1.         OFFICIAL PLAN and zoning - 180 corkstown road

 

PLAN OFFICIEL ET ZONAGE - 180, CHEMIN CORKSTOWN

 

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That Council refuse an amendment to:

 

1.         the Council Approved Official Plan to change the land use designation applying to the property at 180 Corkstown Road from Greenbelt Rural to General Urban Area.

 

2.         the Official Plan of the former Region of Ottawa Carleton to change the land use designation applying to the property at 180 Corkstown Road from Greenbelt Rural to General Urban Area.

 

3.         the Official Plan of the former Municipality of Nepean to designate the property at 180 Corkstown Road as Residential.

 

4.         the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law, to change the zoning of 180 Corkstown Road from Greenbelt Rural (GR) to Residential (R3A).

 

 
RECOMMANDATIONS du COMITÉ

 

Que le Conseil refuse :

 

1.         une modification au Plan officiel approuvé par le Conseil visant à remplacer la désignation « Ceinture de verdure, rurale » de la propriété située au 180, chemin Corkstown par la désignation « Zone urbaine générale »;

 

2.         une modification au Plan officiel de l’ancienne Région d’Ottawa-Carleton visant à remplacer la désignation « Ceinture de verdure, rurale » de la propriété située au 180, chemin Corkstown par la désignation « Zone urbaine générale »;

 

3.         une modification au Plan officiel de l’ancienne Ville de Nepean visant à attribuer la désignation « Résidentielle » à la propriété située au 180, chemin Corkstown;

 


4.         une modification au Règlement de zonage de l’ancienne Ville de Nepean visant à remplacer la désignation « Ceinture de verdure, rurale » (GR) de la propriété située au 180, chemin Corkstown par la désignation « Résidentielle » (R3A).

 

 

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.         Planning and Growth Management Deputy City Manager’s report dated 7 September 2004 (ACS2004-DEV-APR-0195).

 

2.                  Extract of Draft Minutes, 12 October 2004.

 


Report to/Rapport au :

 

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

7 September 2004 / le 7 septembre 2004

 

Submitted by/Soumis par :  Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager / Directeur municipal adjoint

Planning and Growth Management / Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Grant Lindsay, Manager / Gestionnaire

Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement

(613) 580-2424 x13242, Grant.Lindsay@ottawa.ca

 

Bay/Baie (7)

Ref N°: ACS2004-DEV-APR-0195

 

 

SUBJECT:

OFFICIAL PLAN and zoning - 180 corkstown road (FILE NOs. D01-01-04-0011 and D02-04-0063)

 

 

OBJET :

PLAN OFFICIEL ET ZONAGE – 180, CHEMIN CORKSTOWN (DOSSIERS NOS D01-01-04-0011 ET D02-04-0063)

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council refuse an amendment to:

 

1.         the Council Approved Official Plan to change the land use designation applying to the property at 180 Corkstown Road from Greenbelt Rural to General Urban Area.

 

2.         the Official Plan of the former Region of Ottawa Carleton to change the land use designation applying to the property at 180 Corkstown Road from Greenbelt Rural to General Urban Area.

 

3.         the Official Plan of the former Municipality of Nepean to designate the property at 180 Corkstown Road as Residential.

 

4.         the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law, to change the zoning of 180 Corkstown Road from Greenbelt Rural (GR) to Residential (R3A).

 

 

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil de refuser :

 

1.         une modification au Plan officiel approuvé par le Conseil visant à remplacer la désignation « Ceinture de verdure, rurale » de la propriété située au 180, chemin Corkstown par la désignation « Zone urbaine générale »;

 

2.         une modification au Plan officiel de l’ancienne Région d’Ottawa-Carleton visant à remplacer la désignation « Ceinture de verdure, rurale » de la propriété située au 180, chemin Corkstown par la désignation « Zone urbaine générale »;

 

3.         une modification au Plan officiel de l’ancienne Ville de Nepean visant à attribuer la désignation « Résidentielle » à la propriété située au 180, chemin Corkstown;

 

4.         une modification au Règlement de zonage de l’ancienne Ville de Nepean visant à remplacer la désignation « Ceinture de verdure, rurale » (GR) de la propriété située au 180, chemin Corkstown par la désignation « Résidentielle » (R3A).

 

BACKGROUND

 

The subject property is located on the south side of Corkstown Road east of Moodie Drive, within the National Capital Greenbelt.  The Greenbelt provides a separation between the urban area within the Greenbelt and the outlying urban communities, such as the Kanata and Barrhaven.  The Official Plan describes the Greenbelt as an area with a rural character and containing a mosaic of land uses and facilities.  It contains many natural features and allows a limited amount of commercial uses, such as farming and government and private sector research and development facilities.  Other facilities in the Greenbelt include the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport, the Nepean Sportsplex and the Queensway-Carleton Hospital.

