2. OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT - 1175 MANOTICK STATION ROAD
PLAN OFFICIEL - 1175, CHEMIN MANOTICK STATION |
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED
That Council:
1. Approve an amendment to the
Official Plan to exempt the property at 1175 Manotick Station Road from
policies 7 d) and 14 of Section 3.7.2 - General Rural Area under Official Plan
Amendment No. 76 to permit a subdivision within one kilometre of the Village
Boundary; and,
2. Approve an amendment to the
Official Plan to exempt the property at 1175 Manotick Station Road from
policy 10 of Section 3.7.2 - General Rural Area under Official Plan Amendment
No. 76, which places a moratorium on the creation of any new country lot
subdivisions.
RECOMMANDATIONS
MODIFIÉES DU COMITÉ
Que le Conseil :
1. Approuve une modification au
Plan officiel visant à dispenser la propriété située au 1175,
chemin Manotick Station des politiques 7 d) et 14 de la section 3.7.2 –
Secteur rural général en vertu de la modification au Plan officiel no
76, afin de permettre la présence d’un lotissement à moins d’un kilomètre des
limites du village; et,
2. Approuve une modification au
Plan officiel visant à dispenser la propriété située au 1175,
chemin Manotick Station de la politique 10 de la section 3.7.2 – Secteur
rural général en vertu de la modification au Plan officiel no 76,
qui impose un moratoire sur la création de tout nouveau lotissement de
campagne.
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager’s report
(Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability) dated 8 April 2010
(ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0063).
Report
to/Rapport au :
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Comité de l'agriculture
et des affaires rurales
and Council / et au Conseil
08 April 2010 / le 08 avril 2010
Submitted by/Soumis
par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City
Manager, Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability/Services d'infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact
Person/Personne-ressource : Derrick Moodie, Manager/Gestionnaire, Development
Review-Rural Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services ruraux,
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613)
580-2424, 15134 Derrick.Moodie@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT: |
OFFICIAL
PLAN AMENDMENT - 1175 Manotick Station Road (FILE NO. D01-01-09-0011) |
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Committee recommend Council:
1. Refuse an amendment to the
Official Plan to exempt the property at 1175 Manotick Station Road from
policies 7 d) and 14 of Section 3.7.2 - General Rural Area under Official Plan
Amendment No. 76 to permit a subdivision within one kilometre of the Village
Boundary; and,
2. Refuse an amendment to the
Official Plan to exempt the property at 1175 Manotick Station Road from
policy 10 of Section 3.7.2 - General Rural Area under Official Plan Amendment
No. 76, which places a moratorium on the creation of any new country lot subdivisions.
Que le Comité de
l'agriculture et des affaires rurales recommande ce qui suit au Conseil :
1. De refuser une modification au Plan officiel
visant à dispenser la propriété située au 1175, chemin Manotick Station
des politiques 7 d) et 14 de la section 3.7.2 – Secteur rural général en vertu
de la modification au Plan officiel no 76, afin de permettre la
présence d’un lotissement à moins d’un kilomètre des limites du village; et,
2. De refuser une modification au Plan officiel
visant à dispenser la propriété située au 1175, chemin Manotick Station de
la politique 10 de la section 3.7.2 – Secteur rural général en vertu de la
modification au Plan officiel no 76, qui impose un moratoire sur la
création de tout nouveau lotissement de campagne.
The site, 1175 Manotick Station Road, is vacant and comprises
43.7 hectares. It has access on
Manotick Station Road and the Village of Greely is abutting to the east. There is an existing residential development
to the north (Emerald Links Phase II), vacant lands to the immediate south and
rural residential lots to the west. The applicant wishes to develop a 46-lot
country estate subdivision with a nine-hole golf course and an open space in
the eastern portion.
The proposed development does not comply with
the General Rural Area policies Section 3.7.2 (7d) and (10) under Official Plan
Amendment No. 76 (OPA 76) which, respectively, do not permit subdivisions to be
located within one kilometre of an approved Village boundary and places a
moratorium on the creation of any new country lot subdivision.
Pre-consultations to
discuss the proposed subdivision were held on June 4 and November 26, 2009
between staff and the applicant. At both
pre-consultations, the applicant was made aware of the intent behind the
policies prohibiting country lot subdivisions within one kilometre of the
Village boundary and the upcoming moratorium.
At the second pre-consultation, staff clearly identified that the
relationship of the proposed subdivision in relation to the village was a
significant impediment.
