|
2. REVISED DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING BY-LAW - VERSION RÉVISÉE
DU RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE GÉNÉRAL PRÉLIMINAIRE - |
Committee Recommendations as amended
That Council:
1. Approve modifications
to the December 7, 2007 approved Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, Volume 1
(text) and Volume 2 (maps) brought forward by:
(a) submissions received after
the November 22, 2008 Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee public meetings,
with staff recommendations as detailed in Document 1;
(b) staff recommendations
including staff-identified changes and anomalies noted in Document 2;
(c) Submissions and
staff recommendations received between March 7th, 2008 and April 9th,
2008, noted in Document 3;
(d) Adding an additional correction to
Document 2, Correction # 10, that for the lands known as 5537 First Line Road
be changed to a new subzone that reflects the minimum lot size of 1,950 m2
approved by By-law 2006-399;
(e) Adding an
additional correction to Document 2, Correction # 11, that for the land at 5224
Bank Street zoned RG1[290r] the
additional use permitted should be a lumber yard, and that a truck transport
terminal be prohibited to reflect the existing zoning; and
(f) Direct staff
review the following submissions with a view to providing motions for Council’s
consideration as required:
1. Rideau Valley
Conservation Authority – RVCA owned properties
2. Huntley
Developments, Hidden Lake Subdivision Phase 3, Village of Carp
3. Double Deck Golf
Centre Ltd – 560 Hazeldean Rd.
4. Central Canada
Exhibition, 4980 Albion
5. Village Walk
Subdivision, Salisbury Street, Carp
6. Karson Holdings,
3725 Carp
7. 7268
Parkway Road and related addresses (Sunset Lakes Development)
8. 6056 First Line
Road (Alan McLeod)
9. 5600 First Line
Road (Doug Dods)
10. 3100 Bankfield
Road
That there be no further
notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
2. Approve
that the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be revised by changing the proposed
Rural Residential -RR3 and RR3[129r] zoning of parts of the property at 4900
Carp Road to the Rural – RU zone;
That
there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
3. Approve
that the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be revised by amending the Rural
Heavy Industrial [27r] exception zoning of the property at 5013 McNeely Road
(part of Lot 20, Concession 6, former City of Cumberland) to add the additional
permitted uses: detached dwelling and
home-based business;
That
there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
4. Approve that the City reinstate the
following uses to the property located at 6155 Rockdale Road, recently
rezoned to allow a School Bus Depot and Repair Facility with restrictions, as
it is located in a wellhead area; Agricultural Supply Establishment, Automobile
Convenience Station, Automobile Gasoline Bar, Automobile Repair Garage,
Automobile Sales & Rental Establishment, Garden Centre, Nursery, Public
Utilities Installation, Recreational Vehicle Sales & Storage;
That
there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
5. Approve
that the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be revised by amending the Rural
(RU) zoning of the property at 6160 First Line Road (owner R.V. Dams) to be
given an exception that will prohibit agricultural use;
That
there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
6. Direct staff to
prepare the by-law for adoption, which will include any and all modifications
by Council, as well as Zoning By-law amendments approved since December 2007.
Recommandations modifiées du comité
Que le Conseil
:
1. Approuve
des modifications au Règlement de zonage général préliminaire approuvé le
7 décembre 2007, volumes 1 (texte) et 2 (cartes), mises de
l’avant dans :
(a) les mémoires
reçus après les réunions publiques tenues par le Comité de l'agriculture et des
questions rurales le 22 novembre 2008, y compris dans les
recommandations du personnel énumérées dans le document 1;
(b) les
recommandations du personnel, dont les changements et les anomalies déterminés
par le personnel et indiqués dans le document 2;
(c) Les
mémoires et les recommandations du personnel reçues entre le 7 mars 2008 et le
9 avril 2008 indiquées dans le document 3;
(d) D’ajouter
une modification supplémentaire au document 2, correction no 10,
selon laquelle le terrain sis au 5537, chemin First Line, passe dans une
nouvelle zone où la superficie minimale du lot, approuvée par le règlement 2006‑399,
est de 1950 m2;
(e) D’ajouter
une modification supplémentaire au document 2, correction no 11,
pour que, dans le cas du terrain sis au 5224, rue Bank, zoné RG1[290r],
l’utilisation supplémentaire autorisée soit une cour à bois, et qu’il soit
interdit d’y construire un terminal de transport par camion, conformément au
règlement de zonage actuel;
(f) De
donner instruction au personnel d’examiner les mémoires indiqués ci‑dessous
dans le but de préparer, le cas échéant, des motions pour l’examen du
Conseil :
1. Office de protection de la nature de la
vallée Rideau – Propriétés de l’OPNVR
2. Huntley
Developments, subvidision Hidden Lake, phase 3, Village de Carp
3. Double
Deck Golf Centre Ltd – 560, chemin Hazeldean
4. Exposition
du Canada central, 4980, Albion
5. Village
Walk Subdivision, rue Salisbury, Carp
6. Karson
Holdings, 3725, Carp
7. 7268,
Parkway et adresses connexes (Sunset Lakes Development)
8. 6056,
chemin First Line (Alan McLeod)
9. 5600,
chemin First Line (Doug Dods)
10. 3100,
chemin Bankfield
Qu’il n’y ait plus d’autres avis aux termes du paragraphe 34 (17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.
2. Approuve
que le règlement de zonage général préliminaire soit révisé en faisant passer
les zonages rural résidentiel RR3 et RR3[129r] de certaines parties de la
propriété du 4900, chemin Carp, à zone rurale – RU ;
Qu’il n’y ait plus
d’autres avis aux termes du paragraphe 34 (17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.
3. Approuve
que le règlement de zonage général préliminaire soit révisé en modifiant
l’exception de zone d’industrie lourde rurale [27r] de la propriété sise au 5013, chemin
McNeely (partie du lot 20, concession 6, ancienne Ville de Cumberland) en y
ajoutant les utilisations autorisées suivantes : habitation unifamiliale
et entreprise à domicile ;
Qu’il n’y ait plus
d’autres avis aux termes du paragraphe 34 (17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.
4. Approuve
que la Ville rétablisse les utilisations suivantes de la propriété sise au 6155,
chemin Rockdale, récemment rezonée pour permettre un dépôt d’autobus scolaire
et des installations d’entretien avec des restrictions, car elle est située
dans le secteur d’une tête de puits : fournitures agricoles, centre de
service automobile, station d’essence automobile, atelier de réparation
automobile, vente et location d’automobiles, centre‑jardin, pépinière,
installation de service public, vente et entrepôt de véhicules récréatifs ;
Qu’il n’y ait plus
d’autres avis aux termes du paragraphe 34 (17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.
5. Approuve
que le règlement de zonage général préliminaire soit révisé en modifiant le
zonage rural (RU) de la propriété sise au 6160, chemin First Line (propriétaire
R.V. Dams) et de lui accorder une exception interdisant l’utilisation agricole
;
Qu’il n’y ait plus
d’autres avis aux termes du paragraphe 34 (17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.
6. Demande
au personnel de préparer le Règlement aux fins d’adoption, qui inclura toutes
les modifications apportées par le Conseil ainsi que toutes les modifications
du Règlement de zonage approuvées depuis décembre 2007.
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager's report (Planning,
Transit and the Environment) dated
28 March 2008 (ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0075).
2. Extract of Draft Minute, 10 April 2008.
Report to/Rapport
au :
Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Committee
Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales
and Council / et au Conseil
28 March 2008 / le 28 mars 2008
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy
Schepers, Deputy City Manager/
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Planning, Transit and the Environment/
Urbanisme, Transport en commun et Environnement
Contact Person/Personne-ressource :
Richard Kilstrom, Manager/Gestionnaire
Community Planning and Design/Aménagement et
conception communautaire
Planning Branch/Direction de l’urbanisme
(613)
580-2424 x22653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
That the Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve modifications to the December
7, 2007 approved Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, Volume 1 (text) and Volume
2 (maps) brought forward by:
(a) submissions received
after the November 22, 2008 Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee public
meetings, with staff recommendations as detailed in Document 1; and
(b) staff recommendations
including staff-identified changes and anomalies noted in Document 2.
2. Direct staff to prepare the by-law for
adoption, which will include any and all modifications by Council, as well as
Zoning By-law amendments approved since December 2007.
Que le Comité de l'agriculture et
des questions rurales recommande au Conseil :
1. L’approbation
des modifications au Règlement de zonage général préliminaire approuvé le
7 décembre 2007, volumes 1 (texte) et 2 (cartes), mises de
l’avant dans :
(a) les mémoires reçus après les réunions
publiques tenues par le Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales le
22 novembre 2008, y compris dans les recommandations du personnel
énumérées dans le document 1;
(b) les recommandations du personnel, dont
les changements et les anomalies déterminés par le personnel et indiqués dans
le document 2.
2. De
demander au personnel de préparer le Règlement aux fins d’adoption, qui inclura
toutes les modifications apportées par le Conseil ainsi que toutes les
modifications du Règlement de zonage approuvées depuis décembre 2007.