 

The subject site, while located in the Greenbelt, is privately owned.  It is rectangular in shape, with a frontage of 63.4 metres along Corkstown Road and a depth of 64.2 metres. The area of the property is approximately 4 068 square metres.  The site is presently vacant and is zoned Greenbelt Rural in the former City of Nepean Official Plan.  This is a zone which allows a limited number of uses.  These include an agricultural use, forestry, a conservation use, one detached dwelling per lot that is associated with an agricultural use, a bed and breakfast as a secondary use and an equestrian establishment.   In June 2003, the applicants received a minor variance from the Committee of Adjustment to allow one detached dwelling on the property that was not associated with an agricultural use.

 

The applicant wishes to amend the new Council Official Plan, the former Regional and former City of Nepean Official Plan and the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law to permit four single detached dwellings on the subject property.  The Department is recommending that these requests be refused.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Rationale

 

Official Plan Policies

 

Both the Council Approved Official Plan and the former Regional Official Plan designate the subject property as Greenbelt Rural and contain very similar policies.  The former City of Nepean Official Plan does not have a designation for the property but instead, refers the designation to the former Regional Plan.  Both the Council approved and former Regional Official Plan permit certain types of development, including farming, recreational activities, such as golf courses and equestrian facilities and small scale commercial uses that are compatible with the rural character of the landscape.  The new Council Approved Official Plan, however, proceeds one step further and allows lands adjacent to those designated as Greenbelt Employment and Institutional Area to be used for uses ancillary to those found in the Greenbelt Employment and Institutional Area designation.  The new Council Approved Official Plan also contains an important policy to be considered when evaluating the proposal.  Specifically, the Official Plan prohibits the creation of lots on lands designated Greenbelt Rural.  The intent of this policy is to protect the integrity and purpose of the Greenbelt. 

 

While both the Council Approved and former Regional Official Plan recognize that certain types of development may be allowed on lands designated Greenbelt Rural, these uses are limited in scope to providing a service which is generally rural and or recreational in nature to the surrounding community.   These uses are complimentary to the rural character of the Greenbelt and do not represent  an intrusion of  urban area type uses, such as residential development, into this area.  The proposal to redesignate the lands as General Urban Area and rezone them to allow four new residential dwellings will represent an intrusion into the Greenbelt Rural area that will infringe on the integrity of lands with that designation and the opportunity to provide the uses that are contemplated. 

 

As the subject site is physically separated from lands presently designated General Urban Area, approval of this application will create an island of urban development in a rural area.  This in turn can result in pressure to have other properties along Corkstown Road redesignated for residential development, which will further erode the integrity and the intent of the Greenbelt Rural designation in both the City Council Approved and former Regional Official Plan.

 

Another consideration in recommending refusal of this proposal are the policies contained within the new Council Approved Official Plan relating to Managing Growth and the Urban Area Boundary (policy 2.2).  Generally, these policies restrict urban development to the existing urban area.  Approximately 90% of new development is expected to happen within the Urban Area defined by the Official Plan.  The remaining 10% is expected to occur on rural lands that permit residential development, such as on lands designated General Rural Area.  Concentrating growth within the designated urban area also allows for a pattern and density of development that supports transit, cycling and walking as viable alternatives to automobile use.

 

Given the policy direction mentioned above, the proposal to designate the subject lands as General Urban Area can be considered an expansion to the urban boundary, which is not contemplated under the City's new Official Plan.  This is reinforced by the present designation and the policy which prohibits the creation of residential lots.  The Official Plan also indicates that, in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act, there is presently enough land available to meet the demand for urban development for the next 20 years within the established urban boundary.  Consequently, the City will not support applications to expand the urban boundary on a piecemeal basis and application to amend the plan to designate additional urban land shall only be done as part of the five-year assessment of urban land supply (policy 2.2.1.5). 

 

Finally, the Official Plan contains a policy (2.2.1.4b) which iterates the need to preserve, among other natural features, the National Capital Greenbelt.  Where an urban designation is considered for any of these areas, there must be sufficient evidence that there is no reasonable alternative location that avoids the Greenbelt.  It is the Department's position that there is ample land within the urban area to accommodate additional residential dwellings, without the need to redesignate land within the Greenbelt.    

Greenbelt Master Plan

 

Both the former Regional Official Plan and the new Council Approved Official Plan indicate that the policies in those documents implement the provisions of the National Capital Commission's Greenbelt Master Plan (1996) (the Federal document which contains policies for land use within the Greenbelt).  That plan designated the subject property as Rural Landscape and indicates that the objective of this designation is to conserve landscapes that emphasize the rural open space character of the Greenbelt and its distinctiveness from surrounding urban areas.  It is to offer recreation and visitor services related to a rural context and to accommodate dispersed facilities with large land requirements.  Rural landscapes accommodate land-extensive recreational facilities such as golf courses or sports fields and are to support rural activities such as hobby farming or allotment gardening.  This designation does not anticipate urban type development and discourages uses that would detract from the visual continuity of the Rural Landscape. 

 

CONSULTATION

 

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Policy. Information signs were posted on-site indicating the nature of the application.  Seventeen responses were received as a result of the public notification process.  Seven respondents had concerns, six were in favour of the proposal while four wanted more information.  A public meeting was also held in the community, which approximately 35 people attended.  The applicant provided a petition of 30 people whom they say support their proposal.  There is no preamble provided with this list of people.  The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation.

