Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales

 

MINUTES 16 / PROCÈS-VERBAL 16

 

Thursday, 22 November 2007, 9:30 a.m.

le jeudi 22 novembre 2007, 9 h 30

 

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

 

 

 

Present /Présent :      Councillors / conseillers R. Jellett (Chair / Président), D. Thompson (Vice-Chair / Vice-président), G. Brooks, E. El‑Chantiry, J. Harder, B. Monette, G. Hunter

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT    

 

No declarations of interest were filed.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
Ratification des procÈs-verbaux

 

Minutes 15 and Confidential Minutes 5 of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meeting of Thursday, November 8, 2007 were confirmed.

 

STATEMENT REQUIRED UNDER THE PLANNING ACT

 

At the start of the meeting, Chair Jellett read a statement required under the Planning Act, which states that for the Zoning By-law amendment listed as Items 2 to 6 on today’s agenda, only those who make oral submissions today or written submissions before the amendments are adopted may appeal the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board.  In addition, the applicant may appeal the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board if Council does not adopt an amendment within 120 days for zoning and 180 days for an Official Plan amendment of receipt of the application.

 

 

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

COMITÉS CONSULTATIFS

 

LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LA CONSERVATION DE L’ARCHITECTURE LOCALE

 

1.         HERITAGE DESIGNATION OF 1128 MILL STREET, THE AYERS BUILDING, UNDER PART IV OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT

DÉSIGNATION PATRIMONIALE DU 1128, RUE MILL, L’ÉDIFICE AYERS, EN VERTU DE LA PARTIE IV DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO

ACS2007-PTE-APR-0199                                                                        rideau (21)               

 

That the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee recommend that Agriculture And Rural Affairs Committee recommend that Council approve the designation of the Ayers Building at 1128 Mill Street under part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement Of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest And Description Of Heritage Attributes, attached as document 4.

 

(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

 

 

PLANNING, TRANSIT & THE ENVIRONMENT

URBANISME, TRANSPORT EN COMMUN ET

L’ENVIRONNEMENT

 

planning and infrastructure approvals

Approbation des demandes d'aménagement et d'infrastructure

 

2.         ZONING - 1476 AND 1488 CENTURY ROAD EAST AND 5758 FIRST LINE ROAD

ZONAGE - 1476 ET 1488, CHEMIN CENTURY EST ET AU 5758, CHEMIN FIRST LINE

ACS2007-PTE-APR-0190                                                                        Rideau (21)               

 

(This application is subject to Bill 51)

 

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Rideau Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 1476 and 1488 Century Road East and 5758 First Line Road as detailed in Document 2 and as shown in Document 3.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

 

3.         ZONING - 3984 CARROLL SIDE ROAD

ZONAGE - 3984 CHEMIN CARROLL SIDE

ACS2007-PTE-APR-0151                                               West Carleton-March (5)               

 

(This application is subject to Bill 51)

 

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of West Carleton Zoning By-law to change the zoning of part of 3984 Carroll Side Road from Rural Zone, (Ru) to Rural Zone –Temporary Use, Ru-t, to permit the existing dwelling on-site as a garden suite for a 10-year period as shown in Document 1, and as detailed in Document 2, subject to the owner entering into a modified Garden Suite agreement with the City of Ottawa as specified by Section 39(1.2) of the Planning Act , setting out that:

 

                 (i)                        the dwelling is to be occupied exclusively by the owner and his spouse;

               (ii)                        the dwelling is to be removed at such time as it is no longer required by the owner and his spouse, at any time prior to expiry of the 10-year period; and

             (iii)                        the dwelling is to be removed at the end of the 10-year period, unless an extension has been requested and approved by City Council, prior to the expiry of the Temporary Use By-law.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

4.         ZONING - 4221 MOODIE DRIVE

ZONAGE - 4221, PROMENADE MOODIE

ACS2007-PTE-APR-0183                                                    Rideau-Goulbourn (21)               

 

Mr. K. Hakala, Planner, provided a presentation in which he reviewed the details of the above-noted application and the staff recommendation on it.  A copy of his presentation is held on file.

 

In response to Councillor Harder’s inquiry on whether the applicant was the owner of the property in question, Mr. Hakala responded that he was unsure.  Councillor Harder went on to state that she had concerns regarding the groundwater in this area and hoping that building a water park would not jeopardize it.

 

Mr. Rick Hunter, the applicant and Mr. Greg Winters of Novatech Engineering representing the applicant spoke in favour of the application and that in the many years Mr. Hunter had been involved with the water park industry he considered the location chosen to be ideal.

 

Chair Jellett stated that the Committee had received correspondence noting concerns with the project from a local landowner, Mr. Derrick Moodie, on the amount of traffic this may bring to the area.  He inquired if the applicant could guarantee that the use of Barnsdale Road would not appear in any advertisement for the park.  Mr. Hunter stated that he would guarantee this request and realized full well that this was still a rural area and respected this fact.  Mr. Winter added that in view of the location, a proper buffer around the park had been accounted for. 

 

Councillor Brooks commented that he was excited that this project was occurring in his ward and that this was an excellent and exciting opportunity. 

 

In response to Councillor Brooks’ question on the quality and quantity of water for the project, Mr. Winter stated that though he was not an expert on water, many studies had been conducted assuring the applicant and the City that both quantity and quality were not a problem.  However, further studies will be conducted as per the requirements set forth in the “holding zone” to satisfy the Ministry of the Environment and the City of Ottawa.

 

Mr. G. Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, commented that the water park was a seasonal use operation and there was amble time for replenishment of the groundwater in the off-season that being from late September to mid May.  Mr. M. Wildman, Manager, Infrastructure Approvals, added that discussions with the Ministry of the Environment were still taking place and that testing had yet to be done.

 

Councillor Brooks was satisfied that the water concerns had been addressed and that sufficient monitoring would be taking place. 

 

Mr. Wildman added that a proper traffic study would be done to alleviate any problems on the secondary roads.

 

Councillor Harder expressed concerns with the traffic, especially the use of Barnsdale Road, as well as the prevailing winds and the problems they could cause with regards to dust, pollen and odours from the waste site.