Assumptions and Analysis:
This report deals with the final approval of the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Previous Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) public meetings have been held, with all ARAC recommendations, as approved or modified by City Council on December 7, 2007, incorporated into a clean copy of the final draft version on the City’s website, for additional public review. This final draft version was released to the public on March 7, 2008 and is to be discussed at a final public meeting prior to Council adoption of the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law.
Recommendation 1 deals with the two documents being presented to Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee for approval. The first document (Document 1) lists the submissions received after the November 22, 2008 ARAC public meetings but prior to March 7, 2008, with staff recommendations. Document 2 lists staff recommendations including staff-identified changes and anomalies.
Financial
Implications:
Costs associated with the printing of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for adoption by City Council and the notice requirements as a result of approval of Recommendation 2 are estimated to be no more than $5,000 and the funds are available under the capital budget 900852 for this project.
Public
Consultation/Input:
Numerous consultations on the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law have been held since consultation on the project was initiated in 2005. This is the final scheduled public hearing. There have been 23 submissions received since the November 22 ARAC public meeting. Staff will prepare a summary of submissions received after March 7, 2008 which will be made available at the April 10, 2008 ARAC meeting.
Hypothèses et analyse :
Le présent rapport concerne l'approbation
définitive du nouveau Règlement de zonage général. Les réunions publiques du
Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales (CAQR) ont eu lieu, et toutes
les recommandations du CAQR, approuvées ou modifiées par le Conseil municipal
le 7 décembre 2007, ont été consignées dans une copie propre de
la version préliminaire définitive, qui est affichée sur le site Web de la
Ville à des fins d’examen public additionnel. Cette version préliminaire
définitive a été rendue publique le 7 mars 2008 et fera l’objet d’une
discussion lors d’une réunion publique finale, avant l’adoption par le Conseil
du nouveau Règlement de zonage général.
La recommandation 1 a trait aux deux
documents présentés au Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales aux
fins d’approbation. Le premier document (document 1) dresse la liste des
mémoires reçus après les réunions publiques tenues par le CAQR le 22
novembre 2008, mais avant le 7 mars 2008, et inclut les
recommandations du personnel. Le document 2 énumère les recommandations du
personnel, dont les changements et les anomalies déterminés par celui‑ci.
Répercussions
financières :
Les coûts associés à l’impression du Règlement
de zonage général aux fins d’approbation par le Conseil municipal et aux
exigences d'avis, advenant l'adoption de la recommandation 2, sont estimés à
moins de 5 000 $; des fonds sont prévus pour ce projet dans le budget
des immobilisations, poste 900852.
Consultation publique / commentaires
:
De nombreuses consultations sur le Règlement de
zonage général préliminaire ont eu lieu depuis le lancement du projet en 2005.
Il s’agit de la dernière audience publique prévue à l’horaire. Au total,
23 mémoires ont été reçus depuis la réunion publique du CAQR tenue le
22 novembre. Le personnel préparera un résumé des mémoires reçus après le 7 mars
2008, qui sera disponible lors de la réunion du CAQR qui aura lieu le
10 avril 2008.
On December 7, 2007, City Council approved the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law and directed staff to release the final draft version of the document, which is to the include City Council disposition of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommendations to allow stakeholders a final review of the changes made. In addition, a final public meeting is to be held on April 10, 2008 prior to City Council adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law.
On May 10, 2006 City Council approved the proposed project and public consultation timelines (report ACS2006-PGM-POL-0024) for the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law project. The initial draft was released on May 26, 2006, with a revised second draft for the Rural Area and Greenbelt released on September 25, 2007. Public meetings were held at the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee on October 25, November 8 and 22, 2007 (report ACS-PTE-POL-0062). A final draft of the Comprehensive Zoning by-law was released on March 7, 2008.
This report details those submissions or zoning issues that arose following the November 22, 2007 ARAC and the December 7, 2007 Council meetings at which the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Rural Area and Greenbelt was dealt with.
Recommendation 1
Document 1 pertains to written submissions made after November 22, 2007 and prior to March 7, 2008 as well as staff's response to those comments. The comments, discussion and staff recommendations are organized by Ward for ease of use. The purpose of this public meeting is to provide the public with an additional opportunity to address ARAC following the requested release of a “clean copy” of the Draft Zoning By-law - Rural Area and Greenbelt on March 7, 2008 indicating all changes as approved by ARAC and Council at its December 7, 2007 meeting, as well as to present staff recommendations on each comment received post-ARAC and City Council meetings, for Committees’ final recommendations to Council.
Document 2 includes discussion of staff-initiated changes that should be considered prior to the adoption of the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law. The recommended changes are minor corrections.
Recommendation 2
Following the final public meeting, ARAC is to recommend that Council direct staff to prepare the final implementing Zoning By-law for adoption. The implementing Zoning By-law will include all modifications as recommended by ARAC and approved by City Council, as well as Zoning By-law amendments to existing zoning by-laws since December 2007.
Following City Council adoption, any appeals to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law will be forward to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). As approved by Council at its December 2007 meeting, should there be appeals, the most restrictive applicable provisions in any particular case of either the existing zoning by-laws of former municipalities, or the Comprehensive Zoning By-law, will apply until such appeals are disposed of by the OMB.
Finally, from time to time, staff will present update reports on outstanding matters and appeals, as well as on identified anomalies to be corrected.
CITY
STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
This Comprehensive Zoning By-law will assist in satisfying the following City Strategic Directions:
E. Sustainable Healthy and Active City
6. Require walking, transit and cycling oriented communities and employment areas.
F. Planning and Growth Management
5. Preserve Ottawa’s rural villages.
H. Service Delivery
1. Continue to improve the service culture at the City specifically so that it recognizes and balances the needs of all citizens in their encounters with City services, programs and staff, in both English and French pursuant to current policy.
The draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law reflects the intent of the Official Plan, where zoning is considered an appropriate implementation mechanism, with respect to environmental policies.
The draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Rural Area and Greenbelt extract reflects the intent of the Official Plan with respect to Rural Area and Greenbelt land use policies.
Various and numerous consultations on the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, for the Rural Area and Greenbelt have been held since consultation on the project was initiated in 2005. Staff have continued to respond to written comments and requests for information.
N/A
Document 1 - Public Submissions Received After the 22
November 2007 ARAC Public Meeting
Document 2 - Staff Recommendations Including
Staff-identified Changes and Anomalies
Planning, Transit and the Environment Department to prepare the final version of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law incorporating all changes to the May 2007 version; and forward to Legal Services Branch and undertake statutory notification.
Legal Services Branch to forward implementing by-law to Council.
DOCUMENT
1
PUBLIC
SUBMISSIONS POST NOVEMBER 22, 2008 ARAC PUBLIC
MEETINGS TO
MARCH 7, 2008
|
Address and Ward Number (Name) |
Description |
Discussion
|
Staff
Recommendation |
Watercourse setback in Zoning By-law has been
re-instated for development not subject to Site Plan Control Approval or Plan
of Subdivision; and for development subject to these processes, the
watercourse setback policy of the Official Plan will be implemented through
those application processes as it is considered more effective.
|
|||
Concur-
Add “agricultural use” to O1P Subzone to recognize existing farms in
corridor.
|
|||
|
3725 (3719, 3715, 3711) Carp Road |
Concur-
revise zoning to reflect revised flood line approved by MVCA. However, do not concur with allowing
parking lots within the floodplain as this could be considered to not support
the Provincial Policy Statement to minimize risk of persons or damage to
private property. Site specific exceptions would have to be reviewed with the
appropriate conservation authority.
|
That the proposed
floodplain overlay be changed to reflect modifications to the
floodplain that were addressed through a local equalized
incremental cut and fill balance approved by Mississippi Valley
Conservation. Do not support allowing as of right, parking lots in floodplains. |
|
|
2938 Richardson Side Road Ward 5 (Mike Woodfield) |
Reinstate the existing zoning that would permit the
keeping of a horse on the rear portion of this lot. The proposed RR3-Rural
Residential zone does not allow this use. |
Concur
- apply exception [38r] to this lot and the abutting lands to permit a stable
and paddock subject to specified setbacks from all lot lines. These lots are
larger than others in this area, and can accommodate a stable and paddock.
|
|
|
West Carleton Quarry (Lot 14,15, Con.XI, Huntley) and Kinburn Quarry (Lot 4, Con.V, Fitzroy) Ward 5 (Thomas Cavanaugh Construction Ltd.) |
Recognize existing small arms, rifles and explosives outdoor testing and training area. |
Place an exception
permitting “small arms, rifles and explosives outdoor testing and
training area” on subject lands. Add the new land use term “small arms, rifles and explosives outdoor testing and training area” to Appendix A |
|
|
366 Hunt Club Road and 3045 Baseline Rd Wards 8 & 16 (TDL Group) |
Allow drive- through use in T1A zone for 366 Hunt Club Rd. Allow restaurant use in RI zone for 3045 Baseline Rd
(Queensway Carleton Hospital). |
This issue has been addressed in March 2008 release of draft by-law. Agree
- the conditional uses that are permitted under the Major Institutional (I2)
zone for hospital uses, including take-out and full service restaurant,
should continue to be permitted at this location provided they are integrated
into the institutional building.