 

Detailed responses to the notification/circulation are provided in Document 2.

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

This application was not processed within the timeframe established for the processing of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments due to the need to have a public meeting.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1      Location Map

Document 2      Consultation Details

 

DISPOSITION

 

Department of Corporate Services, Secretariat Services to notify the owner (Ferdinando Dinardo 12 Arart Court, K2H 8R9), applicant (Novatech Engineering, Consulting Ltd. 200-240 Michael Cowpland Drive Ottawa, Ontario K2M 1P6), All Signs, 8692 Russell Road, Navan, ON K4B 1J1, and the Program Manager, Assessment, Department of Corporate Services of City Council’s decision.

 


LOCATION MAP                                                                                                         Document 1

 


CONSULTATION DETAILS                                                                                       Document 2

 

 

NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS

 

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Policy.  A circulation was undertaken to technical agencies and concerned Community Groups and an information sign was posted on-site indicating the nature of the application.  A public meeting was also held in the community, which approximately 35 people attended.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

Seventeen responses were received as a result of the public notification process.  Seven respondents had concerns, six were in favour of the proposal while four wanted more information on the proposal.  The applicant provided a petition of 30 signatures from people whom they say support their proposal.  There is no preamble accompanying this list of people.  A summary of the public input is presented below.

 

 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT

Concerns raised through the public consultation process can be summarized as follows:

 

1.         I am concerned that allowing an amendment to the City's Official Plan will create a precedent whereby there would be other applications on Corkstown Road, which will result in more development.

 

2.         Urban planning should be based on the big picture, rather than an individual approach to a parcel of land.  The individual approach allows for a chipping away of greenspace.

 

3.         Greenspace is a finite quantity and we should take care to protect it.

 

4.         There are plenty of existing homes for sale in the area and these do not negatively effect the Greenbelt.

 

5.         I think that the infrastructure in the area is approaching capacity.  These homes will put a further strain on that infrastructure.

 

6.         Any new homes on these lands will suffer from noise from the Queensway.

 

7.         The integrity of the Greenbelt must be maintained.  Urban development must occur within existing residential areas.

Reasons in Favour of the Proposal

 

1.         Good Idea.

 

2.         I think it will be great to see that vacant land being used.

 

3.         It is obvious that this land, fenced and clear of trees does not form part of the Greenbelt. 

 

4.         The development of this land for four single houses is in keeping with the character of Corkstown Road and Crystal Beach.

 

5.         As this land was set aside by the NCC for development, allowing four homes there will not create a precedent.

 

 

Comments Raised as a Result of the Public Meeting.

 

1.         The Greenbelt is sacred.

 

2.         The traffic in the area is already too bad, this proposal will only make it worse.

 

3.         This proposal will infringe on the wildlife in the Greenbelt.

 

4.         This will eventually result in all the land along Corkstown Road being developed.

 

5.         There should be a no build zone at the rear of the property to buffer the creek and the Cross Canada Trail.

 

6.         These lands were always meant for development and were never owned by the NCC.

 

7.         Single family homes are ok.

 

 

Response to Comments in Favour of the Proposal

 

While the new Council Approved and former Regional Official Plans anticipate that the subject property can be developed, it is the Department's position that the types of uses proposed do not comply with the policies in these Documents and would be better located within the established urban boundary.

 


COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS

I am writing to provide to you my comments regarding the application for an Official Plan amendment and re-zoning application for 180 Corkstown Road.

 

On June 22, 2004 I held a public meeting of Crystal Beach-Lakeview residents at Maki House to discuss a proposal to amend the City’s Official Plan for 180 Corkstown Road from “Greenbelt Rural” to “General Urban Area” and to re-zone the property to permit the construction of 4 single-family homes. Approximately 40 residents attended, as well as the agent for the applicant and the City planner for the file, who spoke at the meeting. From the discussion it became apparent that while there were some that supported this application with the proviso that no other abutting greenbelt lands be developed, many residents were concerned that granting this application would set a precedent for further applications for development along Corkstown Road, converting what is now Greenbelt lands into residential development. Based on this concern many opposed this application, as they wish to protect Greenbelt lands along Corkstown Road from development and preserve the existing greenspace.

 

I share this concern and would recommend refusal of this application. Previously this vacant lot was zoned for agricultural use in the former City of Nepean’s Official Plan, which permitted a residence associated with that use. This agricultural restriction had been recently eliminated by a Committee of Adjustment application by the current owner, who had recently acquired the property, so that a single-family home can now be built on this site. However, the property is not within the General Urban Area of the previous and current Official Plan; it is designated “Greenbelt Rural” as it lies within the NCC Greenbelt.

