ROCKCLIFFE PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND DESIGNATED UNDER PART V
OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT
DEMANDE EN VUE DE MODIFIER LE 390, AVENUE
WOOD, PROPRIÉTÉ SITUÉE DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE
ROCKCLIFFE PARK ET DÉSIGNÉE AUX TERMES DE LA PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR LE
PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0022 rideau-rockcliffe
(13)
STAFF AND OBHAC
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that
Council:
1. Approve
the application to alter 390 Wood Avenue, in accordance with plans submitted by
Kevin Deevey, Kevin Deevey Architect as received on December 15, 2009.
2. Delegate
authority for minor design changes to the General Manager of the Planning and
Growth Management Department.
3. Issue
the heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.
(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario
Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance
of a building permit.)
(Note: The statutory 90 day timeline for consideration
of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on March
15, 2010.)
CARRIED
10. APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 506 KENT STREET, A PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE CENTRETOWN HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND DESIGNATED UNDER
PART V OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT
DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION AU 506, RUE
KENT, PROPRIÉTÉ SITUÉE DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DU
CENTRE-VILLE ET DÉSIGNÉE AUX TERMES DE LA PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR LE
PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0023 Somerset
(14)
STAFF AND OBHAC
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend
that Council:
1. Approve
the application for new construction at 506 Kent Street, in accordance with the
plans submitted by Harish Gupta, Harish Gupta Architects Inc. as received on
December 10, 2009.
2. Issue
the Heritage Permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.
(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration
of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on March
14 2010.)
(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario
Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the
issuance of a building permit.)
CARRIED
11. APPLICATION TO ALTER 132-138, 152-158 AND 160 BANK STREET,
PROPERTIES DESIGNATED UNDER PARTS IV AND V OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT
TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE BANK STREET HERITAGE
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DEMANDE DE MODIFICATION DES 132-138, 152-158
ET 160, RUE BANK, PROPRIÉTÉS DÉSIGNÉES EN VERTU DES PARTIES IV ET V DE LA LOI
SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO, JUMELÉE À UN PROJET DE CONSTRUCTION DANS LE
DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE LA RUE BANK
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0027 Somerset
(14)
STAFF AND OBHAC
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee
recommend that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve
the application to alter 132-138, 152-158 and 160 Bank Street, properties
designated under Part IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act and associated new
construction in the Bank Street Heritage Conservation District in accordance
with the drawings by B+H Architects included as Documents 9-13 received on December
22, 2009.
2. Delegate
approval of subsequent minor changes to the General Manager of Planning and
Growth Management.
3. Require
the posting of a financial security in the amount of $1.6 million required to stabilize
and restore the existing brick façades prior to the issuance of construction
permits for demolition or excavation.
4. Issue
the Heritage Permit with a two-year expiry from the date of issuance.
(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration
of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on March
22, 2010)
(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario
Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the
issuance of a building permit.)
CARRIED
Infrastructure
Services and Community Sustainability
SERVICES D’INFRASTRUCTURE ET VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY
VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS
PROJETS PILOTES DE l’Initiative de planification de voisinage (IPV)
ACS2010-ics-css-0002 CITY WIDE/ À L’ECHELLE DE
LA VILLE
Ivan
Tanner, president of the Vars Community Association and Pat O’Brien and
Linda Hoad from the Hintonburg Community Association, were present in
support of the report recommendations.
The
Chair noted that this matter had been subject to a fulsome discussion at the
Community and Protective Services Committee on February 4, 2010. On behalf of the Planning and Environment
Committee, he congratulated all involved in the initiative for their good work.
Moved
by M. Bellemare:
That Planning and
Environment Committee approve the addition of the following recommendations, as
approved by the Community and Protective Services Committee:
3. That
Community Sustainability staff be directed to work with the Parks and
Recreation Department and the Vars Community Association to implement a needs
assessment survey to determine their recreational needs
4. That
staff be directed to work with the Vars Community Association in capacity
building with the purpose of developing a sustainable association in addition
to working with the community to develop an implementation strategy for the
Vars Neighbourhood Plan.
CARRIED
Committee then approved the report, as amended.
1. That the
Community and Protective Services Committee and the Planning and Environment
Committee recommend that Council:
a.