|
No change required. Modify exception 307r to include the
conditional uses and the associated provisions permitted in the Major
Institutional (I2) zone. |
|
Area near Bowesville, High Rd and Leitrim Rd, and area east of the Airport Parkway, south of Hunt Club, north of Lester Ward 10 (Cheryl Doran) |
Subject lands should be correctly zoned as EP instead of T1A. |
Do not support change |
|
|
Part Lot 20, Concession 4 - east of Albion Road Ward 10 (South Nation Conservation Authority) |
The entire Leitrim Provincially Significant Wetland should be zoned EP - Environmental Protection. |
Revise the zoning of the Leitrim wetland, located east
of Albion Road, south of Findlay Creek, West of Netley Circle, from EP3 to
EP. |
|
|
Ottawa
International Airport Wards
10,16 (Ottawa International Airport Authority) |
Add gas bar, automobile service station as permitted
uses; revise by-law to generally discuss AOIZ, AVDZ areas and fine-tune some
of the wording, and clarify the purpose of Schedule 6; ensure that the T1A
Zone applies to all Airport Authority's lease holding with Transport Canada,
and no other lands; allow hotel uses to a maximum 2.0 FSI. Allow office uses to a maximum 2.0 FSI. Remove
the holding symbol from the ME zoned lands, since a mineral resource study
was recently completed for airport lands. Rezone EP and RU zoned airport lands to T1A, despite
the NEA and Greenbelt and General Rural designations in the OP. Change the purpose statement and the list of
permitted uses in the T1A Subzone to allow "non-aviation related commercial uses". |
No change required Increase FSI for offices in T1A Subzone to 2.0 Do not support change Do not support change Do not support change |
|
|
Ottawa
International Airport (continued) Wards
10,16 (Ottawa
International Airport Authority) |
Permit freestanding non-employment related commercial uses (retail
store, retail food store, automobile dealership, cinema, amusement centre;
recreational and athletic facility). |
Conflicts
with the Official Plan- non-employment related commercial uses should be
located within an airport terminal or hotel. |
Do not support change |
|
8411 Russell Road Ward 19 (Walter Henn) |
Revise
by-law to allow residential uses to reflect subdivision approved in 1979
(proposed RH[29r]-Rural Heavy Industrial; existing MP). |
Do not support change as proposed RH[29r] zoning of these lands
reflects the existing MP-Rural Industrial Park zoning. |
Do not support change |
|
Part of lot 7, Con.1 Old Survey, Cumberland Ward 19 (Trowe Associates Inc.) |
Draft
by-law shows holding symbol on lands (RR[515r]-h), existing by-law has a
standard ER-Estate Residential Zone. Delete holding symbol to facilitate
subdivision application now underway. |
Concur- there is no holding
symbol on these lands in the existing by-law (ER Zone), so the proposed
exception and applicable holding symbol should be removed- the only holding
symbol in this area applies only to a small area to the south-east of these
lands. |
Revise zoning to RR zone |
|
St. Isidore 1105 March Road Ward 4; St. Mary Gloucester 5536 Bank Street Ward 20 15 de
Niverville Drive Ward 10 (Ottawa Catholic School Board) |
Revise
zoning of these two school sites to place in one consistent RI5 H(15) zone;
two schools currently located on
multiple lots with multiple zones- this anomaly likely results from land
acquisitions at various times. Place
maximum 15 m height suffix on this school site, similar to the rest of the
Ottawa Catholic School Board sites. |
This issue has been addressed in March 2008 release of draft by-law. Concur - consistent
with approach taken with remainder of Board’s sites; place in RI H(15). |
No change required Revise
zoning of subject lands to RI H(15) |
|
4980 Albion Road Ward 20 (Central
Canada Exhibition Association) |
Confirm that the height limit is indeed 15 metres for the entire property; Confirm whether or not an amphitheatre would be permitted on the grounds under the current draft provisions; Confirm whether or not the old definition of 'agricultural events' is fully represented under the 'fairground' and 'place of assembly' definitions; Explain why the provision allowing restaurants in association
with permitted uses appears not to have been included. |
Height limit is intended to be 15 m. for the entire
site, however amusement rides and similar structures are exempt. However,
recommend adding a 15-metre height suffix to the zoning maps to clarify this
intent. A place of assembly limited to an amphitheatre is
permitted if it is outdoors and 200 m from the boundary of a residential
zone. The current term “agricultural events” is included
within the proposed fairground and place of assembly terms. A restaurant is permitted when a fairground event
occurs. Also, upon further review, staff have determined that the
wording of exception 529r is unclear and does not fully capture the intent of
the current Gloucester Cr12 zoning. As such, 529r will be revised so that the
list of permitted uses is clear and reflective of the current list of uses. |
Revise zoning of site to RC4[529r] H(15) No change required No change required No change required Revise exception 529r to better reflect the intent of
the current zoning provisions for this site. |
|
4837 Albion Road Ward 20 (Rideau Carleton Raceway) |
Request that the Zoning Map be changed for Rideau
Carleton Raceway’s property at 4837 Albion Road to RC4 [528r] H15. |
This issue has been addressed in March 2008 release of draft by-law. |
No change required |
|
5699 Longshadow Street Ward 20 (Joe Princiotta) |
Request that restaurant and artist studio be added as permitted uses for the site. |
This issue has been addressed in March 2008 release of draft by-law. |
No change required |
|
6346 Deer Meadow Drive Ward 20 (Orchard View Reception & Conference Center) |
Zoning should be revised to recognize the existing banquet hall (proposed O1[458r] does not permit this use). |
Concur- recognize existing banquet hall |
Add
“place of assembly limited to a banquet hall” as an additional permitted use
in exception [458r]. |
|
5598 Power Road Ward 20 (Boucher Concrete) |
Revise zoning to reflect existing setback
requirements to permit a future addition. Proposed 15-metre front yard
setback and 3-metre interior side yard setback of RH2 Zone are excessive on
this site. |
Concur -
reinstate existing front yard (3 metres) and interior side yard (1 m)
setbacks via an exception to acknowledge the small lot size. |
Reinstate
existing front yard and interior side yard setbacks via an exception. |
|
1926 and 1952 Old Prescott Road (Lot 12 - Con 4, Osgoode Township) Ward 20 (Don Stevenson) |
Request that the proposed ME2[6r] zoning be changed
to an ME3 zone to allow for a detached dwelling to be constructed on the
site, which is a use that is currently allowed. |
The site
is currently zoning ME2 in the Osgoode By-law. This zone does not permit a
new detached dwelling. Therefore the
proposed zoning is consistent with the current zoning. |
Do not
support change |
|
West ½ of Lot 23 - Con 4, Osgoode Township) Ward 20 (Don Stevenson) |
Request that the EP3 be changed to an EP2 zone to
recognize existing agricultural use. |
There is
no evidence of an existing agricultural use on these lands. As such, the
current EP3 zoning is appropriate. |
Do not
support change |
|
1745 Carsonby Road (5R-14272 Part 1) Ward 21 (Don Stevenson) |
Request that the ME[8r] zoning be changed to
ME1[11r] to allow a detached dwelling to be constructed on the site. |
The
current MXP zoning in the Rideau Zoning By-law does not allow for a new
detached dwelling at this location. Additionally,
upon further review it has been determined that this site should actually
have a ME2 zoning, which only allows a pit as per the current zoning and the
Official Plan policy for lands designated Sand and Gravel Resource Area. |
Do not support change Change
zoning from ME[8r] to ME2[8r] |
|
6160 First Line Road Ward 21 (Lambert
and Monica McCarthy et al.) |
Request that 6160 First Line Road maintain only its existing RE-2 Zone permitted uses, and not other agricultural uses, as lands are not suitable for agriculture. |
The proposed RU Zone reflects its General Rural Area Official Plan designation. |
Do not support change |
|
Citywide Hydro Corridor Lands, 4707 Donnelly Road Ward 21 |
Wording error in O1P Subzone - Section 16(b). Hydro Corridor lands mapping for
O1P Subzone. Residential Care Facility should be listed as a permitted use in the 443r exception zone. |
This issue has been addressed in March 2008 release of draft by-law. |
No change required |
|
Miller's Point Subdivision Ward 21 (Manotick/ Nepean Development Corporation & Watterson Place Holdings Inc.) |
Request that
the zoning be reviewed for this subdivision to ensure that it can develop as
envisioned. |
Concur - Revise exception [631r] and [567r] to better
reflect the intent of the R1A Block "A" - Residential Special
Density Zone and the Re Block "A" - Restrictive Zone of the former
Nepean By-law for the Miller’s Point Country Estate Subdivision. |
Revise exception [631r] and [567r] to reflect
the intent of the R1A Block "A" Zone and the Re Block
"A" Zone of the former Nepean By-law. |
|
2637
Pollock Road Ward 21 (Mr.