 

The concern about setting a precedent lies in the fact that water and sewer services run along Corkstown Road in this area, and so would pose no barrier to adding further development along this stretch of Corkstown Road. At present this area is a mix of field and forest with a stream, attracting both rabbits and deer, with a bicycle path running on the south side between Corkstown Road and the 417. By granting this application the effect would be “block-busting” the greenspace feature of this area, and it would be difficult to refuse future applications for development in this area if this application to permit the construction 4 single-family homes was approved by Committee and Council. Further, while the NCC has no plans at present to sell lands for development in this area, it has in the past sold greenbelt lands bordering the urban area for development.

 

Our Official Plan policies do provide for the protection of greenspace, which is a feature that residents in Ottawa, particularly in Crystal Beach-Lakeview, consider to be of very high value. On this basis, I recommend that this Official Plan amendment and re-zoning application to permit the construction of 4 single-family homes for 180 Corkstown Road be refused as inconsistent with the purpose of the City’s Official Plan.

 

 


OFFICIAL PLAN and zoning - 180 corkstown road

PLAN OFFICIEL ET ZONAGE - 180, CHEMIN CORKSTOWN

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0195                                                                      Bay/Baie (7)

 

Chair Hume began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.

 

N. Lathrop, John Moser, Director, Development and Infrastructure, Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Development Law and Doug James, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 7 September 2004.  Following a presentation by Mr. James, staff responded to questions posed by Committee members, with the main points summarized below:

 

Vice-Chair Feltmate chaired this portion of the item.

 

·        The report indicates the current owner purchased these lands in June, 2003 and applied to the Committee of Adjustment (COA) to drop the Agricultural component, which would permit a home that would not have to be related to agricultural use.

·        The map presented was provided by the applicant, which illustrates the subject land, the existing situation and perhaps the future conceptual transitway extension.  On a more up to date map of that area, provided by Councillor Cullen, Mr. James confirmed there was recent development on the south side of Corkstown Road within the urban boundary.  Those were NCC lands sold off for development.  With the widening of the Queensway, the bicycle path and stream would need to be shifted further north.

·        When dealing with an OP Amendment (OPA), the basic planning principle the City wants to follow, is not to do it in a piecemeal fashion.  If it is Committee and Council’s will to consider this development, Committee/Council should instruct staff to look at the entire corridor along Corkstown Road, to allow for a comprehensive amendment.  Otherwise, the City might run the risk of expanding the general urban area on a selective basis.  There are numerous appeals on the City’s OP, specifically the urban boundary.  In this type of situation, staff must maintain a level of consistency that provides guidance to Committee in making its decision.

·        Services can be expanded beyond the urban boundary to address a health-related issue, for example, without expanding the urban boundary.


·        Schedule B of the Urban Policy Area in the OP illustrates privately owned parcels of land in and on the boundary of the Greenbelt, which are excluded from the Greenbelt itself.  Staff was unaware of many other privately held properties in the Greenbelt appropriate for residential development, with the exception of one or two.  As far as staff can determine, when the NCC expropriated the land, this parcel was allowed to remain in private ownership for the purpose of farming, but the remainder was expropriated for reasons unknown.  It has been in private ownership and designated Greenbelt rural.  It was not given a specific residential designation, but did allow a house related to agriculture, which was in all likelihood the reason it was carved out.  Regarding other properties, staff undertook a study of other privately-owned land and discovered there is only one other private lot, on Leitrim and Bank that could be developed.  Councillor Hunter posited that if the Committee were to accept the precedent argument, it is limited to one other property.  Mr. James emphasized it was not whether or not an application should be approved or refused, but whether it would generate additional applications; e.g. the NCC could decide to sell off land on Corkstown Road and there would be a precedent of other applications being initiated and dealt with on their own merits.

·        Mr. Lindsay provided a comparable:  the Costco located on Innes was once Greenbelt land; that residual parcel was left to the Woodburn family who farmed that property for years.  When the opportunity arose to sell that parcel in private ownership designated Greenbelt, it underwent a development process.  The NCC in their infinite wisdom decided Greenbelt lands further east did not form an integral part of the Greenbelt and declared it surplus and hence development has taken place (PetSmart, stripmall, big box retail).

·        Given what transpires at Committee today with respect to an OPA, it would be staff’s preference that if the OP is going to be changed in this location, that the entire corridor be analyzed, rather than piecemeal one block at a time.

·        The NCC does have a responsibility with respect to maintaining the integrity of the Greenbelt.  Essentially, through the City’s OP policies, staff attempts to support the overall Federal Land Use Plan and the Greenbelt Master Plan; and, the NCC has given no indication the residual area around the parcel will be declared surplus, but then the same was true along Innes in the 1980’s, but it became surplus to the NCC’s needs in the mid-90’s; and, hence there is the extent of the development process.

·        The NCC was not against the development of this parcel, but asked for a buffer zone (10m strip) from the inside of the buffer zone, so there would be a setback of 7.5m.  The NCC wanted to protect the greenspace.

·        PGW is saying that if it is Committee’s consideration to amend the OP, then the City should definitively obtain the position of the NCC on the balance of the Corkstown corridor.

 


Chair Hume resumed the Chair.

