1.            OFFICIAL PLAN and Zoning AMENDMENT - 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue

 

PLAN OFFICIEL ET ZONAGE - 3400 ET 3428, AVENUE WOODROFFE

 

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

 

That Council REJECT the amendments to:

 

1.         The Official Plan of the former City of Nepean to amend the Secondary Plan for the South Nepean Areas 4, 5 and 6 to designate 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue from “Private Service Residential” to “Transition Residential” designation as detailed in Documents 1 and 2; and,

 

2.         The Council-Approved Official Plan, Volume 2A, Secondary Plan for the South Nepean Areas 4, 5 and 6 to designate 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue from “Private Service Residential” to “Transition Residential” designation, as detailed in Documents 1 and 2; and,

 

3.         The Zoning By-law of the former City of Nepean to rezone 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue from Residential Private Services Zone (R1A) to a Special Provision Residential Third Density Alternative Standards Zone (R3A Block 3) , as detailed in Document 3.

 

And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

 

 

RECOMMANDATIONS Modifiées du COMITÉ

 

Que le Conseil refuse les modifications suivantes :

 

1.                  Modification au Plan officiel de l’ancienne Ville de Nepean afin de modifier le plan secondaire à l’égard des secteurs 4, 5 et 6 de Nepean-Sud et de remplacer la désignation « Service privé résidentiel » des 3400 et 3428, avenue Woodroffe par la désignation « Transition, résidentiel » en vue de permettre l’aménagement de 33 logements résidentiels individuels sur 2,37 hectares, comme il est précisé dans les documents 1 et 2;

 

2.         Modification au Plan secondaire de la Ville d’Ottawa approuvé par le Conseil afin de modifier le plan secondaire à l’égard des secteurs 4, 5 et 6 de Nepean-Sud et de remplacer la désignation de « Services privés résidentiels » des 3400 et 3428, avenue Woodroffe par la désignation de « Transition, résidentiel » en vue de permettre l’aménagement de 33 logements résidentiels individuels sur 2,37 hectares, comme il est précisé dans les documents 1 et 2;

 

3.         Modification au Règlement de zonage de l’ancienne Ville de Nepean afin de remplacer la désignation de zone de services privés résidentiels (R1A) des 3400 et 3428, avenue Woodroffe par la désignation de zone résidentielle de normes de remplacement de troisième densité, dispositions spéciales (R3A bloc 3), comme il est précisé dans les documents 3 et 4.

 

Et qu’aucun autre avis ne soit donné aux termes du paragraphe 34 (17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.         Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management report dated 24 November 2004 (ACS2004-DEV-APR-0244).

 

2.         Extract of Draft Minutes, 14 December 2004.

 


Report to/Rapport au :

 

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

24 November 2004 / le 24 novembre 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 : Karen Currie, Manager / Gestionnaire

Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement

(613) 580-2424 x28310, Karen.Currie@ottawa.ca

 

Ward 3

Ref N°: ACS2004-DEV-APR-0244

 

 

SUBJECT:

OFFICIAL PLAN and Zoning - 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue (D01-01-04-0016 and D02-02-04-0084)

 

 

OBJET :

Plan directeur et zonage - 3400 et 3428, avenue woodroffe

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve and adopt amendments to:

 

1.         The Official Plan of the former City of Nepean to amend the Secondary Plan for the South Nepean Areas 4, 5 and 6 to designate 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue from “Private Service Residential” to “Transition Residential” designation as detailed in Documents 1 and 2; and,

 

2.         The Council-Approved Official Plan, Volume 2A, Secondary Plan for the South Nepean Areas 4, 5 and 6 to designate 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue from “Private Service Residential” to “Transition Residential” designation, as detailed in Documents 1 and 2; and,

 

3.         The Zoning By-law of the former City of Nepean to rezone 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue from Residential Private Services Zone (R1A) to a Special Provision Residential Third Density Alternative Standards Zone (R3A Block 3) , as detailed in Document 3.

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil d’approuver et d’adopter les modifications suivantes :

 

1.         Modification au Plan officiel de l’ancienne Ville de Nepean afin de modifier le plan secondaire à l’égard des secteurs 4, 5 et 6 de Nepean-Sud et de remplacer la désignation « Service privé résidentiel » des 3400 et 3428, avenue Woodroffe par la désignation « Transition, résidentiel » en vue de permettre l’aménagement de 33 logements résidentiels individuels sur 2,37 hectares, comme il est précisé dans les documents 1 et 2;

 

2.         Modification au Plan secondaire de la Ville d’Ottawa approuvé par le Conseil afin de modifier le plan secondaire à l’égard des secteurs 4, 5 et 6 de Nepean-Sud et de remplacer la désignation de « Services privés résidentiels » des 3400 et 3428, avenue Woodroffe par la désignation de « Transition, résidentiel » en vue de permettre l’aménagement de 33 logements résidentiels individuels sur 2,37 hectares, comme il est précisé dans les documents 1 et 2;

 

3.         Modification au Règlement de zonage de l’ancienne Ville de Nepean afin de remplacer la désignation de zone de services privés résidentiels (R1A) des 3400 et 3428, avenue Woodroffe par la désignation de zone résidentielle de normes de remplacement de troisième densité, dispositions spéciales (R3A bloc 3), comme il est précisé dans les documents 3 et 4.

