3.             ZONING - 1149 YORKS CORNERS ROAD

 

ZONAGE - 1149, CHEMIN YORKS CORNERS

 

 

 

Committee recommendationS as amended

 

(This application is not subject to Bill 51)

 

That Council

 

1.                  Accept an amendment to the former Township of Osgoode Zoning By-law, to change the zoning of Part of 1149 Yorks Corners Road from Rural (RU) to Residential (R), as shown in Document 1.

 

2.         Accept an amendment to the New Comprehensive Zoning By-law to change the zoning of Part of 1149 Yorks Corners Road from Agriculture Zone 3 (AG3) to Rural Residential 8 (RR8), as shown in Document 1.

 

 

FOR THE INFORMATION OF COUNCIL

 

DIRECTION TO STAFF:

 

Planning, Transit and Environment staff to prepare a supplementary report for the City Council meeting on 8 October 2008.

 

 

RecommandationS MODIFIÉES du Comité

 

(Cette demande n’est pas assujettie au projet de loi 51)

 

Que le Conseil

 

1.                  accepté une modification au Règlement municipal de l’ancien Canton d’Osgoode visant à changer le zonage d’une partie de la propriété située au 1149, chemin Yorks Corners, de Zone rurale (RU) à Zone résidentielle (R), comme le montre le document 1.

 

2.                  accepté une modification au nouveau Règlement de zonage général visant à changer le zonage d’une partie de la propriété située au 1149, chemin Yorks Corners de Zone agricole 3 (AG3) à Zone résidentielle rurale 8 (RR8), comme le montre le document 1.

 


 

POUR LA GOUVERNE DU CONSEIL

 

DIRECTIVE AU PERSONNEL:

 

Que le personnel d’Urbanisme, Transport en commun et Environnement prépare un rapport supplémentaire pour la réunion du Conseil du 8 octobre 2008.

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.      Deputy City Manager's report Planning, Transit and the Environment dated 25 June 2008 (ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0114).

 

2.      Extract of Draft Minutes, 25 September 2008.


Report to/Rapport au :

 

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Comité d'agriculture et des questions rurales

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

25 June 2008 / le 25 juin 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 : Karen Currie, Manager / Gestionnaire, Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement

(613) 580-2424, 28310  Karen.Currie@ottawa.ca

 

Osgoode (20)

Ref N°: ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0114

 

 

SUBJECT:

ZONING - 1149 Yorks Corners road (FILE NO. D02-02-03-0190)

 

 

OBJET :

ZONAGE - 1149, chemin yorks corners

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:

 

1.                  Refuse an amendment to the former Township of Osgoode Zoning By-law, to change the zoning of Part of 1149 Yorks Corners Road from Rural (RU) to Residential (R), as shown in Document 1.

 

2.                  Refuse an amendment to the New Comprehensive Zoning By-law to change the zoning of Part of 1149 Yorks Corners Road from Agriculture Zone 3 (AG3) to Rural Residential 8 (RR8), as shown in Document 1.

 

 

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité de l'agriculture et des affaires rurales recommande au Conseil :


 

1.                  de refuser une modification au Règlement municipal de l’ancien Canton d’Osgoode visant à changer le zonage d’une partie de la propriété située au 1149, chemin Yorks Corners, de Zone rurale (RU) à Zone résidentielle (R), comme le montre le document 1.

 

2.                  de refuser une modification au nouveau Règlement de zonage général visant à changer le zonage d’une partie de la propriété située au 1149, chemin Yorks Corners de Zone agricole 3 (AG3) à Zone résidentielle rurale 8 (RR8), comme le montre le document 1.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The purpose of the subject application is to amend to the former Township of Osgoode Zoning By-law to change the zoning on a part of 1149 Yorks Corners Road.  The property is 16.8 hectares in area and the part subject to rezoning is approximately 0.53 hectares in area.  The site is situated on the east side of Yorks Corners Road, south of Mitch Owens Road.  The site is vacant and is situated directly east of the hamlet of Edwards.  Rural residential lots exist to the west, north, and south of the site.  Vacant lands zoned Rural exist to the east of the subject land.

 

The property is zoned Rural (RU) under the former Township of Osgoode Zoning By-law.