 

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

 

Hilary Ashe and Alan Griffen provided detailed written presentations, in opposition, that were circulated and are held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Ms. Ashe presented photographs of the Greenbelt at Crystal Beach and Corkstown on the overhead and circulated a petition with 119 signatories (a copy of the petition is held on file with the City Clerk).  Ms. Ashe’s key points are as follows:

·        Resident of Crystal Beach-Lakeview Community for 20 years and has enjoyed the benefits of the surrounding greenspace and wildlife.

·        In 1930s, Prime Minister Mackenzie King, retained Jacques Gréber, who proposed Greenbelt land be set aside to prevent uncontrolled urban sprawl, all too common in other cities.  Ms. Ashe quoted from the Introduction to the 1950 Gréber Plan or the Plan for the National Capital, by Mackenzie King.

·        Allowing 4 houses would set a precedent for more development on Greenbelt land, a situation that has already occurred in other parts of Ottawa.

·        That land is zoned Greenbelt Rural, which means it is designated for agricultural use, forestry, a conservation use, one detached dwelling per lot that is associated with agricultural use, a bed and breakfast as a secondary use and an equestrian establishment.

·        Learned through the public meeting the applicants had received a “minor” variance from the COA in June 2003 to allow one detached building on the property, not associated with agricultural use.  Now, they are asking to build 4 residential units.  Allowing the applicants to build a residential unit on land zoned for agricultural use is not “minor”.

·        Secondly, where was the public notification on this “minor” variance?  Apparently, there was a small sign on the site.  There should have been a larger notice similar to that for the notice to build the 4 units.

·        At the 22 June public meeting, one executive of the Crystal Beach-Lakeview Community Association made it clear he was adamantly in support of the application.  The community was not adequately informed of the “minor” variance AND the current proposal to build 4 units.

·        The petition was the result of a 7 hour, 5 street door to door canvass.

·        In light of the discrepancies, as a representative of the residents in the community, she proposed the “minor” variance be repealed and the 4 units should NOT be built.

 

Councillor Cullen received confirmation Ms. Ashe attended the public meeting held on 22 June with 40 residents holding the general sentiment in opposition to the application.

 


In response to queries from Councillor Cullen, Mr. James explained that signs posted for rezoning are 4 x 6 and those for the minor variance (COA) are 1 x 2 (smaller along the property edge as opposed to the larger signs for the circulation related to the rezoning).  Councillor Cullen stressed that for many residents, receiving the notice of his meeting in June was the first awareness of the application.

 

Chair Hume received confirmation from Ms. Ashe she was cognizant the application related to privately held property and the proponent could fence the property and deny anyone access.  Ms. Ashe added the community simply wanted the land to remain agricultural use.

 

Mr. Griffen has lived in the area since 1957 and echoed many of Ms. Ashe’s concers; other key points are as follows:

·        Greenbelt was conceived in the 1950s, in recognition of World War II veterans.  Highway 416 was named “Veterans Highway” because it passes through the Greenbelt.

·        In the 1960s, there was a 99-year lease to Micro Systems.  Bell Northern Research added more buildings in the 1970s and 1980s and changed its name to NORTEL in the 1990s and 2000s until the 2000 crash, resulting in an empty concrete jungle.

·        In response to Councillor Hunter’s question on why the land was allowed to remain, the land belonged to the Thomas family who expected one of their 3 sons to build on the land, which did not happen.

·        The wildlife has been pushed to the limit, with deer in gardens and on roads.

·        180 Corkstown is part of the Greenbelt.  Locally, the Greenbelt used to be the Nesbitt Farm and the Thomas farm.  This is why this land was designated Rural Agricultural.

·        A large notice board, 6ft by 4ft, should have been posted at the site.

·        2-3 years ago Nortel wanted to build at the back of Grandview Road (1,000 acre high tech), which the community fought and won.  The cmmunity has to fight to maintain the Greenbelt.

 

Councillor Cullen received confirmation a bicycle path between Corkstown and the Queensway formed part of the Trans Canada Trail.

 

Barbara Barr, Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital (GACC), provided a detailed written presentation, in support, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  The presentation centred on the following:

·        Proposed Development Inappropriate for Greenbelt

·        Unfortunately the proponent received a minor variance from COA (2003) to allow one detached dwelling, not associated with agricultural use, which is not minor.

·        The proponent wants to build 4 single detached houses, thus further urbanizing the Greenbelt, which, is how good initial planning is eroded.  The proposal would create an island of General Urban Area within Greenbelt Rural.

·        Protect the Greenbelt; do not urbanize it; do not take actions that would encourage potential proponents to urbanize it.  The proposal conflicts with 3 OP’s and the NCC’s Greenbelt Master Plan.  GACC urged the Committee to support the staff recommendation to refuse the proposed amendments.

·        On her own behalf, the property is now mostly fenced and has a small garden patch.  To Councillor Hunter, if he thought that realistically every item that goes to the OMB does not depend upon what happened on other items, it is naïve.  When she has attended at the OMB, the lawyers refer to previous items which the OMB allows.

·        She reminded PEC of the NCC and Moffatt Farm.  The NCC is selling off its surplus lands, which the Treasury Board allows it to do and must do so to raise funds.  There is a genuine risk that if the City does not take a strong stand, the NCC will use this opportunity..