 

 

BACKGROUND

[U1] 

The City has received three development applications relating to the subject land:  Draft Plan of Subdivision, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments.  The latter two are the subject of this report.  The application to amend the Council Approved Official Plan and the Nepean Official Plan from “Private Service Residential” to “Transition Residential” designation is to permit the development of 33 single detached residential units.  The Zoning By-law Amendment application will implement the proposed Official Plan amendment by rezoning the current Residential Private Services Zone (R1A) to a Special Provision Residential Third Density Alternative Standards Zone (R3A Block 3) to address special frontage, lot depth, and landscaped buffer requirements on the lots immediately abutting lands designated “Private Services Residential”

 

Description of Site/Area and Surroundings:

 

The subject property is a 2.37 hectare site, located southwest of Woodroffe Avenue and Cresthaven Drive and is currently occupied by two single detached dwelling units (see Document 1).  It is bounded to the east by Woodroffe Avenue, an existing major collector road with commercial and residential uses.  Upon development of the lands to the east, Woodroffe Avenue is planned to be closed at Prince of Wales Drive and downgraded to a local collector. Significant residential and commercial growth is occurring or proposed to the immediate north and east of the site.  The property is bounded to the north by a house and barn (recently rezoned to permit development of a new church); and to the west and south by the established single detached dwelling neighbourhood called Heart's Desire.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

[U2] 

The former City of Nepean Official Plan designates the subject lands as 'Special Residential Policy Area', as are the lands to the south and west of the site.  This designation identifies those areas which are "considered to have been prematurely developed in terms of inadequate planning control and a lack of provision of water and sewer systems" (Section 2.8(a)). The Official Plan policy states that there should be no significant change in the nature or the size of these existing developments, except for limited infilling, to be assessed on the merits of each specific application.

 

The former Region of Ottawa-Carleton Official Plan (ROC) designates the subject lands as 'General Urban Area'.  This designation encourages primarily residential development of various densities as well as the shopping, services and community facilities required to meet day-to-day needs.

 

The Council Approved Official Plan designates the subject lands as 'General Urban Area'.   This designation encourages a range of housing types and residential intensification of urban lands where it can occur appropriately and responsibly.  The Official Plan incorporated the Secondary Plan from the former Nepean Official Plan, and reflects the “Private Service Residential” designation.  This land use designation requires individual lot areas of at least 1200 m2 with a lot frontage of at least 19 metres with the specific intent of protecting these neighbourhoods.  The proposal does not meet these requirements.  Further, the applicant proposes municipal servicing on the subject lands.  Any development proposal and lot creation based on the provision of municipal water and/or sewer services within this designated area requires an Official Plan Amendment.  Therefore, the applicant proposes an amendment to a “Transition Residential” designation to permit the development of a single detached housing form on urban services. The amendments also propose to establish a "transitional" housing density, including lot sizes and rear yard buffers intended to respect the character of the existing large-lot community that abuts the lands to the west.

 

The current zoning is ‘Residential Private Services Zone ’ (R1A) which permits single dwelling units.  The R1A Zone requires minimum lot areas of 930m², if connected to a Piped Municipal Water Supply, and minimum frontages of 19.8m.  The proposal does not meet these provisions. Therefore, a Zoning Bylaw amendment application was concurrently submitted to rezone the property to Special Provision Residential Third Density Alternative Standards Zone (R3A Block 3) to permit performance standards designed to accommodate a denser form of lots and housing, adjacent to an existing residential neighbourhood.  The proposed zoning performance standards are consistent  with the specific policies of the 'Transition Residential' designation proposed by the Official Plan Amendment application.

Rationale

 

The former Official Plan and the present Official Plan and Secondary Plan designate the subject lands and the lands to the south and west of the site as 'Private Service Residential'. The current 'Private Service Residential' designation was put into place to recognize existing neighbourhoods, like Heart's Desire, and to protect them from the significant, more intense forms of development occurring around them.   

 

Under the Secondary Plan,  lands immediately to the east are designated 'Low Density Residential' (along Woodroffe Avenue) and 'Mixed Density Residential'.  Lands adjacent to the north are designated 'Transitional Residential'.  The Low and Mixed Density Residential designations east of the site identifies single, semi-detached, townhouses and low rise apartment units as appropriate and desirable housing forms. The intent of the 'Transitional Residential' designation is to buffer the existing Heart's Desire neighbourhood with compatible low density, single detached residential development and to transition from the lower density on the southwest to the higher density on the northeast.  The proposed Official Plan Amendments will move the subject parcel into the Transition Residential designation and out of the same designation as Heart's Desire.

 

The present Official Plan and Secondary Plan have policies in place with the specific purpose of recognizing and protecting the Heart's Desire community. These plans also recognize that amendment applications may be made to assess the merits of change to ensure the evolving needs of the neighbourhood and broader community are likewise being considered, addressed  and implemented.  Where existing or future services are present (e.g., for example, bus transit, water and sewage, etc.) the Official Plan encourages the orderly and efficient disposition of land to take advantage of this infrastructure without negative impact on existing neighbourhoods.  The proposed amendments to the Official Plan, and Zoning Bylaw promote the principles of orderly and efficient intensification while at the same time offering 'transitional' land use characteristics designed to achieve the objectives of minimizing negative impacts on the existing community of Heart's Desire.

 

Current Official Plan policies and designations exclude the subject site from the Transitional Residential designation to the north.  However, as the immediate context surrounding the subject site continues to change - e.g. denser residential development to the east and north of the subject property occurs, and, transportation and servicing along Woodroffe Avenue develops to reflect the area needs - the subject application questions the appropriateness of the continued designation of this site as Private Services Residential.  The  application suggests that Transitional Residential is more appropriate.    