Receive
the results of the Neighbourhood Plans for Vars and Hintonburg/Mechanicsville,
as described in this report and issued as Documents 1 and 2;
b.
Direct
staff to use the Vars and Hintonburg/Mechanicsville Neighbourhood Plans as the
first point of reference for all future City‑owned work planned in these
communities; and
2.
That Planning and Environment
Committee recommend that Council direct staff to move to the Implementation
Phase of the Neighbourhood Planning Initiative (NPI) for the pilot Vars and
Hintonburg/Mechanicsville Plans and to report back to Council by Q3 2010 with
progress on:
a. An implementation strategy, designed
with input from other departments, that outlines the required resources and
timing necessary to advance the City-owned recommendations;
b.
The
development of a tracking and reporting framework that will allow for annual
reporting to Council; and
c.
An
assessment of the integration of NPI as part of the City’s overall community
planning processes.
3.
That Community Sustainability staff be directed to work with the Parks and
Recreation Department and the Vars Community Association to implement a needs
assessment survey to determine their recreational needs
4.
That staff be directed to work with the Vars Community Association in
capacity building with the purpose of developing a sustainable association in
addition to working with the community to develop an implementation strategy
for the Vars Neighbourhood Plan.
CARRIED, as amended
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAUX
PLAN D’ACTION DE LA RIVIÈRE DES OUTAOUAIS
ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0007 CITY WIDE/ À L’ECHELLE DE LA VILLE
·
A letter dated 8 February
2010 was received from the Meredith Brown, Ottawa Riverkeeper, in support of
the recommendations.
Dixon Weir, General Manager of Environmental
Services; Felice Petti, Manager of Strategic and Environmental Services; and
Sally McIntyre, Program Manager of Environmental Programs, were present to
provide an overview of the Ottawa River Action Plan (ORAP.) Staff spoke to a PowerPoint presentation that
was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.
By way of background, Mr. Weir provided the following details on the
City’s approach to water and wastewater management:
·
The City of Ottawa has its own municipal water cycle to treat
approximately 300 million litres of drinking water daily and distribute it
through 2800 kilometres of water distribution system including treatment
facilities, pumping stations and storage facilities.
·
Taken together, this water cycle has an estimated replacement of
approximately $17 billion and a currently depreciated value of $10
billion. The City spends approximately
$95 million on these services and will invest over $190 million in capital improvements
in 2010.
·
Drinking water and wastewater services were originally rooted in
protecting public health, with the focus on ensuring potable water was
distributed, and that sanitary and storm sewage was collected.
·
In the 1960s and 70s these services were adjusted such that
environmental protection was added to that responsibility. Today, the services are geared to ensure
protection of both the public’s health and the environment.
·
The City is shifting to a watershed-based approach to measure the performance
of major facilities and their impact on the environment, using new tools and
measuring systems. This provides a more
comprehensive, integrative, effective, and sustainable approach.
Mr. Weir then provided an
overview of ORAP, which is comprised of 17 different projects that fall under
three different categories: improving existing systems and control; improving
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control; and planning for the future. Details and costing was provided as part of
the presentation.
Ms. McIntyre reviewed the
projects related to implementation of Real Time Control and development of CSO
Storage for the Ultimate Combined Sewer Area, and the rationale behind staff’s
recommendations on same. She highlighted the following points:
·
By the end of 2010 full implementation of real-time control would reduce
combined sewer overflows we estimate by 60 per cent by volume.
·
Three options (A, B and C) were considered during the consultation
process for addressing the surplus outflow that will remain after
implementation of Real Time Control.
·
Option A would build sufficient storage to enable the City to meet
regulatory requirements as they stand today.
·
Option B would build roughly three times the amount of storage to exceed
what the provincial requirements, and thus enable the City on an average basis
in an average year to achieve zero overflows.
·
Option C is full sewer separation in the ultimate combined sewer
area.
·
As outlined in the presentation, Ms. McIntyre reviewed the pros and cons
of each of the three options in terms of their impacts on volumes of outflow,
frequency of overflows, impact on downstream resources, and relative cost.
·
After consideration of the relative benefits and costs of each option,
staff is recommending Option B.
·
Results of the public consultation support staff’s recommendation.