 

Mr. Winter responded that smells are subjective and that there was a sufficient buffer of trees to keep the dust and pollen down to a minimum.  In response to a number of concerns from the Committee members regarding the applicant possibly holding the City responsible for odours, dust and other irritants, he stated that the applicant had no intent on coming back to the City to hold it responsible.  He was fully aware that this was a rural site but this was a major reason why it was felt to be ideal. 

 

Councillor Harder expressed her willingness to approve the application with the stipulation that the applicant would not hold the City responsible for odours and dust.

 

Mr. Hunter and Mr. Winter reiterated that the site was chosen because of its ideal location and that sufficient landscaping would be done as well to make the site visually appealing for a rural location.

 

Councillor Monette congratulated the applicants on this project and that it was a long time in coming to the Ottawa area.  He inquired further however on the traffic impact.  Mr. Winter stated that of the approximately 5,000 visitors to the site per day, approximately 70% would arrive by car and 30% by tour buses.  This would mean approximately 1,250 cars of which 90% would arrive before noon and leave between the hours of 2 and 5 PM.

 

In response to Councillor El-Chantiry’s question on whether it was legal to add a provision to ensure the applicant would not hold the City responsible for odours and dust, Mr. T. Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, stated that it was impossible to stop people from complaining about smells and dust but that a clause could be added to the Site Plan Agreement and that this would be discussed with staff.  Mr. G. Lindsay assured the Committee that conditions would be placed in the agreement.

 

Councillor Brooks urged the Committee and the public to support the project.

 

(This application is subject to Bill 51)

 

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Rural Area Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 4221 Moodie Drive from Ru (Rural Agricultural Zone) to Ru Block "E"-h (Rural Agricultural--Block "E"--Holding Zone) as detailed in document 2.

 

                                                                          Carried with the following direction to staff:

 

That staff ensure that clauses are placed in the Site Plan Agreement stating that the applicant is aware that the project is being built in a farming or rural area where dust and odours may affect his clientele and that he must not hold the City of Ottawa responsible for any ramifications of his locale.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

The following correspondence was received:

 

1.      Mr. Derrick Moodie letter via email dated 22 November 2007

 

 

5.         ZONING - 1507 AND 1519 MANOTICK STATION ROAD

ZONAGE - 1507 ET 1519, CHEMIN MANOTICK STATION

ACS2007-PTE-APR-0202                                                                     OSGOODE (20)               

 

Cheryl McWilliams, Planner, Planning Branch, spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which served to provide the Committee with a concise overview of the staff report.  A copy of this presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Ms. S. McGowan, nearby resident, spoke in opposition to staff’s recommendations.  A copy of her written concerns are held on file.  She voiced a number of concerns:

 

·        The water supply and quality: will there be enough considering such a large project with many more residents.  Will nearby residents’ wells be affected.

·        That the rural character of the community will be affected.  She stated that the project seems inconsistent with the Official Plan and directives.  A four-storey building does not really conform to the rural nature of the area.

·        She stated that the project is in violation of the Ontario Municipal Board ruling of 1997 where it restricted the number of units to be built.

·        The septic bed will be close to the road allowance.

·        The property values in the area will be impacted negatively.

·        There is no public transportation in the area for the seniors and therefore more car traffic.

·        There are no local amenities for the seniors.

·        She voiced concerns with regards to light pollution from light standards and noise pollution from increased traffic and number of residents.

 

In response to Councillor Harder’s question on whether there has been an effect on quality of life since Orchard View had been built Ms. McGowan responded stating that she did not have a problem with the present development of Orchard View but was very concerned with the increasing traffic and demands on the area with the new project.

 

Councillor Harder responded to earlier questions by Ms. McGowan stating that there is no public transportation in the area but that local residents are not taxed for this service either and that the seniors of the new project could avail themselves of the Orchard View bus to bring them to Greely for shopping, errands and appointments.

 

Councillor Harder inquired if there was an age limit for admittance to the project as a senior’s residence.  Ms. McWilliams stated that there was no age restriction as this would be a violation of rights but that there were controls on what types of use the facility would have.

 

Councillor Harder also stated that many seniors’ residences all over the City of Ottawa are built on very busy roads such as Carleton Lodge but this has not negatively impacted the residents or those living nearby.

 

Ms. J. Ozinga, nearby resident, spoke in opposition to staff’s recommendations.  A copy of her written concerns are held on file.  She voiced a number of concerns very similar to those of Ms. McGowan and added:

 

·        There are a number of working farms nearby and odours may negatively impact the residents of the home.

 

In response to Chair Jellett’s question regarding odours from the working farms Ms. McWilliams stated that this is taken into consideration in the site plan process and that other issues are addressed in this process as well.

 

Ms. G. Toll, nearby resident, spoke in opposition to staff’s recommendations.  A copy of her written concerns are held on file.  As well as the concerns voiced by previous delegations she added the following:

 

·        She never received a notice from the City of Ottawa advising of the project since she lives beyond the 120-metre limit set to notify residents and feels that this is unfair. 

·        The present development of Orchard View was built on a mediated settlement with the Ontario Municipal Board and the new application should be based on the original OMB statement.

·        This size of project would be best suited for the village of Greely and not in the rural area.

 

Councillor Thompson referred the question on the OMB issue back to Legal for a comment.  Mr. T. Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, stated that the OMB decision of 1997 has no bearing on the present application.

 

Chair Jellett inquired from staff if the limit of 120 metres is set by the City of Ottawa or if it can be changed particularly in regards to rural areas.  Mr. T. Marc stated that City Council could direct to increase the limit as it sees fit.

 

Mr. W. Ney, President, Greely Community Association, spoke in opposition to staff’s recommendations.  A copy of the Association’s written concerns are held on file.  As well as the concerns voiced by previous delegations he added the following:

 

·        He stated that according to the Official Plan, residential intensification should be directed within the existing village boundaries.  

·        He felt that the traffic study done for this project was not adequate enough since it only reviewed the impact within 30 metres in either direction on Manotick Station Road.

·        There are little or no services for the elderly residents that will be living in this development and none within walking distance.

·        The anticipated demands on an already limited health care and ambulance service in the rural area are disproportionate.

 

Mr. W. Parisi, nearby resident on Reindeer Way, spoke in opposition to staff’s recommendations.  A copy of his written concerns are held on file.  As well as the concerns voiced by previous delegations he added the following:

 

·        He stated that the need for senior’s housing in Ottawa or Greely was not the issue here but whether the location was appropriate, and according to his interpretation of the Official Plan and Rural Discussion Papers on Rural and Village Development there is a blatant violation.