Schouten) |
Revise zoning to recognize existing detached dwelling
and accessory building (not permitted under proposed RC3[49r] zoning). |
Concur- recognize existing detached dwelling which will then also legalize the accessory building. |
Add
“detached dwelling” as additional permitted use in exception [49r] |
9. Revise Section 59(1)(a) to state "abuts an improved
public street for a distance of at least 3.0 metres, except in RU and AG Zones
or Subzones where the distance must be equal to the minimum required lot width
for the respective zone; and".
Summary of Public Submissions Post March 7th, 2008 to April 9th, 2008
|
Address and Ward Number (Name) |
Description |
Discussion |
Staff
Recommendation |
|
City Wide (Conservation Partners) |
Amend definition of “Accessory” to include the word ‘detached’. It is the experience of the
CA’s that without the additional criteria of “detached” that exemptions to
the intended provisions of an “accessory” are avoided by way of breezeways or
shared walls.
|
Accessory can include uses within or attached to a
principal building (e.g. storage area within a retail store; private garage
attached to a dwelling). Changing the definition would create significant
non-conformity.
|
Do not support change
|
|
City Wide (Conservation Partners) |
Add word “Normal Highwater Mark” with description. Normal High Water Mark: means the
mark made by the action of water under natural conditions on the shore or
bank of a watercourse or waterbody which action has been so common or usual
or so long continued that it has created a distinction in the general terrestrial vegetation, in
changes in soil characteristics or by the edge of some embankment
particularly scored by the action of water. It is a variable line in
characteristic indicators and distinctiveness, and it is identified by the
consideration of all visible evidence, not alone by one indicator, as located
by an Ontario Land Surveyor. |
Concur- adding definition would provide clarification to
the terminology.
|
Add a definition for “normal high water mark” as noted
|
|
City Wide (Conservation Partners) |
Add word “setback” with description. Setback: means the least horizontal
distance measured between any building, structure, development or
excavation on the lot and
the closest boundary of the constraint. |
Concur – modify the yard setback definition for the
purposes of applying Section 69, Setbacks from Watercourses, since the
setback is from the constraint and not necessarily the lot line.
|
Modify the yard setback definitions to indicate a
setback applies as noted.
|
|
City Wide (Conservation Partners) |
Add word “Top of Bank” with description. Top of bank designates a boundary
where a majority of normal discharges and channel forming activities takes
place. The top of bank boundary will contain the active stream channel,
active floodplain, and their associated banks. |
Concur – adding a definition fro Top of the Bank makes
it clearer as to where the setback from watercourses contained in Section 69
is measured.
|
Add definition as noted.
|
|
City Wide (Conservation Partners) |
Add word “watercourse” with description. Should be same as
in OP. Prefer to see use of definition from CA Act, however will wait for OP
review opportunity to keep both consistent. Watercourse: means a naturally occurring drainage channel which
includes rivers, streams and creeks. |
Concur – this makes it clearer as to where Section 69
applies and is consistent with definition in Official Plan.
|
Add definition as noted.
|
|
City Wide (Conservation Partners) |
Add word “waterbody” with description. Waterbody: means a lake or pond. |
Concur – this makes it clearer as to where Section 69
applies.
|
Add definition as noted.
|
|
City Wide (Conservation Partners) |
Rename the zone to reflect the hazardous nature of the
constraint. Recommend “Floodplain Hazard
Overlay”
Amend the first sentence to include other provisions in the bylaw; for example secondary dwelling units. Remove the reference to the Conservation Authorities Act from Section (2). It is covered in the NOTE at the bottom of the section. Also, zoning cannot be tied to approval by a regulatory agency. Exempt secondary dwelling units from provision 2.c). Add the words “except for a secondary dwelling”. Add to uses not permitted: A storm water management pond unless approved under the Environmental Assessment Act. A Nursing home: this term is not used anywhere in the ZBL, though anything equivalent to a nursing home doesn’t seem to appear on the list of prohibited uses. We require clarification on whether a nursing home is captured under one of the terms already listed and/or whether a “residential care facility” would include a nursing home type facility and should be included in this list. Delete Section (4). and add ‘the Village of Constance Bay’ to Two-Zone Floodplain Policy Area - Area-Specific Provisions. |
Concur, the Provincial Policy Statement does consider
these areas as “Natural Hazards”.
Concur, it is not just the provisions of the underlying zone, but other provisions such as general provisions. Concur, this is redundant. A secondary dwelling unit, unless
created through an addition, is not considered to be 1) development; 2) site
alteration; or 3) change of use, and because it does not fall under any one
of these Provincial Policy Statement or Planning Act definitions, there is no
authority to require that the City prohibit this secondary use under any
conditions, as the policy is to permit them wherever a dwelling is
permitted. However, staff concur that
a secondary dwelling unit, where partially or wholly located in a basement,
could result in safety risks if flooding occurs. Therefore, staff recommend a modification, that partially
responds to the Conservations Partner’s concern by exempting those units
below grade, but which permits this secondary use at and above grade. Concur for 1. and 2. Note a
nursing home falls under the term “Residential Care Facilities”. Concur – this just corrects a
formatting error. |
Change name of Section 58“Floodplain Overlay” to
“Floodplain Hazard Overlay”
Change
wording to add after “underlying zone”, the words “or other provisions of the Zoning
By-law” Change Section 58(2) by deleting the words “following
submission and approval of an application under the Conservation Authorities
Act” Modify Section 58(2) to add a new clause “(e), as follows: “(e) for a secondary dwelling unit that is neither
partially nor fully located below grade. Add the two uses in the list of uses prohibited in the
floodplain. Delete Section 58.(4) and change (5) to (4). |
|
City Wide (Conservation Partners) |
Exclude (6) from Table 65 from projecting into water setbacks. Add in the exclusion: Despite any other provision to the contrary, the following
features and other similar features are permitted to project from a principal
building into a required yard in accordance with Table 65. The features
listed in this section under subsection
(6): Covered or uncovered balcony, porch, deck, platform |
Concur – since according to the Official Plan, development is to be setback from watercourses and waterbodies, this should also include projections such as balconies, decks etc. into the setback where development should not occur. Note that for existing development, the provisions regarding non-complying uses apply to additions, but should be extended to projections into yards as well, to allow some flexibility in the application of the new provisions for existing development. |
Add in Section 65, a (d) which would exclude feature
(6) contained in Table 65. Modify Section 3.(7)(b) and (b)(ii) add the words “and a permitted projection into a yard” after the word “addition”. |
|
City Wide (Conservation Partners) |
The term “waterway” is not defined. Replace section title with “Setbacks from Watercourses and Waterbodies” Recommended definition wording: Despite provision of
the underlying zone, the following minimum setbacks must be provided to
protect the environmental quality of watercourses and waterbodies: Except for flood or erosion control works, or a public bridge or a marine facility, no development, including a building or structure, access road, pool or any part of a septic system, shall be located closer than 30 metres to the normal highwater mark of any watercourse or waterbody, or 15 metres to the top of bank of any watercourse of waterbody, whichever is greater. Setbacks are not implemented through an OP, for example, zoning examiners do not look at the OP, they look at the zoning By-laws. Exceptions in subwatershed studies may be out-of date and can be used to support a MV, if required. Purpose of the MV is to provide for consideration of an exemption to the ZBL. Zoning is not designed to implement exceptions. The Conservation Partners have
provided wording for the watercourse setback provisions consistent with the
2003 Official Plan which does not provide for exceptions to be made for
certain types of applications. At this time, we have not received the
requested confirmation in the form of a legal opinion from the City that the
city’s proposed wording is legally acceptable. At this time, we are
undertaking to seek an independent legal opinion on the exemptions proposed
in the city’s current wording and will communicate the outcome to the city as
soon as it is available.
|
Concur, change wording to be consistent.
Do not agree to change the wording of the section. The wording of the section has been developed to implement the City’s desired approach to implementing the setbacks required in the Official Plan. The approach that the City proposes to implement the setback from watercourses and waterbodies contained in the Official Plan, is to require through the zoning by-law the setbacks for those developments that do not go through a planning approval process and are reviewed through the building permit process only (ie. plan examiners). For development that requires a planning approval, the planners would be required to ensure the implementation of the Official Plan policies through those application processes. Zoning Plan examiners must then ensure that building permits comply with approved Site Plan Control, rezoning or plan of subdivision approval. This is preferable than requiring exceptions to go to the minor variance process for reductions from the setbacks. The wording in Section 69 has been developed in conjunction with the City’s Legal Services Branch. |
Change title of Section 69 to “Setbacks from Watercourses
and Waterbodies”
Do not support change |
|
City Wide (Conservation Partners) |
The O1 zone (no subzone) should apply to all
Conservation Areas as identified in documentation previously provided by
RVCA, SNC. Amend zoning maps to identify Conservation Authority owned
Conservation Areas as O1 zone (no permissive subzone).
|
Concur, changes have been previously made. Waiting for
specific additional sites identified by RVCA and SNC.
|
No changes required at this time
|
|
City Wide (Conservation Partners) |
The EP zone (no subzone) should apply to all PSW lands
owned by the Conservation Authorities as identified in previous documentation provided by RVCA, SNC. Amend
zoning maps to identify PSW’s owned by the Conservation Authorities as EP
zone (no permissive
subzone).
