8.            ZONING - 88 Bellwood Avenue

 

ZONAGE - 88, avenue Bellwood

 

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

 

1.         That Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 88 Bellwood Avenue from I1 - Minor Institutional to an R3J - Converted House/Townhouse Subzone with exceptions, as shown in Document 1and detailed in Document 3, and;

 

2.                  WHEREAS the City’s intensification policy makes it important to preserve public land and institutional capacity in the developed parts of the City ;

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Province be petitioned to require all school boards make available surplus schools and the associated land to the City for one dollar, as these older schools have all been purchased with property taxes.

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

 

 
RECOMMANDATIONs modifiées du COMITÉ

 

1.         Que le Conseil municipal approuve une modification au règlement de zonage de l’ancienne ville d’Ottawa en vue de faire passer le zonage du 88, avenue Bellwood de I1 – zone de petites institutions à R3J - sous-zone de maisons/maisons de ville transformées, assortie d’exceptions, comme l’indique le Document 1 et l’explique en détail le Document 3, et ;

 

2.         ATTENDU QUE la politique d’intensification de la Ville fait valoir l’importance de préserver les terrains publics et la capacité institutionnelle à l’intérieur des zones aménagées de la ville;

 

PAR CONSÉQUENT, IL EST RÉSOLU QUE l’on fasse pression sur le gouvernement provincial afin qu’il exige que les conseils scolaires mettent à la disposition de la Ville les écoles excédentaires et les terrains connexes contre la somme d’un dollar, puisque ces plus vieilles écoles ont toutes été achetées à partir des taxes foncières.

 

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 4 January 2005 (ACS2005-DEV-APR-0024).

 

2.         Extract of Draft Minutes, 8 February 2005.


Report to/Rapport au :

 

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

4 January 2005 / le 4 janvier 2005

 

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

 

 

Capital - Ward 17

Ref N°: ACS2005-DEV-APR-0024

 

 

SUBJECT:

ZONING - 88 Bellwood Avenue (FILE NO. D02-02-04-0137)

 

 

OBJET :

ZONAGE - 88, avenue Bellwood

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

[U1] 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 88 Bellwood Avenue from I1 - Minor Institutional  to an R3J - Converted House/Townhouse Subzone with exceptions, as shown in Document 1and detailed in Document 3.

 

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil municipal d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage de l’ancienne Ville d’Ottawa en vue de faire passer le zonage du 88, avenue Bellwood de I1 – zone de petites institutions à R3J - sous-zone de maisons/maisons de ville transformées assortie d’une exception, comme l’indique le document 1 et le détaille le document 3.

 

 


BACKGROUND

[U2] 

The subject property, 88 Bellwood Avenue, is a triangular parcel of land with frontages on Bellwood Avenue, Willard Street and Scotia Place, and is located west of Bank Street, north of Cameron Avenue, in Old Ottawa South.    

 

The 2 671 square metre site was a former school site and contains play structures and a storage shed.  In December 2004, the former St. Margaret Mary Catholic Elementary School was demolished.  The lands adjacent to the north, south, east, and west are developed with residential uses, primarily a mix of single and semi-detached dwelling houses.

 

The Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board (OCCSB) at their Board meetings of March 5, and April 9, 2002, declared the school surplus to the needs of the Board.  This school site went through the formal process of the disposal of surplus school board properties.

 

The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property from I1- Minor Institutional to R3J, a Converted House/Townhouse Subzone with exceptions, to permit the construction of a planned unit development of 16 townhouses and one semi-detached dwelling, for a total of 18 dwelling units, and to create a small parkette along Bellwood Avenue.  The parkette along Bellwood Avenue will protect a heritage oak tree and represents the applicant's five percent parkland dedication requirement. 

 

The zoning intent of the R3J zone is to permit a range of low density dwelling types, on individual lots or in planned unit developments, on land designated Residential Area in the Official Plan of the former City of Ottawa.  The exceptions attached to the proposed R3J subzone permit a reduction in certain building yard setbacks, permit building projections to occur further into the required yards and permit an increase in building height.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Council Approved Official Plan

 

The City Council Approved Official Plan designates the subject property as "General Urban Area".  Lands having this designation are intended to develop with a full range and choice of housing types to meet the needs of all ages, incomes and life circumstances, in combination with conveniently located employment, service, cultural, leisure, entertainment and institutional uses.  This designation facilitates the development of complete and sustainable communities.  The Strategic Directions of the Plan speak to managing growth by directing it to the urban area where services already exist in an effort to restrict urban sprawl and where growth can be accommodated in compact development served with quality transit, walking and cycling facilities. 

 

The City supports infill development and other intensification within the "General Urban Area" in a manner that enhances and complements the desirable characteristics in the surrounding area, thereby ensuring the long-term vitality of many existing communities that make up the City.  The Plan encourages denser, more compact and balanced development and promotes communities in which car ownership is not required.  When considering a proposal for residential intensification through infill or redevelopment, the policies for this designation recognize the importance of new development relating to existing community character and require that the development be reviewed in the context of Section 2.5.1 of the Plan which addresses issues related to the compatibility of new development with the established surrounding community.  The Department must further consider the proposal's contribution to the maintenance and achievement of a balance of housing types and tenures, as well as assess the requirement for ground-oriented housing forms for established low-rise residential communities.

