Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement

Minutes 21/ Procès-verbal 21

Tuesday, 9 November 2004 9:30 a.m.

le mardi 9 novembre 2004 9 h 30

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

Present / Présent : Councillor / Conseiller P. Hume (Chair / Président)

Councillor / Conseillère P. Feltmate (Vice-Chair / Vice-présidente)

Councillors / Conseillers M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, G. Bédard, J. Harder, D. Holmes G. Hunter, H. Kreling

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

Councillor Kreling declared a Conflict of Interest on Item 4 as he Chairs the Algonquin College Board of Governors.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ratification dES procÈs-verbaUX

Minutes 20 of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 26 October 2004 were confirmed.

At the outset of the Meeting Chair Hume began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments listed as Items 31 – 11, must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.

REFERRALS/deferrals

RENVOIS/reports

1. zoning - 1987 rosebella AVENUE

ZONAGE - 1987, AVENUE ROSEBELLA

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0245

Deferred from 28 September meeting GLOUCESTER-SOUTHGATE (10)

Chair Hume acknowledged there was a Motion to defer the item to 11 January 2005.

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

Whereas the applicant requires additional time to explore other options for the property with the community at a meeting to be held on November 15^th, 2004,

And whereas the applicant has requested deferral of this item to January 11, 2005.

Therefore be it resolved that Report Ref. ACS 2004-DEV-APR-0245 dealing with a rezoning application for the property at 1987 Rosebella Avenue be deferred to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting scheduled for January 11, 2005

CARRIED as amended

Planning and GROWTH MANAGEMENT

URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE

PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH
DIRECTION DE L’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES

D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE

2. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING - 1872 MERIVALE ROAD

Plan officiel et zonage - 1872, chemin merivale

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0208 Bell-South Nepean / Bell-Nepean sud (3)

John Moser, Director, Development and Infrastructure, Planning and Growth Management (PWG), Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals, and Martin Barakengera, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 19 October 2004. Staff responded to questions posed by Committee members, with the main points summarized below.

· On the question of Hunt Club Road being a scenic road, consideration has been given to bring the building as close to Hunt Club as possible, but there is precedence with a building at the corner of Merivale and Hunt Club and subsequent development will follow the established building alignment.

· The building does wrap and come closer to the road. The treatment along Hunt Club is considerably improved from that historically along Merivale.

· It is not a Main Street type of approval since that is not the character of Hunt Club, which is a much broader road with landscaped boulevards. A scenic entry route is not the same as a Main Street; it is not intended that buildings come forward to the street line. There is a different set of criteria. The buildings are set back to some extent with enhanced landscaping on the road, which has been the design standard used.

· The scenic route was a new introduction in the Council-approved Official Plan (CAOP) and extends from the river along Hunt Club to the 416. The western section through the Greenbelt is certainly very scenic and well landscaped. As you head easterly to the more developed area with retail, automotive use, it has not been historically scenic and staff is seeking to improve that through additional landscaping along the frontage and the design parameters of buildings and layout as one approaches the area.

· The OP Amendment (OPA) before Committee was only required in terms of the use on the property, not the built form and development of the parcel. The CAOP permits this development; the former Nepean did and therefore this was an OPA to resolve some of the issues under the old Plan and to change the zoning to allow a change in use within the buildings (an expansion of uses within the building), but the Site Plan that approves the physical form of the buildings has been approved under delegated authority.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Lloyd Phillips, Lloyd Phillips and Associates, Agent for the developer, agreed with the staff comments and supported the staff recommendation. With respect to the treatment and landscaping, when the owner (Cohen and Associates) purchased the property (being the former Beaver Lumber) it was subsequently re-designed as the Mobilia store and an addition was constructed. Throughout the development process, additional landscaping was required along the Hunt Club frontage. At this time of year and with the recent installation of trees, it does not look attractive, but there was considerable tree planting along the Hunt Club frontage and as well the owner has extended the sidewalk a considerable distance west from the Merivale intersection to the existing Mobilia store intersection. Another sidewalk portion is being built, wrapping around the corner as part of the City’s ongoing programme to have sidewalks installed in this area to facilitate pedestrian access.

Michael Polowin, Solicitor for the applicant, added that new additions built to date bring the building form to the street. What has been approved under delegated authority for the expanded parcel of land does not continue the building line. It effectively takes the building, which is set back and makes the final form L-shaped, bringing the side right up to the street, so that in fact there will be streetscape when the overall Plaza is completed. One third of the frontage will have buildings at the street line.

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

The Committee approved the recommendations.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve and adopt an amendment to the Official Plan of the former City of Nepean to redesignate 1872 Merivale Road from Business Park to Special Commercial Policy Area to permit retail and department store uses, and to add a new policy to Section 4.7 of the Official Plan, as detailed in Document 2.

2. Approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law of the former City of Nepean to rezone 1872 Merivale Road from Industrial Service Zone (MS) and Institutional Zone (I) to Industrial Service Zone, Exception (MS Block XX), as detailed in Document 3.

CARRIED

3. ZONING - 11 CLARIDGE DRIVE

ZONAGE - 11, promenade claridge

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0211 Bell-South Nepean / Bell-Nepean sud (3)

David Bryden and Sylvie Lalonde, Conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario, were present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 25 October 2004. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-Law 100-2000 to change the zoning of 11 Claridge Drive from Residential Mixed Unit Zone - Holding (RMU-H) to Institutional School (IS) as detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED

4. ZONING - 130 LOTTA AVENUE

ZONAGE - 103, avenue lotta

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0234 Baseline (8)

Councillor Kreling declared a Conflict of Interest as he Chairs the Algonquin College Board of Governors.

J. Moser, Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, and Doug James, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 22 October 2004. Mr. Lindsay noted there was a question related to a site plan concern by a delegation. The City had not as yet received a formal site plan application for the parcel, but would like to be made aware of any concerns, to consider same at site plan. Daphne Wretham, J. L. Richards and Associates Limited, was present in support of the staff recommendation.

The Committee heard from the following delegation:

Denise Korsman provided a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of her main points are outlined below:

· Did not object to the new facility; however, was opposed to any car access from Lotta.

· Councillor Chiarelli hosted a meeting and Lotta residents received very informative planning information from Algonquin College on their plans for the site.

· Lotta residents’ primary concern is car access through Lotta; a foot path will be needed to reach Base Line Station and other businesses in the area. Patrons should utilize the clubhouse facing Algonquin College to access any sporting events.

· Thanked Algonquin College, who is patrolling the area and residents noted the unnecessary traffic in the area has decreased, which was appreciated.

Mr. Lindsay offered the concerns were valid and acknowledged the College is also interested in securing the perimeter of the site such that any access to vehicles would be through the Algonquin College property and not onto adjacent streets. Staff will be looking at providing the pedestrian only linkage to allow for movement for individuals to access the Base Line Station as mentioned and certainly staff did not want to see a parking lot accessing the local streets. The points were well taken and at such time as the site plan application is received staff will be making these points with the proponent and hopefully these will be incorporated into the design.

At the request of Chair Hume, Mr. Lindsay undertook to receive the information and would ensure Ms. Korsman was contacted when the Site Plan application was received.

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

The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 130 Lotta Avenue from Institutional School (IS Block 1) to Institutional (I Block 13) as shown in Document 1.

CARRIED

5. ZONING - 16 ANNA AVENUE

ZONAGE - 16, avenue Anna

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0213 River / Rivière (16)

J. Moser, Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, Larry Morrison, Manager, Infrastructure Approvals, T. Marc and Gordon Harrison, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 26 October 2004. Following a presentation by Mr. Harrison, staff responded to questions posed by Committee members, with the main points summarized below.

· Councillor McRae thanked Mr. Harrison for the outstanding work conducted on the file and the interaction with the community.

· The extent of the commercial zoning, which includes 1150, 1160 and the restaurant to the west, is outlined on the location map, dividing the commercial from residential. The second line divides the R1J zone from the R1G zone; these are both R1 zones, but there is a difference in terms of the sub zones.

· The subject property is contiguous to the existing child care; child care is permitted under the general urban area.

· Concerns: traffic and parking impacts, especially with the impact of the existing operation on the community; the expansion of that facility and the additional impact on the community to the south; precedent that will occur with another single family home directly to the south of 1150 Carling; that property could be obtained and the opportunity for expansion of the Day Care operation further into the community.

· 10 child care spaces were requested; pre-existing problems with the facility.

· On site parking is a site plan issue.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Terry MacIver, The Children’s Place, (and Eric Sonego) provided a detailed written submission dated 4 November 2004 that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below:

· Background.

· Unique child care; very aggressive and dedicated to working children under their care, regardless of their challenges.

· Expansion was not due to overgrowing the current site, but because the house became available and could fulfill a special function.

· Centre is attracting children with medical fragility and provided examples of such children with special needs that required staff training along with that of the parent(s). There are limited facilities that work with such special needs children. Many families in the community need assistance and respite.

· Concurred with Councillor McRae that Mr. Harrison was phenomenal and met the challenge although she did not agree with comments contained in the report and would like to address those comments. Clarification and/or corrections are noted below:

1) “applicant requested additional time” - That was part of a discussion on May 12 with staff and in part the result of uncertainty as to which issues were of concern to City (staff or otherwise).

2) Official Plan Policies - The reference to loss of affordable housing is suspect given the $230,000 price. While on a local road, it is one property removed from Carling, next to an existing day care centre and kitty corner to a restaurant.

3) “City-wide” service - The Children’s Place is the only program of its type, and for that reason it is situated for ease of access, with a large number of families and staff using public transportation.

4) “Traffic and parking demands” – misleading, as parking is not required for day care, families make use of short-term on street parking for pick up and drop off only and there is no evidence the existing use adversely affects traffic flow or patterns.

5) “Operating at capacity”- that is incorrect. 1150 Carling is licensed for 65 children, with 152 families currently served. The Centre is primarily subsidized; the client is billed for what is booked. 1160 Carling is licensed for 31 children; however, as quality of care is more important than revenue, maintain average billing at 21.