 

The amendment is consistent with the City Council Approved Official Plan with respect to residential infill and intensification policies of lands within the existing urban boundary as a means of managing growth efficiently using available infrastructure, and building livable communities. 

 


The subject properties are located on the outside edge of the Hearts Desire community fronting an arterial road (to become a local road when the access of Woodroffe to Prince of Wales is eventually closed).  The site abuts a total of five properties: one property which also abuts Woodroffe Avenue, and four properties with access from Newland Drive, a separate internal local road.  At a little over 13,000 m2 and 9,000 m2, the two subject lots are generally three to six times the size of existing residential lots found in the Heart's Desire community, and therefore, are not characteristic in their size compared with the community to their south and west.   In establishing an average or standard size lot in the "Heart's Desire Community", it is worth noting that a significant number of residential properties are approximately half the size of the five residential properties abutting the subject property, or approximately 1,500 m2.  Proposed lot sizes on the subject parcel range from 318 and 360 m2 (along the property's north and Woodroffe Avenue) to 600-800 m2 (those abutting neighbouring properties to the south and west ). 

 

The proposed development will occur at a density of 17 units per net hectare, within the "Transitional Residential" designation, which permits 20 units/net hectare. The following table provides the densities in the surrounding area:

 

Designation

Density

Private Service Residential

8.3 units/net ha

Transitional Residential

20 units/net ha

Low and Medium Density Residential

30 units/net ha

Proposed Development

17 units/net ha

 

The overall intent of the Official Plan is to provide housing forms at density levels compatible with adjacent existing development.  The current proposal is not out of keeping with general densities of development located to the east or west of it and is providing an appropriate transition of density between the higher and lower densities. 

 

Compatibility with Heart's Desire Community

 

The Heart's Desire Community Association are strongly opposing this proposal. The details of the public consultation are included in Document 4. Specific issues relating to compatibility are being addressed through the proposed zoning standards.

 

The proposed 15m minimum lot frontage ensures that only a limited number of lots will be developed adjacent to the Heart's Desire neighbourhood and that the lot size will be a  transition from those in Heart's Desire and the more compact housing forms across Woodroffe Avenue.

 

The proposed 40m lot depths required by the "Transition Residential" designation ensure that the proposed lots are large enough to provide reasonable distance of any new houses from the rear yards of the adjacent neighbourhood.   They also permit sufficient area for the required 10m landscaped buffer at the rear of  the yard and amenity area for the proposed residential dwellings. The 10m rear yard landscaped buffer required for backing lots, some of which can use the existing vegetation and trees, ensures that the existing quality of environment of large properties abutting the subject site are maintained or enhanced and are not negatively impacted by the presence of the proposed smaller lots to their east on the subject site.

 

Building heights in the proposed R3A Zone permit a maximum of 8.0 metres, or approximately 2.5 storeys.  This height is 2.7 metres less than the maximum building height permitted in the existing R1A governing the subject site and the abutting neighbourhood.

 

Servicing

 

The Secondary Plan says that "notwithstanding the requirement that all new development within the Secondary Plan be on the basis of full urban services, lands designated 'Private Service Residential' may include only single detached residential units on individual wells and septic systems". Therefore, new development within the Private Service Residential designation in this area is only permitted to be served by individual wells and septic systems. The purpose of this provision is to retain the "rural" character of the residential community by retaining minimum lot sizes required for appropriate water supply and sewage treatment facilities.

 

This application proposes development on the basis of access to available full urban services.  Concern has been expressed about the impact of this proposal on the existing wells in Heart's Desire. Minto Developments Inc., a large property development company active in the area, previously completed a comprehensive hydrogeological investigation of the entire lands north of Heart's Desire (in conjunction with their Area C2).  They concluded that there would be no impact to existing privately serviced lots.  This report has been confirmed with the Conservation Authority.

 

There is deep community concern that the introduction of available municipal servicing on this site may open the door to extensive infill development in the community.  However, properties with infill potential similar to the scale proposed are very few in the this area.  Any proposals would need to be assessed according to policies and regulations and may or may not be considered compatible, desirable, timely and appropriate development.

 

Traffic Impact

 

Staff do not have any concerns with traffic or right-of-way designs with the proposed development, for example, in terms of traffic and parking capacity/volume or design issues on Woodroffe Avenue or any other local roads. 

 


Summary

 

The present proposal to develop the subject lands is appropriate and not out of keeping with general densities to the east or west of it.  The proposed Official Plan amendment will maintain the intent of the Secondary Plan to protect the Heart's Desire community by developing at a relatively low, transitional density that is intended to minimize impacts on adjacent neighbours and respect the character of the surrounding neighbourhood further to the west.  The proposed Zoning Bylaw amendment establishes provisions to ensure that high quality living and natural environments of the surrounding neighbourhoods are protected, and to ensure that the residents of the proposed residential dwellings are provided a quality living environment.  The development conforms with the general principles and policies of the Official Plan, and staff recommend approval of the Official Plan and Zoning amendments necessary to support this development.      

 

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.  The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation.  The City received comments regarding these applications as outlined in Document 4.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

This application was processed within the timeframe established for the processing of Official Plan Amendments.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

[U3] 

Document 1      Location Map

Document 2      Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Document 3      Zoning Amendment Details

Document 4      Consultation Details

Document 5      Schedule A Land Use Areas 4, 5, & 6, former City of Nepean and Council Approved City of Ottawa Secondary Plan

Document 6      Context Map

Document 7      Rendered Concept Site Plan

 


DISPOSITION

 

Department of Corporate Services, Secretariat Services to notify the owner/applicant (Antonino Borrello, 3428 Woodroffe Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K2J 4G5), agent (Paquette Planning Associates, 56 Hutchinson Ave, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4A3), All Signs, 8692 Russell Road, Navan, ON  K4B 1J1, and the Program Manager, Assessment, Department of Corporate Services of City Council’s decision.