The applicant wishes to amend Section 3.7.2 –
General Rural Area Policy (7d) under OPA 76 of the City of Ottawa’s Official
Plan to permit a subdivision within one kilometre of the Village Boundary.
In addition, the applicant wishes to amend
Section 3.7.2 – General Rural Area (10) under OPA 76, which places a
moratorium on the creation of any new country lot subdivisions, to exempt the
subject lands (1175 Manotick Station Road) from this policy.
DISCUSSION
The subject land is designated General Rural Area in the Official Plan. This designation contains a variety of land uses, such as farms, rural housing, wood lots and forests, small industries, golf courses, and in many places, small clusters of residential and commercial development. The intent of this designation is to accommodate a variety of land uses that are appropriate for a rural location and a limited amount of residential development where such development will not preclude continued agricultural and non-residential uses.
General Rural Area policy Section 3.7.2 (14) under OPA 76 also states that “development proposals within one kilometre of a Village boundary will be reviewed with respect to lot size, type of use and other characteristics, to ensure that they do not adversely limit potential expansion of the boundary at that location or create a long-term demand for the extension of municipal services.”
When Council introduced the Country Lot Subdivision policies in the 2003 Official Plan they reinforced the protection of villages by adding an additional policy, Section 3.7.2 (6e), now 7d under OPA 76, which states that “country lot subdivisions may not impede the ability of Villages to expand over the planning period, and may not be located within one kilometre of an approved Village boundary.” The intent behind that Policy is to ensure that subdivisions beyond one kilometre do not impede the ability of Villages to expand over the planning period and to prohibit (the term “may not” removing the choice) them within one kilometre no matter what period of time. The rationale behind prohibiting country lot subdivisions within one kilometre is to avoid future village expansion, no matter over what period of time, to have to leap over country estate residential development.
The General Rural Area policies, more specifically Section 3.7.2 (10) under OPA 76, states that:
a
moratorium is placed on the creation of any new country lot estate subdivisions
and conservation subdivisions which moratorium shall end at the earlier of five
years from the date of adoption of this Plan or the coming into force of an
official plan amendment that removes this moratorium and reinstates the
existing policies or replaces them with new policies. Any changes will be based on a critical
review of country lot subdivision policies and in particular the proposal to
cluster country lot subdivisions and will examine, but not be limited to:
a. The impact on existing villages;
b. The potential impact on groundwater;
c. The development potential in these
clusters;
d. The implications for the demand for
communal services;
e. The costs to taxpayers;
f. The impact on rural character.
Figure 1 - Existing Lot Fabric - Village of
Greely
The amount of subdivision activity around the Village of Greely is a typical example of why Policy 7d was created. This Policy is intended to ensure that subdivisions beyond one kilometre do not impede the ability of Villages to expand over the planning period and to prohibit them within one kilometre.
As previously mentioned, the rationale behind prohibiting country lot subdivisions within one kilometre is to avoid for future village expansion, no matter over what period of time, to have to leap over country estate residential development.
The applicant is of the opinion that, for the next planning period, the Village of Greely will only be expanding in its northern and central parts and that no further expansion is contemplated until after 2031.
The applicant refers to Figure 1 above, which shows that the subject property remains as one of only two vacant lots within the land use fabric of this area.
The applicant is of the opinion that other areas are more suitable for village expansion than the subject lands in the sense that they do not exhibit the basic land use conflicts of village type development occurring with estate residential areas. Staff would like to point out that the subject lands do not show any physical or environmental constraints nor contain any designated natural features that would preclude the expansion of the village boundaries. Furthermore, allowing infill of the proposed country estate residential development would leave no other choice but for to leap over if Village expansion is contemplated along its westerly boundary.
Staff does not agree with the applicant’s argument that additional estate type lots adjacent to the Village will have no measurable effect on its growth. Staff is of the opinion that the demand for low density residential can be accommodated within Villages; therefore growth outside from the urban boundaries should first be directed within the Villages.
Staff disagrees with the applicant’s argument that if properly done, private services within the proposed country estate lot subdivision will not predicate further need for municipal services. Although development is more likely to encounter water quality issues on smaller lots, the problem can also arise on country estate lots. Staff also disagrees with the applicant’s argument that there is no need to expand any municipal system since it does not exist in the Village. If water quality issues are encountered inside or outside the Village, either municipal service from the urban area will have to be expanded or a communal system will have to be provided. The Carlsbad Spring’s trickle feed system, where City water was piped in, is a good example.