By means of an animated
illustration, Ms. McIntyre demonstrated for Committee the impact of real-time
control on e-coli levels in the Ottawa River after a significant rain event, in
comparison to what exists today. She
also demonstrated the impacts of options A, B and C on these levels, with B
being the option recommended to Committee, highlighting how it affects various
downstream resources. She noted how the
incremental benefit in terms of actual impact of E coli on the River is not
that significant between options B and C, yet there is a large cost
differential between those options.
It was acknowledged that,
under all options, there were areas where e-coli would remain well after a rain
event, including around Petrie Island.
These E coli issues arise from surface water discharges, even when all
CSOs have been eliminated. It was
emphasized that, while ORAP’s first priority is addressing CSOs, it recognizes
the work to be done on this other problem, and many of the projects in the plan
address it.
In response to questions from
Councillor Monette, Mr. Weir provided the following information:
·
While the top five ORAP projects do address the CSO issue, the others
are still necessary in order to deal with other issues, such as the remaining
E-coli impact on Petrie Island as a result of storm water. Another example is the R.O. Pickard
Environmental Centre effluent disinfection, which is a regulatory requirement.
·
ORAP is an integrative plan that staff feels rests very much on the
contribution of all the elements.
·
With regards to the possibility of more economical “hybrid” solutions
than what is proposed, Mr. Weir emphasized that staff reviewed the options and
feel that the ORAP as presented provides the best value for money, the best
improvement and protection of the environment, and represents the appropriate
spending.
·
With regards to whether the Province had offered the City additional
money to achieve their goal that is in excess of the provincial standards, Mr.
Weir confirmed that they had not.
·
In terms of the proposed education campaign, Mr. Weir explained that,
while the details had not yet been worked out, the campaign would focus on
increasing the public’s understanding and appreciation of their impact on the
water environment and how best to protect that environment. It would be wide-ranging and staff feels it
would offer very significant advantage.
·
With respect to the pollution being generated from the Gatineau side of
the river, Mr. Weir acknowledged that Gatineau is a contributor. He emphasized that this plan is about
bringing about changes to areas the City of Ottawa can control.
·
Staff has met several times with Ville de Gatineau, who have been
helpful in contributing information.
While that City is not at the same stage as Ottawa, continued
communication and participation would be a useful tool.
Councillor Monette wondered
how the inter-provincial process could be expedited, as pollution is coming
from both sides of the river. He
proposed the City needs to be proactive,
not only in their own actions, but also in getting the provincial and the
federal governments to the table to recognize that both sides of the river need
to do something and they need to do it in a coordinated way.
Mr. Weir noted that, in
addition to the dialogue through the NCC and the Ville de Gatineau, Ottawa is
also having discussions with the provinces.
He suggested these discussions are important when looking at the Ottawa
River from a watershed perspective. He
surmised that this was the extent of the influence the City has at this point.
Councillor Hunter noted that,
with all the options (A, B or C) a significant portion of the e-coli problem at
Petrie Island would remain untreated. He
suggested that, if the problem is at Petrie Island, the plan should start with
addressing that problem first. Mr. Weir
and Mr. Petti reiterated that this issue was unrelated to CSOs; rather it is
the result of storm water discharge.
While staff feels CSOs are the priority, it is acknowledged that storm
water is also a problem, and there are activities as part of ORAP to address
that issue as well.
An example of such an activity
is the pilot program underway on the Pinecrest Creek watershed, where the
experiences will be applied to the eastern watersheds that have a more direct
impact on Petrie Island. The City needs
to deal with CSO control and source management, not just with storm water
management.
Councillor Hunter noted that
CSOs had been an issue for many years, with the City and former municipalities
undertaking various initiatives and studies to address it. In particular, he referenced a study
undertaken by the former Regional Municipality of Ottawa Carleton on what was
known as the “Somerset Street Tunnel,” and inquired why those plans were not
being used instead of spending more money restudying it.