·        He commented that the community itself was in opposition to this particular project and the voice of the community should be taken into consideration. 

·        The height and density of the project is not suitable for a rural area such as this one.

 

Councillor Brooks also voiced his concerns regarding the height of the project citing the aesthetics of tall towers in rural areas.

 

Mr. J. Kluver, nearby resident on Black Stallion Way, spoke in favour to staff’s recommendations.  A copy of his written comments are held on file.

 

He stated that the applicant has done his research and that the present facility, Orchard View Living Centre, is an excellent facility which is aesthetically pleasing and extremely well managed.  He feels that the applicant has always strived for quality and not quantity and as a retiree himself would be more than willing to move into this facility in the future.  Furthermore, he feels that the applicant has met the concerns of local residents and has gone beyond the necessary measures to ensure that local concerns have not been jeopardized.

 

Mr. W. Ney, spoke once more, this time as a resident of the area, neither in favour or opposed to the project but to bring to the Committee’s attention the need for traffic lights at Mitch Owens Drive and Manotick Station Road should this project be approved.   He also noted that the 120-metre notification limit was not appropriate especially for the rural area.

 

Mr. Joe Princiotta, the applicant and Mr. Bill Holzman, on behalf of the applicant spoke in favour of the proposal.  Mr. Princiotta stated that he endeavoured to provide a high quality facility.  At present he has 130 residents at Orchard View and the majority are from the Osgoode area.  The average age of the present residents is 82 with the youngest being 64 and the oldest being 97 years young.  He stated that the reason for the present application is the need for such a facility in the community.  He commented that the advantage to this project was that it offers independent living but close to the full care facility for future possibilities.  He also noted that he has been a resident of the Greely area since 1975 and knows the area and the needs of the community well.

 

Mr. Holzman stated that although some delegations had stated that such a facility would be best suited to the village of Greely, there is no one presently interested in undertaking such a project in the village.  In response to concerns regarding the height of the proposal, he stated that the maximum height allowed in the area was 10.7 metres and the proposed project would only be 10 metres in height and would be the same height as the present Orchard View Living Centre.

 

With regards to the 1997 OMB decision, Mr. Holzman commented that the present project was in fact permitted and this project is on a different piece of land.  In addition, he stated that the well being dug to service the facility is 94 metres deep to reach the Nepean Aquifer which services many local villages.

 

Ms. D. Parisi, nearby resident on Reindeer Way, spoke in opposition to staff’s recommendations.  A copy of her written concerns are held on file.  She added to her husband’s concerns stating that the location was not suitable and was concerned that this would lead to other developments in the area such as commercial ventures.

 

In response to Councillor Thompson’s question on whether Ms. Parisi was in favour of a seniors’ facility in Osgoode Ward she responded that she was in favour but that it should be situated in the village.

 

Councillor Thompson stated that this was a win win situation since a great facility was being proposed and no public moneys were being used.

 

Councillor Harder commented that a healthy discussion had taken place on the issue but that she could not understand the opposition to such a project and no valid reasons were brought forth for her to oppose this venture.  She stated that Orchard View was a good facility and more care facilities such as this are needed and that this was a perfect fit.

 

Councillor Brooks indicated that he was torn on this issue since he realizes the need for such a facility and knows that the applicant provides quality care but that he has always stressed the needs and wishes of the local community, which in this instance were opposed to the application.

 

Councillor El-Chantiry cautioned to be wary of the “not in my back yard” syndrome.  He remarked that the applicant had a very well run business and saw no legitimate reason to oppose the application.

 

Councillor Thompson thanked all the delegations for their comments and their time in coming to speak to the Committee.  He stated that he is a great supporter of the Greely Community Association but that instance he could not support their opposition to the application and knew of many people in the area who support this project.  He commented that he was opposed to the original application of Orchard View but now realizes that he was wrong since it has been a great addition to the community.  He reported that staff have done exhaustive research into this application and asks the Committee for their support.

 

(This application is subject to Bill 51)

 

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Osgoode Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 1507 and 1519 Manotick Station Road from Ru - Rural to Ru('X') - Rural Exception 'X' as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.

 

CARRIED

 

YEAS (6):        Councillors B. Monette, J. Harder, E. El-Chantiry, G. Hunter, D. Thompson, R. Jellett

NAYS (1):       Councillor G. Brooks                                       

 

The following correspondence was received:

 

1.      Ms. Lila Smiley letter via email dated 15 October 2007

2.      Tim and Sylvia McGowan letter via email dated 15 October 2007

3.      Albert and June Ozinga letter via email dated October 15, 2007

4.      Michael and Gillian Toll letter via email dated 20 November 2007

5.      Greely Community Association letter via email dated 20 November 2007

6.      William and Deanna Parisi letter dated 21 November 2007

 

 

6.         ZONING - 2740 DUNROBIN ROAD

ZONAGE – 2740, rue dunrobin

ACS2007-PTE-APR-0212                                               West Carleton-March (5)               

 

(This application is subject to Bill 51)

 

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata March Rural Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 2740 Dunrobin Road from ER-5 Special Estate Residential 5 to C-s (H) Rural Commercial Exception Holding Zone and C-t (H) Rural Commercial Exception Holding Zone as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2. 

 

CARRIED

 

 

ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

VIABILITÉ ÉCONOMIQUE ET DE LA DURABILITÉ DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT

 

7.                  RURAL CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

PROGRAMME D'ASSAINISSEMENT DE L'EAU EN MILIEU RURAL

ACS2007-PTE-ECO-0024

Barrhaven (3), Kanata North (4), West Carleton-March (5), Knoxdale-Merivale (9), Rideau-Rockcliffe (13), Cumberland (19), Osgoode (20), Rideau-Goulbourn (21), Gloucester-South Nepean (22)                                                                                                                                                                                        

 

Mr. Richard Fraser, Chair of the Rural Issues Advisory Committee presented the motion passed by RIAC on October 16, 2007 recommending that ARAC ask City Council to fund a program for urban residents on wells and septic systems similar to what is now provided in the Rural Clean Water Program.  A copy of RIAC’s memorandum is held on file with the City Clerk’s office.