 

Purpose of Zoning Amendment

 

The applicant is seeking to rezone part of 1149 Yorks Corners Road to permit three privately‑serviced residential lots having a minimum area of 1776 square metres and 30 metres of frontage.  The closest zone within the former Township of Osgoode Zoning By-law that matches the applicant’s request is “Residential (R)” which permits a residential use on minimum lot area size of 1393.5 square metres and with a minimum lot frontage of 30.4 metres. 

 

Under the former Township of Osgoode Zoning By-law 2003-230, the subject land is presently zoned “Rural (RU)”.  The permitted main uses within a Rural Zone are a single-detached dwelling, an agricultural use and a forestry use.  This zone also permits an animal kennel and other uses.  The minimum lot area for single detached dwelling is 10 hectares (25 acres).  The minimum lot frontage allowed under the By-law for a single detached dwelling is 182.8 metres.

 

The new Comprehensive Zoning By-law has the subject land zoned Agriculture Zone 3 (AG3).  This zone has similar permitted uses and standards as those of the aforementioned Rural Zone.  The only difference between this zone and the Rural zone is the lot frontage as the requirement under AG3 is 60 metres.

 

It is anticipated that the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law will be passed by City Council on June 25, 2008.  In the new by-law, a zone that will permit a residential use on a lot that is approximately 1756 square metres with 30 metres of frontage is Rural Residential Zone 8 (RR8).  The minimum lot area and frontage permitted for RR8 is 1600 square metres and 30 metres, respectively.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Provincial Policy Statement

 

The subject land is within a prime agricultural area.  In prime agricultural areas permitted uses and activities are limited to agricultural uses and agriculture-related uses. 

 

Agriculture-related uses are those that are farm-related commercial and farm-related industrial uses that are small in scale and directly related to the farm operation and are required in close proximity to the farm operation.  Any proposed use shall be compatible with agriculture, and shall not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations.

 

Land can only be excluded from prime agricultural area for limited non-residential uses, provided that the land does not comprise a specialty crop area, there is a demonstrated need within the planning horizon for additional land to be designated to accommodate the proposed use, there are no reasonable alternative locations which avoid prime agricultural area.

 

The proposed use that is being considered under this Zoning By-law Amendment is not considered compatible with agriculture and cannot be considered an agricultural related use.  It is a type of use that will impede surrounding agricultural operations when in proximity to farm operations.   The proposed lots are not considered to be farm-related commercial or farm-related industrial.  Moreover, the proposal further contravenes the Provincial Policy Statement, as there is no demonstrated need identified within the planning horizon for additional land to be designated to accommodate the proposed use and numerous reasonable alternative locations exist which avoid prime agricultural areas.

 

The Provincial Policy Statement does not support the creation of three residential uses within a prime agricultural area.  Any residential development proposal should be redirected to lands designated Village or within the urban boundary’s residential zones where there is sufficient and adequate servicing capacity.

 

Official Plan

 

According to the Official Plan, the subject land is designated “Agricultural Resource Area”.   The Official Plan recognizes the importance of protecting and preserving this vital resource from loss to other uses.  It is intended to protect the major areas of agricultural production and other lands suitable for agriculture from loss to other uses.  It also ensures that uses that would result in conflicts with agricultural operations are not established in productive farming areas.  Residential severances are only permitted for very limited farm-related purposes.  The creation of new non-farm residential lots is generally not permitted.  As well, all new farm and non‑farm development, including severances, must comply with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae, as amended from time to time.

 

Within the Official Plan, the policies state that residential uses that would result in conflicts with agricultural operations are not to be established. 

Accordingly, all new farm and non-farm development, including severances, must comply with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulae.  Data to calculate the MDS has not been submitted to date by the applicant. 

 

The introduction of residential uses into an agricultural area may hinder the expansion of farm operations, by limiting the expansion or introduction of barns and manure storage facilities within the general vicinity.  Land uses, other than an agricultural use, are to be strictly limited to uses directly related to agriculture and such agriculturally related uses. 

 

Policies also exist to safeguard the integrity of groundwater resources, and as such, the City is to consider the potential for impact on groundwater resources.  In this case, the part requested to be rezoned has been identified as lands that play a role in the management of the groundwater resource.  In response, the applicant submitted a hydrogeological study for the City to assess the appropriateness of the proposed residential uses.  The technical results from the hydrogeological study do not provide satisfactory confirmation that the part subject to the application is an appropriate location for three privately serviced residential uses.