6) “Larger day care building” – p. 5 - fear of redevelopment to accommodate a new, larger day care are unsubstantiated and irrelevant. The yard space requirements would prevent the building of a larger centre. Even if funding was available, any such application would be considered by the City on its merits. The unsubstantiated fear should not be a relevant consideration in assessing the merits.

7) “Locational provisions” – p. 6 states several on-site structures do not meet setback provisions in the Zoning By-law; never been aware of such. Prepared to meet with the City to determine options, with consideration to the Day Nurseries Act.

8) “Other issues/observations” – p. 6 refers to various concerns raised by the community. Many of these have or can be addressed and resolved through fencing, compressor blankets, redirecting lighting, etc. Concerns with respect to traffic, turn-around, etc. are unsubstantiated. Prioritize on-site staff parking and have negotiated paid parking with residents for the balance of staff parking needs.

9) “Locational criteria” - unable to purchase other properties in the City due to strict capital funding considerations. Would be happy to work with the City and Ministry to explore other options.

10) “Performance standards” unenforceable – asked to submit these, which they can work with, in good faith; and, willing to work with the City to develop a means to ensure the standards are enforceable.

11) “Additional parking at 16 Anna” - would work with the City to develop alternative parking proposals to satisfy City’s concerns, yet provide additional parking.

12) “Conclusions” - the conclusion with respect to “existing traffic and parking impacts” is largely unsupported by any study or evidence.

· With respect to restricting the level of outdoor play activity, the licence with the Ministry can set this as a condition; and, would be satisfied with such restrictions if it would assist in the resolution of concerns.

· In conclusion, the application does represent good land use planning and it would be an appropriate and compatible use with the surrounding neighbourhood. The Children’s Place serves a crucial, unique and increasingly in demand service in the City. Concerned that the staff position to recommend refusal is based largely on residents’ views respecting concerns that are unsubstantiated by evidence.

· KanCar-Community Children’s Centre Inc. operates its facilities with the utmost concern for ensuring the quality of care for its families while maintaining the respect and support of the neighbourhood which surrounds them.

· Not prepared to offer more stress to the community and found undue stress on themselves for a project felt to benefit the City. Will accept report recommendation and would like to work with the City to find another way.

As a result of the presentation, the delegation responded to questions posited by the Committee and the main points are summarized below:

· There were a number of public meetings and the Community Association was under extreme pressure to rescind their initial letter of support, although the Association followed proper process. The Association must be commended for their efforts.

· Would like to proceed with the application, but it has brought undue stress. Land use was not a concern to the Centre; and, it did not proceed without a full investigation. The Centre is not prepared to put PEC and/or Council in a tenacious situation by having the City decide on whether or not to allow 10 spaces. While the Centre did not agree with the staff report, they are fully prepared to accept the recommendation.

· Affirmed there were 10 additional spaces that can be used at 1160. It was the house’s ambiance that attracted the Centre. A proposal will be submitted and pursued since the City has always been very supportive of child care in the past.

· The Centre chooses to use 21, which makes for a better environment; and, it does not want to place undue pressure on staff.

· Through Childrens Aid, the Centre works very successfully with children with behavioral problems; part of that is ensuring the environment is conducive.

· Adding a floor to 1160, although it is not the best prospect, is an option, but would not entertain such since it is a funding issue.

· Group homes are permitted as of right in any residential zone.

Councillor Feltmate questioned if there was a potential for PEC to refer this situation or the needs identified through this application to the Health Recreation and Social Services Committee (HRSS) for information to be brought forward with respect to a gap and the conflict issues within the particular neighbourhood to provide for the potential of visiting the issue (for a needs analysis). As Chair, Councillor Holmes acknowledged the day care situation and the space impacts could be referred to HRSS. Ms. MacIver appreciated whatever guidance and support that could be provided.

Following discussion of the unusual nature of the operation, Mr. Lindsay advised that staff relied on information provided by the proponent’s consultant; there is a letter that states quite clearly the license capacity of 31 children, 4 staff for 1150 Carling; and, 65 children, 11 staff for 1160 Carling; total license capacity – 96. PEC is hearing that it would be an exceptional circumstance if the facility did achieve full capacity.

Glenn Carr provided a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below:

· Resident of the area for 40 years. Aware of the importance of available day care in the city, but the issue is not about day care. The Carlington community is losing an affordable residential property to a business that is encroaching further into a residential neighbourhood

· If allowed, current traffic problems will be exacerbated, especially at the intersection of Carling and Anna. Historically, expressed concerns related to pedestrian, children’s and vehicular safety to the City and the Executive Director of The Children’s Place, who agreed action was required to alleviate the situation.

· Presently, Anna supports local traffic along with traffic related to The Children’s Place, The Foot Clinic, The Royal Ottawa Hospital and some from the Civic Hospital.

· The Children’s Place offers a valuable service, but further expansion will only increase existing safety problems and traffic in the neighbourhood.

Gail McClemens provided a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below. Ms. McClemens spoke on behalf of neighbours unable to attend the meeting.

· Lived in the area since 1971 and seen many different business operations on Carling, with both positive and negative influences.

· From past experience, businesses will make promises to gain approval, but residents live with the changes. As stated in the report, p.34, penultimate paragraph, in consultation with City Legal Services – performance standards submitted by the applicant are not enforceable by City Zoning By-Laws.

· Residents worked with the Ward Councillor, prior to the opening of The Children’s Place to install positive zoning along Carling to protect the residential nature of Carlington. A zoning variance was requested, which allowed the day care to open at 1150 (zoned commercial) 18 years ago.

· Stop commercial business from moving into and eroding the residential community and setting a precedent for business development within the residential community.

· Staff recommended refusal of this zoning change and as a resident she asked PEC to support residents in their quest to maintain the residential zoning.

Lisa McClemens provided a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below.

· Lived in the community for 33 years.

· Affordable neighbourhood, with many second generations remaining therein.

· Subject property represents what many in the community are looking for: single detached; yard; centrally located with good services; and, affordable.

· Allowing the expansion of non-residential will adversely impact the neighbourhood.

In closing, the OP identifies affordable housing as one of the most compelling problems in Ottawa today; City planners identified this as an undesirable intrusion into a stable residential community; and, while it is a great service, she asked PEC to support the recommendation.

Annie Woo provided a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below.

· In support of the staff recommendation to refuse the rezoning application.

· Relocated to Ottawa from Toronto in 2002. After looking in many areas of the City, this area met the policies of the OP; e.g. proximity to services (to walk to work and stores); affordable housing (under $250,000), etc.

· The Children’s Place offers an invaluable, unique 24-hour child care service. As such, the Centre services the needs of the entire City. Other options should be considered.

Allan Cameron provided a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below.

· Enjoyed the children and parents from The Children’s Place and, in the past, he pushed cars out of snowbanks, returned toys and clothing.

· Family has resided on Anna for over 60 years. 16 Anna was intended as a single family in a quiet residential area. He supported the staff recommendation to refuse.

· The proponent has suggested that possibly a tenant (staff or family member) might be installed at 16 Anna to operate in a similar manner under the direction of The Children’s Place. The addition of a gate between Carling and 16 Anna would make this a difficult situation to enforce.

· Further expansion of the Centre is shortsighted and it will no doubt outgrow itself in a short period of time with the applicant once again asking to encroach.

Sue Sullivan provided a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below.

· Resident for 24 years. The area encompasses many generations of families. It is an affordable, centrally located area within walking distance of schools, churches, synagogues, libraries, parks, shopping malls and green spaces.

· The Children’s Place provides an excellent and needed service; however, when it comes to 16 Anna, this is a land use issue.

· Many residents are wary of what will happen if the rezoning is approved. Rebuilding is a possibility in the longer term. There is no legal guarantee the proponent could not apply for a minor variance to demolish the building to re-build.

· In July, the applicant provided a list of performance standards that state the “hours of care limited from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday; and no more than 8 children permitted in the backyard at any given time.” The backyard of 16 Anna is the only shaded area of the 3 locations. As such, she did see how in good weather they would not use the area on weekends and during the week after 6. As a mother of 2 active young boys, she was aware of the importance of allowing children to be outdoors.

· Maintain the residential character of Carlington area.

Mimi Wong provided a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below.

· In support of the staff recommendation to refuse.

· Lived in the area since 1975 and located adjacent to 1150 Carling and across from 16 Anna. Due to proximity, they are directly impacted by the growing business. Recognize the value of day care services provided, but the expanding business and 24/7 operation has lead to issues with a negative impact on the enjoyment of their property.

· Issues were brought to the attention of The Children’s Place, but problems have not been resolved. They were assured at community meetings the change in use for 16 Anna would have little impact on the neighbourhood, but their experiences tell them otherwise. Given the many outstanding issues, they can only expect that any additional commercial usage would only magnify the existing problems.

Jeanne Burgess provided a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below.

· In support of the staff recommendation to refuse.

· Lived in the area for 19 years and located around the corner from The Children’s Place, which provides a valuable service and is well managed.

· Carlington was built at the end of WWII to provide affordable housing. There are trees, gardens, schools, bus service; the population is mixed with many families and residents of all ages. Residents maintain their properties, get along with their neighbours and care about the community.

· Housing is still considered affordable, especially this close to downtown. Housing is a basic need and she has devoted considerable time with the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation (CCOC) whose purpose is to increase the stock of affordable housing.

· Equal emphasis must be placed on protecting existing affordable housing and the communities in which they are located.

Bernard Sullivan provided a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below.

· Lived on Viscount for over 18 years; one of 46 residents who signed a petition to voice their opposition. Agreed with recommendation not to rezone.

· 16 Anna is located on one edge of the residential community; beside commercial on Carling. Removing a residence and placing a business would cut into the fabric of the community, thereby setting a bad precedent leading to others; and, possibly the joining of the Carling property to 16 Anna. The buildings on both sides could be razed and replaced with an imposing commercial structure(s); subsequently sold bringing more concerns into the neighbourhood.

· With business comes traffic, further exacerbating existing traffic problems with The Children’s Place. Access to the Centre is from Anna.