The Council has now imposed a moratorium on Country Lot Subdivisions. The purpose of this moratorium is to undertake an evaluation of the appropriateness of this form of scattered and random development, its relationship and impact on villages, its long-term sustainability and its cost to the community as a whole.
Until a critical review of country lot subdivision policies is completed and the
impacts, development potentials and implications of clustered developments is
examined, country lot subdivisions, in particular within one kilometre of a
Village boundary, should be refused.
RURAL
IMPLICATIONS
N/A
CONSULTATION
Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy.
Councillor Thompson is aware of the application.
Should the refusal be adopted by Council and the matter be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, it is anticipated that a one week hearing will result.
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
This application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Official Plan Amendment Applications due to staff needing Legal input prior to preparation of the recommendation.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location
Map
Document 2 Consultation
Details
DISPOSITION
City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the owner, applicant, OttawaScene.com, 174 Colonnade Road, Unit #33, Ottawa, ON K2E 7J5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code: 26-76) of City Council’s decision.
CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 2
A Notice of Application of an Official Plan Amendment was provided in accordance with Section 22(6.4)(a) of the Planning Act and Section 11. (1) of Ontario Regulation 543/06.
PUBLIC/COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION/ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Apart from comments indicating that the third phase of the Emerald Links development should not proceed prior to completion of the second phase, no concerns or opposition were received against the proposed Official Plan Amendments.
OFFICIAL
PLAN AMENDMENT - 1175 Manotick Station RoaD
modification au plan officiel - 1175, CHEMIN
MANOTICK station
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0063 osgoode (20)
(This
application is subject to the provisions of Bill 51.)
·
Correspondence received from the Greely
Communication Association in support of the application.
·
Correspondence received from a resident of Emerald
Links noting that he did not oppose the project in concept but had issues
regarding by-law in the existing Emerald Links.
Derrick Moodie, Steve Gauthier and Charles Warnock spoke to a PowerPoint
Presentation which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Moodie advised that the application was
requesting an amendment to the Official Plan policies relating to development
adjacent to villages. He noted that the policies
have the intent of protecting and preserving the integrity of the
Villages. They have also been further
referenced in the Greely Community Design Plan (CDP).
Councillor Brooks asked if the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is a
determining factor. Mr. Moodie advised
that there are appropriate policies within the PPS that reference this item;
however he noted that the Official Plan (OP) policy is more relevant.
Councillor Brooks thought that the PPS would have trumped any City
policies. Mr. Gauthier read the
policies on which the PPS policies were based on. Under Part V, Section 1, Building Strong
Communities, Sub-Section 1.1.1.(b) states “healthy,
livable and safe communities are sustained by avoiding development and land use
patterns that would prevent the efficient expansion of settlement areas,
adjacent or close to settlement areas.”
A village is considered under the PPS as a settlement area. He also stated under Section 1.1.3.1 “a settlement area shall be the focus of
growth and the vitality and regeneration shall be promoted.”
Mr. Gauthier reiterated that the staff position is that residential
growth outside from the urban area should be primarily directed into villages. Mr. Moodie added that staff position is that
the official policy is not in conflict with the PPS. They believe that the OP policies are
complimentary to the PPS.
In response to a follow up question from the Councillor, Mr. Gauthier
explained that there are two OP amendments.
The first is to permit a sub-division within one kilometre with an
exemption to the one kilometre policy.
The second OPA is an exemption from the moratorium.
Councillor Brooks explained a situation in Richmond being that the water
and sewer services will be at the boundary of the village but questioned if the
land just outside of that can be brought in.
It would be within a kilometre and it would be considered a country lot
sub-division.
Mr. Gauthier suggested that if it is to be brought in the village to be
connected on the service, then it would require an expansion to the village
boundary, therefore would not be a country estate lot development. With respect to the staff report, it is for a
country estate lot sub-division on private services, abutting the village
boundaries.
Councillor Brooks reiterated, thinking that when the OP was revised, that
country lot sub-divisions would not be permitted as a use in the rural areas.
Mr. Moodie agreed with the Councillor, noting that it is part of the
rationale for staff’s recommendation of refusal of this report.