 

It is the Department's position that rezoning the subject land for residential development will advance the intent of the residential intensification policies in the new Official Plan by providing a residential infill development at a suitable urban location where services already exist.  the proposal reflects a compact and balanced development providing a mix of housing types that incorporate ground-oriented housing forms and a building design that is sensitive to and compatible with the residential character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

Policy 1., Section 2.5.5, Schools and Community Facilities of the Plan also applies to the site.  This policy speaks to the City working with the school boards, the community, the private sector and other interested parties to investigate means to retain a school building for public purposes and the school ground for open space, either in whole or in part when a school is identified by the school board as a candidate for closure.  It should be noted that, at the time the affected school land was declared as surplus and considered for disposal in early 2002, this specific policy had not received City Council approval.  Staff are currently working on developing the tools to be able to implement this policy once the new Official Plan receives final approval.

 

Notwithstanding that Policy 1 of Section 2.5.5 of the new Official Plan was not in effect as a Council policy in early 2002, the applicant in 2002 had approached both the school board and the community for a public private partnership development that would have resulted in the site being developed to accommodate both public uses and residential development.  The applicant however was not successful in this initiative and when the site was placed on the open market, the applicant was successful in acquiring the site for the proposed residential development. 

 

Former City of Ottawa Official Plan

 

The subject site is zoned for a minor institutional use and is designated "Residential Area" in the former City of Ottawa Official Plan.  As such, polices set out in the Institutional Chapter dealing with re-use of minor institutional sites and in the Residential Chapter dealing with residential development apply in the assessment of the proposed zoning change. The relationship of the proposal to the relevant policies in these chapters is discussed below.

 

Institutional Policies

 

The zoning proposal conforms to policies within the Institutional Chapter of the former City of Ottawa Official Plan related to the re-use of minor institutional sites.  Specifically, Policy 10.3.2

 

i)          provides direction for Council to support the re-use of or development of minor institutional sites or buildings for other uses provided that the following factors are met:

 

            1.         the institutional use no longer meets the need for which it was originally intended,

            2.         the proposed use is compatible with the adjacent land uses in the area, and

            3.         the existing urban forest is conserved and enhanced. 

 

It is the Department's position that these three conditions have been satisfactorily fulfilled in the case of this institutional property, as discussed below. 

 

1.         Three years ago, the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board identified this institutionally zoned property as a surplus school board site and placed it on the Board's disposal list as a school and property that, in the Board's opinion, no longer meet the needs for which it was originally intended.  During the surplus disposal period the school site was considered for possible acquisition by preferred organizations, such as, the French-Language Separate District School Board, English and French-Language Public District school boards and The Ontario Realty Corporation as well as English and French-language colleges, universities, the City of Ottawa and Public Works Canada.  At the completion of the surplus disposal period no organization, group, government agency or the City came forward and expressed interest in purchasing the site.  It is the Department's opinion that all avenues have been investigated for the reuse of this site for another institutional use and that consultation took into consideration the mandate of School Board at the time of disposal.

 

When the disposal was being reviewed and considered by City Council on July 24, 2002, carried an item that was initiated by the Ward Councillor to preserve the public space at 88 Bellwood Avenue for the purpose of considering a public-private partnership that would retain at least part of the site for community uses.  This approval would have preserved the public use through a consortium of community, public and private interest that ultimately would have cost the City very little and would have empowered the citizens to retain and revitalize their social and recreational infrastructure.  It was intended that the community would come forward to the City and present a good business plan.  Such a plan was never tabled by the surrounding residents.  

 

Further, as already noted, at the time the disposal was being considered by the City, the applicant, in mid-July 2002, submitted a proposal to the Councillor and residents of the community expressing an interest in participating in a public-private partnership.  This proposal envisaged the retention of one play ground and the demolition of the existing school and the construction of a new day care facility with additional space for community-based activities at the Willard Street corner of the property with residential units on the balance of the land.  The proposal intended to provide interim funding to any of the private partners.  It is staff's understanding that this proposal was shared with some community members, but again, it generated no interest by the private sector and(or) the surrounding community to form a public-private partnership with a developer.  It was the same developer who purchased the land from OCCSB in November 2004. 

 

2.         In terms of the compatibility of development with the adjacent uses, the applicant has presented a residential infill development that fits well with the existing community character.  All new units will be ground oriented with buildings fronting a public street or the proposed parkette on Bellwood Avenue; i.e., units physically oriented (setback orientation) in a manner that is in keeping with the established pattern of buildings in the neighbourhood. 

 

3.         Finally, with respect to the criteria to ensuring the existing urban forest is conserved and enhanced, the applicant at their August 18, 2004, pre-consultation community meeting heard from the community of the importance of protecting a 150 year old oak tree along Bellwood Avenue.  In designing the layout of the units, the applicant has chosen to conserve this old tree and incorporate it into a small parkette; the latter area may be utilized by surrounding residents.  The balance of the site is a former school playground that contains little to no significant urban forest, yet the applicant's concept site plan shows the future enhancement of the site through the introduction of considerable planting and the introduction of new street trees.

 

Residential Policies

 

The proposed development of 18 units conforms to the "Residential Area" designation of the former City of Ottawa Official Plan that applies to the site.  The development proposed under the requested zoning is a good example of residential intensification and an efficient re-use of urban land.  Similar intensification goals as set out in the new Official Plan exist in the former City of Ottawa Official Plan to provide for infill and denser residential development within the Greenbelt and to make use of the existing infrastructure. 