· Report states proposed performance standards could be legally challenged or are not enforceable. Particularly of concern are the proposed restrictions on outdoor activities.

· Daycare is unquestionably required. But, as identified in the report, that need must be met with good planning and in the right location.

As a result of the presentation and in response to queries from Councillor Cullen, staff provided the following clarification:

· The application is for an R1G; and, the exception would allow a day care as well as performance standards attached thereto.

· It would not open the door to other uses, but it would potentially allow the opportunity at a later date to demolish those two buildings to construct a larger day care.

· If additional uses were to be introduced that would require a further zoning amendment.

Donna Gordon provided a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below.

· Resides on Viscount and one yard separates her garden from 16 Anna backyard.

· Opposition has been interpreted as opposition to day care, which is not the case. As a single parent, she relied extensively and is fully supportive of day care, particularly The Children’s Place. It fills many gaps in traditional day care and is to be applauded.

· Proposed expansion will unfavourably change the nature of the community where one can still purchase an affordable, small, single-family home; populated by older residents, second generations, young couples, single parent families and singles. The area affords proximity to major bus routes, ideal for an aging population.

· The applicant informed her the primary goal is to tear down both 1160 Carling and 16 Anna to build one large building to house the day care. Alluded to in the departmental report under The Proposal and will certainly change the nature of the community.

· Supported earlier comments made in reference to issues of traffic safety, parking and loss of affordable housing.

Nisa Mairi Tummen provided a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below.

· Directly abuts subject property (2 ½ years).

· Community recognizes the value of The Children’s Place and Wellness Centre located on Carling and the unique importance of their services to parents across the City; however, the matter before PEC is one of land use.

· Community is one of the most affordable areas for first time purchasers; within easy commuting distance to work; quality of the neighbourhood and of life.

· Staff report articulates residents’ concerns on the possible future expansion of both sites through Committee of Adjustment (CA).

· Application has been compared to a home-based day care, but the plans which include office and meeting space to support 2 adjacent commercially-zoned operations are fundamentally different from that of an individual opening their home to a minimum number of children for limited hours during the day. In fact, there are a number of such home-based day cares in the area, which have been found to be compatible.

· The proposed performance standards could be challenged as pointed out in the report and are unenforceable under Zoning By-Laws. There is no way to protect the character of 16 Anna as a single family dwelling if the zoning exception is permitted.

· Supports the staff recommendation and urged PEC to approve same.

Gerald Fitzgerald provided a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below.

· Support the staff recommendation to refuse the application, although he recognized the importance of The Children’s Place and the service provided to City residents; however, the application before PEC is a land use issue.

· The report clearly spells out the issues and shortcomings of the proposal; however his personal concerns go beyond the immediate plans for the use of the site and are focused on the potential for future expansion and longer term implications and the deterioration of the residential fabric of the area:

· Business commenced in one building, expanded to 2 and is now proposing to incorporate a third. The intensification would amplify problems of traffic and noise that would reverberate throughout the community.

· Nothing to prevent a future application to the CA for demolition of 1160 Carling and 16 Anna with the construction of a new expanded commercial facility. That would result in additional congestion and not prevent the possible sale to another commercial use.

· Resident for over 23 years. The City should make every effort to preserve affordable, stable and desirable communities like Carlington. PEC has no option but to uphold land use planning principles and accept the staff recommendation.

Jennifer-Anne McNeill provided a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below.

· Speaking on behalf of 8 residents who could not attend. Resident for over 34 years.

· Value the work of The Children’s Place, however her love of children, concern for their health and happiness are NOT the issue. Difficult for all involved and the community has been painted as anti-day care, which is simply untrue; this is a land use issue. The Centre has outgrown its existing location. The issue is about the compatibility of a proposed expansion, which ultimately encroaches into the community and changes a single family dwelling and the face of the community.

· Support the staff recommendation for a number of reasons:

· Community has lived with the 2 day care sites, with its many issues. There has been a marked increase in traffic and parking in the community, most notably along streets directly surrounding the proponent. The community is already under pressure from parking due to the Royal Ottawa Hospital, Civic Hospital, restaurant, foot clinic as well as The Children’s Place.

· 2 years ago the proponent applied for permit parking along Anna for staff. The expansion will exacerbate the situation and impact community. Stevenson residents lobbied for a parking ban on part of the street due to safety issues – emergency vehicles could not access the street in the winter with cars parked on both sides.

Melinda Shaw addressed the Committee in support of the staff recommendation. Ms. Shaw resides on Viscount and directly abuts 16 Anna. Thanked staff for the report and Councillor McRae who was instrumental in helping the community with the application and responded beyond their expectations. The community is very emotional on the matter before PEC. The service provided by The Children’s Place and the Wellness Centre is invaluable to the City, but the expansion and encroachment into the community concerns residents. Everyone has pointed out different points contained in the report and the importance of it. Staff recommended the site not be rezoned and the proposal does not conform with CAOP policies as they relate to the integration and compatibility of intensification of The Children’s Place Day with the adjacent residential developments. It is an undesirable intrusion. The community is not saying that day care is undesirable, but the property will be linked to the existing 2 properties. They cannot be separated and the Centre cannot be asked to keep children inside. It is unfair to the children. They have stated they want this for the greenspace and are then not going to use it. That would seem to indicate the performance standards are only temporary measures. She stressed this is a land use issue, not one of benefits of day care, but the use of the subject property and what it means to a community. The application has brought the community together and helped the Community Association come forward and get to know the community and get them involved. There are many challenges coming up; the Royal Ottawa Hospital and what that means to their traffic concerns. The community supports many things, but asks that things remain as they are right now and let the community deal with their upcoming issues without having to worry that more businesses will encroach onto the residential area.

All of the aforementioned delegations were impressed with and appreciated the quality of the report and Mr. Harrison’s clear and careful analysis of the application as well as that of their Councillor Maria McRae. Councillor McRae facilitated open discussion and information sharing between the applicant and the community through 2 community meetings that were held in a fair and open manner. Thanked staff for the detailed, comprehensive and factual report and Councillor McRae and The Children’s Place for being actively involved over past months in community meetings and discussions to resolve some of the issues.

The Committee also received the following correspondence that is held on file with the City Clerk:

· E-mail dated 9 November 2004 from Mark and Jennifer Lavinskas in support of refusal.

· E-mail dated 8 November 2004 from Jonathan Coles in support of refusal.

· E-mail dated 3 November 2004 from Keith Davidson in support of refusal.

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

Councillor Cullen listened carefully to the community that presented their concerns relative to the intrusion into their community and acknowledged the work by Councillor McRae in dealing with this issue. There is a tremendous need for this type of facility in the City with a significant number of residents on shift work and families that need licensed child care at irregular hours. The application does not rezone this site as commercial; but proposes to permit a use already permitted in the urban area. The community’s issues relative to the intrusion into their neighbourhood is critical, but this is the picking up and drop-off of 10 children. It is to be expected that most of the traffic will use the access onto Carling. PEC needs to be properly seized with this issue and to make a choice and owes it to the child care centre to properly consider their issue. The Committee will hear from the Ward Councillor on the merits, but in order to make that happen, there needs to be a Motion. He would be moving a Motion to amend the report recommendation re Zoning – 16 Anna Avenue by replacing “refuse” with “approve”; and, adding “and that a site plan for this site be submitted to the Planning and Environment Committee for approval.” The second part would ensure there is a public process on any potential site plan concerns.

Committee members espoused the importance of the day care service provided, but in the final analysis this was a land use issue; and, the need to maintain the residential component and integrity.

Councillor Holmes did appreciate Councillor Feltmate’s intent to move a Motion that would be helpful when the City commences discussion with the child care operator regarding expansion possibilities and how the City might assist in that situation. HRSS is the appropriate Committee to discuss the day care situation.

Councillor Feltmate indicated she would put forward a Motion that the needs of the Children’s Place for expanded space be referred to the HRSS Committee for consideration and to identify potential solutions to meet the specialized needs of children and parents. She put forward that Motion because, like others on the Committee, found herself in a difficult position. The need for maintaining affordable housing and the needs of the community were important and she understood how difficult it is for a community to do that and the kind of pressures experienced in the City that do deteriorate local neighbourhoods. She was also aware that the needs for specialized care for children and the needs in particular for children being cared for at the Children’s Place are enormous in this community and very valued and the City needs to find a way to make this happen. She did believe there were some opportunities hopefully coming soon with the National Child Care Initiatives although she was unsure these would deal with capital, but believed it will provide some opportunities to explore this issue and to make priorities.

Councillor McRae thanked those in the community present and who worked exceptionally hard to understand this issue as well as Ms. MacIver and members of The Children’s Place and their staff. She absolutely maintained her strong contention that the work performed in the City is extremely valuable and Ms. MacIver is correct that when they initially met she spoke in support of the application, subject to the community and the staff report. She had not rendered a decision either way until the staff report was released and found herself in the position today of supporting her community and would like to work with Councillors Holmes and Feltmate with HRSS to help The Children’s Place and the Child Care Initiative. She wanted to go on record as saying that this is the most difficult decision she has had to deal with since being elected on Council. The Councillor concluded by saying that she would appreciate the support of PEC on the staff report and that staff has worked extremely hard to untangle a very emotional issue. She had to balance what she opined was a dire need in the City, but at the end of the day found herself supporting staff, her community and asked the Committee to do so as well.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

That the needs of the Children’s Place for expanded space be referred to the HRSS Committee for consideration and to identify potential solutions to meet the specialized needs of children and parents.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

Amend the report recommendation re Zoning – 16 Anna Avenue by replacing “refuse” with “approve”; and, adding “and that a site plan for this site be submitted to Planning Committee for approval”.

LOST

YEAS (1): Councillor A. Cullen

NAYS (8): Councillors J. Harder, H. Kreling, G. Hunter, M. Bellemare, G. Bédard, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate, P. Hume

The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council refuse an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 16 Anna Avenue, as shown on Document 1, from R1G - Detached House Zone to an R1G exception zone.

CARRIED with Councillor A. Cullen dissenting.