Chair Thompson referred to slide 2 of the presentation, noting that it
sounds like an anomaly where the parcel of land is on the border of the village
and is between two country estate sub-divisions. There is another parcel following with Manotick
Station Road. He understands the policies
that are in place but in his opinion, it is an anomaly. He felt that Mr. Patterson, the applicant,
could wait and ask that the village boundaries be expanded but his forte is
country lot sub-division development and there are country estate sub-divisions
on either side of it and most likely right next to it in the future. That land will be developed at some point,
either through a village expansion or a country estate sub-division and that is
why it is before Committee.
Richard Harrison, Manager of planning services at
McManus Engineering represented Mr. Patterson, the application. The essence of
this application is an exemption from the existing policy with respect to
development within one km as well as an exemption in the new OP with respect to
the moratorium. He noted that they were
advised at the time of making the application that had they had all of their
information and a completed application in by December 10, 2009, then they
would technically qualify for the moratorium.
The main issue is of the policy.
As a planner, they make policies in order to protect things, promote,
preserve and create things. They try
doing this through a policy that attempts to capture any event that might
possibly happen within an urban area.
Mr. Harrison noted that Greely does not have municipal services and is
unlikely that it ever will. With that
point, he advised that these lands do not impede the ability of the Village to
grow in this direction. He referred to a
picture of the area and its environment, noting the development in the area is
quite substantial. There are
approximately 700 acres that fall within that one kilometre distance from Mitch
Owens. 400 of those acres are already
developed. In addition, there is a
vacant parcel which has been purchased for special use (Ultimate Frisbee) and
his client’s lands known as a subject land which is in effect Phase 3 or 4 of Emerald
Links. Their purpose is, as staff
stated, for an estate residential sub-division.
It has been characterized as having a golf course and a number of
lots. That sub-division is not before Committee
at this meeting as the OP process still needs to be dealt with.
The plan is likely to change a great deal because it has not yet been
vetted by any City staff or the neighbourhood residents. The notion has arisen that by developing
these lands would somehow impede the natural growth of the village. He suggested that the kind of product that is
built on lands such as this, are an estate residential part which is entirely
different than a village product. An
individual purchaser looking for a certain lifestyle will base his decision on
that.
Having noted that it is a vacant parcel, in planning terms, these lands
take on the context of infill. This site
could be the next hole in the donut in Greely.
He asked that Committee members reflect on how policy applies across the
City, why this property distinguishes itself entirely from any other property
within the Village. A village expansion
can occur in any other direction except this one. If it will occur this way, what other use
could these lands be put to. It will
either be estate residential or village residential. Nonetheless, it will be residential. This application is for an estate and does
not offend any other policies that are in the Official Plan and he asked that
Committee support the applicant.
In response to a question from Councillor El-Chantiry in reference to the
south of the subject lands, Mr. Harrison advised that these lands are primarily
wooded but it is used for ultimate Frisbee (Special Purpose Recreational
Use). The Councillor then asked when the
subject lands were purchased. Mr.
Patterson advised that the land went for sale three years ago and in order to
protect and enhance the integrity of the character of the development in area,
they felt it wise to purchase it and continue the type of development they were
doing. Derrick Moodie advised that the
Community Design Plan (CDP) in Greely was done in 2005.
Chair Thompson asked how much of the parcel would remain wooded. Mr. Harrison noted that approximately a third
of the property is wooded and the intent is for it to remain that way.
In response to a further question from the Chair, Mr. Patterson advised
that it is the ultimate goal to build a golf course, similar to Emerald Links,
but they are trying to fit it in and save as much existing trees. It is a natural feature and the idea is to
work in the sub-division by having one acre lots as well as maintain the natural
feature that has the trees and the nine-hole executive golf course will be
built in between both.
Chair Thompson then asked how many country estate lots has the applicant
built in Emerald Links and the last phase that was completed. Mr. Patterson noted that the original 300
acres was developed will an 18-hole golf course and 105 one-acre lots. The second phase, with nine holes of
championship golf course that dove tailed nicely with the original 18 holes,
were in the neighbourhood of 37 lots.
The property sits on the edge of the boundary. Chair Thompson noted that the applicant had
the option of asking that it be included within the village boundary with
smaller lots. Mr. Patterson advised that
he is interested in the best land use possible and also in keeping the
integrity of the development of the area.
He believes that what is presented meets these requirements.