 

As a result of the presentation, Councillor Cullen noted Ms. Barr mentioned earlier precedents of the NCC selling off lands and received confirmation GACC came together due to initial concerns over the sale of NCC lands.  In response to examples raised by Councillor Cullen, Ms. Barr posited this situation has to be treated very seriously.

 

Murray Chown (with Connie Dinardo and Julia Dinardo [Lola Dinardo had to leave]) Novatech Engineering.  Mr. and Mrs. Dinardo, with Connie and Lola’s husbands, were also present.  Mr. Chown circulated correspondence to the Committee by a letter dated 30 September 2004, which is on file with the City Clerk.  The main points raised are noted below:

·        His client was not a developer, builder, but a family that has resided in the community for 30 +/–  years and would like to continue to do so as a family.

·        He clarified 2 misrepresentations.  First, the minor variance to allow for a single family home was applied for and granted to the previous owner.  Therefore, it is not a case of his client purchasing a parcel and pushing the envelope.  The property was purchased with the understanding a house could be build on the property.

·        Mr. and Mrs. Dinardo raised 3 daughters in the community and see an opportunity today, having purchased a one acre parcel of land, with 200 feet of frontage, to build a home for themselves and one for each of their daughters.  Once retained, Novatech met with John Smit to discuss the possibilities of moving forward with applications that would allow the Dinardos to realize their dream.  Discussions and a history of the pre-consultation is recorded in a letter circulated to the Committee, prepared by Steve Stirling, formerly with Novatech and now a Town Planner in Renfrew.  In those discussions, it was fairly clear there were 2 issues to be dealt with before moving forward with the application.  One, was to confirm development of these homes would be on municipal services (water and sanitary sewer).  Staff has already stated there are water and sewer lines on Corkstown Road; with more than sufficient capacity.


·        Secondly, to ensure the NCC, being the only neighbour, did not have any difficulty with the proposal.  This property is surrounded by NCC land.  They met with the NCC, whose only comment, confirmed to staff in writing, was to allocate additional protection between the recreational pathway and the homes.  In their correspondence to the City dated 27 May, the NCC specifically stated “the NCC will not object to the development on the condition that a buffer on the property extending across the property northward for 10m from its south edge is provided.”

·        Novatech subsequently informed the Dinardo family there was staff support, the NCC did not object; and, it made sense to file applications.  Mr. Dinardo then wrote a cheque to the City in excess of $6,000 to cover application fees for OPA and Zoning Amendments with an expectation they would be sitting before PEC with a positive report from staff.  They were disappointed and, as a professional, he was surprised by the turn of events since meeting with staff.

·        Novatech met with the Executive of the Community Association (after the application was filed), who indicated there was no objection to the 4 houses, save and except for visitor parking along Corkstown, which is a rural cross section with open ditches.  The Executive was assured that additional front setback would accommodate visitor parking.

·        A community meeting hosted by Councillor Cullen in June was attended by Novatech, staff and 40 residents.  The report is correct in that the majority of those in attendance had concerns with the proposed development.  It is also accurate to report that those who attended did not understand nor appreciate there already was permission to construct one house on the property.  The issue was interpreted as save the Greenbelt.  Currently, the Dinardos can apply to construct a massive home, which they do not want to do.  It is not a fight about building a house or allowing development in the Greenbelt.  If PEC believes the NCC will rely on this decision as a precedent, he did not have any respect for the NCC.  It is a large bureaucracy, which will take an initiative, regardless of the decision today.  The premise of a precedent and domino effects is totally bogus.

·        The precedent to build on privately owned land in the Greenbelt was set in the 1950’s when the NCC commenced to expropriate lands for the Greenbelt.  The most obvious examples being the communities of Bells Corners and Blackburn Hamlet.  There are smaller examples; Grenfell Glen, Merivale Gardens, which are residential subdivisions that have existed in private ownership and existed in private ownership when the NCC expropriated lands for the Greenbelt.  This parcel of land is no different, except for one oversight and that is that the previous owners of this property, who were farmers, and not aware of the 1973 ROP or any subsequent Plan.  Otherwise, there is every reason to believe this parcel would be designated General Urban Area, similar to other subdivisions.  In his opinion, the designation was an oversight that was never brought to the attention of staff because the property owner did not understand the process.  This application, in effect, rectifies a wrong.  This does not set a precedent; the precedent of designating privately owned land as General Urban in the Greenbelt was set in 1973 when the Region first adopted an OP for this municipality. 

·        Appropriate form of development –The City has spent months and years developing an OP that says if you are going to build, make use of existing infrastructure.  That infrastructure is there.  Why build one when the opportunity is there to build 4?  It is not a question of development or no development, but the question of appropriate development vs. inappropriate development.