6. ZONING - 80 ABERDEEN AVENUE

ZONAGE - 80, rue aberdeen

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0222 Somerset (14)

Jane Ironside, J.E. Ironside Consulting Ltd., was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 22 October 2004. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 80 Aberdeen Street from R5C H(13.2) Low-rise Apartment Zone to R5C H(13.2) - exception as detailed in Document 3.

CARRIED

7. ZONING - 4025 CANYON WALK WAY DRIVE

ZONAGE - 4025, promenade canyon walk

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0224 Gloucester-Southgate (10)

J. Moser, K. Currie, G. Lindsay, Larry Morrison, T. Marc and Dhaneshwar Neermul, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 27 October 2004. Following a detailed presentation by Mr. Neermul, staff responded to questions posed by Committee members, with the main points summarized below.

· The underlying zone is RS3, which is a residential single-family zone. The underlying zoning has always been residential as far back as the City’s record show; even in the former Gloucester Zoning By-Law.

· Through the subdivision process, if a school expresses interest in a particular site (with the consent of the developer), the site is reserved through a draft plan condition for that particular purpose for 7 years, within which time the School Board has the opportunity to acquire the site for those particular purposes, usually at market value. If the developer and School Board are unable to arrive at an agreement, the School Board has options, under the Expropriations Act; the first is to simply expropriate the property and that proceeds to the OMB for the determination of value or the School Board and developer can reach an agreement conveying the land to the school but reserving the question of market value to be decided by the OMB.

· The proposed zone would allow between 60 -100 dwelling units/ha.; the underlying zone would allow 25 units/ha. The OMB hearing is scheduled for January 12 to 14. Should Council not accept the rezoning, necessitating an outside planner to represent the City at the Board, the estimated cost would be $5-10,000.

· Prior to amalgamation a subdivision application received by a local municipality would have been circulated by two agencies (former RMOC and the local municipality [Gloucester]). The City has reviewed records and found no evidence to prove or disprove the comments provided by Conseil des écoles catholiques de la langue française du Centre Est (CECLFCE) that they were not circulated. Staff has found responses on file from the other School Boards to the circulation, which would suggest the School Boards did receive circulation and 2 school boards did exercise options within the bounds of this subdivision. It is fair to assume one of those agencies would have circulated, as it is mandatory under the Planning Act to circulate to all 4 School Boards. This site forms part of a larger subdivision that included the majority of the Canyon Walk area. There are comments on the overall subdivision from the School Boards.

· CECLFCE was aware of the file and did not exercise an Option. When the zoning application was received, as required, the zoning application was circulated to the School Boards and the CECLFCE then realized this was a site they had an interest in. They have had a year to negotiate with the developer to acquire the parcel without achieving agreement. The only application specifically related to this site is being dealt with at this time.

· On the expropriation, the owner can require the matter of Expropriation to proceed to a Hearing of Necessity where a person appointed by the Province will examine as to whether or not the expropriation is necessary, but the report from the Hearing Officer is advisory only. If there is a will to pursue the expropriation, the School Board will in the end be able to expropriate the property.

· If the expropriation was completed and a Plan of Expropriation registered, Mr. Marc strongly recommended requesting the Board to adjourn the proceedings and would hope the applicant would support that. However, the applicant has made it clear they will continue to pursue the matter with the OMB so long as they continue to be the owner.

· This site is bounded by fairly new development, since amalgamation. Immediately abutting properties have not as yet been sold. Since 2001, information has been available at the new City. Pre-2001, Gloucester would have that information available, although it may have been more conceptual in nature.

· The recommendation was based upon the merits and conformity with the OP. The value of the parcel is determined during an expropriation process.

· An expropriation hearing is similar to a planning hearing. The applicants would demonstrate their view of the highest and best use of the land. If the land were to be expropriated and this rezoning had not taken place, they would still attempt to demonstrate to the OMB that the highest and best use of the land that could be achieved would be zoning similar to that requested and no doubt the School Board would argue it is single family dwelling. The Board would make its estimate of what the applicant could have achieved if it had gone forward with the rezoning.

· The site was identified as a potential school and the practice of the former City of Gloucester is to zone potentially institutional use sites as HR.

· The CAOP sets a course for more intense land use, providing a variety of residential make-ups in a neighbourhood and that is what the applicant has proposed. The former Gloucester OP and the development concept plan for this community did identify this particular site as a medium density residential parcel. The school site was not specific to this particular parcel, but in this general area and as the development progressed this parcel remains and has become contentious between residential or institutional. The application meets the objectives of the OP of the former City as well as those of the new City although the residential Holding zone is in place.

· It was common practice in the former suburban municipalities to put some form of zoning on land yet to be developed. In Cumberland, the zone was Development Residential (DR); South Nepean had a zone called Future Growth (FG); Gloucester used Holding Residential (HR). All of these indicated there would be growth whether low, medium and high density residential, commercial, institutional park. That is implemented at the time of development. It was a practice used in those municipalities to indicate the land was no longer agricultural and would develop in accordance with the planning concepts of the development area.

· The concept plan outlines a mix of uses (singles, semis, towns, stacked towns, etc), but does not give a high level of detail. It indicates there will be mixed housing, schools, parks, commercial, etc. The Subdivision process will delineate the next level of detail. Development companies may have this plan in their sales trailer and should, but purchasers have to be aware there is a broad and growing community and things evolve as time moves forward. Until approval is given and parcels are purchased and the full zoning is in place, there is no guarantee on what the continual development of the areas will be. They will continue in line with the principles outlined in the plans.

· The South Urban Community (Riverside Community) underwent a conceptual planning process and former Gloucester retained a planning consultant who completed a detailed conceptual plan relative to land use distribution. Through that conceptual planning, the Council of the former City of Gloucester chose a more broad designation in their OP, basically designating property in residential, industrial, commercial and some town centre development area categories.

· Around 1995, a plan of subdivision was submitted for 1,500 lots. It was a large scale plan of subdivision filed by two landowners, Richcraft and Urbandale, simultaneously. All those lands were filed under one or two subdivision applications.

· Today, it is a block on a subdivision plan with no reference to a school block. It has a zoning that allows for residential development. Within the last year one would have been informed there was an application to rezone the parcel.

· On vacant lands, inquiries are responded to by emphasizing the potential does exist for a rezoning or for the owner to make an application for whatever they desire on the property. There is a process in place, which is zoning amendment process and that is before PEC today. That is the venue to deal with these kinds of situation when development patterns change.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Cameron Wilson provided a detailed written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points of his presentation are noted below:

· Two main issues raised at a meeting in August: Residents needed and expected a school and abutting properties felt the rezoning would affect their property value.

· Home purchases are based on information received at the time of purchase, which is primarily provided by the developers in the area. That information consistently denoted this would be a school site.

· Based on the discussion that has just taken place at PEC today between planners, lawyers and Councillors, to put the onus and responsibility on residents to go through this level of expertise at the time of a house purchase is ludicrous

· It is not a transparent process. The developer wants to rezone from single family homes to stacked towns. The developers have set a high expectation for residents and there is now a much lower debate taking place.

· Presently, it appears that either a school will be built, meeting the original expectations or there is no school (and that is a School Board decision). Or, something in the middle, which is more in line with the original zoning of single family homes.

· As resident, he expects the builder to honour the commitments made to purchasers.

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

Keith Parker, President, Riverside South Community Association, provided a written submission, in opposition, that is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points of his presentation are noted below:

· Riverside South is a very well designed community with a mix of housing options and when fully built will range from single family homes to higher density apartments. Housing is interspersed with greenspace and includes schools and major parks.

· Based on land-use planning concerns, the site is not suitable for the proposed zoning:

· The final iteration in the design of a community is the Plan of Subdivision. Based on good planning principles this site was designated as a school.

· The 1992 Plan quoted in the report borders on irrelevancy. There are many inconsistencies between that plan and subsequent development. Decisions made in 1992 are based on a wholly different surrounding environment.

· Both old and new OPs indicate stacked towns should be within walking distance of a transit node.

· Transportation and Transit realities:

· It will not achieve the targeted modal split; conditions do not exist for a successful push to achieve 1.5 cars/unit.

· The extra cars will clog Spratt or an already small park parking lot. 150 units will have direct access to Spratt as opposed to the well-designed collector system.

· It adds 188 units into this phase of development making an early additional contribution to Limebank, which is already over capacity.

· With respect to social and recreation infrastructure, the report states “The Planning and Infrastructure Approvals staff have reviewed the proposal and are satisfied the infrastructure can support the number of units being proposed.” With only one community centre in this quadrant (already inadequate), that is incomprehensible. The community has been unable to schedule youth activities due to a high demand for organized activities.

· Finally, the need for a third school is well documented and supported by the size of this quadrant and indicated in the Plan of Subdivision. In a City that purports to be bilingual and supportive of the Francophone community, how can the City possibly approve this development proposal, especially given:

· Both French School Boards objected and expressed a strong interest.

· Both French School Boards indicated they were unaware of the property in question and indicate they were never circulated as part of the draft plan of subdivision.

· CECLFCE has approved construction of a school to open in 2006 and 4025 Canyon Walk is the only practical and preferred site; and, are in the process of expropriating.

· Site is critical to provide equitable opportunities for Francophone children.

· He had a map, published less than 2 years ago, provided by the City that illustrates Future school on the subject site next to the park. Why does it not say Future Medium Density? Maps issued by the developer and City should better reflect possible land uses.

· In conclusion, there is more than enough supporting information to reject this proposal.

Responding to questions raised by Chair Hume, Mr. Parker provided the following clarification:

· The first step is to reject the proposed inappropriate land use.

· The Plan of Subdivision clearly states the property was set aside for a school and he did not know why the former municipality of Gloucester zoned in terms of HR.

· Clearly, residents would be disturbed if the site was developed as single family homes since that plan states the property was set aside for a school.

· Rejecting the rezoning is the correct thing to do, school or not. There are good reasons to refuse the rezoning for medium density based on its own merits.