Rhéal Leroux, Representative of the Emerald Links
Community Association (ELCA), noted that there are approximately 130 owners, 80
per cent are members of the ELCA. This
matter was brought to them last year and consulted with the association any
concerns. ELCA had expressed certain
concerns, such as the widening of the road to include recreation pathways. They are in favour of the development and
they do not see any conflict with traffic or the current lots. They believe it is a good project for the
neighbourhood.
Chair Thompson was pleased to hear that the community association was in
support of this application. He
confirmed with the delegate that he felt that this application was an extension
of the two developments in the area. The
delegate concurred.
Joe Zappia, Emerald Links who is a retired
custom home builder has lived in the Greely area for over 20 years. He observed that the project in question was
qualified to be within the boundary of the Greely Village. He reiterated that it reflects the Emerald
Links and supported the sub-division.
His only concern was to ensure that a road which will connect within the
Greely Village will also connect the sub-division. He would not object if it were two acre lots
because that would take too much land, but between one acre lots, the decision
should be up to the people to choose if they want to pay the extra money.
In response to a question from the Chair, Mr. Zappia noted that this
project was quite large and did not have many roads connecting to the Greely
Village. This would be a great
opportunity to connect all the roads.
Councillor Brooks confirmed that the application was submitted by the
deadline. Mr. Moodie informed the
Committee that staff examined the grandfathering provisions in close detail
that were approved by Council. The
application was received on December 10, 2009, however, the grandfathering
provisions did not apply to applications that are not compliant with the
Official Plan at the time. Because the
application would have required an OP amendment to the 2003 OP (due to the
proximity to the one km boundary), the grandfathering provisions introduced by
Council last summer do not apply to this application, which is why they applied
for an exemption under the moratorium policies as well.
Councillor Brooks spoke to the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) with
respect to the one kilometre, but was not sure how the City’s Official Plan
trumped the PPS. In looking at this
particular situation, he felt that it was not a good way to develop a village
by sub-division upon sub-division, even though this is what happened in this
instance. He commented that staff should
have recognized what was happening.
Councillor Hunter recalled that when he was on the Regional Planning
Committee, there were no major concerns at the time with respect to country
estate lots within one kilometre of the Village. He was surprised that when it was proposed,
that there was not a great outcry from property owners within one km of the
village that the policy is too broad and does not cover all situations. There are at least three existing country
estate lots, including Mr. Patterson’s Emerald Links lot on the boundary already. Further west, there is a country estate lot
that is huge. When looking at the road
network, the estate lots are better planned and interconnected than is the
Village. This should be looked at as an
exception to the rule.
Mr. Moodie advised that if there were any expansion to the western
boundary, this application and the property to the south would be the last
opportunities to connect or expand the Village to the western edge, across
Manotick Station Road. Before getting
into the Rideau Forest Sub-Division, there is a significant property left,
which could accommodate future development.
Councillor Hunter asked if it was worth closing the fence and what is
basically being proposed is something that is very close to a sub-division size
that if it were put in the village boundary, it would almost be the same with
the exception of another 9-hole golf course, which is better to be considered
an estate lot. Mr. Moodie declared
having met with the General Manager and staff.
The staff position is that this is one of the City’s last opportunities
to provide an opportunity for village expansion to the western side. Staff reviewed the existing pattern of
development in the area and as a result, the recommendation is to refuse the
applications.
Councillor Hunter suggested a greater level of comfort would exist if, in
addition to the requested exemptions to OP policies, the developer had provided
a better-developed concept plan as to how the 46 lots would be laid out, and how
they would integrate with the proposed expansion of the golf course, use of
open space and connection to a pathway network, which neighbouring residents
feel is important.
Chair Thompson offered that this issue was almost anomalous in nature and
had presented a challenge for staff, but he acknowledged that staff had to
follow the rules. He also felt the
support by the Greely Community Association was a significant factor.
Councillor Jellett acknowledged the anomalous nature of the proposal,
caught between policy on one side of the equation and a common sense approach on
the other. He felt it made sense to
allow the requested development to proceed to maintain the ‘symmetry’ of the
village boundary in terms of current use, and that estate lots were a better
proposal for development than village development for the subject area. The Councillor noted that Mr. Patterson had
also agreed to accommodate the Community Association’s concerns in terms of
pathway connections and road width.
Because of the foregoing, he said he would move to amend the staff
recommendation to “approve” rather than “refuse” the amendments to the OP
contained in Recommendations 1 and 2.