 

The policies of the Official Plan do not support the creation of three residential parcels within a prime agricultural area.  In fact, even if the lands were designated General Rural, three severances would not be permitted.

 

Servicing Issues 

 

A dug well was constructed on the subject site; however, no quantity testing was performed.  In the absence of quantity testing, it cannot be determined whether there will be a reliable supply of groundwater over the long-term.  Also, based on the description provided for the dug well, there are significant concerns as to whether the well meets the requirements of Regulation 903 “Wells”, Ontario Water Resources Act.  No professional certification has been provided on the compliance of the well with the regulation, as required pursuant to Osgoode By-law 37-98, which is still in effect, and a well record has also not been submitted. 

 

Groundwater from the dug well was submitted for analysis, and bacteria were encountered.  This is a cause for concern that has not been satisfactorily addressed.  The safety of the groundwater is therefore questionable. 

 

No plan showing the location of a house, a well and a sewage system for each proposed lot has been submitted as part of the hydrogeological and terrain analysis report and its revisions.  This leaves sufficient doubt in Conservation Authority’s and the City’s mind as to whether or not a Zoning Amendment to permit three lots of 1776 square metres is appropriate.

 

The size of the proposed lots has yet to be substantiated.  The Conservation Authority Hydrogeologist and City Staff are in agreement on the concerns noted herein. 


 

Other Planning Issues

 

The proposed zoning presents another concern in that the lands that are intended to remain in the Rural zone would be left with a frontage of only 11 metres.  This frontage is located to the south of the most southerly proposed lot identified in Document 1.  Within this 11-metre corridor there is a watercourse/municipal drain which further reduces the frontage on Yorks Corners Road.  A frontage of less than 11 metres within the setback requirements from watercourses is not considered sufficient for the functional development of a 16.2-hectare lot that is to remain zoned Rural.

 

Summary

 

Staff do not support the proposed Zoning By-law amendment as it contravenes the Provincial Policy Statement and does not comply with the policies of the Official Plan. 

The rezoning the subject lands will result in the residual lands having insufficient frontage to meet the Rural zoning provisions.  The frontage requirement under the Rural zone is 182.8 metres, whereas the residual frontage will be approximately 11 metres.  The hydrogeological study submitted with this amendment proposal also does not provide conclusive evidence that there is sufficient water quantity or quality for three residential lots that are approximately 1776 square metres each.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The introduction of three residential uses into this area may adversely affect the groundwater quality and quantity.

 

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The proposed Zoning By-law amendment introduces residential uses into an area protected for agricultural and agriculturally-related uses.  By permitting residential uses, a major agricultural area will become fragmented.  The introduction of residential uses into an agricultural area will hinder the expansion of farm operations, by limiting the expansion or introduction of barns and manure storage facilities. 

 

CONSULTATION

 

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy.  The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation.  The City received one objection from the public to this application.  The neighbour was opposed to this proposal on the basis that: 

 

  1. The proposed development is not in keeping with the lotting fabric (size and frontage) of the Edward hamlet’s large single family lots.
  2. There is a water quantity problem that exists within the area and shallow dug wells do not provide enough water in the summer months for existing lots of record.
  3. There is a water quality issue within the area and water is usually bacteria-laden for existing lots of record.
  4. Three more septic systems in close proximity to each other and to existing lots of record gives rise to the possibility of contamination for existing wells within the general area.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

 

The application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendments due to the complexity of the issues associated with hydrogeology.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1      Location Map

 

DISPOSITION

 

City Clerk’s Branch, Council and Committee Services to notify the owner, 1534058 Ontario Inc., c/o. Martin and Anna Schouten, 6139 Malakoff Road, Richmond ON K0A 2Z0, applicant, Adrian Schouten, 6133 Malakoff Riad, Richmond, ON  K0A 2Z0, OttawaScene.com, 174 Colonnade Road, Unit #33, Ottawa, ON  K2E 7J5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code:  26-76) of City Council’s decision.

 

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

 

Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.