Scott Hodges, Director, Civic Affairs, Riverside South Community Association, provided a comprehensive PowerPoint submission, in opposition, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Hodges’ presentation centred on the planning aspects, some of the main points of which are noted below:

· Referred to City of Ottawa Planning Documents, Public and Draft, as well as Amendment 3 to the OP of the former City of Gloucester (1992).

· CAOP stipulates medium and high density construction within the development community outside the Greenbelt; the Association is fully aware of this and does support this. But, looking at the proposal put forward on the site, the community rejects the utilization of medium density.

· Amendment 3 is the planning guidance for the existing quadrant of Riverside South, whereas the Riverside South Community Design Plan currently being drafted by the City will guide the remaining 3 quadrants. There are some anomalies between the 2 planning documents. The Gloucester OP encourages medium density residential units to be within walking distance of transit stations and along arterial roads and major collector roads. Similarly, Draft Riverside South Community Design Plan Implementation Guidelines define medium density as townhouses with a potential of single detached and semi-detached interspersed. High density on the other hand are residential units defined as apartments or stacked towns. In the Implementation Guidelines, both medium and high density units are to be located within the vicinity of the rapid transit corridor. Looking at the Community Design Plan, the lower half illustrates where the O-Train will travel (east-west).

· 4025 Canyon Walk – proposes the development of 142 stacked towns plus 38 ground-oriented towns, which, based on the Riverside South Community Design Plan, is closer to the definition of high density as opposed to medium density.

· “Where Will We Live?” recommends intensification along arterial roadways within their community; that would be River, Earl Armstrong, Limebank and Leitrim Roads. High and medium density are planned to occur along these arterial and collector roads or at the intersection of collector roads.

· The Richcraft proposal is not located along an arterial road nor at the intersection of 2 collectors; therefore, it is not an appropriate location for medium density.

· The Concept Plan (June 1992) highlights both the potential of medium density housing at the intersection of Canyon Walk and Spratt and the location of a school plus a neighbourhood park on the north side of the school. Since then residential development has encroached on where the school will be located and the neighbourhood park is further south, right along Spratt, leaving the subject site to be either residential or a school. There is some uncertainty whether both can be accommodated on the one site.

· The adjacent lands marked on the Development Concept Plan kitty corner to the southeast of this site is marked as medium density and are currently under construction as ground-oriented towns, which may be considered medium density, but are similar to other towns in the area in low density areas.

· The southwest corner of the intersection on the 1992 plan (earmarked as local commercial) has been developed as single units, with no local commercial nearby.

· The other intersection of Canyon Walk and Spratt has been earmarked as potential medium density, with single detached units built; however, these have smaller frontages and the lots are 35 feet wide as opposed to the standard 40 or 45.

· The community infrastructure, as highlighted in 1992, has been developed to a considerable extent, but this is one of the minor discrepancies; the actual geographical location within the community is not as reflected in the plan.

· On the southern extreme (southwest corner of the existing quadrant) there are 2 areas marked as medium; again, both have been developed as ground-oriented towns; this could potentially be considered medium density, but are of the same design as towns built in the low density areas.

· Lastly, another property originally marked as potential high density has been developed as ground-oriented towns.

· The subject site is bordered by a City park on the west and single detached units on the other 3 sides; and, kitty corner adjacent towns are being developed.

· Section 2 – Strategic Directions - Ottawa OP (2.5.3) recognizes that schools form part of the infrastructure and community resources other than simply a source of education.

· In summary, looking at the planning documentation in terms of the policies and guidelines and looking at the merits of this proposal, the Association opposes the proposal on the grounds that it would be an inappropriate geographical location within the community for medium density housing.

· The Association does not oppose medium or high density development so long as it is developed within a planned and logical approach and following the policies and guidelines of the City of Ottawa and the former City of Gloucester.

Chair Hume complimented Mr. Hodge on his excellent comprehensive presentation.

Responding to a query from Councillor Cullen, Ms. Currie explained that parkland for the entire community was taken at the time of the subdivision and the park is immediately west of the site and currently under development. Through the redevelopment and rezoning amendment, staff would need to investigate if there may be some opportunity for cash in lieu of parkland, but it would be a small and incremental difference if any.

Paul Huppé, Riverside South Community Association, provided a written submission in opposition, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below:

· Father of a 3-year old son, who he hopes will frequent the anticipated school.

· Presently, the French Catholic students attend École Sainte Bernadette, more than 12 km away with a bus ride of approximately 45 minutes one way, which is not ideal for a 4 year-old. Ste. Bernadette is also above capacity. Approximately 100 of 300 students are from Riverside South; therefore, there is already a good base for the new school.

· At the community meeting held on August 22, a representative of Richcraft mentioned there will be sufficient land available in Riverside South to build a school. The next phase of development will occur to the east of Limebank Road and there are sites reserved for future schools. However, the majority of this development is owned by Urbandale, which will be selling units between now and 2007. Therefore, this area will only be available at the earliest in 2008.

· Delaying the opening of the French Catholic School will lead to parents choosing other school boards, notably English schools due to their proximity. Already, francophone parents have sent their children to St. Jerome, which opened in September 2004. This will lead to assimilation.

· Relative to the question posed to the President, Riverside South Community Association, with respect to bringing the school into this request for re-zoning.

· The main reason is that residents were told this site would house a school.

· Sales Centre representatives made it clear schools would be built (both languages).

· Told a golf course would be built, but that is not coming anytime soon.

Robbie Tremblay, Trustee, CECLFCE. The main points of his presentation are noted below:

· Zone covers Alta Vista, Capital, Gloucester-Southgate and Osgoode. Referenced 3 letters received from Ronald Nault, Facilities Planner for the School Board (18 September 2003), Lise Bourgeois, Director of Education (5 November 2004), and André Claude, solicitor for the Board (8 November 2004) – distributed and held on file with the City Clerk.

· These letters address issues relating to the circulation, the delays for dealing with application, reserving the site and detailing opposition.

· 3 sites identified in 1995, one being this site; the other 2 - English Catholic and Public.

· In June 2003, the application was submitted; the Board announced in June 2004 a school would be built at the site. Community was very vocal in pushing for a school.

· Funding formula for building new schools normally requires closing a school to open a school; that is not the case in this instance.

· To meet the deadline to open in September 2006, this site is ideal.

· Bottom line, the Board is expropriating the land, with a process that commenced October 29, legal notices are being published in the dailies. One has already appeared in Le Droit.

· PEC should reject the application because the School Board will be coming forward in the near future to ask that this land be zoned institutional.

In response to Councillor Harder, Mr. Tremblay provided the following clarification:

· There are many mixed families and when schools are built, parents have the option not to not lose their culture.

· There is a school in Barrhaven with 500 students that is over capacity; therefore, there will be 2 schools in Barrhaven.

· Ste. Bernadette to the north of the Airport, accommodates 100 students from Riverside South and it is anticipated that school will be overpopulated. There is another school in proximity (Ste. Genevieve) that will be over populated.

· Schools may not necessarily be as large as other Boards, but there is a significant base to warrant a school in the area.

Karen Cuddy provided a written submission, in opposition, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below:

· Development is an inappropriate use for the community more broadly.

· Site was always represented as a school site in marketing brochures and the community plan. People link those facts. Community was master planned-30 years of forethought.

· Residents relied on those representations and will suffer detriment if it is rezoned.

· Loss of a school on the site; increase in parking; traffic congestion completely unanticipated when properties were purchased; and decrease in market value.

· Echoed the points highlighted by the Community Association on the OP policies and documents; and, the discrepancies between the different planning documents and that which is proposed. The site is not appropriate for multiple medium density.

· Parking problems – stacked towns will not have driveways or garages; there will be designated parking spaces and some visitor parking. 1.5 units grossly insufficient and place parking pressure on surrounding streets and the recently completed small parking lot for the park playground adjacent to this site. Lack of adequate parking is a real safety concern and will create a hazard for children and parents.

· OP conformity – this proposal purports to conform to OP objectives; however, the reports presents conflicting statements indicating on p. 9 that the Concept Plan supports medium density zoning, while p. 4 states a school is supported in this general area.

· There are good planning objectives to be attained by reserving this land for a school or at least pursuing lower density housing. As a school and a park, it will be beautiful; and, it will support more greenspace within the City. Lower density development will avoid horrendous parking congestion; and, as a school it will have a calming effect on traffic as drivers would adjust their speed bringing a 3^rd school and additional calming.

Dr. Martera Naini submitted a request to speak, but was not present when the Committee dealt with the item.

Robert Ghaderi provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of his main points are outlined below:

· Explained the sales scenario in the Sales Office, which included premiums on specific lots for parcels backing onto greenspace, ravines, open space, back onto a park, etc. The maps displayed in sales offices were prepared by the developers, who sold a dream.

· He paid a $3,000 premium as he was backing onto an open field. Many of the properties that back onto the subject site paid a variety of premiums.

· Prior to purchasing, he investigated the purchase to the best of his ability. Chose a parcel beside a future school thereby cutting down on transportation.

· The intersection of Limebank is one the 10 worst roads. That is their main access; school buses use that road; residents use that road; there is a safety concern.

· Now he is hearing the land has been zoned since 1993 as HR; what is HR? The plan he viewed illustrated a school.

· Why is the application arriving 8 years later without any notice? Who is playing with the community? Asked for a strong voice to refuse the rezoning. Leave as is; to have a school on the site.

Rafik Gholipour provided a written submission, in opposition, that is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are noted below:

· Echoed the comments from other residents.

· The unique structure of the community (only single family and towns). Rezoning will ruin the subdivision nature of the community.

· Need for school and demography of the community (large number of young children). Fast-growing community and critical need for a school.

· Lack of transportation infrastructure to support high density development.

· 7-8 years ago no one envisaged the vast growth in this region taking place. As such, School Boards did not respond, but that need is now realized.

· The bottom line is quality of life and long term interest in the community vs. the short term gain by the developers.