 

Policies 3.6.2.i) and j) of the former City of Ottawa Official Plan deal with moderate residential developments which is the type of development proposed by this application.  These policies indicate that intensification may be permitted provided a number of factors can be satisfied.  These factors determine the acceptability and compatibility of a development proposal with the surrounding neighbourhood and include, adequate transportation and service capacity, appropriate vehicular access/exit to reduce potential traffic volumes on local streets, appropriate siting of the amenity areas to ensure privacy, minimize shadowing on adjacent properties, and the availability of and proximity to existing services and amenities etc.  Taking into consideration this property's location in Ottawa South, an inner-city neighbourhood, and its relationship to the surrounding community, as well as the site's location a block from the commercial services along Bank Street, it is the Department's position that the proposed residential zoning satisfies many of the compatibility policies of the former City of Ottawa Official Plan relating to moderate residential intensification.

 

Ottawa, South Key Principles

 

The proposal conforms to the key principles of the Ottawa South Neighborhood Plan included within the former City of Ottawa Official Plan.  Among the key principles is direction to ensure, when public buildings in the community are vacated, that any existing building on the site be utilized for reinforcing community uses, or that the site be redeveloped to low-profile, mixed residential uses.   As the subject institutionally-zoned land no longer meets the intended needs of the School Board, as described above, the second option for residential infill is a viable and acceptable solution that conforms to this neighbourhood's Key Principles.  

 

Details of Proposed Zoning

 

The detailed zoning exceptions are contained in Document 2 of this report.  These exceptions are considered minor in nature and are intended to facilitate development of the applicant's planned unit development.

Given the irregular shape of the site and the desire by the applicant to physically orient the buildings facing the adjacent streets, as well as save the existing oak tree, the building layout and juxtaposition on the site was a challenge.  It is staff's opinion that the proposed placement of buildings on the site is acceptable.  Through the introduction of a private driveway leading to interior garages for 11 of the units, the design layout has eliminated the need to provide individual driveways and garages to those units facing two of the three frontages of the site.  To achieve this design layout and to optimize the use of this irregular-shaped site, the applicant is seeking relief from the required yard setbacks and the provisions allowing permitted projections from a principal building into the required yard within the Zoning By-law.  The applicant is also seeking a minor increase in building height from 10.7 metres to 11.8 metres to accommodate their proposal.  The increase in building height is due to the periodic high water table levels that make basement parking unwise, as well as the provision in the design of attic mezzanines with dormer windows that from a Zoning By-law interpretation perspective alter the location where the building heights are measured.

 

Traffic

 

It is not anticipated that an additional 18 dwelling units in this area of Ottawa South will impact the existing traffic volumes within this neighbourhood, as the property is located one block from Riverdale Avenue and one block from Bank Street at a signalized intersection.  It is expected that most vehicular activity associated with these new units will be directed towards these collector and arterial roads and not directed further into this community.  

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Policy. Three information signs were posted on-site indicating the nature of the application.  The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation.

[U3] 

Detailed responses to the notification/circulation are provided in Document 5.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

 

This application was processed within the timeframe established for the processing of Zoning By-Law Amendment applications.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

[U4] 

Document 1      Location Map

Document 2      Explanatory Note

Document 3      Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 4      Concept Site Plan

Document 5      Consultation Details

 


DISPOSITION

 

Department of Corporate Services, Secretariat Services to notify the owner, (Charlesfort Developments, 787 Bank Street, Ottawa, K1S 3V5), All Signs, (8692 Russell Road, Navan, ON  K4B 1J1), and the Program Manager, Assessment, Department of Corporate Services of City Council’s decision.

 

Planning and Growth Management Department to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services Branch and undertake the statutory notification.

 

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

 


LOCATION MAP                                                                                                         Document 1

 


EXPLANATORY NOTE                                                                                               Document 2

 

THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXPLANATORY NOTE TO BY-LAW NUMBER ___

 

By-law Number ___ amends Zoning By-law, 1998, the former City of Ottawa's Comprehensive Zoning By-law.  The amendment affects a triangular parcel of land, with frontages on Bellwood Avenue, Willard Street, and Scotia Place, that is located west of Bank Street, north of Cameron Avenue in Old Ottawa South.   The site is shown as the shaded area on the attached Location Map.   The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property to permit the construction of a planned unit development of 16 townhouses and one semi-detached dwelling, for a total of 18 dwelling units and to create a small parkette along Bellwood Avenue.  

 

Current Zoning

 

The current zoning is I1 which is a Minor Institutional zone permitting a range of neighbourhood-serving, emergency and institutional uses.

 

Proposed Zoning

 

The proposed zoning is an R3J exception subzone.  The R3 zone is Converted House/Townhouse Zone.  The "J" suffix represents a subzone to the primary zone that specifies minimum lot width and lot area requirements for permitted uses.  The exceptions attached to the zoning subzone would permit a reduction in certain building yard setbacks, permit building projections from the principal building to occur further into the required yards and permit an increase in building height.

 

For further information on the amendment, please contact Gordon Harrison at 580-2424 ext. 13868.

 

 


DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING                                                              Document 3

     [U5] 

The following zoning change will be made to the property shown in Document 1:

Change the Zoning from I1 to R3J[xxx].