 

Department of Planning and Growth Management to prepare the implementing by-law and forward to Legal Services Branch, and undertake the statutory notification amendment to the Zoning By-Law 100-2000 of the former City of Nepean Zoning By-Law.

 

Department of Corporate Services, Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.


LOCATION MAP                                                                                                         Document 1

 


PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT                                                        Document 2

 

The Statement of Components

 

PART A - THE PREAMBLE

Purpose

Location

Basis

 

PART B- THE AMENDMENT

Introductory Statement

Details of the Amendment

Implementation and Interpretation

 

PART C - APPENDIX

Appendices

 

 

 

The Statement of Components

 

PART A – THE PREAMBLE, introduces the actual amendment but does not constitute part of Amendment No.___  to the former City of Nepean Official Plan.

 

PART B – THE AMENDMENT, consisting of text constitutes the actual Amendment No. ___  to the former City of Nepean Official Plan.

 

PART C – THE APPENDIX, does not form part of the Amendment but is provided to clarify the intent and to supply background information related to the Amendment.

 

 

 

PART A – THE PREAMBLE

 

Purpose

 

The purpose of Amendment No. ___  is to amend the Official Plan of the former City of Nepean and  the Secondary Plan of the City of Ottawa to designate 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue from “Private Service Residential” to “Transition Residential” designation.  The amendment will allow City Council to give consideration to and approve the application submitted to rezone the lands to permit the development of 33 single detached residential units on 1.936 hectares, and a cul-de-sac road, on 0.431 hectares.

 


Location

 

This policy amendment affects the lands located at the 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue and designated “General Urban Area” on Schedule B – Urban Policy Plan of the City of Ottawa and "Private Services Residential" on Schedule A Land Use Areas 4, 5 and 6 - the former City of Nepean Official Plan.

 

Basis

 

The City of Ottawa Official Plan outlines a number of key policy objectives for residential development to ensure a variety of housing forms and density where it is compatible with adjacent existing land uses and community character.  The present proposal to develop the subject lands is timely and not out of keeping with general densities to the east or west of it.  It will maintain the intent of the Secondary Plan to protect the Heart's Desire Community by developing at a relatively low, transitional density that will neither negatively affect the quality of life of adjacent neighbours nor degrade the character of the surrounding neighbourhood further to the west.  The proposed amendment will permit zoning to establish provisions that ensure high quality living and natural environments of the surrounding neighbourhoods are protected, and ensure that the residents of the proposed residential dwellings are provided a quality living environment.  The development conforms with the general principles and policies of the Official Plan, the intent of the Zoning By-law, and is considered timely and desirable development.

 

 

PART B – THE AMENDMENT

 

The Introductory Statement

 

All of this part of the document entitled Part B – The Amendment, consisting of the following text constitutes Amendment No. ____ to the former City of Nepean Official Plan.

 

Details of Amendment

 

The former City of Nepean Official Plan is amended as follows:

 

1.  Schedule A  Land Use Areas 4, 5 and 6 - the former City of Nepean Official Plan is amended by redesignating 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue, being on the west side of Woodroffe Avenue and south of Cresthaven Drive, as shown on Schedule A, from "Private Services Residential" to "Transition Residential".

 

 


The Council Approved City of Ottawa Secondary Plan is amended as follows:

 

1.  Schedule A  Land Use Areas 4, 5 and 6 - The Council Approved City of Ottawa Secondary Plan is amended by redesignating 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue, being on the west side of Woodroffe Avenue and south of Cresthaven Drive, as shown on Schedule A, from "Private Services Residential" to "Transition Residential".

 

 

Implementation and Interpretation

 

Implementation and Interpretation of this Amendment shall be made having regard to applicable policies of this Plan.

 

 

 

INSERT   SCHEDULE 'A'

 

 

 

PART C – THE APPENDIX

 

N/A

 

 

 


ZONING AMENDMENT DETAILS                                                                          Document 3

 

The zoning amendment will provide appropriate zoning for the Draft Plan of Subdivision to develop 33 single detached residential units on 1.936 hectares, and a cul-de-sac road, on 0.431 hectares.  The rezoning of 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue proposes the following zone amendments to address the requirements of the Secondary Plan for 'Transition Residential' designation:

 

 

1.  Add a new sub-section to 6:3A:3 Special Permitted Uses and Provisions titled “R3A Block 3”

 

2.  The R3A Block 3 zone will require the following changes to the standard

requirements on the lots immediately abutting lands zoned “Private Services Residential” (applying to lands immediately abutting Heart’s Desire neighbourhood):

 

-  frontage be at least 15 metres

-  lot depth at least 40m

-  landscaped buffer of at least 10m adjacent to the rear lot lines where lots back onto lands zoned R1A 'Residential Private Services' Zone.