Alan K. Cohen, Soloway, Wright and Adam Thompson, Richcraft Homes Ltd. (Richcraft). Mr. Cohen emphasized that PEC had before it an application filed by Richcraft to rezone a block of land on a plan of subdivision because the matter is going before the OMB on January 12, 2005 and Council will want to have a position. But, for the School Board issue, if Richcraft was before PEC today asking to build this development many would be congratulating him as a result of the intensification and better use of services; everything the OP supports. In 1992, a Concept Plan came forward, which was partnered between Urbandale, Richcraft and Gloucester. That plan included participation from the School Boards, which is why 3 blocks were selected as potential School Board sites. That is why material in Richcraft’s Sales Offices and at the City denoted a school. In 1994 and 1995, the first application for a draft plan of subdivision was filed and circulated to the best of their knowledge to the School Boards and 2 of those Boards replied asking for options. Mr. Cohen noted the School Board Trustee indicated an expropriation was underway; although he found it startling the Trustee would speak against the rezoning. He found it incredible that CECLFCE, if it existed in 1996, was not circulated.

In 2003, after 7 years had elapsed, even though the Board never exercised its opportunity to have a condition imposed requiring Richcraft to reserve the land for 7 years, Richcraft tendered on the City an application to rezone. City brochures and Sales office illustrated it as a school site because it was required. Richcraft waited a year at the City’s request, to deal with CECLFCE to determine whether it would make a bone fide offer to buy the land, although any negotiations are private. CECLFCE has initiated the expropriation process. His partner Doug Kelly has served on the Board and noticed that he intends to appear before a Hearing Officer for a Hearing of Necessity and Inquiry and that officer will make a recommendation back to the Board and the Board will do as it sees fit. In the meantime, he is not convinced CECLFCE will expropriate, nor is his client. If CECLFCE is going to expropriate and deposit a Plan of Expropriation and take title before January 12, he will receive instructions not to proceed to the Board, but if that does not happen, his instructions will be to appear before the Board. Regardless of the report before Committee, he would have called upon the various planners from the City asking if it is appropriate to have a school on the site in land use planning terms and each would have said yes; and, he would have asked if it was appropriate to have a combination of towns and stacked towns to implement the medium density designation on the Concept Plan for this area and all would have responded in the affirmative. And, he would summon them to give their honest land use planning opinion, which is that the use is appropriate. He asked PEC to support the City’s planners in what is an appropriate zoning for the site and submitted that rather than resist the zoning on the basis that it may be expropriated, the School Board should ask that the site be dual zoned– to simply add institutional as a permitted use to the recommended zoning. Should the property be expropriated, there would no need to return to PEC. That would have been the constructive, wise and correct thing to do.

Mr. Thompson provided a map of the Concept Plan. Essentially, half the site is stacked towns and the other half freehold townhouses. The original proposal was for 206, but that was dropped by making half the site freehold townhouses at the Ward Councillor’s request. Due to the housing crisis, Richcraft attempted to bring forward a more affordable product with a stacked unit 4 feet narrower and smaller, but more affordable (closer to the City’s OP requiring affordability in units). The site is located on Spratt Road, which is a minor collector. Beyond the limits of this site to Limebank Road it has been built as a 4 lane road, which would lead him to believe it is a fairly significant collector. This site is also on a transit route. This plan does work CAOP concepts into a land use area where there was some conceptual work for medium density and incorporates that into a community that is strictly single family and townhomes.

Relative to the process within which School Boards acquire lands, he maintained that once the School Boards make their requirements known through the draft plan process, and a condition is placed within the draft plan, the developer has to approach those agencies to acquire clearances for draft plan approval. In the original 1996 draft approval, the English Public Board requested a property be reserved for an English public school site and would not allow Richcraft to carry forward with the registration until an option agreement was in place. That agreement was signed in 2000 and sets out various legalese concepts on how price is negotiated. It is fairly significant that other School Boards have exercised their rights in the past through the planning process to guarantee their needs are met.

The inclusion of this RS3 zone in the report may have suggested the appropriate zone would have been residential single family homes. In fact, that zone has never been used in the Riverside South Community. The overall zone is a special mix zone which allows for a variety of different residential uses; singles, semis and towns. It does not differentiate where those are located so long as they are in that zone. Traffic and parking are always noted as an issue in these cases. With respect to the 1.5 parking space per unit, he was certain that was derived after extensive studies.

There was an indication that both French Boards opposed this application, but to his knowledge only CECLFCE opposed the application. As far as he was aware CECLFCE has not commented, at least through Richcraft and nothing has been circulated through PGM. From the community design plan, through this process, each of the 4 School Boards analysed the concept plan to ascertain their needs and designate sites. CECLFCE reserved two sites, which was to accommodate all of their future needs in Riverside South and presumably in the outlying areas. Through that exercise, CECLFCE had made provision to accommodate students in the future and in addition there are opportunities in the future for the Board to obtain the sites through the planning process. That said, as Mr. Cohen mentioned, CECLFCE has issued their intent to expropriate and Richcraft will have to deal with that at the appropriate time. But that is a separate process from that before Committee.

Mr. Cohen suggested that should the Committee decide to support the report now, he asked the Committee to recommend the solicitor be instructed to support the appeal rather than adopt a by-law. If PEC adopts a by-law it will be advertised and result in residents appealing, who have already been circulated for the hearing. The Board required him to circulate everyone within 400 feet; therefore, that process has been undertaken.

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

· Expropriation process. Since the school board has met and made a decision to serve its Notice of Intention to Expropriate, Richcraft has a choice to do a number of things. One of which is to ask that the matter of the expropriation be brought before a Hearing Officer to determine whether this taking is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. The Hearing Officer will hear submissions and make a recommendation to the OMB. The Board, like the City is both an expropriating authority and approval authority. The Board could, even if the Hearing Officer were to recommend against expropriation, take a decision to expropriate. That will not be known for possibly 3-6 months. If CECLFCE registers a plan of expropriation by which it takes title to the land, Richcraft will no longer be the owner and then it can proceed through another route to the Board of Negotiations and to the OMB. The only thing that will be argued there is quantum (value of the land).

· The block was schematically a school site since 1992, but more importantly a block only becomes a school block if the School Board decides to purchase the site to build a school. It is always a potential school site. In 1996 Richcraft fully anticipated the School Board would exercise an option on that block. The School Board did not and Richcraft simply waited the 7 years, in any event, as if the School Board had exercised the option.

· It was not until the summer of 2003, when Richcraft filed the rezoning application that CECLFCE came forward objecting to the application; the e-mail (from Ronald Nault) specified they were in opposition to the Rezoning By-Law because the site should be reserved for a school. 2-3 months later they came forward stating they were considering an option. That was a few weeks before the initial public meeting scheduled for September 11, 2003, which was subsequently cancelled. The application was set aside to allow discussion and negotiations between the developer and the school board once the interest was known.After waiting essentially another year and further attempts to have their application heard in the community, Richcraft filed its application to the OMB. That was at the same time as the City scheduled a community meeting.

· Ms. Currie confirmed the zoning on the park was HR, similar to the subject site.

· When it was determined Richcraft would rezone the property, the marketing plans were amended. Unfortunately, in Riverside, although there are 2 developers, there are a number of builders who purchased lots and it does not appear those builders have altered their plans and that has created considerable confusion.

· Lot premiums are charged to back onto parks, open space and oversized pie-shaped or other oversized lots. It has not been Richcraft’s practice to charge a premium on a lot that backs onto a school and did not see why that would have been the case at this location. Those were not Richcraft homes.

· Ms. Currie explained that the report before PEC is supported by staff. Certainly, Mr. Cohen is correct in assuming that staff would represent that position. This community has developed at a lower density than staff is currently espousing in the OP policy. There is a situation where the lifting of the Holding will create single family housing; de facto that exists; whether that is the use in this location, staff would need to examine the parcel to determine whether that would be the appropriate use.

· On the question of the Holding, Ms. Currie clarified the application before PEC is a rezoning, which changes the density. There is a procedure called an Application for Lifting of Holding, which is a separate application. A developer can apply for that, which is largely an administrative process (delegated authority); does not come before PEC; and, is not subject to appeal or public consultation. Staff approves the lifting of Holding and that by default would fall to the single family zone discussed. Since the developer did not want to default to the single family zone, this rezoning process was undertaken. It lifts the Holding, but it is also a rezoning that must come before PEC.

· Staff does not have an issue if the School Board purchases the site and wishes to proceed with rezoning to support a school on the property; staff is comfortable in supporting that recommendation and has made the School Board aware and informed Richcraft accordingly. That is contained in the staff report. But, staff does feel that if the school is not constructed on the property and the land negotiation does not come to fruition, the residential proposal in front of PEC is a viable option.

· Ms. Currie asserted Site Plan Approval would be required. There is no legal restriction on the issuance of a building permit while expropriation is underway, although that could be taken into consideration during the Site Plan Approval process and if the Ward Councillor lifted delegated authority, it would be dealt with by PEC and not staff.

Councillor Deans posited this was the opportunity to provide the School Board the option of acquiring the land by not accepting the staff recommendation. Mr. Moser affirmed it does not negate the expropriation that has been initiated. There are 2 parallel processes in play and eventually there will need to be agreement reached outside of the expropriation process for the School Board to buy the site from the owner or the expropriation will be concluded and there would or would not be a purchase.

The Committee also received the following correspondence that is held on file with the City Clerk:

· E-mail dated 9 November 2004 from Jennifer, Brian and Meghan Craig in opposition.

· E-mail dated 8 November 2004 from Joanne Rowan in opposition.

· E-mail dated 8 November 2004 from Shauna Hanratty in opposition.

· E-mail dated 8 November 2004 from Em McLellan in opposition.

· E-mail dated 8 November 2004 from Bruce Campbell in opposition.

· E-mail dated 8 November 2004 from Luciano Carosielli in opposition.

· E-mail dated 8 November 2004 from Clinton Marquardt in opposition.

· E-mail dated 8 November 2004 from Steve and Joanne Schofield in opposition.

· E-mail dated 8 November 2004 from Jennifer Nield in opposition.

· Fax dated 8 November 2004 from Adrian and Laura Dallo, with a detailed submission in opposition.

· E-mail dated 7 November 2004 from Jeremy D. Moore in opposition.