 

The proposed zoning of 88 Bellwood is an R3J - Converted House/Townhouse Subzone with exceptions.  The exceptions to the R3J subzone apply to a Planned Unit Development and include the following:

 

1. the minimum setback distance from a private roadway is 1.0 metre;

 

2. the minimum front yard setback distance along Scotia Place is 2.4 metres;

 

3. the minimum interior side yard depth abutting a required rear yard of an abutting lot in an R3J zone is 1.2 metres;

 

4. the minimum setback distance from the rear boundary of severed land within a planned unit development is 1.2 metres;

 

5. the minimum corner side yard depth along Bellwood Avenue and Willard Street is 0.3 metres;

 

6. a chimney, an eave or an eaves trough projecting from a principal building into the required side yard to the property line is permitted only in the case of the corner side yard;

 

7. a canopy or an open balcony projecting a maximum of 2.4 metres from a principal building into a required yard is permitted;

 

8. an open unenclosed stoop or unenclosed landing projecting from a principal building that does not extend above the ground floor of the principal building and does not extend into any yard more than 2.4 metres is permitted; and

 

9. the maximum building height is 11.8 metres.

 

 

 


CONCEPT SITE PLAN                                                                                                Document 4


CONSULTATION DETAILS                                                                                       Document 5

 

 

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 Zoning By-law amendments.  There were several meetings in the community hosted by Charlesfort Developments, the Ottawa South Community Association (OSCA) and the Councillor.  Staff attended two of these public meetings/community information sessions.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

[U6] 

Five letters were received that expressed concern with or opposed the rezoning application.  The reasons for objection related to the implications of the reduction of public use space in a growing community.  Staff received 16 letters in support of this application.  Many of the letters in support are from residents who live across from the school site who wish to see the lands redeveloped rather than lying vacant for an indefinite period of time.  

 

 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT

[U7] 

Reasons in Opposition

 

This is the last piece of Institutionally zoned land in the community.  As a core community with a growing population and very inadequate space in our overcrowded heritage Firehall for community programs, the loss of this institutional land will be felt by all of our community.

[U8] 

When the developer bought the site with no conditions, he was well aware, as was the School Board, that over 1200 people in the community had signed a petition and were vehemently opposed to the loss of this building and land.

 

To have a vibrant and viable core, more than housing is needed.

 

The view of the Federation of Citizen Associations is that the demolition of the present building and the issue of rezoning are intimately related.

 

I am saddened and outraged by the inability and unwillingness of the Catholic School Board to keep the school open and the building and grounds properly maintained.

 

We have had a lot of in-fill housing in the area already.  With the addition of minor housing comes more need for schools, community centres and other resources.  However, these resources are already full to capacity and the government does not like to spend money on the older neighbourhood, on new schools and community resources.

 

Response to Comments

 

The comments in opposition do not address the proposed zoning amendment, but instead address the impact of the loss of the institutional-zoned land.  The disposal of this school property occurred two years ago after the OCCSB declared their school site surplus.  It is the Department's position that all avenues were investigated for the reuse of this site for another institutional use. 

 

Reasons in Support

 

This email is to formally inform you that as neighbours across the street from the school, we favour the rezoning and welcome that arrival of new residents rather than watching the building decay because no one can afford to refurbish it.

 

We know that no public institution, whether a school board or City, has the funds to buy the lands.

 

My concern is not with the rezoning itself, with which I have no objection.  I am writing to express my discontent with some of my fellow residents who have organized a campaign to interfere with the rezoning.  A small number of residents in the area have been persuading members of our community to rally against the rezoning through the use of misinformation and disingenuous promises.  A great number of people have been convinced to sign a petition opposing the rezoning under the false hope that this property will be used as a school facility or for a community centre.

 

It is my hope that the silent majority of residents who do not oppose the rezoning are not overruled by the noisy few who oppose change in principle.

 

I am no longer opposed to  rezoning of the property, but only if the City has exhausted every possibility to preserve it for institutional use in the immediate and midterm future.

 

The proposed residential development is of reasonable density and is architecturally consistent with the neighbourhood.

 

The company (Charlesfort Developments) is known for the excellence of its work and the development will bring in the new residents without overcrowding.

 

Vandalism on the property and disorderly conduct at all hours of the night are a regular occurrence since the property has been left vacant.  There is broken glass and litter on and around the property.

 

We are especially pleased that the development will incorporate a parkette to maintain and protect what we consider to be a "legacy" oak, one of several found throughout the neighbourhood.

 

In terms of planning principles, we believe that this proposal is entirely consistent with the objectives of the Ottawa South Neighbourhood Plan   

 

 

PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS

[U9] 

Staff attended two public meetings on November 10, 2004, and December 01, 2004.  The November 10, 2004, meeting was hosted by OSCA and was attended by approximately 80 people.  Staff was present at this meeting as a resource and answered questions about the planning process.  The December 01, 2004, meeting was hosted by the Ward Councillor and attended by approximately 60 residents.  Staff again was present to provide technical details of the zoning change and to speak to the Official Plan context of preserving schools and institutional spaces in urban neighborhoods. 

 

COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS

[U10] 

Councillor Clive Doucet is aware of the staff recommendation.