Provincially Significant Wetlands need to be consistent
with protection provided in the PPS
and CA regulations. We will accept the EP3 zoning on PSW’s until the OP
review bring s it into conformity with the 2005 PPS, EXCEPT for Conservation
Authority owned land.
|
Concur, EP3 subzone generally used in rural area and
greenbelt to identify wetlands but allow existing detached dwellings to
remain conforming. However, staff will accommodate any property owner that
wishes to have an EP zone instead that does not permit detached dwellings.
Note OP policy does not allow new severances in these designations.
|
Concur, change for South Nation Conservation Authority
already recommended. For Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, list of sites
not provided.
|
|
City Wide (Conservation Partners) |
Where are the zoning provisions to implement the OP Section 4.6.3? |
Section 4.6.3 of the Official Plan deals with development along the River
Corridors (Ottawa River, Rideau River and Rideau Canal). The intent is to protect the natural
environment functions of rivers and streams.
The main policies are to:
i) prohibit pits and quarries along the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers; ii) prohibit land uses that require outside storage or large paved areas or that produce noise, fumes and dust; iii) require development outside the villages in the
General Rural Area adjacent to the Rideau River and Rideau Canal upstream
from Roger Steven Drive, to provide for a minimum lot size of 5 hectares and
a minimum of 200 m of waterfront unless an alternate design has the same or
less impact. |
The draft Zoning By-law is but one tool to implement the
policies of the Official Plan. With respect to the prohibition of pits and
quarries along the two rivers, the Official Plan does not designate any of
these types of uses near the two rivers and so this would not show up as an
ME or MR zone in these locations.
It is primarily the land uses in industrial zones that would permit land uses that require outside storage or large paved areas or that produce noise, fumes and dust. There are no industrial zones adjacent to the two rivers. With respect to the policy requiring development to
have a minimum lot size of 5 ha and
waterfront of 200m, this policy is currently being implemented through the
review of severance applications. However, it is recognized that it would be
of benefit for the zoning by-law to also reflect these minimum lot sizes at
these locations. Since there will have to be further refinement of the Zoning
By-law following the 2009 review of the Official Plan, this policy could be
better reflected at that time |
|
City Wide (Rideau Valley Conservation Authority) |
Downzone lands owned by the RVCA for conservation purposes only in order to take advantage of the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program. |
The intent would be to zone lands owned by the Conservation Authority as EP or O1P, however, additional time is required to review request and determine appropriate zone designations. |
Direct staff to review properties and report back to
City Council with any recommended changes.
|
|
City wide (Mark MacGowan) |
Concerned with the proposed setbacks for wind farms. Suggests that 750 to 1000 meters is a reasonable compromise. |
ARAC motion imposed 500 metre separation, changed from original staff recommended 250 metre distance |
Do not support change
|
|
City Wide (Raymond Perrin) |
Industry Canada has released new antenna siting and
approval procedures entitled “CPC-2-0-03 Radio-communication and Broadcasting
Antenna Systems, Issue 4.” These new procedures aim at ensuring greater
community consultation and continued deployment of radio-communication
systems across Canada. These new procedures (effective Jan 1, 2008) apply
to more antennas than the City's draft By-law in that they also apply to antennas
associated with utilities. While the new procedures of Industry Canada
may not be exactly what you want, I would hope that they would be
sufficient to address the City's reasonable concerns, thus nullifying the
need for any requirements in a City By-law controlling amateur-radio
antennas.
|
Staff has recently met with Industry Canada
representatives and they advised that although Federal protocol establishes
the basic approval procedure and construction standards, they support and
recommend that local municipalities develop and apply their own land use
regulations and review process to address these structures. Provided the
local regulations are not less restrictive than Federal standards and
provided the local provisions do not prohibit the development of these
antennae, they support the use of zoning to address the land use impact of
these antennae. Staff is confident that the proposed regulations are fair and
reasonable
|
Do not support change
|
|
Citywide Hydro Corridor Lands (Hydro One) |
There are some technical issues
remaining with the boundaries of the O1P Hydro Corridor Subzone |
Concur-
these issues are still being discussed and the mapping will be revised
accordingly for the final version of the by-law |
Revisions to be included in
final version of zoning by-law
|
|
Ward 8 Queensway Carleton Hospital (NCC) |
Request to keep the 30% lot coverage as opposed to the proposed 50% in exception [307r] |
Concur- 30% lot coverage adequately accommodates existing hospital and provides opportunity for future expansion |
Revise exception [307r] to state “maximum lot coverage -
30%”
|
|
City Wide Section 70 Ward 10 and 16 – T1A zone (Airport Authority) |
The wording in the T1 zone, subpart (2) should be
modified as follows: “permit a range of employment and aviation/non aviation
related commercial and industrial uses at the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier
International Airport.”
The list of permitted uses should include “aviation/non aviation commercial uses.” The wording of the T1A zone, subsection (1) should also include the following additional uses: amusement centre (indoor); automobile body shop; automobile dealership; cinema; flight school; heavy equipment and vehicle sales, rental and servicing; kennel; place of assembly; recreational and athletic facility; retail food store; and retail store. Subsection (2) relating to ancillary uses under the T1A zone should be deleted. The wording in the subsection (3) of the T1A zone should read as follows: “the maximum allowable FSI for a hotel and office use in the T1A subzone is 2.0.” Lands not leased by Transport Canada for airport purposes should not be included in the T1A zone. The following lands, which are owned by the Airport Authority, should be included in T1A zone: parcel at the SW corner of Riverside and Hunt Club; parcel between the rail corridor and Albion Road, south of Lester Road; area east of Limebank Road between Leitrim Road and a pint near the corner of Limebank and River Roads; an area south of Leitrim Road currently designated General Rural and Natural Environment Area; and a swath of land near High Road, currently designated Sand and Gravel Resource Area. The “h” and exception provision should be removed from the ME[527r]-h and ME[541r]-h zones. Consider creating a joint T1A/ME zone. The ME2 zone at Earl Armstrong and High Road should be ME. Exceptions [306r] and [525r] should be deleted if range of T1A zone permitted uses are broadened to include these uses. A T1A zone should be applied to the lands zoned EP south of Leitrim Road as these lands have no bona-fide environmental significance. 4160 Riverside Dr. – No uses that are noise sensitive (e.g. day care) or that could interfere with navigational equipment or telecommunications (broadcast and production studios) should be permitted in this IL zone. |
Has been addressed in March 2008 release of by-law;
Staff continue to oppose proposed revision as it would expand the permitted
uses beyond airport uses, hotel and related commercial uses and employment
uses as outlined in Official Plan policies
Most of the requested uses are not considered appropriate for addition at this time. The Airport Authority is working with the City on Official Plan review with respect to this area. Note that “training centre” permits a flight school, and an amusement centre, recreational and athletic facility, retail food store and retail store are already permitted if they are part of the passenger terminal or a hotel, a restriction that should continue. Agree to allow offices uses to have a 2.0 fsi. The T1A zone reflects the Macdonald-Cartier Airport designation in the Official Plan – the airport authority can work with staff on the Official Plan review regarding the extent of this designation. The holding provision should only be removed by site-specific zoning by-law amendment once the applicable conditions have been met. The ME2 Zoning reflects the Sand and Gravel Resource Official Plan designation of these lands As staff do not concur with adding the additional permitted uses to the T1A Zone, the exceptions will still be required The EP Zoning reflects the Natural Environment Area designation of these lands in the Official Plan. The lands known as 4160 Riverside Drive are zoned EP3, and environmental protection zone that permits detached dwellings, primarily to recognize existing dwellings. Along Riverside Drive, the lands are primarily vacant and zoned IL. The day care and broadcast and production studio uses can be eliminated from that zone for this |
Do not support change
Do not support change Add office to subsection (3) Do not support change at this time Do not support change at this time Do not support change Do not support change Do not support change Eliminate day care and broadcast and studio use from
this zone. |
|
Ward 19 3065 & 3089 Regional Road 174 (6024327 Canada Inc.) |
Request an RU exception zone that reflects the current
minimum lot area provisions of the Cumberland WR zone, which are 0.4 hectares
so long as the average density in the development is equal to a minimum of
0.8 hectares per lot.