Mr. Weir agreed that the
Somerset tunnel was very similar to Option B of this plan. At the time it was not pursued as Real Time
Control was considered to be adequate to reduce the volume and the frequency of
CSOs. Since then, the regulatory
environment has changed and there are now recreational resources downstream
resulting in a public health issue. Real
Time Control is no longer sufficient to meet the current regulations
established by the Ministry of the Environment, so the concept of storage is
being reintroduced. With regards to why
the plans could not be taken off the shelf and used, there are several reasons. Firstly, the volume of storage is not the
same as originally conceived with the Somerset tunnel, due to the
implementation of Real Time Control and the fact that the technology available
now was not available at that time.
Also, the conceptual designs for that project were not yet at a point
where they are implementable. Councillor
Hunter wondered how much money the region and the City of Ottawa spent to get
these designs that were not implementable.
Councillor
Hunter expressed his concerns with the way Public Health conducts its beach
water testing. He noted that in many cases over the previous summer, beaches
were closed even when the E-coli level was under 100 parts per 100 ml of water. Conversely, there were several cases where
the beaches were open even when the levels exceeded that threshold. He attributed this to the fact that the
testing is delayed by a day. He strongly
recommended that Public Health implement real-time, on-site water testing.
In response to questions from Councillor Feltmate, Mr. Weir provided the
following information:
·
The Environmental Commissioner came to Ottawa in early
September and was quite supportive of the plan proposed by staff
·
Where the commissioner had criticism was that the City
hadn’t adequately communicated with and engaged the public. Staff took that feedback to heart in
developing the public information and communication program for ORAP.
·
The public has also commented that on an ongoing basis
there needs to be greater public outreach and communication to increase the
awareness and appreciation of people’s impacts on the environment.
·
It is staff’s understanding through the public
consultations that the public is engaged in the issue and very supportive of
the ORAP as proposed.
·
In terms of bringing together the various
municipalities impacting the Ottawa River watershed, along with the federal and
provincial governments, it was suggested the responsibility really rests with
the Ministry of the Environment, and the City is trying to promote that to the
extent it can.
·
The City has asked the Minister of the Environment to
convene the parties, and the Minister has agreed to do that. While he has not yet given a timeframe, it is
likely to be in the near term.
·
There is also an existing protocol between the
province of Quebec and Ontario for cooperation specific to environmental
issues. To date the only element that has been implemented pertains to the air
sector, and the City has been suggesting it would be appropriate to do the same
for the water environment.
Councillor Holmes noted she had obtained from the archives the former
study related to the Somerset tunnel storage tank, noting it was first
considered 1992 in a report to the former Region and City of Ottawa. She noted there was a significant amount of
work done, and inquired whether any of that work could be applicable to today’s
situation. Mr. Weir suggested it may
have some application; however, staff is not yet at the stage of exploring the
detailed engineering design. They are
currently trying to determine what level of service would be appropriate, which
will feed into the environmental assessment process. At the appropriate time staff will look back
at those plans to see what information may be of use, and where they are useful
staff will take advantage of them. He
confirmed that they do not yet know what capacity will be needed for the
storage tank. “Option B” is identifying 30-60 thousand cubic metres of storage as
the range, but this will be refined as part of the ongoing environmental
assessment process.
Councillor Holmes emphasized that there needed to be a commitment to the
storage tank, and hoped it would be bigger than required for today’s needs, so
that the City would not have to go back a few years later to enlarge it as the
City grows. She indicated her support
for the action plan, and hoped it would proceed, using whatever information is
useful from the former study
Councillor Doucet
noted he had mixed feelings about building an underground storage tank. He suggested the City’s storm water overflow
problem was due to the rapid drainage caused by the abundance of asphalt and
concrete. He proposed that the solution
could be to begin breaking up the asphalt so that the water can run into the
land and be stored there for free, rather than construct a holding tank.
He suggested the plan
should include removing asphalt driveways and encouraging interlock or
gravel. Whereas the city now does not
permit gravel driveway, perhaps there should be a penalty for an asphalt
driveway/and or an incentive for an interlock or gravel one. He wondered why nothing was being done on
this front.
Chair Hume noted that
the plan did include pilot programs looking at alternative surface treatments
to allow drainage into the ground. Mr.
Weir pointed to the Westboro/Pinecrest creek pilot project, which looks at more
passive ways to deal with storm water and come up with some other means of
dealing with storm water rather than bringing it into a collector like Pinecrest
Creek. This is being done as a pilot
program embedded in ORAP, with the lessons learned to be applied to the Eastern
sub-watersheds.