CONSULTATION DETAILS                                                                                       Document 4

 

NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS

 

Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Official Plan Amendments Plan Amendments and Zone Amendment.  One Statutory Public Meeting for Draft Plan of Subdivision was also held in the community.  Planning staff has met on two separate occasions with members of the Heart's Desire Community Association Land Development Committee, and the Ward Councillor has met with the Association on number of other occasions to discuss the proposed applications.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

[U4] 

A Statutory Public Meeting for Draft Plan of Subdivision was held in community on October 14th, 2004.  93 attendees signed in.  The following were collected:

 

-  54 form letters (drafted and provided by Heart's Desire Community Association) not in support and requesting further notification and updates were collected

-  27 comment sheets not in support of the proposal

-  14 individual letters of objection

-  3 letters in support

 

 

The two fundamental concerns of the community were represented by the Heart's Desire Community Association:

 

"1.  If this request is approved, and the existing land use controls are overthrown, than it establishes a dangerous precedent for the entire area covered by the Private Services Residential designation i.e. the Hearts Desire Community.  This precedent would allow any land in Hearts Desire to be developed to a far greater density than is allowed today or was ever intended." 

 

"2.  The density asked for in this plan of subdivision is totally inconsistent with the remainder of Hearts Desire that abuts on the Borello land.  For example 33 units on 6 acres of land results in a land use density of 5.5 housing units per acre.  In contrast the current housing density in Hearts Desire of abutting property is 5 homes on 3.3 acres or 0.6 housing units per acre.  Borello’s are requesting a increase in housing density that is approximately 9 times greater that the surrounding part of Hearts Desire! This is clearly a gross violation of the intent of the Official Plan provisions, which were designed to protect the “distinctiveness of Hearts Desire”. "

 

The position of Heart's Desire Community Association on the Official Plan and Zone Amendment is as follows:

 


·     The property owner has a right to develop the lands under his ownership

·     But the development of these lands must respect the existing requirements of the Official Plan which were established to protect the integrity of the Community of Hearts Desire

 

[U5] 

E-mails and letters have also been received, with the same basic concerns about establishing a new neighbourhood precedent and the implication of compatibility if densities are amended from those stated in the Secondary Plan of the Official Plan.  Questions and issues raised within the e-mails and letters are consolidated in the "Summary of Public Input:  Questions and Answers" section that follows:

 

 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT

[U6] 

Questions and Answers

[U7] 

1.  The Official Plan recognizes Heart's Desire as a unique community with "enshrined" policies to protect its character: 

 

Response: The Official Plan is a guiding policy document.  It must be reviewed according to Planning Act every five years to update.  The Official Plan Amendment process gives applicant’s an opportunity to review relevance of specific policies for specific sites.

 

 

2.  Approval of this application represents a dangerous precedent and opens a “pandora’s box “ for unrestricted “infill” development or severances these (1300 m²  lots into two, 650 m²  lots) in 40+ year established, semi-rural community. 

 

Response:  In the Official Plan, there are strict compatibility policies to protect from infill that would negatively impact or alter the established character of a community.  Each site and each application is assessed individually based upon the specific planning and infrastructure context.

 

3.  The density proposed by the application is inconsistent with the neighbourhood.  (i.e., the   application proposes 33 dwelling units on 6 acres of land (5.5 units per acre) while the five properties adjacent to proposal are on 3.3. acres (1.5 units per acre).   This is a violation of the Official Plan. 

 

Response:  Density levels are an important consideration when assessing development intensity and are important to create and meet planning targets and objectives.  This application is to amend the Official Plan, which is a legitimate process, and not in violation of the Official Plan.  Other factors of compatibility are also used when assessing the intensity and compatibility of proposed development in neighbourhoods, such as: design, setbacks, landscape treatment, orientation, distances (between existing and proposed buildings), characteristics common to the surrounding area, building mass and height, potential loss of privacy and access to sunlight, and traffic generation.

 

4.  The Official Plan is being overthrown to meet needs of the applicant who is interested in advancing his financial position.  City should not turn its back on its own policies to fulfill the financial aspirations of a single applicant. 

 

Response:  The City is obliged under the Planning Act to assess the merits of any application by a comprehensive review of the needs of the local neighbourhood, surrounding neighbourhood and the broader public good. 

 

5.  The owner of the subject land can arbitrarily bring services into the community without the support of the required 66% of the community vote (required under the Local Improvement Act to initiate municipal servicing where available but not currently existing).  

 

Response:  Where a development application is brought before the City to fully-service new development, the cost is borne 100% by the developer and/or any partners.  Where municipal servicing is requested by the community, as a community improvement, the servicing would be funded by the municipal taxpayer and the City of Ottawa, and a community vote would be required in accordance with regulations under the Local Improvement Act

 

6.  What good is the public process if it does not listen to established community groups that have worked very closely with the City, developers and area residents to protect the needs of that community?

 

Response:  The public process is intended provide an accessible forum where community views can be expressed and submitted to the involved City of Ottawa staff.  Local community views provide very important feedback when an application is proposed.  These views are carefully considered within the context of all other stakeholders.

 

7.  Having a number of single residential units and a paved road and cul-de-sac on the site may disrupt natural stormwater run-off and drainage creating excessive flooding to homes adjacent to the subject properties.

 

Response:   City of Ottawa Infrastructure Approvals examines the 5-year and 100-year flood scenarios and requires that all stormwater runoff be directed away from the existing adjacent residential properties toward drainage facilities on Woodroffe Avenue.

 

8.  What will the traffic impact be on the community and what type of road cross-section will occur on Woodroffe Avenue in the future?

 

Response:  The City of Ottawa Infrastructure Approvals Division has not indicated any concerns with traffic or right-of-way designs with the proposed development, for example, in terms of traffic and parking capacity/volume or design issues on Woodroffe or other local roads.  The Transportation Master Plan has Woodroffe Avenue designated as a Major Collector past the subject site south to Bren-Maur.  South of Bren-Maur will become local road when Woodroffe Avenue is closed at Prince of Wales drive.