|
The minimum requirement of 0.8 hectares per lot is taken directly from Official Plan policy 3.7.2.6 c) which states: “The minimum log size shall be 0.8 ha but studies may indicate the requirement for a larger lots.” The old policy allowing for 0.4 hectares so long as the average density in the development is equal to a minimum of 0.8 hectares per lot was part of the former Regional Official Plan and was not carried forward into the new Plan. |
Do not support change.
|
|
Ward 19 6155 Rockdale Road (Bergeron Construction) |
The zoning for the property was
changed via a zoning by-law amendment application to allow a school bus depot
and repair facility; however, a number of
uses were also deleted at that time which we failed to realize at the time. This change is reflected in the draft
by-law as well. Request that these uses be reinstated. |
An
application for a zoning by-law amendment to accommodate a school bus depot
and repair facility was approved in 2006 subject to a number of conditions to
minimize its environmental impact on the wellhead protection area upon which
the site is located (By-law 2006-239). This amending by-law also deleted a
number of previously permitted uses that were considered to be potentially
more hazardous to the wellhead protection area than the proposed use. No
objections to these deletions were raised at that time. Staff
does not support the reintroduction of these uses, as the wellhead protection
concerns still remain. |
Do not support change
|
|
Ward 19 (Prescott Russell) |
Place a holding provision to all
the zones abutting Regional Road 174, between Trim Road and Canaan Road, in
order to restrict any form of lot creation along this pubic highway that
would jeopardize its improvement. |
The
restriction on lot creation is through the Committee of Adjustment, through
the review of applications for severance. A holding zone in the Zoning By-law
is not an appropriate tool to restrict severances. |
Do not support change.
|
|
Ward 20 6346 Deer Meadow Drive & 6344 Deer Meadow Drive (Orchard View Reception & Conference Center) |
Request that the new zoning by-law be revised to also
permit a small hotel on the Orchard View property (6346 Deer Meadow Drive),
as well as the neighbouring property, 6344 Deer Meadow Drive. Orchard View
wishes to convert and expand the existing home to allow as many as 30 guest
rooms. They therefore request that
the zoning permit a hotel with the restriction that the number of guest rooms
not exceed 30. |
The introduction of commercial uses such as a hotel would be more appropriately be directed toward Village areas as per the Official Plan. Further the Official Plan policy 3.7.2 directs that these would require a zoning amendment process and be reviewed in accordance with the criteria identified in 3.7.2.4.
|
Do not support change.
|
|
Ward 21 Village of Manotick (Minto) |
Objects to the use of an O1 zone on approximately 50
acres centrally located in Minto 400-acre site in the village.
|
The lands in question as well the rest of the surrounding
lands are currently zoned A1-Agricultural but these specific lands are
designated as Open Space in the Official Plan, in Volume 2C, Village Secondary Plans, Village of
Manotick. The proposed O1 Zone was intended to reflect this Open Space
designation. However, as the arrangement of this open space may be subject to
change as a result of the development proposal for this area, Staff can
support placing these lands in a DR1-Development Reserve Subzone (same as the
remainder of these development lands) until the future of these lands is
determined. |
Revise zoning of area from O1 to DR1
|
|
Ward 21 5626 First Line
Rd. (Jessica Lynn Tan and Wayne Van De Graaff (Carnivàle Lune Bleue) |
That the AG-2 zone, where the property is located, be
amended by allowing an exception to provide as follows; “ an amusement park
and fair ground may be permitted during a consecutive five-week period during
the months of May to October of each year, there shall be no permanent
structures erected in connection with said uses and as an ancillary use to
the amusement park there will be allowed a heritage carnival artefacts
museum.”
|
The existing A2 Zoning does not permit this use and
the proposed AG2 Zone reflects the existing zoning. The recreational and entertainment uses proposed for this new
exception zone cannot be allowed according to the policies of the Official
Plan as they fall outside of the list of permitted land uses for Agricultural
Resource Areas. The proposed land
uses should more appropriately be situated in the General Rural Area as that
designation allows such a range of uses, subject to a zoning by-law amendment
to allow proper public notice and public consultation. In addition the Provincial Policy
Statement, Section 2.3 - Agriculture, is very restrictive of uses that may be
permitted in prime agricultural areas, and there is no doubt what is proposed
does not conform with the PPS.
Planning authorities must make decision consistent with the PPS. |
Do not support change |
|
Ward 21 Part of Lots 40 and 41, Concession 4, Township of North Gower (Fairmile Estates) |
Request
an explanation as to how the new limits of the EP zone were established.
Concerned that it may have a negative impact on a proposed subdivision. |
The boundaries for the proposed EP3 zone are based on the boundaries of the Significant Wetlands designation on Schedule A of the Official Plan. The proposed EP3 boundaries are should be retained for the time being and refinement of the zone boundaries may be done through the Plan of Subdivision process. |
Do not support change.
|
REVISED DRAFT
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW-
RURAL AREA AND GREENBELT: PUBLIC MEETING AND APPROVAL
VERSION RÉVISÉE DU
RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE GÉNÉRAL PRÉLIMINAIRE - SECTEUR RURAL ET CEINTURE DE VERDURE
: RÉUNION PUBLIQUE ET APPROBATION
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0075 City Wide / À l'échelle de la ville
The Committee heard from the
following list of delegations. A brief
summary of their presentation is listed within the minutes. The verbal presentation of those delegations
that provided written submissions has been briefly summarized as their
documentation is held on file with the City Clerk’s office.
Delegations:
Jean-Pierre Bergeron
Julie Huggan
Janet MacDonald
Jeff Turner & Bill Holtzman
Allan McLeod
Lambert McCarthy
Cheryl Doran
Doug Dods
Carol Gudz
Greg Winters
Kathleen Willis
Walter Henn
Ms. Françoise Jessop, Program
Manager, and Mr. Steven Boyle, Senior Project Manager, Planning Branch;
Planning, Transit and the Environment Department (PTE), introduced this item by
speaking to a PowerPoint slide presentation which served to provide the
Committee with a brief overview of the staff report. A copy of this presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
Chair Jellett asked a few questions
on the overall process such as, between passage and adoption, should
Councillors wish to make changes, can they do so at the Council meeting of June
25th when the By-law is to be adopted? Mr. Tim Marc, Senior Legal
Counsel stated no that could only be amended by special motion, which needs the
approval of ¾ of Council. The Chair
asked when final changes could then be made.
Mr. Marc stated at Council of April 23rd.
In response to Chair Jellett’s
question on when motions would best be brought forward, Mr. John Moser,
Director, Planning Branch, responded by stating it would be best to do so after
hearing from all delegations and following debate.
Councillor El-Chantiry stated that
some submissions were received quite, noted that staff had not had a chance to
review them, and asked whether these would be placed on hold. Mr. Moser stated that the intention would be
that new motions would be referred to staff and would be examined between now
and the 23rd of April, discussed with Ward Councillors and brought
forward to Council on April 23rd.
PUBLIC DELEGATIONS
Jean-Pierre Bergeron, owner of 6155
Rockdale Road,
stated his concern regarding a property he owns which had been rezoned in 2006
but realised later that when he added a permitted use some had been taken away and
he wished to have these permissions reinstated. A copy of his written submission is held on file with the City
Clerk’s office. He stated that he was
not in favour of what had been submitted regarding his property.
Chair Jellett, Ward Councillor for Mr.
Bergeron stated that he would move a motion regarding his request later in the
meeting.
Julie Huggan-Rainville, on behalf of
Mr. G. Milito and Orchard View Reception and Conference Centre, spoke with regard to her client’s
wish to add overnight accommodations to his business in the form of a Bed &
Breakfast or guest rooms. A copy of her
written submission is held on file with the City Clerk’s office. She stated
that benefits and enhancements to the neighbouring community would include
enhanced functions at Orchard View, a reduction in evening hour traffic, and a
reduction in drinking and driving.
Councillor Hunter stated that the
exercise of reviewing a draft comprehensive zoning bylaw is for people to bring
forth situations where they may be inadvertently losing rights they had under
previous zoning; he said he would consider restoring those, or where there was
a chance to legitimize non-conforming use he would consider this as well. However, he did not view this exercise as a
chance to sneak in the addition of a use to a property they did not have before
or doing it without going through proper procedures. He wondered if this situation fit under the first two categories
or the latter. Ms. Huggan stated that
her client was asking that the current broad zoning be maintained for uses in
the future. She went on to say that
they were not trying to “sneak in” anything new and that the property is quite
secluded.
Janet MacDonald, on behalf of her
client, owners of the Fairmile Estates Phase II Subdivision, stated that the floodway area has
been extended and will have a restrictive impact and would negatively affect
her client’s development. She stated
that they are in conversation with staff at present. A copy of her submission and that of Kollaard Associates on the
same issue are held on file with the City Clerk’s office.
