2.             OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT - 1175 MANOTICK STATION ROAD
(FILE NO. D01-01-09-0011)

 

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).

 

2.         Extract of Draft Minutes, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, 22 April 2010.

 


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

 

Osgoode (20)

Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0063

 

 

SUBJECT:

OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT - 1175 Manotick Station Road (FILE NO. D01-01-09-0011)

 

 

OBJET :

PLAN OFFICIEL - 1175, CHEMIN MANOTICK station

 

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.

 

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

 

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.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

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.

 

Proposed Official Plan Amendment

 

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

 

Official Plan

 

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

 

Rationale

 

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.

 

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)

 

Councillor Thompson is aware of the application.

 

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

 

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.

 

TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS

 

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.

 


LOCATION MAP                                                                                                DOCUMENT 1


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.