 

The RIAC motion read as follows:

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Issues Advisory Committee recommend that the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee recommend to Council that urban areas on wells and septic systems become eligible for funding programs such as the Rural Clean Water Program and ask Council to provide the necessary increased funding to support both the enhancement to the urban well owner and the increased demand by the rural component.

 

Councillor Harder stated that she endorsed RIAC’s motion and felt that there was an inequity at the present time where urban dwellers on wells and septic systems were not being treated equally as their rural counterparts.  Mr. Fraser stated that the urban dweller should be offered the same opportunity as the rural.

 

Judy Flavin, Program Manager, Natural Systems, commented that expansion of the present program will be examined in the future and that the Department would be requesting more funds in 2010 since the present funds had been budgeted until 2009.

 

That Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend that Council receive this report on the 2006 Rural Clean Water Program for information.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

The following correspondence was received:

 

1.      Memo and Extract of Draft Minutes from Rural Issues Advisory Committee meeting of October 16, 2007

 

 

PLANNING BRANCH

DIRECTION DE L’URBANISME

 

PUBLIC HEARING THREE (OF THREE)

TROISIEME AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE (SUR TROIS)

 

8.                  REVISED DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW - RURAL AREA AND GREENBELT - PUBLIC MEETING and approval

version RÉVISÉE du règlement de zonage prÉliminaire – secteur rural et ceinture de verdure

ACS2007-PTE-POL-0062                                 CITY WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE               

 

Françoise Jessop, Program Manager, Zoning Studies and Area Planning Central, Planning Branch, Planning, Transit and the Environment spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which served to provide the Committee with a concise overview of the staff report and the time lines for the Comprehensive Zoning By-law.  Ms. Jessop went into details in the presentation, stating why it was necessary to develop this new by-law and the fact that 36 zoning by-laws were presently in effect.  A copy of this presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.  The following staff accompanied her:

·                    Steven Boyle, Senior Project Manager, Transportation Planning

·                    John Moser, Director of Planning and City Planner

·                    Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, Legal Services

·                    Dave Leclair, Senior Planner, Zoning Studies

 

The Committee heard from the following public delegations:

 

Terrence Green and Terry O’Neil, on behalf of Full Circle Animal Centre, discussed the property at 1599 River Road including the site’s current use, future use of building a holistic animal hospital and zoning.  Mr. Green asked that the zoning allow the site’s current use to continue under the old Osgoode plan RU zoning, not by legal non-conforming rights because the proposed change would not allow what is outlined.

 

Responding to a question from Councillor Thompson, Mr. Boyle explained the re-zoning of the by-law for the former one zoned rural which applied both to agricultural lands and to the general rural lands.  He pointed out the changes of uses in Osgoode in respect to the veterinary establishment, which would not be permitted because of the removal of that use to re-introduce what will be called animal hospital.

 

Councillor Thompson indicated that he would move a motion to exempt 1599 River Road from the draft zoning plan and Mr. Marc responded that the old zoning by-law cannot continue to apply because it is about to be repealed, but a motion to add the particular uses would be in order for this particular property.

 

Cheryl Doran, Chair, Greenspace Alliance proposed two zoning changes, one to South of Leitrim road, between Bowesville and High Road and second to the area located South of Hunt Cub, East of the Airport Parkway.  She indicated that the municipal zoning designation should reflect the policies of the landowner, being the federal government, which should be environmentally protected at the municipal level.  The proposed rural zoning designations need to be modified and correcting this will enable the city of Ottawa to better align with the policies and acts of the province and the federal government. 

 

Don Stephenson, D&G Landscaping Inc. and North Gower District Community Association explained that three of the properties as part of D&G’s operation are being downzoned and requested appropriate zoning changes.  A copy of Mr. Stephenson’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

In response to a question from the Chair, Ms. Jessop noted that all the submissions that have been received since the public hearing are going to be forwarded to Council on December 7, 2007 but will not be responded to each individually.

 

Chair Jellett asked staff to comment on the differences between why the three villages in Rideau are V2C as oppose to V1E.  Ms. Jessop indicated that the word existing in the by-law would be replaced by permitted and noted that if the current by-law mentions the word duplex or semi, it will be in the V2 zone.  Ms. Jessop clarified that if the existing single is built on the minimum required but doesn’t meet the lot size, it wouldn’t be able to get the use.  Chair Jellett asked the ward councillor to follow up on this issue with the Community Association.

 

Amy Kempster, Greenspace Alliance expressed concerns of restrictions on development of Rural Natural Features lands to the zoning by-law.  She suggested that the zoning by-law should include as much information regarding the requirements for development, such as notices on maps or a note on the section of zoning designed for country lot estates, which would avoid the possibility that a resident not consult the Official Plan and not realize that there is some restriction on their land.

 

Ms. Jessop noted the concerns about trying to get information to the public on the variety of studies that may be needed for development proposals but unfortunately to start adding additional overlays are not required and would confuse the regulatory document or by-law.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Brooks, Mr. Marc advised that it would be any number of studies required in the Official Plan that are going to effect the development that can take place on the land, such as Rural Natural Features but there may be noise or vibration setbacks from a railway or a road or a number of other studies. 

 

Dwight Eastman discussed the expansion of the historic hamlet of Kilmaurs and proposed that the hamlet boundary be revised to allow for the creation of one additional residential lot on the south-east corner of the hamlet, as shown on a diagram that he circulated (held on file with the City Clerk), specifically the change in the boundary to allow the hamlet to be rounded out, and would not conflict with any surrounding land usages.

 

Mr. Boyle indicated that such a request would be contrary to the Official Plan and the planning department would not be supporting it although the introductory comments are part of the Rural Settlement Strategy and ARAC may want the planning department to report back.  He mentioned that the Official Plan speaks clearly against a section of infilling in areas of cluster that is very much coming from the Provincial policy statement given that the lands are zoned agriculture. 

 

In response to a question from Councillor El-Chantiry, Ms. Jessop indicated that the submission would go to Council and if it is approved, staff would have to see if there is any appeals to that decision to change the zoning on this property and it would need an official plan amendment because the policy is against such re-zoning.  Chair Jellett mentioned that outside of the comprehensive zoning plan process, there is an additional process, which the applicant could go through which would be a normal re-zoning or zoning amendment. 