· E-mail dated 7 November 2004 from Mark Kearney in opposition.

· E-mail dated 6 November 2004 from Michelle Pelegrin in opposition.

· E-mail dated 6 November 2004 from Richard Isaacs in opposition

· E-mail dated 5 November 2004 from Danielle Perron-Roach in opposition.

· E-mail dated 1 November 2004 from Eric Wilson, Chantal Myre and Zachary Wilson in opposition.

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

Councillor Hunter indicated he had 3 possible scenarios. Basically, the first is to reject the staff recommendation to rezone the property. The second is to retain the existing Holding Residential zone and to add Institutional as a permitted use; and, third, which might replace the Motion to reject is to request the OMB to adjourn the Hearing scheduled for 12 January pending the outcome of the Notice of Intent to Expropriate filed by the CELCFCE.

In response to Councillor Hunter, Mr. Marc advised the City could approach the Board to ask for an adjournment and if Committee asked, he would do so immediately. The problem that arises is that if the Board refuses to provide an adjournment, he would need instruction from PEC and Council. As he has indicated on previous occasions, it was his strong advice that Council have an interest in its own Zoning By-Laws and therefore whenever a Zoning By-Law or an OPA is before the Council, the City ought to have a position. On the instructions for an adjournment he would act on same, but there was no guarantee he would receive an OMB decision on the request for an adjournment prior to January 12^th.

Councillor Hunter indicated he was presenting the following Motions.

1. Whereas there is an outstanding Notice of Expropriation for 4025 Canyon Walk Drive;

Be it resolved that Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council request the OMB to adjourn the hearing scheduled for January 12, 2005 pending the outcome of the expropriation matter.

2. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Environment Committee approve retaining the existing Holding Residential Zone and add Institutional use as a permitted use, not subject to any holding provision.

3. WHEREAS the French Catholic School Board has identified the property at 4025 Canyon Walk Drive, the growing community of Riverside South, as their number one preferred site for the construction of a school;

AND WHEREAS Richcraft Holmes has submitted a rezoning proposal to change the land designation from Holding Residential to Medium Density Apartment Zone;

AND WHEREAS in 1992, the former municipality of Gloucester approved a plan of subdivision which identified the land at 4025 Canyon Walk Drive for a school;

AND WHEREAS there is no evidence that the former municipality of Gloucester circulated the 1999 phase of the subdivision to the French Catholic School Board;

AND WHEREAS there is no other serviced land available in the Riverside South Community to meet the French Catholic School Board’s target to construct a school by 2006;

AND WHEREAS the marketing concept plan in the Riverside South sales office illustrated a school at 4025 Canyon Walk Drive until very recently;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning and Environment Committee reject the staff recommendation to rezone the land at 4025 Canyon Walk Drive;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOVED THAT the City Solicitor be authorized to retain an outside planning consult to present the City of Ottawa’s planning position at the OMB hearing scheduled on January 12, 2005.

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

Responding to Councillor Hunter, Mr. Marc explained that the matter before PEC is a land use question. Richcraft has open to it, completely apart from the Zoning process, a means to establish the highest and best use. In order to attain the value to which Richcraft believes it is entitled, it does not need a rezoning from this Committee. If this Committee is of the view that Institutional is the appropriate land use, that is the land use PEC should approve. If PEC accepts there should be a dual zone to allow for possibilities should CECLFCE not pursue the expropriation, then the Committee needs to turn its mind to – does it accept the advice from its professional planners and place the higher density use on the parcel or accept the views expressed by the community with respect to the lower density use.

In response to the 3 Motions and proper order for consideration, Mr. Marc submitted PEC would first consider the Motion to request the adjournment, but would also need to vote on the other positions. He would have his first position to request an adjournment and then an alternate position with instructions if that adjournment failed. Upon receipt of the legal advice, Chair Hume posited he would consider the Motion that recommends retaining the existing Holding zone and to add an institutional use as a permitted use not subject to any holding provision, following consideration of the Motion requesting adjournment of the OMB hearing, which if approved would make the 3^rd Motion to reject redundant.

Councillor Deans appreciated the Committee’s time and pointed out the matter was rather confusing. There is no doubt the intent all along was that a school be constructed on the site if there was a willing School Board. It will never be known whether the School Board was circulated and there is no evidence to make that point on either side, as a result of amalgamation. CECLFCE in earnest does not believe they were circulated and sense they have lost the opportunity, but the reality for the community and PEC is that building a community is more important than building houses. Currently, CECLFCE is busing students out of the community on a 45-minute ride twice a day to have their children schooled at a French Catholic School. The School Board has approved the funds to construct a school in that community and the only site available and serviced to meet the time frame is the subject site. It has been denoted in all the plans. Although there is a willing School Board to purchase the land at market value, the developer, for whatever reason, does not want to sell. That has placed CECLFCE in a position where it is forced to expropriate the land. City Council would be remiss in making a decision to allow the developer to build homes on a site that has always been intended for a school. She thanked Councillor Hunter for placing the Motions before Committee on her behalf. The community strongly believes they were told the site would be a school as substantiated by those present (with many more in the wings) and there is a School Board that needs and wants that site. The City would make a grave error were it to allow this site to escape and deny the children an opportunity to be schooled in their neighbourhood because of planning principles. Councillor Deans implored the Committee to protect the site for a school and give the Board an opportunity to construct their school on the site.

Moved by Councillor G. Hunter:

Whereas there is an outstanding Notice of Expropriation for 4025 Canyon Walk Drive;

Be it resolved that Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council request the OMB to adjourn the hearing scheduled for January 12, 2005 pending the outcome of the expropriation matter.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor G. Hunter:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Environment Committee approve retaining the existing Holding Residential Zone and add Institutional use as a permitted use, not subject to any holding provision.

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

Chair Hume indicated he would be dividing the above Motion as follows

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Environment Committee approve retaining the existing Holding Residential Zone

CARRIED with Chair P. Hume dissenting.

and add Institutional use as a permitted use, not subject to any holding provision.

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

CARRIED

The Committee approved the recommendations as amended.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve:

1. Whereas there is an outstanding Notice of Expropriation on 4025 Canyon Walk Drive;

Be it resolved that Council request the Ontario Municipal Board adjourn the hearing scheduled for 12 January 2005 pending the outcome of the expropriation matter.

2. An amendment to Retain the former Gloucester Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 4025 Canyon Walk Drive from as Holding Residential - HR, to Medium Density Apartment Zone - Ra2 and Special Mixed Residential Dwelling Zone - Rc3 as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2 and add Institutional use as a permitted use, not subject to any holding provision.

3. The allocation of appropriate staff resources from the Corporate Services and Planning and Growth Management Departments for participation in the Ontario Municipal Board hearing concerning the appeal by the applicant.

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

CARRIED as amended

8. ZONING - 1636, 1650 Blackcreek Road

ZONAGE - 1636, 1650, chemin blackcreek

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0237 Osgoode (20)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 19 October 2004.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Osgoode Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 1636 and 1650 Blackcreek Road from RU (Rural) to CE (Country Estate) as shown in Document 1.

CARRIED with Councillor D. Holmes dissenting.

9. ZONING - 1190 OLD PRESCOTT ROAD

ZONAGE - 1190, chemin old prescott

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0241 Osgoode (20)

Dave Krajaefski, Trow Associates Inc., was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 22 October 2004. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Osgoode Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 1190 Old Prescott Road from RU (Rural) to R (Residential) as shown in Document 1.

CARRIED

10. ZONING - 5562 ROCKDALE ROAD

ZONAGE - 5562 CHEMIN ROCKDALE

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0215 Cumberland (19)

Roger Lanthier, was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 25 October 2004. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Cumberland Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 5562 Rockdale Road from Residential Serviced Three – Exception 1 (RS3-X1) and “Residential Serviced Four (RS4)” to “Residential Serviced Four (RS4)” and Residential Serviced Three – Exception 1 (RS3-X1) as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED

11. ZONING - 2721 Dunning Road

ZONAGE - 2721, CHEMIN DUNNING

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0216 Cumberland (19)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 22 October 2004.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Cumberland Rural Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 2721 Dunning Road from AGR Agriculture to AGR-X14 Agriculture - Exception Fourteen as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.

ARRIED

LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY

COMMITTEE

COMITÉ CONSULATIF SUR LA CONSERVATION DE

L’ARCHITECTURE LOCALE

12. DESIGNATIoN OF THE FORMER CARKNER LUMBER MILL, 9047 Carkner Street, Kenmore, UNDER PART IV OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT

DÉSIGNATION DE L’ANCIENNE SCIERIE CARKNER DU 9047, RUE CARKNER EN VERTU DE LA PARTIE IV DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0240 Osgoode (20)

Chair Hume noted a memorandum dated 4 November 2004 that the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee were unable to meet on 2 November due to an emergency at City Hall and asked that the item be deferred to the PEC meeting of 23 November 2004. The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 26 October 2004.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the designation of the former Carkner Lumber Mill, 9047 Carkner Street, Kenmore, under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

CARRIED

Planning and GROWTH MANAGEMENT

URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE

PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH
DIRECTION DE L’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES

D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE

13. City of Ottawa Slope Stability Guidelines for development applications

LIGNES DIRECTRICES SUR LA STABILITÉ DES PENTES DE LA VILLE D’OTTAWA À L’ÉGARD DES DEMANDES D’AMÉNAGEMENT

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0226 City-Wide

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 26 October 2004. A detailed e-mail dated 5 November 2004 from Martin Laplante, Action Sandy Hill (ASH), stating the guidelines are a good start and commending the City, but indicating the performance requirements and groundwater-friendly zoning and standards in a larger area are also required was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the "Minimum Requirements for Slope Stability Assessment Reports" summary sheet, as detailed in Document 1, and associated "Slope Stability Guidelines for Development Applications in the City of Ottawa", as detailed on Documents 2 and 3, for immediate implementation by Planning and Growth Management staff where slope stability is a factor in the review of a development-related application.