 

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS

[U11] 

The Ottawa South Community Association (OSCA) presented a 10-page document that highlights the community's perspective.  The brief summarizes the planning considerations.  They indicated that, while the vast majority of community residents are opposed to the rezoning change from Institutional to Residential because of its implications for the reduction of public use space in a growing community, it is also clear that a much smaller number of individuals, generally those whose properties face the site, are in favour of the rezoning as they are concerned about the site remaining vacant and the consequences of its potential deterioration.

 

OSCA in their letter made it clear that its position on the zoning question in no way reflects on its views of the developer who is viewed as a responsible individual who has done high quality work in the Ottawa area.  The issue from OSCA's perspective is the implication of the development for the long-term provision of public space in the community.

 

OSCA believes that the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board and the City of Ottawa have not done enough to preserve the property as community space and deplores the City's failure to adequately invest in community space and services in Old Ottawa South.  OSCA understands that their recommendation will disappoint many residents who live close to 88 Bellwood and who have legitimate concerns about risks and uncertainty that may be created by the City's rejection of this rezoning proposal.  However, it is their view that long-standing neighborhood commitments and principles to protect and enhance the community by preserving public spaces should be defended and maintained.     

[U12] 


Response to Comment

 

The OSCA report does not address the proposed zoning amendment to permit a residential infill development at this location.  It focuses on the loss of public open space in the community.  It is the Department’s position that the loss of the institutional use at 88 Bellwood Avenue has been discussed at length at the time of the disposal of this property and that consultation took into consideration the mandate of the OCCSB.  The property was placed on the open market and sold after no organization, group, government agency or the City of Ottawa expressed an interest in purchasing the site and after an unsuccessful attempt was made by the current owner to form a public-private partnership development in 2002. 

 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS

[U13] 

Environmental Advisory Committee

 

This Committee supports this rezoning because it allows for intensification without any apparent negative environmental impact.

 


ZONING - 88 Bellwood Avenue

ZONAGE - 88, avenue Bellwood

ACS2005-DEV-APR-0024                                                                     capital (17)

 

Chair Hume began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed 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.

 

In his presentation to Committee, Mr. Gordon Harrison, Planner, Planning and Growth Services, provided a brief history of the former Ottawa Carleton Catholic School Board property, declared surplus by the Board in March 2002 and offered for public tender in May 2004.  He indicated that the Board followed all proper protocols and procedures governing the disposal of surplus properties.  Mr. Harrison then detailed the proposal from Charlesfort Development, who acquired the property in October 2004.  He noted that it conforms to the City Council approved Official Plan respecting compatibility of development and advances residential intensification policies.  Mr. Harrison continued by saying that the zoning exceptions are minor in nature and optimize the use of an irregularly shaped site.  With regard to traffic, the development is not anticipated to impact the local streets because traffic will be directed to Bank Street and Riverdale Avenue, which are arterial roads.

 

Chair P. Hume asked what efforts had been made to establish the private-public partnership (P3) referred to in the staff report and envisioned for the site.  Mr. Harrison responded by saying that the community had never come forward with a good business plan that would have retained part of the site for community uses.  In reply to a subsequent question from Chair Hume, Mr. Harrison cited community centres, church residences, libraries, museums, parks and other recreational uses as illustrations of the uses permitted through institutional zoning.

 

The ward Councillor, Clive Doucet, pointed out that the community has been struggling with this issue for four years and asked that the Committee give careful consideration to all the comments it is about to hear.

 

Public Delegations

 

Bonnie Ostler and Larry Ostler (written submissions), have resided on Willard Street for 18 years and support the zoning and development.  They believe this is an excellent opportunity to reintegrate that parcel of land.  The proposed development's architecture matches that of the surrounding area.  Members of the community opposed to the project have had ample time and fair opportunities to present a plan for other uses, however they have never brought forward a sustainable plan and their "vision" is based on emotion.

 

Michael Jenkin and Leo Doyle, Old Ottawa South Community Association: The presentation focused on the disappearance of institutional land in the area.  It was noted that the Official Plan commits the City to preserving school land even after a closure: Section 2.5.3., Schools and Community Facilities states "in the absence of an immediate need, institutional zoning needs to remain, otherwise the policy has no effect".    The presenters stressed the need for more institutional land in view of the City's projections of 17% neighbourhood population growth by 2011 and 21% population growth by 2021.  They also thought that City staff was unable to judge whether there is a sufficient supply of institutional land to serve future needs.

 

Richard Chataway, a 25-year resident of Ottawa South, spoke in favour of the zoning change as it represents appropriate use of vacant land.  Charlesfort Development has made reasonable efforts to accommodate residents' concerns, and cities need to promote intensification (densification) and growth within their boundaries.  He cited Windsor Park, Brewer Park, Hopewell School, libraries and churches as examples of other institutional uses in the immediate area.

 

Gary Lum spoke in favour of retaining Institutional zoning for the site.  In his written submission, Mr. Lum details a number of examples where the proposed development is "dissimilar" to the surrounding area, in terms of density.  In addition, he comments on the atypical nature of the amenity spaces provided, the relation of unit entries to the streets, the inappropriateness of the units to families for reasons of price and lack of play space for children, and the further stress the development will place on existing hard service capacity.  Mr. Lum also spoke about trends in education, describing the New York City initiative of establishing new, smaller schools (the Bloomberg Plan) and he put forward the view that cities and school boards are headed for trouble because of their lack of foresight.