Councillor El-Chantiry questioned whether the report should be referred
back to staff to work with the applicant to see if further discussions would
help achieve a mutually agreeable solution.
Mr. Moodie said staff had examined the issue in detail from many
perspectives, and said he did not believe additional time would change staff’s
position. However, he acknowledged that
staff would follow Council’s direction.
Chair Thompson believed most members of Committee felt the owner’s
request made sense, and noted it was supported by the community, which provided
a level of comfort in terms of making a decision to support the proposal.
Councillor Hunter felt an unresolved issue remained in that the way the
recommendations were written could leave the door open to any country estate
lot development plan for the subject lands.
Although he acknowledged there is an existing concept for a 46-lot
country estate lot subdivision, and a nine-hole golf course in an open space in
the eastern portion, circumstances could change. He said he would prefer to see detailed
zoning and the plans of subdivision come forward at the same time as the exemptions
are considered, and that could not support such an ‘open door policy’, despite
its good intent.
Responding to questions from the Chair and Councillor Hunter as to
whether the possibility existed to tie the exemptions to the OP policies to the
approval of this specific estate lot concept plan, Mr. Marc said that staff
would first need to see the concept plan, but suggested that this could, in
fact, be done. Mr. Harrison was recalled
to answer questions and noted that a draft plan of subdivision had been filed
along with this application, but that the OP rules governing staff had
precluded them from bringing the draft plan of subdivision forward for review
at the current meeting.
Councillor Hunter said he would feel more comfortable if this item could be
deferred to the next meeting of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee to
have the draft plan of subdivision before it so that the exemptions could be
tied to the draft plan. Councillor
Brooks felt the Committee was prepared to move forward with that which was
before it, but said he would have no problem with such a deferral, provided
that Committee would be dealing with new information only (i.e., the concept
plan), and would not be reviewing the entire process, already discussed.
Further responding to questions regarding whether Committee could approve
the amendments, conditional to the acceptance of the draft plan of subdivision
and site plan by the Committee, Mr. Marc explained that if the amendments were
to be legally binding, they would have to be incorporated into the OPA. He recommended against such a move, and
suggested deferral would allow Committee to review the language of the
amendment to better understand what was being approved.
Mr. Harrison reiterated that the concept
plan existed, but suggested the process was onerous. He noted the disparity in staff not being
able to bring forward a plan because they could not deal with its related OP
issues, whereas he needed the OPA before he could proceed with work towards
finalizing a draft plan.
Mr. Moodie said staff could make available to the Committee all that had
been provided to date with respect to the plan of subdivision application, but
suggested that it would be unrealistic to expect detailed information by the
Committee’s next meeting. He noted that through
the plan of subdivision application process, dialogue would continue, and that
there might be additional changes to the concept plan, along with other issues raised
through the process, were the OPA to be approved.
Councillor Hunter clarified that he was not seeking to view a detailed
plan, but more of a high-level concept to indicate where residential lots,
roadways, the golf course portion and recreational pathways would be located, along
with their related zonings.
Mr. Harrison said he understood what was being requested, but because of
stage at which he was in the process, said he would prefer that Committee
approve the recommendations as per Councillor Jellett’s amendment, with the
understanding that his client intended to proceed with the plan as
outlined. He noted Committee and Council
retained the option to have a final say in the process, but pointed out that
this stage was still months away.
Councillor Jellett suggested that Committee could approve the proposed
amendment today, but review the additional documentation prior to Council’s
next regular meeting. Should the
information prove unsuitable, the suggestion was made that the recommendation
would not be supported at Council.
Mr. Harrison said he could make himself available to review the
documentation with staff and Councillors, on an individual basis, prior to the
12 May meeting of City Council.
There being no further discussion, the Committee considered the report
recommendation as amended by Councillor Jellett’s:
That
the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve an amendment to the Official
Plan to exempt the property at 1175 Manotick Station Road from policies 7
d) and 14 of Section 3.7.2 - General Rural Area under Official Plan Amendment
No. 76 to permit a subdivision within one kilometre of the Village Boundary;
and,
2. Approve an amendment to the Official
Plan to exempt the property at 1175 Manotick Station Road from policy 10
of Section 3.7.2 - General Rural Area under Official Plan Amendment No. 76,
which places a moratorium on the creation of any new country lot subdivisions.
CARRIED,
as amended
DIRECTION TO STAFF:
Staff to provide the concept plan to Members of Council prior to the Council meeting on 12 May 2010.