Mr. Daniel Anderson, owner, Sunset
Lakes Development Corporation and Mr. Bill Holzman, on behalf of the owner, spoke of their concern regarding
the property on Parkway Road and that it is being rezoned from C4 to RC
exception 153 and they consider this downzoning since they would lose a key
issue, a retail store. They would like
those rights maintained and suggest VM (Village Mixed-use) zoning. The second component deals with the rest of
the lands, all lands endorsed by the OMB. A copy of their letter is held on
file with the City Clerk’s office. In 2006 an application for amendments came
to ARAC which staff opposed, but which the Committee recommended. This went to the OMB and the OMB agreed with
the applicant. They are asking that
zoning bylaw amendments be incorporated into this draft.
Chair Jellett stated that he did not
see this information in the submissions.
Ms. Jessop stated that this was in a letter dated April 9th and
should be added to the staff motion on late submissions.
Cheryl Doran, representing the
Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital stated that she spoke to the Committee on this
issue in November regarding zoning issues and the respect of species at risk on
Transport Canada lands. She stated that
this is regarding City owned land east of the Airport Parkway, east of CPR
right of way and is currently being looked at as Transport Canada land, best
reviewed now rather than at the time of OP review. These lands contain a Monarch butterfly way station and turtle
nesting area. This would be in keeping with the OP, Endangered Species Act,
Planning Act, etc. She went on to mention lands west of Leitrim, which
are wetlands and currently zoned for mineral extraction. This would affect the water table in the
wetlands. She stated that staff does
not support removing the “holding” designation and they support staff in this
regard as well. There is also a spot
in the greenbelt area which appears on the proposed zoning bylaw website for
2007 and 2008 which must be a mistake since staff did not support rezoning for
development reserve zone and this should be changed back to the designation for
greenbelt boundary.
Chair Jellett asked for staff’s
comment. Ms. Jessop stated that the
lands are currently designated under airport designation and that an
environmental study would have to be done to determine proper designation,
which would then go into the OP if agreed to. She stated that it was premature
to zone prior to doing the study. She
commented that it is part of the Environmental Studies group’s workplan. With regard to the possible greenbelt error,
if there is a recommendation to fix the error they will look at to see if a fix
is required.
Doug Dods, owner of the property at
5600 First Line Road,
spoke to the Committee at the November 22nd 2007 meeting and again
requested that his concern be reviewed. He explained that the existing
rural commercial business is not zoned for all the things that they are doing
and outlined the categories of equipment of his business and requested a few
additional categories. He stated that according to the latest draft his
business is in several different categories; boats, atv’s, etc… and just wanted
the term “power products” added as a category.
Also, there is a problem with storage.
The present area is approximately five thousand square feet. That building is full and requires a new
building. They also require more office
space and are requesting that two acres be allowed same zoning as commercial
zoning as now.
Councillor Harder asked if there was
a motion from Councillor Brooks on this issue.
Chair Jellett stated that this would be added to the staff motion and
reviewed before the April 23rd Council meeting.
Allan McLeod, owner at 6056 First
Line Road, stated
that his property is halfway between Manotick and Kars and is one of the oldest
original farmhouses on First Line Road.
He stated that at some point in the history of the property it was
severed along with properties to the north.
The properties were two acres in size but his is 1.13 acres or .4
hectares. It was part of a farm and
used in conjunction with horses in its existence. Since the property was purchased in 1978 they have raised horses
and show ponies. Under the proposed
bylaw their property would be re-classified such that it would require a
minimum of one hectare for the present use.
At the moment they have five animals and the bylaw would allow
five. They are not seeking any other
rights than have allowed current uses for decades, and were requesting that
recognition be given for existing uses of property.
Again Ms. Jessop stated that no
written submission had been received and this would be added to the list of
properties to be reviewed by staff in the motion before the Committee.
Councillor Hunter inquired as to how
animals could be kept on such a small lot.
Mr. Mcleod stated that they bring in hay, pile manure in one area and
that the barn sits on 15 feet of sand and there is no drainage problem, as
well, the horses are exercised on the road and neighbouring properties.
Mr. Lambert McCarthy, owner at 6182
First Line Road,
spoke to the issue of the land at 6160 First Line Road and Councillor Brooks
supports what they and their neighbours are proposing. A motion will be brought forward on this
issue. The written submission by Mr.
McCarthy and other neighbouring properties is held on file with the City
Clerk’s office. The property in question is a five-acre parcel designated for
agricultural use that had been severed because it was a poor section of land
that was no longer feasible for agriculture since most of the topsoil had been
stripped off. The owners at 6160 have a
letter that states they do not want the agricultural use designation. Adjoining properties would be ruined as
well. To zone them agricultural now is
not fair.
Chair Jellett stated that a motion
regarding this property is before the Committee and will be voted on later.
Carol Gudz, also representing the
Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital, spoke on the issue of overlays and rural
natural features of lands. She stated
that they were concerned that individuals who look at the zoning bylaw will not
see the restrictions on development in rural features lands. They feel there needs to be a signal on the
maps that there are restrictions on development of these lands and suggested an
overlay similar to a flood overlay. An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) could also be included. They feel that a zoning bylaw should include
as much information as possible re: outlining restrictions on development of a
lot.
Chair Jellett stated that this issue
came up at the fall public hearings and he did not recall the staff comment but
did recall that they did not support an overlay. Ms. Jessop stated that too many pieces of information are needed
for an overlay and all information is provided when a person comes in
requesting information on a piece of property and this information is being captured.
Ms. Gudz stated that the other item
was with regard to the Carp River Coalition and Salisbury Street. She stated
that staff indicated that modifications to the floodplain have been done
through the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) but the group
would like more information about the implementation. She says they have not been able to verify that there was a
permit approved prior to filling-in having taken place.
Mr. Greg Winters, Novatech
Engineering, spoke
to five different properties he represents; the written submissions on these
items are held on file with the City Clerk’s office. All items were added to the staff motion dealing with late
submissions.
The first item, referred to in
Document 3, dealt with 3100 Bankfield Road. This subdivision had gone through a
lengthy process and he would like to deal with staff on this issue.
The second item dealt with the
Village Walk subdivision in Carp (153 & 155 Salisbury Street). He stated that there seems to be some
confusion regarding what is a rear yard and what are the setbacks. Again he will work with staff regarding this
issue.
The third item dealt with the Hidden
Lakes subdivision and a similar concern.
There are three phases of a planned subdivision. The first two phases are already registered
and he has worked with City staff on a zoning bylaw amendment for lands around
Beaver Lake and the subdivision itself.
The zoning bylaw in 2000, when adopted, recognized the area to the east
was Phase 3 and would be subject to further approvals and future rezoning. He was concerned about interpretation of the
map outline being made absolute as it was meant to be a rough outline. He wished to have this set prior to dealing
with public conflict later.
The fourth item dealt with was the
Double Deck Driving Range at 560 Hazeldean Road. There is concern that the floodplain overlay does not accurately
reflect the current floodplain boundary.
They consulted with the MVCA and had an agreement that they could do
some filling on-site to change the floodplain outline. They had applied for a cut and fill permit,
which they received from the MVCA. Mr.
Winters wished to sit with staff to discuss the plans that were approved by
MVCA.
The fifth item was regarding the
Karson Holdings site at 3275 Carp Road.
Again he wished to work with staff to implement the vision for this
site. The floodplain has caused some
concerns since the overlay was based on outdated mapping (1983). They raised the issue that the floodplain
area had been changed by cut and fill applications that had been approved by
the MVCA, who concurred that the floodplain line should be altered to reflect
existing condition. They want to allow
parking on the flood plain line.
Kathleen Willis, a development
consultant representing two landowners; Grandeur Lumber and Maple Creek
Developments,
stated that during a final review, they noticed minor errors with regard to
both properties. She had contacted Ms.
Jessop and agreed that minor changes could be made. Ms. Jessop had indicated she would bring these forward as a late
addition and she requested that the minor modifications be approved. Ms. Jessop stated that these changes were
reflected in the staff motion under points d) and e).
Mr. Walter Henn, owner of Bearbrook
Farms, stated that
he had concerns that a right he has had for years was being taken away. He has had permission to have residential
living quarters on the properties where the business is situated as well. He understood that there was a move to take
away that kind of zoning, which he had obtained at great cost in the last few
years. He does not want the zoning
changed. His written submission is held
on file with the City Clerk’s office.
Chair Jellett stated that he would
be introducing a motion on this property.
Moved by Councillor El-Chantiry
That Recommendation 1 be amended by
adding after (b):
(c) Submissions received between March 7th, 2008
and April 9th, 2008, noted in Document 3;
(d) Adding an additional correction to Document 2,
Correction # 10, that for the lands known as 5537 First Line Road be changed to
a new subzone that reflects the minimum lot size of 1,950 m2 approved by By-law
2006-399;
(e) Adding an additional correction to Document 2,
Correction # 11, that for the land at 5224 Bank Street zoned RG1[290r] the additional use permitted should be a
lumber yard, and that a truck transport terminal be prohibited to reflect the
existing zoning; and
(f)
Direct
staff review the following submissions with a view to providing motions for
Council’s consideration as required:
1. Rideau
Valley Conservation Authority – RVCA owned properties
2. Huntley
Developments, Hidden Lake Subdivision Phase 3, Village of Carp
3. Double
Deck Golf Centre Ltd – 560 Hazeldean Rd.