 

Pat Kealey read a written submission from her neighbour, Fay Brunning, who opposes the zoning chang.  She would like the City to provide long term forecasts for this neighbourhood and to show how likely it is that need would be met without this site being available for future institutional uses. (The complete text of Ms. Brunning's submission is on file with the Coordinator).

 

Owen Kealy spoke about the fact that the request for a heritage designation for the site was "lost" and the school was demolished without desks and computers being removed by the Board.  He also questioned the veracity of staff comments regarding area residents not being well informed about the zoning application.

 

Barb Rottenberg spoke in support of the zoning application, because of the quality of the proposed development for the site.  She expressed the view that the developer acted in good faith with regard to the P3 proposal for a child care facility, which would have benefited the entire community.

David McNichol voiced his opposition to the zoning.  He questioned the use of the phrase "compact and balanced development" and the absence of financial comparisons between the two zones applied to the property.  He alluded to the fact that the City does not address the growth of "Institutional Zones" for the projected 50% increase in population, adopted by Council in 2001 and he asked where there is zoned land for schools, hospitals, libraries and homes for the aged for this projected population.

 

Terry Walsh expressed support for the zoning.  He called Charlesfort "a responsible developer" who pays attention to getting it right and whose plan for the site will not only fit in but improve and enhance the urban fabric of the immediate neighbourhood.  Mr. Walsh said he believes the proposal respects planning principles for infill development and is consistent with the objectives of the Ottawa South Neighbourhood Plan for the re-use of institutional lands.  He expressed the view that opposition to the proposal is frivolous and vexatious and he asked that the Comjittee approve the application.

 

Missy Fraser presented a petition (on file with the City Clerk) containing approximately 1500 signatures in opposition to the zoning and requesting that the institutionally zoned land be maintained to be available for public use in the community.  She spoke about the loss of 54 quality childcare spaces with the closing of St Margaret Mary's school, and about the fact that these spaces have never been replaced.  Ms. Fraser averred it is incorrect to say there is no reason to retain institutional uses.  She stressed the need to consider what is in the best, long-term interest of the community and the need for an objective assessment of those needs.  A copy of Ms. Fraser’s submission is on file with the Coordinator.

 

Isaac Botham said there are memories attached to neighbourhood schools.  He felt that all the children in Ottawa South should have the same opportunity he had when he attended St Margaret Mary's.  He stated that being bused to other schools was very stressful for children.

 

Richard Botham provided a Comment Sheet calling for institutional zoning to be maintained.  He opined that the City may have infrastructure funding three years from today and a desire to invest in childcare or other community spaces: changing the zoning will foreclose on future options.  Mr. Botham signified his readiness to pay an area levy to retain the property.

 

Marcia McAlpin, Bytown Cooperative Children's Services, commenting on an earlier statement regarding the community not having any interest in doing something with the property, provided additional details about the P3 process and the unsuccessful negotiations with the school board to retain the site.  She indicated that the cooperative intends to dissolve as a corporation, but there is still a strong need for child care services in Old Ottawa South and for child care spaces across Canada.

Jack Fraser a long-time resident of Old Ottawa South, spoke against the zoning, for the same reasons stated by previous speakers, and also because he believes the demand for land for institutional uses will increase.  He noted that Trustee Lynn Graham has stated that the Province will impose a class size "cap" in the fall, and that, because of this, programs at Hopewell School are threatened.

 

Claude Latour opposes the zoning, because of the unique nature of the property, and also because the school was paid for by property taxes.  He asked how the City could allow the demolition of the property when the application for heritage designation was in process.  He also expressed concern about the impact that additional vehicles will have on the surrounding area.

 

Kathryn Owens read a letter from Mr. Ian Marsland who is opposed to the zoning.  Mr. Marsland cites a number of sections of the Official Plan that relate to Institutional Areas, Objectives and Policies, along with Section 5.0 that refers to Ottawa South Key Principles as they relate to Institutional Land Use.  Ms. Owens alluded to a claim in the staff report that no other institutions were able to acquire and use the land when it was declared surplus. She called this assertion irrelevant and posited it did not mean that this would always be the case.

 

John Bell supported the zoning change, saying the result will be the availability of quality housing backed by a good developer.  

 

Kelly Harrison spoke against the zoning, stating that the loss of this institutional land will impact on children for years to come.  She asked that the land be put in reserve until such time as an institution is able to purchase it.

 

Joanne McQuarrie spoke about the fact that the demolition permit for St Margaret Mary's School was issued with the full knowledge of the widespread community opposition to the re-zoning and the desire of a large majority of the community to preserve and revitalize this building.  She averred that the only criteria on which to base a decision should be whether or not the removal of this space from the public domain serves the long-term interests of Old Ottawa South.  She also made reference to the fact that the institutional spaces such as schools, community centres and childcare centres are already overcrowded in this area.

 

Don Cummer averred that the school board is looking at a small time frame and should examine what will be required for a 15 to 20 year period.  Speaking to the failure of the P3 process, Mr. Cummer said a combination of bad timing and City budget cuts combined to derail the process.  He added that, contrary to the perception, this is not a divided community.

 

Brian Tansey spoke about the City's "Where We Will Live" report, calling it a bedroom study that does not address the loss of institutional spaces.  He expressed his belief that the City and the school boards are tied together when it comes to determining the need for, and disposition of, these spaces.