Councillor Doucet
noted that when it came time for a final vote on money towards the plan, he would
not be supporting it, as it does not contain a comprehensive passive water
retention system. Rather, he saw it as
another way of subsidizing asphalt.
While he was willing to take the step forward to do what is needed now,
ultimately he could not support it without the other system in place.
At the end of
Committee’s discussion, Ms. McIntyre made the following concluding points:
·
Only the first five ORAP projects pertain to CSOs. Everything else has to do, in one way or
another, with source control.
·
The Wet Weather Management Flow program and the Pinecrest-Westboro
Stormwater Retrofit program address some of the points raised by Councillor
Doucet.
·
With respect to the work previously done on the tunnel, she noted that by
implementing real time control, staff saved the municipality millions of
dollars by intervening at a time when the City could meet the regulatory
requirements through that means alone.
Those regulatory requirements have changed.
·
She suggested it would not be as simple as reopening the old plans and
implementing the storage tank. The new
tank being proposed would be cheaper and smaller.
·
She concluded by emphasizing that ORAP is an excellent plan that the City
should be proud of.
At the
suggestion of the Chair, Councillor Feltmate moved the following direction to
staff:
DIRECTION
TO STAFF:
That the Chair of
Planning and Environment Committee and the General Manager of Environmental
Services convey the Ottawa River Action Plan to the Environmental Commissioner
once approved by Council
Committee then
approved the report recommendations as presented.
That Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council:
1.
Approve
the Ottawa River Action Plan (ORAP) as described herein, valued at $251.64
million.
2.
Approve
a service level for combined sewer overflows (CSO) of zero overflows during the
swimming season in the “average year.”
3. Receive for information the scope and
timeline for development of a long-term Water Environment Strategy as described
herein.
CARRIED
PROJETS DE BUDGET DE FONCTIONNEMENT ET
D’IMMOBILISATIONS 2010 SOUTENUS PAR LES TARIFS D’EAU ET D’EAUX USÉES
ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0004 CITY WIDE/ À L’ECHELLE DE
LA VILLE
Dixon Weir, General
Manager of Environmental Services, provided an overview of the 2010 Water and Wastewater
Rate-Supported Draft Operating and Capital Budget. He did so by means of a PowerPoint
presentation, which was circulated and is held on file with the City
Clerk. He was joined by Marian Simulik,
City Treasurer; Michael Burt, Manager of Customer Service and Operations
Support; Michel Chevalier, Manager of Wastewater and Drainage Operations,
Felice Petti, Manager of Strategic and Environmental Services and Tammy Rose, Manager
of Drinking Water Services.
The Chair noted that
there would be the opportunity for Councillors to ask detailed questions when
Committee has its full public hearing on the matter on February 23rd,
2010. He suggested it would be helpful
if in reviewing the the budget in the subsequent weeks, Committee members could forward
any questions to Mr. Weir, copying fellow Committee members so everyone is
aware of the questions and answers.
That
the 2010 Operating and Capital Budget Estimates:
1. Be
received and tabled at the meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to
be held on February 9, 2010;
2. Be
considered by the Planning and Environment Committee at a Meeting to be held on
February 23, 2010; and
3. Be
forwarded to Council thereafter for final approval.
RECEIVED
AND TABLED
ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0005 CITY WIDE/ À L’ECHELLE DE
LA VILLE
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council receive this report for information.
CARRIED
DÉVELOPPEMENT
ORGANISATIONNEL ET RENDEMENT
16. QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE
REPORT TO COUNCIL, Q3: juLy-september 2009
RAPPORT TRIMESTRIEL SUR LE RENDEMENT PRÉSENTÉ AU CONSEIL
POUR LE 3IÉME TRIMESTRE, JUILLET-SEPTEMBRE 2009
ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0004 City Wide/À l'échelle de la Ville
That the Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for further review and discussion of the service areas’ performance
results, as outlined in Document 1.
RECEIVED
WHEREAS
the report incorrectly identifies the address of the subject property as 51
Pinhey Avenue
AND
WHEREAS the correct address is in fact 51 Pinhey Street;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the report be amended to reflect the correct address of 51
Pinhey Street.