LOCATION MAP                                                                                                  DOCUMENT 1


ZONING - 1149 YORKS CORNERS ROAD

ZONAGE - 1149, CHEMIN YORKS CORNERS

ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0114

Deferred on August 21, 2008 / Renvoi du 21 août 2008                        OSGOODE (20)

 

(This application is not subject to Bill 51)

 

Shomad Murshid, Planner II, Danny Page, Manager of Development Approvals East/South and Mike Wildman, Manager of Infrastructure Approvals provided a PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. 

 

Councillor Thompson advised that the applicant’s original intent was for three properties, although he recently indicated to city staff that he reduced that to two severances on that property.  Ms. Murshid clarified that the intent is to re-zone to create two residential lots on the property and have the remainder left over.

 

Councillor Thompson verified with Mr. Page that there are homes being constructed south of the property.  The zoning amendment for the property in question serves to facilitate the creation of two new lots.  It began with an indication that there would be three new lots; however the proposal has since been modified to have two lots. 

 

In response to a question by Councillor Thompson, Mr. Page advised that an assessment was not submitted in conjunction with this application, although staff did a visual check of different buildings that could be barns. 

 

Councillor Hunter noted that one of the things in the Official Plan that allows development in agricultural areas is when the application can be considered infill, and questioned if staff weighed the application on the basis of infill.  Mr. Page clarified that the Official Plan contains policies that deal with infill; however, the Provincial Policy Statement has been amended and it no longer allows for infill lots to occur.  After reviewing previous policies, this particular proposal would not be permitted because the distance between the established lots both north and south is in excess of 100 metres; therefore would not qualify for those infill policies. 

 

Councillor Hunter spoke of a second concern regarding the potential well water quality and added that nearby, a mobile home park has severe water quality issues and asked staff about the regulations on water quality.  Mr. Wildman responded that there are a number of policy documents relating to water quality, one being the Provincial Policy Statement, which talks about lot creation and having supply and quality of water.  Also Section 4.4.2 of the Official Plan very precisely speaks to water quality and quantity.  There is also the Provincial Procedures D55 as well as other Provincial Ontario Drinking Water objectives and standards.  In short, there is adequate quantity and quality of water. 

In responding to a question by Councillor Hunter asking for clarification on what was before the Committee, Mr. Page explained that the report referred to zoning the lands only and not about a lot creation; however in looking at the appropriateness of the zoning amendment, staff looked to what the eventual intended use was and similarly the hydro geological investigations were based on the ultimate intentions, which was to start off with three lots but became two.

 

Mr. Kertzer, Legal representative on behalf of the applicant explained that the report before the Committee was no longer accurate as the events have overtaken the report.  He referred to the Servicing and Consultation section of the report and advised that the matters have been dealt with through studies.  He argued that this was not a significant residential use for this area and having been through this process before there are hundred of houses in there that were designated an Official Plan as orange agricultural, which made it a difficult situation for all the existing owners.  Mr. Schouten, the applicant made his application for three small lots and based on the advice, they are now two large lots and all of the work was done to show that there is quality and quantity of water in advance. 

 

Craig Houle, Professional Engineer, Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd, further elaborated on the hydrogeology and responded to Councillor Hunter’s comments.  He referred to the water issues at the trailer park and said in that particular case, the well was within bedrock.  He explained that the bedrock in the area of Edwards is known to contain salty water, equivalent to the ocean and for that reason, all the wells in the Edwards area are called overburden wells.  It is a well that is dug down within the overburden soil and it is constructed in a manner that water can enter the well from being overburdened and not from the bedrock.  Furthermore, a test well was constructed on the site.  Multiple ground water tests have been conducted on the well and those tests have indicated that the water meets Ontario Drinking Water Standards.  The capacity in the well is 3800 litres, which is more than enough to pass and sustain a normal house for a period of three or four days.  They feel that they have identified sufficient quality and quantity of water at this site.

 

Councillor Thompson explained that the water is potable according to the City’s Public Health Unit.  The problem lies with the aesthetics of the water in Lynwood.  He questioned Mr. Houle about the properties around the site in question and if there are issues with water quality and quantity.  Mr. House advised that as part of their study, they conducted interviews with nearby homeowners in and around the area of these lots and based on the interviews, no one indicated having any water quality or quantity issues.