 

Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd, West Capital Developments and as an individual, mentioned that he addressed ARAC a few weeks ago looking for site-specific exception on the zoning of his mother’s property and also expressed concerns with regards to the zoning surrounding Carp Airport.  He thanked staff for responding to some of the issues raised by proponents with his changes, the preparation of a final draft of the by-law for review, and the holding of a final public hearing.  Mr. Chown addressed the general provision setting a maximum number of parking spaces for uses located within 600 meters of transit stations and also discussed the limitation on showrooms in some of the industrial provisions, noting there are numerous examples of retail and sales within business park and warehouse uses that cannot be accommodated under the 25% limitation set in the by-law. 

 

Allan Graham, AJ’s Catering and Sean Daly, Duncan Funeral Homes indicated that Councillor Thompson has been working on his behalf and other small businesses in the Osgoode ward to get a proper designation to fit within the regulations of the City of Ottawa.  Mr. Graham was under the understanding that the re-zoning process that he had applied for back in 1994 prior to amalgamation, was approved and permitted the operation of his business, but indeed that wasn’t the fact.

 

Councillor Thompson provided background information on the Township of Osgoode’s zoning and indicated that with the help of staff he will move two motions to bring these properties into conformity.

 

Douglas Dods, a resident and owner of DK Dods Limited in the Bankfield, old highway 16 area, explained that the existing rural commercial business is not zoned for all the things that they are doing.  Mr. Dods outlined the categories of equipment of his business and requested a few additional categories. 

 

Following Mr. Dods submission, Councillor Brooks mentioned that he would be moving a motion in respect to this business.

 

A number of motions were tabled and reflected below.

 

Final Version and Final Public Meeting

 

Moved by Councillor E. El-Chantiry:

 

That recommendation 1 be amended to add:

 

1(b)      Direct staff to release the final version of the draft Comprehensive Zoning by-law after City Council disposition of the Planning and Environment Committee Recommendations 2 and 3, and that a final public meeting be held prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning by-law.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Ms. Jessop confirmed that the final hearing would occur in February 2008 with final adoption by Council in March 2008.

 

1599 River Road

 

Mr. Marc mentioned that animal cemetery should be added because this type of operation would deal with more than just pets.

 

Moved by Councillor D. Thompson:

 

Be it resolved that the zoning for 1599 River Road be amended to include an exception to permit the following additional uses:

·                    animal care establishment

·                    animal hospital

·                    animal cemetary

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

1751 8th Line Road

 

Councillor Thompson noted that this is a property that presently operates as a catering establishment and would have already been covered had the Township of Osgoode gone ahead with its comprehensive zoning review but for some reason did not make it to the table.

 

Moved by Councillor D. Thompson:

 

WHEREAS the property at 1751 8th Line Road is currently developed with a catering establishment;

 

AND WHEREAS the catering establishment does not conform with the existing zoning by-law;

 

AND WHEREAS the draft zoning by-law proposes an RR2 – Rural Residential Zone for these lands, which does not recognize this land use;

 

AND WHEREAS the catering establishment has been part of the community since 1978;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the draft comprehensive zoning by-law be revised to apply a site-specific exception at 1751 8th Line Road to recognize the existing catering establishment.

 

That pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

6971 Bank Street

 

In response to a question from Councillor Thompson, Ms. Jessop noted that if the owner is a non-conforming funeral home, there are issues to that and he may have to go to the Committee of Adjustment to be able to expand.  She suggested that he would be better to be part of the re-zoning as suggested in Councillor Thompson’s following motion:

 

Moved by Councillor D. Thompson:

 

WHEREAS the property at 6971 Bank Street is currently developed with a funeral home;

 

AND WHEREAS the funeral home currently has a non-conforming status;

 

AND WHEREAS the draft zoning by-law proposes an RU – Rural Countryside Zone for these lands, which does not recognize this land use;

 

AND WHEREAS the funeral home is established within this community;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the draft comprehensive zoning by-law be revised to apply a site-specific exception at 6971 Bank Street to add the existing funeral home as an additional use; and

 

That pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Wind turbines

 

Councillor Jellett stepped down from the chair and noted that Mr. Mark MacGowan, a resident of Mohrs Road brought forth concerns at a previous meeting regarding wind farms and requested a maximum distance of 750 metres for wind turbines.  Councillor Jellett advised that that distance is a bit excessive but that 500 metres would be more appropriate.

 

In response to a question from Councillor El-Chantiry, Ms. Jessop commented that staff recommended 250 metres in the report, being the industry standard but staff would have no objection of going to 500 but have not evaluated the implications and also it does not go against any Official Plan policy. 

 

Councillor El-Chantiry indicated that if the policy goes to 500 metres, it would infringe on the wind turbine proposed for Galetta because that distance would restrict future development.

 

Ms. Jessop mentioned that staff would have to research the Galetta site and application to be able to respond but indicated that Councillor El-Chantiry could exempt the Galetta wind turbine from the 500 standard distance.  Mr. Leclair clarified that there is two different situations, there’s an accessory wind turbine, which would be a single freestanding on a farm as opposed to a wind turbine farm.  He noted that the by-law is currently written that the 250 metres would only apply to accessory wind turbines.

 

In response to a request from Councillor Brooks for staff to research wind farms, Mr. Moser indicated that staff will be looking into the matter prior to the refresh of the Official Plan and address some of the issues that have been raised about what are the best standards.

 

Following staff advice, Councillor Jellett withdrew the following motion.

 

WHEREAS Table 55, 6(b)(i) of the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law requires that accessory wind turbines with a power rating higher than 1 kilowatt have a minimum setback of the greater of 250 metres or a distance equal to seven times the rotor diameter and 30 metres from any lot line from any dwelling unit or residential zone;

 

AND WHEREAS 500 metres is considered a more appropriate setback distance;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Table 55, 6(b)(i) of the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be amended to require that wind turbines with a power rating higher than 1 kilowatt have a minimum setback of the greater of 500 metres or a distance equal to seven times the rotor diameter and 30 metres from any lot line from any dwelling unit or residential zone.

 

That pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34( 17) no further notice be given.

 

                                                                                                WITHDRAWN

 

Wellhead Protection Overlay

 

Councillor Jellett indicated that it is important to protect the water that residents drink and the zoning by-law should indicate exactly where the Wellhead Protection areas are.