CARRIED

BUILDING SERVICES

DIRECTION DES SERVICES DU BÂTIMENT

14. SIGN BY-LAW Amendment - 3900 Innes Road

MODIFICATION DU RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES - 3900, CHEMIN INNES

ACS2004-DEV-BLD-0028 Innes (2)

Patricia Liscio, First Pro Shopping Centres, was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 26 October 2004. The Committee approved the recommendation. An e-mail dated 2 November 2004 from J. Seivenpiper detailing concerns was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve a by-law amendment to Signs By-law 79-1991, of the former City of Gloucester, to permit:

1. A total of two identification ground signs from the maximum of one, to increase the maximum height and sign area for one sign located in Phase 1, to a height of 26 feet from 20 feet and to an area of 225 square feet from 150 square feet respectively, with another ground sign located in Phase 2 conforming to the by-law height and with an area of 180 square feet from 150 square feet, provided the majority of the illumination component of each sign is reversed through the letters or graphic images only with an opaque background, as detailed in Document 1.

2. A ground sign in Phase 3, with an area sign of 180 square feet from 150 square feet, provided the majority of the illumination component of the sign is reversed through the letters or graphic images only with an opaque background, as detailed in Document 1; and that a further review of the sign may be addressed at the discretion of Committee once the resolution of a pending OMB and rezoning decision is resolved and executed.

3. Two menu board signs at this location, as detailed in Document 1.

CARRIED

corporate services department

services généraux

real property and asset management

Gestion des actifs des biens immobiliers

15. OLD LANDFILL MANAGEMENT

GESTION DES ANCIENS SITES D'ENFOUISSEMENT

ACS2004-CRS-RPR-0009

J. Moser, Steve Finnamore, Real Property Asset Management (RPAM), Gordon MacNair, Program Manager, RPAM, Nancy Horton and Dr. Robert Cushman, Medical Officer of Health, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 1 November 2004. Staff responded to questions posed by Committee members, with the main points summarized below. A copy of a presentation was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

· To date the City has spent $3 Million and it was estimated an additional $5 Million was required to clean landfills and the only caveat is that it did not include the ongoing study on the Trail Road and the former Nepean Landfill, which is a separate project that has been ongoing for 20 years and just coming to a head. The original estimates were in the neighbourhood of $15-20 Million to complete this work, based upon preliminary studies undertaken 2 years ago. Staff has drastically reduced the funding estimated to undertake the remaining investigations and what is anticipated in terms of remediation.

· The Nepean Landfill is being conducted through PWS as a managed project and is part of that Trail Road connection. RPAM chose to eliminate it from this Study since it has a life of its own.

Councillor Cullen received confirmation that if requested (by e-mail to Mr. MacNair), staff will forward a map illustrating the 3 landfills in his Ward.

The Committee heard from the following delegation:

Barbara Barr provided a detailed written presentation that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are outlined below:

· Concerns relative to the Gloucester Landfill (p. 155) in the Table of Non-City Owned Sites. Those sites that will not be further assessed by field investigations. She urged that a strong position be that the no further investigation approach is not acceptable.

· There is a nearly completed Community Design Plan for Leitrim and an application to construct houses on part of the leachate area that PEC will be asked to approve. There must be additional investigation. There are only 19 monitoring sites where hundreds of houses are proposed and contaminants could travel in somewhat isolated fashion in bedrock fissures easily missed by so few sampling wells.

· The leachate area contains solvents and similar compounds, some of which are carcinogenic. It must be mapped on the basis of actual samples and a current map must be made available to PEC before it approves the Community Design Plan for Leitrim. (Ms. Barr provided a letter from Clifford Shirtliffe, C. J. Shirtliffe and Associates, on the mater of ground gases and contamination.)

· The groundwater monitoring sites are clustered near Albion and not scattered throughout the area. The substance that has leached the furthest is called 1,4-dioxane, which has been found on the Tartan property in low amounts and in one sample of 8,430 ppb (October 3 years ago).

· Repeated sampling in the same spot has failed to pick up anything close to that level and that sample was not considered in the Risk Assessment.

· Urged PEC to insure additional sampling is undertaken and that it become part of the development review process for certain properties east of Albion.

As a result of the presentation, staff responded to questions posed by the Committee and the main points are summarized below:

· The City does not have the jurisdiction to enter and investigate privately-owned properties. The City has provisions under the OP, Section 4.8-5, dealing with former landfill sites. When these sites are to be developed, studies have to be undertaken confirming there are no adverse effects to the environment and to the public; and, that would be completed as part of the development process. Thirdly, if there is off-site migration, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) would become involved. Former City landfills would have the same regulations.

· The approvals have been granted for Leitrim. Any new development that is presented within a certain distance of any of the old landfills requires that a process must be undertaken to identify and deal with the issue. These would be dealt with at the Development Review stage. Mr. Moser was unfamiliar with the details of the Community Design Plan, but he surmised staff would at least take into consideration the proximity of any development to the landfill site.

· Dr. Cushman explained that primarily staff has been following this site, but in that it was not on the list of 23 being considered today, he did not have the briefing notes in front of him and would have to proceed from memory. There have been concerns and some findings (houses in the area are on City water), so it is really a question of soil and air contaminants. There are extensive monitorings and investigation and environmental assessment with planning taking place; the one finding has not been duplicated; it has been said there were insufficient efforts to duplicate it; certainly staff has been in dialogue with the particular group and a letter has been sent to the Ministry. Public Health does not have a pro-active role in this area; that has more to do with MOE; if problems were identified that would jeopardize the health of the community, Public Health would have a reactive responsibility to cordon off the area, limit the exposure and ensure remediation took place, but this is not City land and there are other levels of government involved, not only in terms of owning the land previously, but also in terms of the environmental site analysis.

Councillor Cullen received confirmation it would be in order for him to move that the City request MOE to review the sampling in this area to ensure the features were being captured.

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

That the Ministry of the Environment be requested to review their sampling process at the former Gloucester Landfill Site east of Albion Road to more accurately capture leachate migration.

CARRIED

The Committee approved the recommendations as amended.

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve the amendments to the Old Landfill Management Strategy as identified in this report; and

2. Receive the status report on the completion of Phase 1 and current status of Phase 2 for information.

3. Request the Ministry of the Environment to review their sampling process at the former Gloucester Landfill Site east of Albion Road to more accurately capture leachate migration.

CARRIED as amended

COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS

ARTICLES DES CONSEILLERS

COUNCILLOR / CONSEILLÈRE J. STAVINGA

16. SUBMISSION TO THE MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES: RE-INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO’S CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES-NOW AND IN THE FUTURE

RAPPORT AU MINISTRE DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES : RÉINVESTIR DANS LES OFFICES DE PROTECTION DE LA NATURE DE L’ONTARIO, MAINTENANT ET À L’AVENIR

ACS2004-CCS-PEC-0011

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in the report dated 15 October 2004 from Councillor J. Stavinga.

WHEREAS, the City of Ottawa is a member of the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority, the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority and the South Nations Conservation Authority;

AND WHEREAS the Conservation Authorities Act established Conservation Authorities as a provincial/municipal partnership which has existed since 1946;

AND WHEREAS, the Conservation Authority works in partnership with its watershed municipalities to implement community-based, practical solutions to a range of natural resource issues including provincially delegated responsibilities for the implementation of flood and erosion control programs for the protection of life and property in Ontario;

AND WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has previously committed to paying 50% of flood and erosion control programs and other related eligible programs as defined in the 1997 Policy and Procedures Manual, but has not met that funding commitment;

AND WHEREAS the Province of Ontario, when establishing new policies and procedures in 1997 to define the level of funding to support its partnership with Conservation Authorities omitted:

1) Municipal Plan Review,

2) the implementation of the Conservation Authority Act Section 28 Regulation (Floodplain/Hazard Land Regulations), and

3) Shoreline Management

as eligible activities for funding assistance by the Province of Ontario, all three of which have been mandated by the Province;

AND WHEREAS predictable, stable funding (adjusted for inflation) is critical to successful program delivery;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Ottawa endorse the report entitled “Submission to the Minister of Natural Resources: Re-Investment in Ontario’s Conservation Authorities-Now and In the Future” which requests:

1) a re-investment in the Conservation Authorities by the Province of Ontario based on definitions within the 1997 Policies and Procedures Manual for Conservation Authorities;

2) a re-investment of funds for items deemed of provincial interest currently excluded from transfer payment funding;

3) implementation of annual Consumer Price Index adjustments.

And be it further resolved that this resolution be circulated to the Minister of Natural Resources, Ottawa area M.P.P.s, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario as well as the Rideau Valley, the South Nations and the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authorities and Conservation Ontario.

CARRIED

Inquiries

DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS

Councillor / Conseiller A. Cullen

OP – SUB-SECTION 2.5.3 SCHOOL AND COMMUNITIES – IMPORTANCE OF SCHOOLS

In the City’s Official Plan, Section 2.5 Building Liveable Communities, Sub-Section 2.5.3 Schools and Community Facilities speaks to the importance of schools as building blocks of any community, not only in providing education to childcare, but also amenity space and resources to the neighbourhood. However, no policies are listed to implement or protect this value. During the OP process planning staff had indicated that such policies would be forthcoming (following a public consultation process involving both community associations and school advisory committees, as well as the school boards). When will this be done?

Councillor / Conseillère D. Holmes

FREIMAN MALL / MAIL FREIMAN

In the 1980s the City of Ottawa agreed to close Musgrove Street as part of The Bay’s expansion. A public right-of-way connecting Rideau Street and the By Ward Market was the retained within the redevelopment.

1. Does the City of Ottawa retain ownership of the Musgrove Street right-of-way?

2. How have the terms and conditions of the original agreement been amended regarding:

Þ Hours of operation and public access to the Freiman Mall?

Þ Minimum ‘effective circulation area’, that is the width of the pedestrian walkway, and the amount of encroachment permitted for display or wares and marketing?

Þ Enforcement of the terms of the agreement?

3. Has City Council approved these amendments?

4. Is The Bay in compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the agreement?

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p. m.

Original signed by Original signed by

L. Ferrari Councillor P. Hume

Committee Coordinator Chair