 

In response to a question by Councillor Thompson, Mr. Houle advised that they were not aware of any significant impairment to ground water and added that the septic systems on the property would be designed to Provincial Standards. 

In response to a question by Councillor Brooks, Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel advised that the test for the provincial policy statement that this Committee is well aware is that one has to be consistent with it.  You had the advice from Mr. Page that infills are defined by being within 100 metres of what would be the adjoining development, that is not the case here.  It is difficult in that scenario to make an argument that the proposal is consistent with the policy statement.

 

Councillor Hunter reported that Mr. Kertzer presented significantly different information that was in the original report that was before the Committee.  The slide presentation showed different lotting and questioned how the Committee are supposed to make a decision on a report that is no longer accurate.  He asked how long staff had the information from the applicants that as they are making a different application and they have significantly different information on water quality than is in this report.  Mr. Page explained that the time the report was prepared, it reflected the application that was before Committee; however, since that time, the application was modified a number of times.  The lot sizes have been altered and the most recent submission came in on September 22, 2008.  He advised that there had been some modifications that have addressed some of the water concerns but staff continue to have concerns with the proposal with the conformity with the Official Plan as well as with the Provincial Policy Statement.

 

Councillor Hunter expressed frustration with the fact that the report was outdated based on the latest information.  Chair Jellett agreed with Councillor Hunter and asked if it is the will of the Committee to send the report back to staff until all of the information is provided. 

 

In response to a question by Chair Jellett, Mr. Marc said that if the matter were appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, the date of the report would be referenced but the Board member would make a decision on the evidence.

 

The Committee spoke of the option of deferring this to a subsequent meeting in order to allow staff to prepare a supplement report.  Councillor Thompson informed the Committee that he would be away for both meetings in October, although would be at the City Council meeting on October 8.

 

Councillor Hunter asked staff if they could provide a supplemental report containing the updated information concerning the water qualities and relotting, be appended to the report for Council.  John Moser, Director, Planning Branch advised that a supplementary report can be ready in time for the next Council meeting.  He spoke in defence of staff and explained that traditionally when an item is deferred, the same report is considered at a subsequent meeting.

In terms of staff updating the report, it would have meant deferring it to a later date.  He concluded that if Committee wanted to make a decision today, staff would provide an update in a form of a memo to Council.

 

Moved by Councillor Brooks,

 

That the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee direct staff to prepare a supplemental report for the Council meeting on October 8, 2008.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

 

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:

 

1.                  Refuse an amendment to the former Township of Osgoode Zoning By-law, to change the zoning of Part of 1149 Yorks Corners Road from Rural (RU) to Residential (R), as shown in Document 1.

 

2.                  Refuse an amendment to the New Comprehensive Zoning By-law to change the zoning of Part of 1149 Yorks Corners Road from Agriculture Zone 3 (AG3) to Rural Residential 8 (RR8), as shown in Document 1.

 

                                                                                                LOST

 

YEAS (2 ):  Councillors Hunter, Jellett

NAYS (4 ):  Councillors Monette, Harder, Brooks, Thompson

 

Moved by Councillor Harder,

 

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:

 

i.                    Accept an amendment to the former Township of Osgoode Zoning By-law, to change the zoning of Part of 1149 Yorks Corners Road from Rural (RU) to Residential (R), as shown in Document 1.

 

ii.                  Accept an amendment to the New Comprehensive Zoning By-law to change the zoning of Part of 1149 Yorks Corners Road from Agriculture Zone 3 (AG3) to Rural Residential 8 (RR8), as shown in Document 1.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED


 

YEAS (4):  Councillors Monette, Harder, Brooks, Thompson

NAYS (2):  Councillors Hunter, Jellett

 

 

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:

 

1.                  Accept an amendment to the former Township of Osgoode Zoning By-law, to change the zoning of Part of 1149 Yorks Corners Road from Rural (RU) to Residential (R), as shown in Document 1.

2.                  Accept an amendment to the New Comprehensive Zoning By-law to change the zoning of Part of 1149 Yorks Corners Road from Agriculture Zone 3 (AG3) to Rural Residential 8 (RR8), as shown in Document 1.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED, as amended

 

 

DIRECTION TO STAFF:

 

Planning, Transit and Environment staff to prepare a supplementary report for the City Council meeting on 8 October 2008.