4. Central
Canada Exhibition, 4980 Albion
5. Village
Walk Subdivision, Salisbury Street, Carp
6. Karson
Holdings, 3725 Carp
7. 7268
Parkway Road and related addresses (Sunset Lakes Development)
8. 6056
First Line Road (Alan McLeod)
9. 5600
First Line Road (Doug Dods)
10. 3100
Bankfield Road
That there be no further notice
pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
Chair Jellett requested that
Vice-Chair Thompson take the chair as he had a couple of motions to
introduce.
Chair Jellett stated that with
regards to Mr. Bergeron’s property he agreed with Councillor Hunter’s earlier
comment that rights already obtained should not be taken away. He spoke to the concern of the wellhead
protection area but that school buses are already on this, as are nearby gas
stations, etc. As well, the zoning that
will take place will be very restrictive to protect the wellhead protection
area.
Mr. Boyle stated that an application
had come in to add the use of a bus repair depot and due to the wellhead
protection zone certain other uses were removed.
Chair Jellett summarized the issue
that in 2006, Mr. Bergeron came to ARAC to request the addition of a school bus
depot and he believed he was adding this use to the existing Cumberland Bylaw,
however, what the City did was add the school bus depot and remove all other
uses. Mr. Bergeron wanted to right this
wrong and reinstate the other uses as enjoyed by everyone else in area.
Councillor Thompson asked for
clarification that other properties in the area are allowed such uses, which,
in the future, might be taken away; and if so, should it start now with this
property. Mr. Boyle stated that much
work has yet to be done with regard to the list of prohibited uses and until
this work is done, perhaps some uses should be allowed. He believed it might be premature to decide
now and that the Official Plan should be followed. Staff is concerned about reinstating some uses; they feel that
site plan control is sufficient to control these uses.
In response to Councillor
El-Chantiry’s question on wellhead protection and precedence, especially with
regard to West Carleton, Ms. Jessop stated that there is a big wellhead
protection area in West Carleton and the Carp area, that it is a fairly unique
situation in Ottawa, and that there are no issues with other properties.
In response to Councillor El-Chantiry’s
question with regard to this specific motion and precedence, Mr. Marc stated
that if this is reinstated and there is a subsequent decision to take it out, a
motion to reinstate could be used at an OMB meeting as precedent setting.
Councillor Thompson stated that he
would vote in favour of Chair Jellett’s motion, as he was aware of the dynamics
of the situation since he sits on the Conservation Authority Board.
Moved by Councillor Jellett
WHEREAS, the property located at
6155 Rockdale Road was recently rezoned to allow a School Bus Depot and Repair
Facility with restrictions as its located in a wellhead area;
AND WHEREAS, the applicant is aware
and is very supportive in protecting the well head area;
AND WHEREAS, during the zoning
amendment approval process, certain uses were removed from the zoning by-law;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the
City reinstate the following uses; Agricultural Supply Establishment,
Automobile Convenience Station, Automobile Gasoline Bar, Automobile Repair
Garage, Automobile Sales & Rental Establishment, Garden Centre, Nursery,
Public Utilities Installation, Recreational Vehicle Sales & Storage.
That there be no further notice
pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
YEAS
(3): Councillors B. Monette, D. Thompson,
R. Jellett
NAYS (2): Councillors E.
El-Chantiry, G. Hunter
CARRIED
Councillor Jellett introduced his
next motion with regard to Mr. Henn’s property at Bearbrook Farms and the
attached dwelling and home business, which he had fought to obtain and was now
being taken away.
Mr. Boyle stated that many changes
had taken place over time with Mr. Henn’s property but that staff was not
opposed to this motion.
Moved by Councillor Jellett
That Recommendation 1 be amended as
follows:
That the Draft Comprehensive Zoning
By-law be revised by amending the Rural Heavy Industrial [27r] exception zoning
of the property at 5013 McNeely Road (part of Lot 20, Concession 6, former City
of Cumberland) to add the additional permitted uses: detached dwelling and home-based business.
That there be no further notice
pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
Chair Jellett asked Councillor
El-Chantiry to introduce the next motion requested by Councillor Brooks.
Moved by Councillor El-Chantiry
That Recommendation 1 be amended as
follows:
That the Draft Comprehensive Zoning
By-law be revised by amending the Rural (RU) zoning of the property at 6160
First Line Road (owner R.V. Dams) to be given an exception that will prohibit
agricultural use.
That there be no further notice
pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
That the
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve modifications
to the December 7, 2007 approved Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, Volume 1
(text) and Volume 2 (maps) brought forward by:
(a) submissions received after
the November 22, 2008 Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee public meetings,
with staff recommendations as detailed in Document 1;
(b) staff recommendations
including staff-identified changes and anomalies noted in Document 2;
(c) Submissions and
staff recommendations received between March 7th, 2008 and April 9th,
2008, noted in Document 3;
(d) Adding an
additional correction to Document 2, Correction # 10, that for the lands known
as 5537 First Line Road be changed to a new subzone that reflects the minimum
lot size of 1,950 m2 approved by By-law 2006-399;
(e) Adding an
additional correction to Document 2, Correction # 11, that for the land at 5224
Bank Street zoned RG1[290r] the
additional use permitted should be a lumber yard, and that a truck transport
terminal be prohibited to reflect the existing zoning; and
(f) Direct staff
review the following submissions with a view to providing motions for Council’s
consideration as required:
1. Rideau Valley
Conservation Authority – RVCA owned properties
2. Huntley
Developments, Hidden Lake Subdivision Phase 3, Village of Carp
3. Double Deck Golf
Centre Ltd – 560 Hazeldean Rd.
4. Central Canada
Exhibition, 4980 Albion
5. Village Walk
Subdivision, Salisbury Street, Carp
6. Karson Holdings,
3725 Carp
7. 7268 Parkway
Road and related addresses (Sunset Lakes Development)
8. 6056 First Line
Road (Alan McLeod)
9. 5600 First Line
Road (Doug Dods)
10. 3100 Bankfield
Road
That there be no further notice pursuant
to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
2. Approve
that the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be revised by changing the proposed
Rural Residential -RR3 and RR3[129r] zoning of parts of the property at 4900
Carp Road to the Rural – RU zone;
That
there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
3. Approve
that the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be revised by amending the Rural
Heavy Industrial [27r] exception zoning of the property at 5013 McNeely Road
(part of Lot 20, Concession 6, former City of Cumberland) to add the additional
permitted uses: detached dwelling and
home-based business;
That
there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
4. Approve that the City reinstate the
following uses to the property located at 6155 Rockdale Road, recently
rezoned to allow a School Bus Depot and Repair Facility with restrictions, as
it is located in a wellhead area; Agricultural Supply Establishment, Automobile
Convenience Station, Automobile Gasoline Bar, Automobile Repair Garage,
Automobile Sales & Rental Establishment, Garden Centre, Nursery, Public
Utilities Installation, Recreational Vehicle Sales & Storage;
That
there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
5. Approve
that the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be revised by amending the Rural
(RU) zoning of the property at 6160 First Line Road (owner R.V. Dams) to be
given an exception that will prohibit agricultural use;
That
there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
6. Direct staff to
prepare the by-law for adoption, which will include any and all modifications
by Council, as well as Zoning By-law amendments approved since December 2007.
CARRIED as amended
The following correspondence was received and is held on file with the City Clerk:
1. Kollaard & Assoc. letter dated 29 February 2008.
2. Soloway Wright letter dated 27 March 2008.
3. Stantec Consulting Ltd. letter dated 31 March 2008.
4. United Counties of Prescott Russell CAO/Clerk letter dated 2 April 2008.
5. Airport Authority letter dated 3 April 2008.
6. Lambert & Monica McCarthy letter dated 4 April 2008
7.
Berry Family correspondence (undated); submitted as part of
McCarthy package
4 April 2008.
8. Dams Family correspondence (undated); submitted as part of McCarthy package 4 April 2008.
9. Mark MacGowan e-mail sent 7 April 2008.
10. Julie Huggan, Tennant, Huggan & Assoc. letter dated 8 April 2008.
11. Ontario Realty Corp. letter dated 9 April 2008.
12. Greg Winters letter via e-mail Re: Huntley Developments sent 9 April 2008.
13. Greg Winters letter via e-mail Re: Double Deck Driving Range sent 9 April 2008.
14. Greg Winters letter via e-mail Re: Karson Holdings sent 9 April 2008.
15. Greg Winters e-mail Re: Village Walk Subdivision sent 9 April 2008.
16. Holzman Consultants letter dated 9 April 2008.
17. FoTenn Consultants e-mail / letter dated 9 April 2008.
18. Paquette Planning Associates letter dated 10 April 2008.
19. Jean-Pierre Bergeron letter dated 10 April 2008.
20. Ted Cooper e-mail sent 10 April 2008.