 

In response to a question from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Boyle indicated that the Official Plan Schedule K shows the Wellhead Protection areas, one east of the Rideau River in Vars, one in Carp, one in Munster and one in Richmond.  The 2006 draft zoning by-law, staff had shown the Wellhead Protection on the three communities in the west end of the city but it was not shown on the Vars one because there was some issue of the precision of the mapping.

 

Mr. Marc noted that as part of the Clean Water Act quite separate from the zoning process, the issue of source protection will have to be analyzed through the Source Protection Authority and will come back to this Committee and Council at a future date.

 

Moved by Councillor R. Jellett:

 

WHEREAS the current Draft Comprehensive By-law does not have a Wellhead Protection Overlay;

 

AND WHEREAS the previous Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law included a Wellhead Protection Overlay as Section 72;

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the previous Wellhead Protection Overlay and the provisions contained in Section 72 as shown in the May 2006 version of Volume 1 &2 of the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be re-instated in the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

 

That pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.

 

                                                                                                LOST

 

YEAS (3):        Councillors R. Jellett, B. Monette, D. Thompson

NAYS (3):       Councillors G. Brooks, E. El-Chantiry, G. Hunter

 

 

Plan 50 pt Lot 1

 

Councillor Jellett noted that the owner of the property has an understanding with the City that the property can be developed but it was omitted in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

 

Mr. Marc advised that staff are in accordance with the motion since it is a matter that has been going on for some time and staff are trying to finally bring it to a conclusion.

 

Moved by Councillor R. Jellett:

 

WHEREAS the property known legally as PLAN 50 PT LOT 1; RP 50R7063 PART 3 (NORTH SIDE OF LEO LANE); RP 50R7063 PT PART 1; RP 50R6076 PT PART 1 AND; RP 4R20477 PARTS 2 7 8 AND 9; on Leo Lane in the former Township of Cumberland is currently located within the Flood Plain Overlay;

 

AND WHEREAS under the former City of Cumberland by-law the property is presently zoned R1 with a flood plain overlay which allows a single detached dwelling however the by-law also states that ‘must provide technical evidence as is required to ensure against flooding or slope instability problems’;

 

AND WHEREAS the proposed Flood Plain Overlay would generally prohibit future development;

 

AND WHEREAS the owner of the subject property has a previous understanding with the City that the property can be developed;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the subject lands will be exempt from the provisions of Section 58 (1) & (2) pertaining to the Flood Plain Overlay.

 

That pursuant to the Planning Act, subsequent 34(17) no further notice be given.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

Staff Notice

 

Moved by Councillor D. Thompson:

 

1.         That the requirement for a sight-obscuring buffer where adjacent to a rural zone be added to Column V of exception [294r] to reflect the provisions of the current zoning by-law as amended by By-law 2006-267.

 

2.         That the proposed zoning of the lands know municipally as 6100 and 6116 Gough Road be modified to reflect the true intent of By-law No. 2006-242 with regards to permitted uses.

 

3.         That the proposed zoning of the lands know municipally as 1201 Thomas Dolan Parkway be changed from DR1 to RU to reflect the fact that the subject lands are not located within the Dunrobin Village Boundary.

 

4.         That the proposed zoning of the lands know municipally as 5420 Richmond Road and the lands know legally as CON 5RF LOT 23 TO 24 PT PCL;1 be changed from DR1 to RU to reflect the fact that the subject lands are not located within the Fallowfield Village Boundary.

 

5.         That the proposed zoning of the lands know legally as part of the west half of Lot 38, Concession 7 being Part 1 on Registered Plan 5R-2553 be changed from AG to DR1 to recognize the fact the subject lands are located within the Village Boundary of Vernon.

 

6.         That the proposed zoning of the lands on part of Lot 22, Concession 2 (former City of Cumberland) at 5342 Saumure Road be changed for the north portion of the property from AG3 to RU so that the whole of the property is in the RU zone.

 

7.         That Section 69 – Setbacks from Waterways contained in the May 2006 version of the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be re-inserted as modified below:

 

(1)        Despite provisions of the underlying zone, the following minimum setbacks must be provided to provide a margin of safety from hazards associated with flooding and unstable slopes and to help protect the environmental quality of watercourses.

 

(2)        Except for flood or erosion control works, or a public bridge or a marine facility, no building or structure, including any part of a sewage system, which does not require plan of subdivision or site plan control approval, shall be located closer than 30 m to the normal highwater mark of any watercourse, or 15 m to the top of the bank of any watercourse, whichever is greater.

 

NOTE: Development requiring plan of subdivision, rezoning or site plan control will be subject to the watercourse setbacks as identified in Policy 4.7.3 of the City of Ottawa Official Plan.

 

8.         That Section 69 be moved to Part 2, General Provisions and that the following modifications be made:

§         add the words “the Rockliffe Air Base. Airport zoning regulations” after the words “of Carp Airport and” in subsection (1)

§         add a new subsection 2 as follows: “(2) Development in the vicinity of the Macdonald-Caritier International Airport, the Carp Airport, and Rockliffe Air Base, shall take into consideration guidelines found in Transport Canada Document TP312E - Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices as amended.   With respect to development in the vicinity of the Carp Airport, runway 10-28 shall be protected as a "4C CAT 1"  Runway, and runway 4-22 shall be protected as a "1C NON-INSTR" Runway.”

§         change subsection (2) to (3).

 

That there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

First Line Road (1)

 

In response to a question from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Moser indicated that from staff’s perspective, the inclusion in the categories would be on a site-specific basis and would relate to the 5994 and 5600 First Line Road only and wouldn’t be permitted across the board in that particular zone.

 

Moved by Councillor G. Brooks:

 

That the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be amended with respect to the zoning of Property Lot 3 Conc.1 at 5600/5994 First Line Road, Kars, ON (ward 21, City of Ottawa) as follows:

Section 2.D – Dealership:

·        to include the following in

§         category 1 – dirt bikes

§         category 4 – landscape

·        to add a category 7 – Power Products.

 

Further, that all categories include the following wording - sales, service, parts, rentals – as permissible uses; and

 

In addition, that an auxiliary storage building (5000 sq. feet) be considered as a permitted use.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

First Line Road (2)

 

In response to Councillor Brooks motion request, Mr. Marc mentioned that this process is not meant to take into account changes in zoning that are more properly addressed through a re-zoning application, however the Committee has the jurisdiction to make the change sought by Councillor Brooks.