 

Peter Vice, representing Charlesfort Developments, stated that, from a legal standpoint, the process followed by the OCCSB in disposing of this property has been impeccable.  He pointed out that the Architect, D. Casey, attempted to work with the community and the City but his efforts did not come to fruition.  Mr. Vice also referred to correspondence dated October 2003, wherein the City stated it had no interest in the subject property.  He asked that the Committee approve the zoning application and resist any Motion to defer for any reason whatsoever, Charlesfort is ready to get on with the process.

 

Ted Fobert, Fotenn Consultants, highlighted the three criteria for re-zoning:

·        The subject property no longer meets the need for which it was intended;

·        The proposed use is compatible with adjacent lands

·        The need to conserve the urban forest / street trees.

Mr. Fobert then spoke of the project density, which is 26 units per acre, noting that the new Official Plan requires a density of 29 units per acre.  He pointed out there are other institutional uses in the community such as Windsor Park, Brewer Park and child care services.  With regard to school enrollment, Corpus Christi school is at 74% capacity, and Hopewell School is currently experiencing declining enrollment.  Mr. Fobert asserted that the proposed rezoning is in the public interest and the staff report is accurate.  It meets all the Official Plan criteria for infill set out in the Official Plan.  It is sensitive to and compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

Chair Hume asked whether the school board has the right to expropriate a site for school purposes as another way to gain lands for institutional use in this community.  Mr. Vice confirmed this was the case, adding that the school board has the same expropriation rights as the City and it does not have to show need.  It would, however, have to go through the planning process for zoning the property.

 

In reply to a question from Chair Hume, Mr. Doug Casey, Charlesfort Development, recalled events going back to 2002, when he met with Mr. Tansey and Councillor Doucet to put together a proposal that called for building a childcare centre, retaining a parcel of land for parkland and building townhouses on the remainder of the property, as was successfully done at 200 Crichton Street.  Mr. Casey was unsure why the proposal did not materialize, since he had indications from Mr. Dick Stewart that the City would pay the operating costs for the childcare centre but could not pay the rent.  The proposal called for Charlesfort Development to finance the full purchase and rent the childcare facility to the community.  Mr. Casey could not say for certain why this never went forward.

 

The following correspondence was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk in opposition of the re-zoning of the subject site:

·    E-mail dated 24 January from Susan Swan and Brian Davidson

·    E-mail dated 30 January from Debbie Grisdale

·    E-mail dated 1 February from Ross Imrie

·    E-mail dated 1 & 7 February from Carolyn Inch

·    E-mail dated 2 February from Susan Top

·    E-mail dated 2 February from Fay Brunning

·    E-mail dated 2 February from Lynda Bernst.

·    E-mail dated 2 February from David Chernushenki and Marie-Odile Junker.

·    E-mail dated 2 February from Karen Aston

·    E-mail dated 3 February from Laura A. Goodine

·    E-mail dated 3 February from Bernadette Hendrickx

·    E-mail dated 3 February from Melissa MacLean and Kerry Max

·    E-mail dated 3 February from Lynne Dee Sproule

·    E-mail dated 3 February from James Hunter

·    E-mail dated 4 February from Jeanne White

·    E-mail dated 4 February from Bart St. John-Smith

·    E-mail dated 6 February from Anne Louise Mahoney

·    E-mail dated 7 February from Ingrid Kjarsgaard

·    E-mail dated 7 February from Cathryn Bjerkelund and James Young

·    E-mail dated 7 February from Tim Leah

·    E-mail dated 7 February from Janet Bax, Alwyn Evans, Sebastian Bax and Sean Evans

·    E-mail dated 7 February from Michael Lascelles

·    E-mail dated 7 February from Sherry Walker

·    E-mail dated 7 February from David Napier

·    Petition signed by 1422 individuals

·    Comment sheet from Richard Botham

 

The following correspondence was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk in support of the re-zoning of the subject site:

·    E-mail dated 29 January from Rob Cook

·    E-mail dated 3 February from Carl Rading and Lynn Hoover

·    E-mail dated 3 February from Robert Sensenstein and Elizabeth Czanyo

·    E-mail dated 4 February from Greg Vickers and Barb De Ruyter

·    E-mail dated 6 February from Maureen and Ted Freeman

·    E-mail dated 7 February from Jason C. Flynn

·    E-mail dated 7 February from Christian Bonin

·    E-mail dated 7 February from Melanie Farr

·    E-mail dated 7 February from Ann Flynn

Committee Discussion

 

The ward Councillor, Clive Doucet spoke about the fact that, because there have been several school closures in his community, residents are “gun-shy” from seeing their public buildings and lands being appropriated for development.  With regard to the 88 Bellwood site, the French school board expressed interest initially but, because of the estimated $1 million to renovate the school, it withdrew.  This was also one of the reasons why the proposed P3 never came to fruition.  Councillor Doucet said the community has tried to find a solution to retain the land in the public domain and he has supported them in their efforts.  The Community Association came to an unanimous decision to support institutional zoning for this public land and this decision still holds.  The Councillor felt that the Committee must chose between intensification or retaining the land for institutional use.  He thought the overriding argument was that, in order to intensify and make the City more affordable, properties such as this have to be retained.  He made reference to two similar properties, the Ottawa Technical High School and Mutchmore School in the Glebe and he stressed the need to develop policies about how to keep the City green and implement the  20/20 plan.