 

Right-of-Way width on Woodroffe Avenue between Cresthaven and southern end of proposed subdivision will be 21.5m (10.75m and 10.75m).  South of subject site lands shall remain "rural cross-section" on the west side.  The width will be 26m  (10.75m on the east and 15.25m on the west), with the possible exception of the lots immediately south of subject site, as having potential for extension as an "urban cross-section".   When Minto Development lands to the east are developed Woodroffe Avenue will be narrowed.

 

 

9.  There is some question about the terms of the "covenant" made between City of Nepean and residents of Heart's Desire community that were "embodied" into the Official Plan for the City of Nepean and have been adopted into the Official Plan for the newly amalgamated City of Ottawa.

 

Response:  The City of Nepean adopted policies that are incorporated in the existing Secondary Plan.  These Official Plan policies, like any others, are subject to periodic review, and, as in this case, "obligatory" review in response to any legitimate application that is received in accordance with "applicant rights" under the Act.

 

 

 

 

 


SCHEDULE A LAND USE AREAS 4, 5 & 6 FORMER CITY OF NEPEAN

AND COUNCIL APPROVED CITY OF OTTAWA SECONDARY PLAN               Document 5

 


CONTEXT MAP                                                                                                             Document 6

 


RENDERED CONCEPT SITE PLAN                                                                          Document 7

 


OFFICIAL PLAN and Zoning AMENDMENT - 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue

PLAN OFFICIEL ET ZONAGE - 3400 ET 3428, AVENUE WOODROFFE

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0244                                                     Bell South-Nepean (3)

 

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.

 

Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management (PWG), John Moser, Director, Development and Infrastructure, Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals, Larry Morrison, Manager, Infrastructure Approvals, Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Development Law, and Taavi Siitam, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 24 November 2004.  Mr. Siitam provided a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk.

 

Chair Hume acknowledged Councillor Harder, as the Ward Councillor, who presented a Motion contrary to the staff recommendation.

 

That PEC reject the staff recommendation; and, that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.

 

Councillor Harder presented a map and illustrated the impact of the proposal on Barrhaven and Heart’s Desire.  The Councillor pointed out the subject site and strategic locations on the map.  She did not believe the proposed development is integral to the increased density in the City.  Within the next 15-20 years, 2 large developers will be constructing 30,000 units; Minto is commencing 5-7,000 units and 1,200 (in Stonenbridge); and, the City is developing 115 acres in the area.  She asked PEC to support her Motion to reject, simply because Heart’s Desire residents, which include the Borrello family, have worked for 78 years building today’s Barrhaven; they have attended every area meeting and been part of every proposal, whether it is a Secondary Plan, OP (at Nepean, Region and the new City), presented to Barrahaven residents.  Having said that, they should be given due consideration.

 

Councillor Harder pointed out many residents were present to speak to the item; the Community Association has a PowerPoint presentation and the applicant wished to address the Committee last.  She did not feel it was necessary for all those present to address the Committee since there are 150 names on a petition and many have registered, which would protect their position in the event of an Appeal.  She suggested the Community Association solely make a presentation to PEC.  Chair Hume agreed to call upon those who registered to acknowledge their support of Councillor Harder’s Motion, which would permit their names to be entered into the record.

 

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

 

Michael Cotter, President, Jerry Corush (Land Development Committee)and Mac Prescott (Chair, Land Development Committee), Heart’s Desire Community Association presented a comprehensive PowerPoint Presentation in opposition to the application and in support of Councillor Harder’s Motion to reject the staff recommendation.  A copy is held on file with the City Clerk.  A letter dated 13 December 2004 from Mr. Cotter was also presented and on file.  The main points of the presentation are noted below.

·        187 names on the petition represent 79% of the ratepayers within the Heart’s Desire Community Association.  (The petition is on file with the City Clerk.)

·        Background:

·        Heart’s Desire is a vibrant 78 year old community; established as Private Service Residential (PSR);

·        Partners in the South Urban Community development plan and in the creation of the OP as it relates to Heart’s Desire.

·        Presented a map of Heart’s Desire in 1992.  The boundaries of Heart’s Desire were dictated by Woodroffe, the concession line and the Jock River.

·        Protections under Secondary Plan – 9 protections specific to this community:

·        The protections are outlined in Volume 2 of the Council-Approved OP (CAOP) – Secondary Plans (Secondary Plan for South Nepean Areas 4, 5 & 6).

·        Two specific Sections of OP need to be considered with this application.

·        Vol. 1, Section 2 related to infill and land use intensification.

·        Vol. 2A Secondary Plan for South Nepean Area 4, 5 & 6.

·        Under CAOP, development can occur that meets the requirements of infill and land use intensification while respecting the covenants made with Heart’s Desire in Vol. 2 of the OP.

·        The application is looking at it as a Site Plan development, not in the context of the region within which it is located nor does it consider the entire history developed in terms of the covenant established between the community and the City in the past decade and approved by the City in 2003.

·        Areas of Concern - The Thin Edge of the Wedge;

·        Approval establishes a dangerous precedent for excessive land use intensification within the community.

·        Examples of this within the community.

·        Destroys the Fabric of the Community.

·        This is exactly opposite to the intent of the original covenant established between the community and the City as contained in the OP, Volume 2A.


·        Position of Heart’s Desire Community

·        10 year process of collaborative community involvement with the City leading to the approval of the OP in May 2003.

·        If the City wishes to change the structure of the community then do so through a review process of the OP not through this type of back door approach.

·        If the very significant protections of Heart’s Desire within the OP which was approved a little more than a year ago can be overturned at the first challenge then every deal made in every ward of this City between residents and the City are at risk

·        Rights of the individual vs. the rights of the community.