 

Councillor Hunter expressed concerns with the significant re-zoning without the benefit of public notice and could not support the motion to re-zone this property to be a commercial rural as well but would entertain a re-zoning application sometime in the future.

 

Moved by Councillor G. Brooks:

 

To rezone adjacent lot 5994 (2.38 acres) to CR so as to conform with the CR zone and permissible use of lot 5600.

 

                                                                                                LOST

 

YEAS (3):        Councillors G. Brooks, B. Monette, D. Thompson

NAYS (3):       Councillors E. El-Chantiry, G. Hunter, R. Jellett

 

The Committee then considered the departmental recommendations as amended.

 

That Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee:

 

1.         (a)        Hold a public meeting on the City of Ottawa Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law -Rural Area and Greenbelt in accordance with the Planning Act.

 

(b)        Direct staff to release the final version of the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law after City Council disposition of the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee Recommendations 2 and 3, and that a final public meeting be held prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law”.

 

2.         Recommend Council approve:

 

(a)        the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, Volume 1 (text and schedules) and Volume 2 (zoning maps) – September 2007 as noted in Document 1;

 

(b)        the staff recommendations noted in the Staff Recommendation Column IV of Document 2 - Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Rural Area and Greenbelt - Summary of Comments on the May 2006 version and Modifications; and

 

(c)        the Additional changes to the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law – Rural and Greenbelt Area as noted in Document 3 and Document 4.

 

3.         Upon Council approval of the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, and in the event of appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), the most restrictive provisions of either,

 

(a)        the existing zoning by-laws of the former municipalities, or

 

(b)        the new comprehensive zoning by-law,

 

will apply until such appeals are disposed of by the OMB.

 

4.         a.         That the requirement for a sight-obscuring buffer where adjacent to a rural zone be added to Column V of exception [294r] to reflect the provisions of the current zoning by-law as amended by By-law 2006-267.

 

b.         That the proposed zoning of the lands know municipally as 6100 and 6116 Gough Road be modified to reflect the true intent of By-law No. 2006-242 with regards to permitted uses.

 

c.         That the proposed zoning of the lands know municipally as 1201 Thomas Dolan Parkway be changed from DR1 to RU to reflect the fact that the subject lands are not located within the Dunrobin Village Boundary.

 

d.         That the proposed zoning of the lands know municipally as 5420 Richmond Road and the lands know legally as CON 5RF LOT 23 TO 24 PT PCL;1 be changed from DR1 to RU to reflect the fact that the subject lands are not located within the Fallowfield Village Boundary.

 

e.         That the proposed zoning of the lands know legally as part of the west half of Lot 38, Concession 7 being Part 1 on Registered Plan 5R-2553 be changed from AG to DR1 to recognize the fact the subject lands are located within the Village Boundary of Vernon.

 

f.          That the proposed zoning of the lands on part of Lot 22, Concession 2 (former City of Cumberland) at 5342 Saumure Road be changed for the north portion of the property from AG3 to RU so that the whole of the property is in the RU zone.

 

g.         That Section 69 – Setbacks from Waterways contained in the May 2006 version of the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be re-inserted as modified below:

 

                                                                    i.                        Despite provisions of the underlying zone, the following minimum setbacks must be provided to provide a margin of safety from hazards associated with flooding and unstable slopes and to help protect the environmental quality of watercourses.

                                                                  ii.                        Except for flood or erosion control works, or a public bridge or a marine facility, no building or structure, including any part of a sewage system, which does not require plan of subdivision or site plan control approval, shall be located closer than 30 m to the normal highwater mark of any watercourse, or 15 m to the top of the bank of any watercourse, whichever is greater.

 

NOTE: Development requiring plan of subdivision, rezoning or site plan control will be subject to the watercourse setbacks as identified in Policy 4.7.3 of the City of Ottawa Official Plan.

 

h.         That Section 69 be moved to Part 2, General Provisions and that the following modifications be made:

§         add the words “the Rockliffe Air Base. Airport zoning regulations” after the words “of Carp Airport and” in subsection (1)

§         add a new subsection 2 as follows: “(2) Development in the vicinity of the Macdonald-Caritier International Airport, the Carp Airport, and Rockliffe Air Base, shall take into consideration guidelines found in Transport Canada Document TP312E - Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices as amended.   With respect to development in the vicinity of the Carp Airport, runway 10-28 shall be protected as a "4C CAT 1"  Runway, and runway 4-22 shall be protected as a "1C NON-INSTR" Runway.”

§         change subsection (2) to (3).

 

i.          That there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

 

5.         Be it resolved that the zoning for 1599 River Road be amended to include an exception to permit the following additional uses:

·        animal care establishment

·        animal hospital

·        animal cemetery

 

6.         Whereas the property at 1751 8th Line Road is currently developed with a catering establishment; and

 

Whereas the catering establishment does not conform with the existing by-law; and

 

whereas the draft zoning by-law proposes an RR2-Rural Residential Zone for these lands, which does not recognize this land use; and

 

whereas the catering establishment has been part of the community since 1978;

 

Therefore be it resolved that the draft comprehensive zoning by-law be revised to apply a site-specific exception at 1751 8th Line Road to recognize the existing catering establishment; and

 

That pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.

 

7.         Whereas the property at 6971 Bank Street is currently developed with a funeral home; and

 

Whereas the funeral home currently has a non-conforming status; and

 

whereas the draft zoning by-law proposes an RU-Rural Countryside Zone for these lands, which does not recognize this land use; and

 

whereas the funeral home is established within this community;

 

Therefore be it resolved that the draft comprehensive zoning by-law be revised to apply a site-specific exception at 6971 Bank Street to add the existing funeral home as an additional use; and

 

That pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.

 

8.         Whereas the property known legally as Plan 50 PT LOT 1; RP 50R7063 PART 3 (north side of Leo Lane); RP 50R7063 PT Part 1; RP 50R6076 PT PART 1 and; RP 4R20477 Parts 2 7 8 and 9; on Leo Lane in the former Township of Cumberland is currently located within the Flood Plain Overlay; and

 

Whereas under the former City of Cumberland by-law the property is presently zoned R1 with a flood plain overlay which allows a single detached dwelling however the by law also states that ‘must provide technical evidence as is required to ensure against flooding or slope instability problems’; and

 

Whereas the proposed Flood Plain Overlay would generally prohibit future development; and

 

Whereas the owner of the subject property has a previous understanding with the City that the property can be developed;

 

Therefore be it resolved that the subject lands will be exempt from the provisions of Section 58 (1) & (2) pertaining to the Flood Plain Overlay; and

 

That pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.