 

Councillor D. Holmes signaled her intent to move the following Motion:

 

WHEREAS the City’s intensification policy makes it important to preserve public land and institutional capacity in the developed parts of the City ;

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Province be petitioned to require all school boards make available surplus schools and the associated land to the City for one dollar, as these older schools have all been purchased with property taxes.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that the City create a school property purchase fund from the sales of its own lands, now totaling $70 million, and purchase 88 Bellwood from the developer.

 

Speaking to her Motion, Councillor Holmes said that anyone who has gone through school closures knows how traumatic they are for the affected community.  She pointed out that Ontario does not have the same kind of legislation as Québec when it comes to acquiring disaffected school properties for community use, and she favoured asking the Ontario government to match the Québec legislation.  The Councillor regretted the fact that the request for heritage designation was not fast-tracked, and that the P3 proposal had not come to fruition.  She said she was ready to look at a last opportunity to see whether the City is interested in purchasing the property, depending on whether or not the owner is interested.  She asked for support of her Motion.

 

Councillor Alex Cullen pointed out that the City already has policies governing the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands, the purchase of railway rights of way, and it ought to have a policy about purchasing school sites declared surplus to school boards’ needs.  He alluded to the Official Plan, saying it has a policy that supports the community use of schools, which are a fundamental part of the building block of a community.  Councillor Cullen pointed out that, not only does the loss refer to a building, but also to the surrounding lands.  He averred that the City should have policies to buy these schools for community amenity space, just as it sees value in environmentally sensitive, forest and other lands.

 

Councillor Gord Hunter expressed the view it is useless to propose the creation of a fund that would have to go through a budget process.  He thought that anyone around the table had gone through school closings and redevelopment proposals for those sites.  He pointed out that school boards have been closing schools since the 1970s: the City has been designating heritage buildings since the 1970s and it is too late at this point to say the Bellwood site should have had such a designation.  Councillor Hunter stressed the need to deal with things as they are.  The school is not longer required, the proper processes have been followed and the zoning is compatible with the adjoining properties.

 

Speaking to Councillor Holmes’ Motion, Councillor Doucet pointed out there has been a school at this site since 1931.  He felt that common sense dictated that it continue to be used for this purpose by retaining the site to meet future needs brought about by intensification and growth.

 

Chair Hume ruled that the Motion would be divided for the vote.  Responding to a question from Councillor G. Hunter, Mr. Tim Marc, Manager, Development Law, confirmed that the responsibility for property purchases lies with the (CS&EDC) hence the second part of the proposed Motion would have to be considered by that Committee.

 

Chair Hume agreed there needs to be a debate about purchasing schools that have been declared surplus, not only for future school use, but for other uses such as affordable housing, seniors’ housing and similar institutional uses.

 

The Committee then considered the following Motions:

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

WHEREAS the City’s intensification policy makes it important to preserve public land and institutional capacity in the developed parts of the City ;

 


BE IT RESOLVED that the Province be petitioned to require all school boards make available surplus schools and the associated land to the City for one

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

Councillor A. Cullen put forward the following:

 

That the following be referred to the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee:

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that the City create a school property purchase fund from the sales of its own lands, now totaling $70 million, and purchase 88 Bellwood from the developer.

 

                                                                                                            LOST

 

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

NAYS (4):       Councillors H. Kreling, J. Harder, G. Hunter, P. Hume

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that the City create a school property purchase fund from the sales of its own lands, now totaling $70 million, and purchase 88 Bellwood from the developer.

 

                                                                                                            LOST

 

YEAS (2):        Councillors A. Cullen, D. Holmes

NAYS (6):       Councillors H. Kreling, J. Harder, G. Hunter, P. Feltmate, M. Bellemare, P. Hume

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

WHEREAS the disposition of 88 Bellwood is of great interest to the community and the developer cannot begin construction until the spring;

 


BE IT RESOLVED that a decision on the zoning be deferred for 4 weeks to give the community a chance to bring forward an area rate proposal for the purchase of the site from the developer.

 

                                                                                                            LOST

 

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

NAYS (4):       Councillors H. Kreling, J. Harder, G. Hunter, P. Hume

 

Committee approved the departmental recommendations as amended.

 

1.         That Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 88 Bellwood Avenue from I1 - Minor Institutional to an R3J - Converted House/Townhouse Subzone with exceptions, as shown in Document 1and detailed in Document 3, and;

 

2.         WHEREAS the City’s intensification policy makes it important to preserve public land and institutional capacity in the developed parts of the City ;

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Province be petitioned to require all school boards make available surplus schools and the associated land to the City for one dollar, as these older schools have all been purchased with property taxes.

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

 

 

CARRIED with Councillors A. Cullen, D. Holmes dissenting

 

 


 [U1]For applications that do not require a map

 [U2]Should include general background, purpose of zoning, amendment, existing zoning and proposed zoning , headings are optional.

 [U3]The issues can be summarized as follows:

 [U4]Include the documents that are applicable to this report

 

 [U5]This document may include a map

 [U6]Summarize the public notification and consultation undertaken.

 [U7]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.

 [U8]If a petition was received, please summarize the issue(s) raised, and the number of people who signed the petition

 [U9]Insert comments from public meeting

 [U10]Insert Councillor’s comments

 [U11]Insert Community Organization Comments

 [U12]Insert our response

 [U13]Insert Advisory Committee comments