·        Encourage PEC to honour the covenants that exist within the OP between Heart’s Desire and the City and vote against the application. .

 

Donald G. McLeod was present and in support of the Motion.  Mr. (and Mrs.) McLeod provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk

 

Christopher Ellis was present and in support of the Motion.

 

Bert Tepper was present and in support of the Motion.  Mr. Tepper supported the excellent presentation by the Association and provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Ursel Tepper was present and in support of the Motion.  Ms. Tepper provided a comprehensive written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Brent Evans was present and in support of the Motion and the Association.  Mr. Evans provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Roy Marsh had submitted a request to speak form in opposition to the application, but was not present when the Committee dealt with the matter.

 

Desmond R. Shaw was present and in support of the presentation of the Association and supported the Motion to reject the application.  Mr. Shaw provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk

 

Jennifer Cotter was present and in support of the Motion.  Ms. Cotter provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Keith McNally was present and in support of the Motion and the Association covered the points he wished to make.

 


Chris Chappell was present and in support of the Motion.

 

Sean Jonas had submitted a request to speak form in opposition to the application, but was not present when the Committee dealt with the matter.

 

Verlie Watson was present and in support of the Motion.  Ms. Watson provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk

 

Nancy Prescott was present and in support of the Motion and the Association.

 

Glenn Grant was present and in support of the Motion.  Dr. Grant provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk

 

Penny Gilmour was present and in support of the Motion and the Association.

 

Jim Rennie was present and in support of the Motion and the Association.  Mr. Rennie provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk

 

Valerie Evans was present and in support of the Motion and the Association.  Ms. Evans provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk

 

Irene Wolfe was present and in support of the Motion and the Association.

 

Dan Paquette, Paquette Planning Associates Ltd., consultant for the applicant, Nino, John and Mrs. Borrello.  A detailed submission in support of the staff recommendation under cover of a letter dated 13 December 2004 was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  The main points of the presentation are noted below:

·        Met with Executive, Heart’s Desire Community Association, immediate neighbours and in October there was a public meeting with a large turnout.

·        The 2.37 ha. parcel is underutilized with 2 houses.  It became apparent the parcel had to be developed on public services.  The CAOP contains a number of policies that simply state if a parcel is close to municipal services it is connected to those services.  Item 8 (of his Appendix), Section 2.3.2.1 simply states “Development in Public Service Areas must be on the basis of public water and wastewater services”.  The Infrastructure Master Plan (IMP) delineates Public Service Area (PSA), within which this property is located.  That policy leaves very little room for interpretation.  Item 10; Policy 2.3.2.9 states that “where no provisions for public services exists, the City can permit development on private services in defined PSAs provided it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City that such development:

·        a) Is proposed in a circumstance where public services are not currently technically or reasonably available” –services are available and extendable to this property, as demonstrated  the development across the street, is developed on public services.

·        The Secondary Plan now designates this property as PSR.  The Borrellos will speak to that and explain why they did not object to that designation.  Vol. 2, Secondary Plan, Policy 2.6.2 anticipated there would be pressure to hook up to services – it states that an amendment to the Secondary Plan shall be required prior to any new development proposal and/or lot creation based on the provision of municipal water and sewer services within the area designated PSR.  That policy was included because planners knew the area should not be forced to be solely developed on private services when public services were impending.

·        He did not believe the community was no longer fighting for private services.  Putting aside the service issue and rhetoric, the sketch before PEC depicts 33 single-family detached lots on a parcel of <6 acres.  The initial sketch outlined 2 connections to Woodroffe, but staff requested one access that connected with Stoneleigh across Woodroffe and presented a face on Woodroffe (also requested of Minto).  The design was then prepared as a cul-de-sac.  It was kept in mind that Woodroffe, from Cresthaven to Hwy. 16, would be reduced in the future when Woodroffe is closed at Hwy. 16, from an arterial to a collector.  He was unaware how the 8 lots on Woodroffe, which match lots across Woodroffe and create a pleasant streetscape, will affect Heart’s Desire.

·        A church is proposed to the north, which has filed a tentative site plan – 7 lots will back onto that parking lot and do not affect Heart’s Desire.  6 internal lots do not touch Heart’s Desire lots.  Where the development does abut Heart’s Desire, great effort was expended to respect the intent of the Secondary Plan by providing 15m x 40m lots.  There is a very thick, lush buffer that exists along the western flank of the Borrello property and an initial concern those trees would need to be removed due to the standard for rear yard drainage to run a pipe along the rear property line.  After consultation with staff, a resolution was arrived at where the rear drainage line would run along the drip line of the trees thus saving a large percentage of those trees.

·        The proponents met with the Executive of the Heart’s Desire community on the weekend, and offered additional concessions to reduce the number of lots further and provide for additional transition, which were rejected.

·        The plan before PEC does allow for a transition in density at 8-10 units/acre.

 

Nino Borrello explained that their family has lived in Heart’s Desire for 27 years.  His parents purchased 3428 Woodroffe in 1989, where he currently lives.  In 1997, they purchased the property at 3400 Woodroffe.  Woodroffe is very different from 8 years ago.  3428 Woodroffe faced an empty field, which is now townhouses.  The Heart’s Desire Association has expressed concerns relative to the negative impact of the development.  Contrary to that, he stressed it would be a positive impact.  There would be larger lots, suitable for custom homes and services, which will have a positive effect on existing homes and allow for an increase in value.  Some lots would be retained for their family, since they intend to remain in the area.  Prior to commencing the process in February, they contacted the Executive of the Association to inform them of their intent, with several meetings since.  On Sunday, Heart’s Desire agreed to allow them to create 20 lots, with municipal services, and also suggested a developer was ready to purchase their property, if they were to sell.  Their counter-offer was to match the size of the abutting lots on the west side of their property, which was not accepted.  However, their interests and that of others residing on Woodroffe Avenue were not considered by the Heart’s Desire Association when Minto developed the lands on the east of their property.  They were never contacted and therefore never voted on the Agreement that Heart’s Desire has with the City in the OP.