 

Connie Dinardo pointed out the key issue is that one home can be built on this privately held property.  The question is why not 3 more?  Her father has lived in the Crystal Beach community for over 28 years and would like to build one home for himself and 3 others for his children.  As mentioned, they would abide and respect the rules and regulations in regard to constructing on the property.  She recently married and would like to return to the community.  She would like to raise any future children to attend the same school she attended, and the same school Ms. Ashe attended.  The pictures shown were not of the subject property, which is fenced, with no trees.  She agreed with the recreational path, having run along that path and would like to see it destroyed.  In conclusion, they are a close-knit family that would like to remain together.

 

Julia Dinardo added that they were long time Crystal Beach residents and continue to reside there.  Their family saw this as an opportunity to build and does not intend to destroy the Greenbelt.

 

As a result of the presentation, staff and Mr. Chown responded to questions posited by members of the Committee and the main points are summarized below:

·        Staff had a pre-consultation meeting with the proponent, but at no point stated a staff position, as that is not determined until the Deputy City Manager has signed the report.  The discussion that took place indicated the policies in place; the positions and policies that have to be addressed in the application and the policies that will be articulated in the report.

·        Novatech is well aware of OP policies that preserve the Greenbelt.  Mr. Chown averred the Council approved OP (CAOP) unquestionably speaks to the utilization of existing infrastructure.  One of the cornerstones of the CAOP is the notion of maximizing the utilization of existing infrastructure.  There are many policies in the OP that would support the application before Committee today.  Those policies speak to protection of the Greenbelt raise a question of principle and interpretation.  The Greenbelt are lands owned by the Federal government and part of the Public Trust to be enjoyed by residents.  The subject land is not publicly owned land; and, as such, it is unreasonable and unfair to apply those rules because the property falls within the outer limits of the Greenbelt, but not to other privately-owned properties that fall within the perimeters of the Greenbelt.  Staff did a search, at the applicant’s request (due to the precedent setting intimation), and found one privately owned parcel that has not been designated, within the Greenbelt on a serviced road.

·        Mr. Chown acknowledged he was aware of the Ward Councillor’s concern and also the position of the Executive of the Community Association, who did not object.

·        Mr. Chown spoke to the understanding and process of pre-consultation and is mindful that a decision is not ultimately made until the report is signed.  But, from his perspective, if the applicant cannot move forward from the pre-consultation process with some understanding, then pre-consultation is a waste of time.  There is an industry-wide understanding following a pre-consultation whether there are any major hurdles and whether staff will look favourably on the application, which was the case.  Mr. Chown maintained the applicant attempted to determine what the recommendation would be and only became aware of same no more than 3 weeks ago.

·        Novatech was fully aware an OPA was required and the application filed requested those amendments.  The expectation was the request to build 4 homes on a property already serviced and privately owned would not experience considerable resistance.  It was viewed as more of a housekeeping exercise.

·        Mr. Chown emphasized the NCC did study the lands in the Greenbelt and has a plan.  This municipality participated in that process and is aware of the NCC plans since that plan is current.  It would be a tremendous waste of time to study the NCC lands on Corkstown road when the NCC’s current position is known.

·        A copy of Councillor Cullen’s notice of the 22 June meeting was circulated to PEC members 2 weeks ago, which contains a statement that “the current designation does not permit development”.  As such, those attending were under the impression there were no development rights on this property, which is erroneous.

·        PGM did not object to the minor variance at the COA.  The implication was that a single detached dwelling was permitted there with agricultural uses.  The net affect from a development prospective was neutral.

·        The property would still retain its Greenbelt designation if a house is constructed thereon.

·        If the applicant was successful in obtaining an OPA and Zoning Amendment, the property would have all the rights accorded to the General Urban designation, which would allow for 4 dwelling units and could revise the application to construct an apartment building, being a more efficient use of the existing infrastructure.

·        The community meeting was adequately informed of the COA decision and the fact that as of right one residence could be built on that site.  (Councillor Cullen)

·        If the application is approved, there is nothing to impede a future purchaser from buying one or all the lots and making an application to change the designation, although once changed to urban, it would only require a rezoning application to increase density.

·        There are no reimbursement for development application fees; only under extenuating circumstances can PEC direct staff to refund fees.  The fees are set through By-Laws adopted by Council.  Staff cautioned the Committee in making any decision in this regard since others may expect similar treatment.  In the instance of an early withdrawal of an application, the policy of this Council is that if an application is withdrawn at the very commencement of the process, there is a proportionate refund.  Once a report has been written that rises to PEC, there is no eligibility for a refund according to the policy.

 

The Committee also received the following written correspondence:

·        Letter from Marlene Bosche relating concerns with regard to the Greenbelt.

·        E-mail dated 11 October 2004 from Greg Squires in opposition to the application.

·        E-mail dated 11 October 2004 from Cathie and Matthew Cox in opposition to the application..

·        E-mail dated 11 October 2004 from Sharon Weglo expressing concern and in opposition to the application

·        E-mail dated 10 October 2004 from Robert and Winnifred Bowen in opposition to the application.

·        E-mail dated 10 October 2004 from Yvon Leguerrier in opposition to the application.

·        E-mail dated 9 October 2004 from Judy and Bill Mann in support of the application.