 

9.         That the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be amended with respect to the zoning of Property Lot 3 Conc.1 at 5600/5994 First Line Road, Kars, ON (ward 21, City of Ottawa) as follows:

Section 2.D – Dealership:

·        to include the following in

§         category 1 – dirt bikes

§         category 4 – landscape

·        to add a category 7 – Power Products.

 

Further, that all categories include the following wording - sales, service, parts, rentals – as permissible uses; and

 

In addition, that an auxiliary storage building (5000 sq. feet) be considered as a permitted use.

 

                                                                                                           CARRIED, as amended

 

 

9.         NEW GROWTH PROJECTIONS FOR 2006-2031: ADOPTION OF REFERENCE PROJECTION AS BASIS FOR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW

RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES PROJECTIONS DE CROISSANCE POUR 2006-2031: ADOPTION DE LA PROJECTION DE RÉFÉRENCE COMME BASE POUR L’EXAMEN DU PLAN OFFICIEL

ACS2007-PTE-POL-0068                                 CITY WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE               

 

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council adopt the Reference Projection of approximately 1,136,000 population, 496,000 households and 703,000 jobs in the City of Ottawa by 2031 as the basis for the Official Plan and related Master Plans review.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

10.       NORTH GOWER COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN - OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING AMENDMENTS

PLAN DE CONCEPTION COMMUNAUTAIRE DE NORTH GOWER – MODIFICATION DU PLAN OFICIEL ET DU ZONAGE

ACS2007-PTE-POL-0046                                                                        RIDEAU (21)               

 

Moved by Councillor El-Chantiry:

 

That the report “North Gower Community Design Plan – Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendments”, listed as Item 10 on the agenda, be deferred to the next meeting of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

(This application is not subject to Bill 51)

 

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:

 

1.         Approve the North Gower Community Design Plan (Document 1 - On file with City Clerk),

 

2.         Approve City of Ottawa Official Plan __ Amendment [Document 2] to

 

a)         Remove the North Gower Village Plan from Volume 2C of the Official Plan,

b)         Revise City of Ottawa Official Plan Schedule A - Rural Policy Plan to revise the North Gower village boundaries and to redesignate lands from "Agricultural Resource Area" and "General Rural Area" to "Village"

 

3.         Approve an amendment to the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law as shown on the location maps and as detailed in Document 3.

 

                                                                                                            DEFERRED

 

 

11.       WATER WELLS IN PUBLIC WATER SERVICE AREAS

PUITS DANS LES ZONES DOTÉES DE SERVICES D'EAU PUBLICS

ACS2007-PTE-POL-0069                                 CITY WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE               

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee and the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee recommend that Council:

 

1.         Receive this report for information; and

 

2.         Direct staff to consult with stakeholders to explore the benefits of a Management Plan for Wells in Public Water Service Areas and to report back to Committee on the recommendations.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

12.       RESULTS OF THE 2006 EMPLOYMENT SURVEY

RÉSULTATS de l’enquête sur L’EMPLOI DE 2006

ACS2007-PTE-POL-0071                                 CITY WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE               

 

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and the Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for information.

 

                                                                                                            received

 

 

13.       AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE AREA AND RURAL HOUSEKEEPING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT

ZONE DE RESSOURCES AGRICOLES ET MODIFICATION DU PLAN OFFICIEL – CHANGEMENTS D'ORDRE ADMINISTRATIF TOUCHANT LE SECTEUR RURAL

ACS2007-PTE-POL-0072                                 CITY WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE               

 

Mr. Don Stephenson, voiced his concerns in regards to infill developments and restrictions on rural property owners.  He stated that his main concern was with schedule A of the report and that many areas in the agricultural area are very different and not as clear cut as forestry areas or wetlands which can be easily seen and designated as such.  He noted the example of Car Canada and how it was constructed on agricultural lands but that a Tim Horton’s could not be constructed on the site or nearby which seemed ludicrous.   He wanted to ensure that the sections on infill were retained.

 

Ms. Lesley Paterson, Program Manager, Planning Policy and Area Planning West stated that Mr. Stephenson raised 2 different points and that he may have misunderstood some sections of the report.  In Document 2 of the report, Section 15, it clearly states that infill lots are permitted within the hamlets and that these concerns should be raised within the context of the Rural Settlement Strategy.

 

Mr. Stephenson observed however that not all areas noted in the zoning by-law as hamlets were captured and that many other areas or “clusters” of homes may qualify for areas where infill could be justified.  Ms. Patterson stated that as in the past, hamlets and clusters remain the same regarding infill development that this report did not change this issue.

 

Councillor Brooks inquired that if the hamlet or cluster was not captured in the zoning by-law what happens.  Ms. Patterson stated that not all clusters had been captured and that it was virtually impossible to name or record all clusters within the City.

 

Chair Jellett stated that he was concerned that if not all hamlets or clusters had been captured that the process to develop an infill area would be very expensive to the landowner.

 

Ms. Patterson reiterated that the process of capturing these areas could best be done within the Rural Settlement Strategy.  Chair Jellett agreed.

 

 

That Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend that Council approve City of Ottawa Official Plan Amendment ___ to bring the Agricultural Resource Area policies into conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement and to make some housekeeping changes in the rural area, as described in document 1.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

 

«OPEN MIKE» SESSION

TRIBUNE LIBRE                

 

Mr. Richard Eveleigh a resident of Gilmour Avenue in Ottawa addressed the Committee regarding the rights and protection of prospectors on private land.  He inquired there were any laws or regulations set by the City of Ottawa protecting property owners and farmland from prospectors. 

 

Mr. T. Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, stated that according to the laws on mineral rights, a registered prospector could go and explore on personal property, it is not set by the municipality.

 

 

 

INQUIRIES

DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS

 

 

OTHER BUSINESS

AUTRES QUESTIONS

 

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

 

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

 

 

Original signed by                                                       Original signed by

Marc Desjardins                                                         Councillor Rob Jellett

                                                                                                                                                           

Committee Coordinator                                             Chair