That the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council approve that in cases where only one semi-detached home has
experienced flooding, the owner of the other home will also be eligible for
100% assistance with the cost of installing protective plumbing devices.
Councillor
Hume put forward a request to suspend the rules of procedure to consider the
above-noted item. He explained that the
urgency for considering this item was due to the fact that the composition of
the Jury needed to be submitted with the design brief going out to the design
community for the design competition on February 12th.
Councillor
Feltmate, on behalf of the Chair, moved that this item be added for
consideration at the meeting. It was
noted the recommendation had the support of staff.
Moved by
P. Feltmate:
WHEREAS
Council on November 16, 2009 approved Motion77/22 initiating an open design
competition in partnership with the NCC and Parks Canada for the canal side
park and open space component of the Lansdowne revitalization,
AND
WHEREAS Motion 77/22 created a jury comprising the Chair of PEC,
representatives each from the NCC and Parks Canada, and George Dark, the Chair
of the Lansdowne Strategic Design Review and Advisory Panel (that Council
established on November 16 through motion 77/5) to decide on the winning design
proposal through the Design Competition,
AND
WHEREAS the City Manager in response to the direction that the NCC and Parks
Canada be included as partners with the City in the Design Competition has
negotiated and signed a Letter of Understanding related to the Design
Competition with the NCC and Parks Canada, that includes a provision whereby
the NCC and Parks Canada are required to be consulted with and be agreement
with any additional members that would be part of the Jury for the Design
Competition,
AND
WHEREAS Marianne McKenna, one of the other design professionals currently
serving on the Lansdowne Strategic Design Review and Advisory Panel, requested
as a condition of her joining the panel that she be included as a jury member
for the design competition resulting in the jury make-up differing from what
was approved by Council,
AND
WHEREAS the Chair of the Panel and the Chair of PEC consider it critical to
have Ms McKenna serve on the panel as she was the only potential panel member
that was identified and was able to serve on the panel when it was being
established who is fluently bi-lingual,
AND
WHEREAS George Dark, as set out in a memo to the Chair of PEC attached to this
motion has advised, based on his extensive experience with design competitions
both as a respondent and as a jury member, that a larger jury with at least
seven members and with several of these members being design professionals
results in the jury deliberation process being more vigorous and complete and
that an odd number of members is necessary to avoid tie votes when the jury is
deliberating,
AND
WHEREAS the NCC and Parks Canada have agreed to Mr. Dark’s assessment of the
need to add 2 more jury members and agree with the appointment of Marianne
McKenna,
AND
WHEREAS the initial Council direction did not provide for a make-up as
determined by George Dark as being the ideal, namely an odd number of members
(7 or 9) and several design professionals
AND
WHEREAS it is necessary to have the jury makeup clarified and finalized before
the release of the Design Competition RFP on February 22 as the RFP needs to
indicate the jury make-up,
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the approval provided by Council on November 16, 2009 with
regard to the jury makeup for the Lansdowne canal side park and open space
Competition be modified to add the following members to the Council approved
jury:
§ Three
other nationally renowned design professionals that would include Ms. McKenna
as a nominee from the City and all of whom would be agreed to by the Chair of
PEC, the NCC, Parks Canada and George Dark
INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED
INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT
A. ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESERVE APPOINTMENT - OTTAWA BUILT HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Nomination d’un membre
suppléant au COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LE PATRIMOINE BÂTI D’OTTAWA
ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0009-IPD CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA
VILLE
RECEIVED
NOTICES OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION
AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING)
AVIS
DE MOTION (POUR EXAMEN LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE)
Inquiries
DEMANDES
DES RENSEIGNMENTS
No
inquiries were introduced.
OTHER BUSINESS
AUTRES QUESTIONS
Chair Hume noted
that, as a result of the City’s decisions in the 2010 budget regarding its tree
program, the General Manager of Public Works had requested the opportunity to
bring forward the tree strategy and funding strategy to be re-confirmed by
Committee and Council, likely in April.
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE
DE LA SÉANCE
The meeting adjourned at 1:25
p.m.
Original signed by Original
signed by
Caitlin Salter-MacDonald Councillor
P. Hume
Committee Coordinator Chair