 

Councillor Harder reiterated that potable water has been a primary factor in every application with the Heart’s Desire Community Association.  Mr. Paquette concurred and advised there was an effort to deal with the private wells and septic tanks.  They did not want to run into any ground water contamination issue; it has always been a number 1 issue and why the proposal to service the development on public services made ideal sense.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Bédard, Mr. Borrello indicated they were unaware of the negotiations taking place between the City and Heart’s Desire.  Mr. Paquette averred the PSR designation was the brainchild of OPA 7, which was the Secondary Plan of the Nepean OP approved in 1997.  The Borrellos did not participate in the process when their property was designated PSR since services were so remote (mid-90s).  10 years later services are in place.

 

The Committee also received the following correspondence:

·        E-mail dated 11 December 2004 from Gail and Charlie Wendell in opposition.

·        E-mail dated 10 December 2004 from Doug Lambe in opposition.

·        E-mail dated 5 December 2004 from Colleen Turner in opposition.

·        E-mail dated 5 December 2004 from Joseph Turner in opposition.

·        E-mail dated 4 December 2004 from Paul Coyle in opposition.

·        E-mail dated 2 December 2004 from Nancy Prescott in opposition.

·        E-mail dated 27 November 2004 from Marlene Thomas in opposition.

 

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

 

Staff responded to questions posed by Committee members, with the main points summarized below. 

·        Secondary Plans and OPs are subject to further review.  Development is now on the doorstep with an application that looks to modify a parcel on the boundary.  The subject parcel has been evaluated within the context of the environment.  That does not suggest there will be broad changes across the board in Secondary Plan policies.  It is a site specific application, which staff must process.


·        A decision to support this application would not necessarily mean it would set a precedent to support further applications.  The application has very specific characteristics that relate to neighbouring properties, development to the north and east, Woodroffe and the servicing potential.  Further applications in Heart’s Desire may well not be successful.  The same situation occurs in any community where applications are considered on their merits; some are supported and others are rejected.

·        The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) introduced a program whereby they check septic systems, but there is no required time element for the pumping out of septic systems; typically there is a 3-5 year cycle although there may have been rural developments where it is part of the subdivision approval process.  It was made mandatory that septic tanks would be cleaned out in some instances on an annual or two-year basis.  The Ministry of the Environment (MOE), which has jurisdiction over septic systems, is actively working with the City to develop and implement a standard.  It was acknowledged that municipalities in Quebec and other provinces may possibly have By-Laws related to septic systems.

·        Groundwater in Heart’s Desire has been studied in the past due to other developments (Minto) (requested by Heart’s Desire community) and is in good shape.  Any monitoring or testing conducted to date has shown it continues to be adequate both in quantity and quality.

 

Councillor Harder thanked all those for attending and the due consideration given to this application.  She posited the Heart’s Desire community habitually maintains its principles and the message has never changed.  In this case, the subject property does not appear to be a “big deal”, but if PEC refers to the larger map she presented earlier, it is located at the northeast corner.  Every attempt has been made to arrive at a compromise and she was confident that between this meeting and the 12 January Council meeting that is possible.  The area has a considerable interest in the development of Barrhaven and formed a Land Development Committee many years ago.  Heart’s Desire is one of 6 communities in her Ward that are on septic.  All, with the exception of Heart’s Desire, are north of Barrhaven.  Last year, an application for 200 2-acre estate lots was approved around 2 other communities on septics (Orchard Estates and Cedar Hill); those were approved with well and septic.  She would endeavour to do her best to work something out on this application with the community and the applicant.

 


Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council REJECT the amendments to:

 

1.         The Official Plan of the former City of Nepean to amend the Secondary Plan for the South Nepean Areas 4, 5 and 6 to designate 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue from “Private Service Residential” to “Transition Residential” designation as detailed in Documents 1 and 2; and,

 

2.         The Council-Approved Official Plan, Volume 2A, Secondary Plan for the South Nepean Areas 4, 5 and 6 to designate 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue from “Private Service Residential” to “Transition Residential” designation, as detailed in Documents 1 and 2; and,

 

3.         The Zoning By-law of the former City of Nepean to rezone 3400 and 3428 Woodroffe Avenue from Residential Private Services Zone (R1A) to a Special Provision Residential Third Density Alternative Standards Zone (R3A Block 3) , as detailed in Document 3.

 

And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

 

CARRIED as amended with Councillor D. Holmes and Chair P. Hume dissenting.

 


 [U1]Site Location and Description (which should include description of site i.e., flat, featureless, no vegetation, grade and drainage, adjacent to…)

 [U2]Choose Appropriate Heading(s)

 [U3]Include the documents that are applicable to this report

 

 [U4]Summarize the public notification and consultation undertaken.

 [U5]Provide details of any public meeting(s).

 [U6]If there are a number of comments/concerns, please list each comment separately along with the corresponding response. 

If there are a small number of related comments, please summarize them and provide one response.

 [U7]If a petition was received, please summarize the issue(s) raised, and the number of people who signed the petition