·        E-mail dated 9 October 2004 from Alison Filoso in support of the application.

·        E-mail dated 9 October 2004 from Eldon Scott in opposition to the application.

·        E-mail dated 9 October 2004 from Gerard and Catherine Frey in opposition to the application.

·        E-mail dated 8 October 2004 from Penelope Ashe in opposition to the application.

·        E -mail dated 8 October 2004 from Angelo Filoso, Vice-Presient, Crystal Beach and Community Assocation in support of the application.

·        E-mail dated 11 October 2004 from Ann Frampton in opposition to the application.

·        E-mail dated 7 October 2004 from Dorothy Hayley in opposition to the application.

·        E-mail dated 29 September 2004 from Paul Williams in opposition to the application.

 

Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter returned to Committee.

 

Councillor Cullen thanked those who attended on both sides. There is the desire of a local family to build within its community.  PEC must consider the context of this application, which would create an island of urban use within the Greenbelt.  The public consultation and planning process determines whether there are merits to proceed with any application.  There is strong community interest, with the receipt of 15 communications supporting the staff recommendation vs. 4 in support; and, a petition with 119 signatories.  The majority of the community supports the recommendation and the Ward Councillor.  There are good planning reasons to reject this application.  A building permit can be issued today for a single family home.  The applicant is presenting the argument that if you can allow one home you can allow 4.  At the same time, the applicant is saying by allowing 4, you do not allow any more.  When does precedent stop?  As of right, a building permit can be issued.  But, to go further requires action by Council on an OP that set an urban boundary to avoid urban sprawl and make more efficient use of land within the urban area.  It is known the NCC does take advantage of its Greenbelt lands to extract revenue, with examples presented by staff.  Will this Committee protect the urban boundary since there are sufficient lands that can be developed and intensified, etc. and to make better use of the infrastructure inside the urban area?  Simply because there are services, does not give license to develop.  Staff has made a point that if it was considered, it should not be on a piecemeal basis.  The community also made the point about the desire to protect Greenspace.  One of the foremost values in the OP is the protection of Greenspace.  But, it takes PEC action to open the door for 4 units where one is allowed as of right, which would set a precedent.  Councillor Cullen asked the Committee to support the community, the Ward Councillor and staff on this application.  There are 5 good reasons drawn from the OP and the previous OP’s, including Nepean’s and the Zoning By-Law.

 

The Committee approved the departmental recommendations.

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council refuse an amendment to:

 

1.         the Council Approved Official Plan to change the land use designation applying to the property at 180 Corkstown Road from Greenbelt Rural to General Urban Area.

 

2.         the Official Plan of the former Region of Ottawa Carleton to change the land use designation applying to the property at 180 Corkstown Road from Greenbelt Rural to General Urban Area.

 

3.         the Official Plan of the former Municipality of Nepean to designate the property at 180 Corkstown Road as Residential.

 

4.         the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law, to change the zoning of 180 Corkstown Road from Greenbelt Rural (GR) to Residential (R3A).

 

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Yays (5):          Councillors A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, M. Bellemare, G. Bédard, D. Holmes

Nays (3):          Councillors G. Hunter, J. Harder, P. Hume

 

Moved by Councillor M. Bellemare:

 

That half of all fees paid be reimbursed to the applicant should this application not proceed to the OMB.

 


Briefly, Councillor Bellemare stated the rationale for his Motion is that there is an issue of fairness regarding the approvals process for an individual applicant who is not a major developer.  Given the representation heard today, there was some confusion on the part of the applicant as to whether they were being encouraged to proceed with these applications to Committee.  In speaking with Mr. Marc, there is no legal issue with this recommendation.  It needs to recognize there needs to be a shouldering of burden from the financial perspective of these fees.  $6,000 is a significant amount when at the end of the day, the application is not successful.

 

In response to a request from the Chair on whether it was in fact in the purview of this Committee to consider this motion, Mr. Marc confirmed the matter of Planning Fees are within the jurisdiction of PEC, subject to ratification by Council.

 

In response to Councillor Bédard’s query on the number of similar-type applications received by the City in one year; Mr. Moser guesstimated there were 20 – 30 applications that revolve around COA decisions on severances.  These respond to a COA imposed condition to have a rezoning.  There would be less than 40 from small developers, out of 120 rezonings per year.  Responding further, Mr. Moser confirmed the net loss to the City would be over $120,000 for those rejected.  In fairness, over the period of one year less than a handful of applications are refused because issues are resolved through the process.

 

Councillor Cullen thanked Councillor Bellemare for moving the motion and would support same.  He hesitated to speak to the issue of precedence, but there is a salient difference when dealing with a family that is trying to live in a community.  $6,000 is a large amount of money and reimbursing ½ is due to the unique situation.  He believed the Committee could differentiate between those who seek to take advantage of a business opportunity and a family hoping to remain within a community.

 

On the Motion.

 

                                                                                                LOST ON A TIE

 

Yays (4):          Councillors A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, M. Bellemare, D. Holmes

Nays (4):          Councillors J. Harder, G. Hunter, G. Bédard, P. Hume