STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR PLANNING ACT MATTERS

DÉCLARATION POUR LES questions SOUS LA Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire

The Chair read a statement relative to the Official Plan amendments listed as Items 2 and 4 on today’s agenda, and the Zoning By-law Amendments listed as Items 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 on today’s agenda, noting that only those who made oral submissions at the meeting or written submissions before the amendment was adopted may appeal the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board. In addition, he noted that the applicant may also appeal the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board if Council does not adopt an amendment within 120 days for Zoning and 180 days for an Official Plan Amendment of receipt of the application. He explained that comment sheets were available at the door for anyone wishing to submit written comments on the amendments.

COMMUNICATIONS

CC 01/ 10 and CC 08-10 - Convening of an Intergovernmental Source Water Protection Committee/ Convocation d’un Comité intergouvernemental de protection de l’eau de source

RECEIVED

CC 20-10 – Encroachment Fee Policy/ Règlement concernant les coûts d'empiétements

RECEIVED

REFERRALS AND DEFERRALS

REPORTS ET RENVOIS

1 ZONING – 801 ALBERT STREET

ZONAGE – 801, RUE ALBERT

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0124 SOMERSET (14)

Referred by City Council at its meeting of 28 April 2010 / Renvoyée par le Conseil municipal à sa réunion du 28 avril 2010

(This matter is not subject to Bill 51)

Committee received the following correspondence with respect to this matter, which is held on file with the City Clerk:

· Letter dated 4 July 2010 from the Hintonburg Community Association

· E-mail dated 29 June 2010 from Art Mahesan and Lise St-Martin

· E-mail dated 30 June 2010 from Lisa Van Buren

Jacqueline Wood, Village Green Homeowner’s association, also registered her support for the report recommendation.

Janet Bradley of Borden, Ladner, Gervais and Jane Ironside, J. E. Ironside Consulting, were present on behalf of the applicant in support of deferral.

Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel noted the applicant had requested deferral. In response to questions with respect to the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the matter, he explained that, as the request had come from the applicant and there was actually no Zoning By-law before Committee, there would be no difficulties with deferring the matter to an unspecified date.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes

That this item be deferred to an unspecified date.

CARRIED

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council refuse an amendment to the Zoning By law 2008-250 and former City of Ottawa By-law 93-98 to change the zoning of 801 Albert Street to permit a mixed-use development for the reasons outlined in the report (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0082) and because, given the significant infrastructure easements required and already located on the site, Committee is of the view that this site is not developable without the following:

a. completion of a Master Servicing Study as part of the Community Design Plan (CDP) process to confirm the water, sewer and storm sewer service infrastructure requirements, including the potential and options for relocating main trunk lines to better accommodate development and design objectives determined through the CDP process;

b. completion of a comprehensive Transportation and Traffic Impact Assessment as part of the CDP process that will address the surrounding area transportation and traffic issues and the property’s vehicle access and egress requirements;

c. completion of the Bayview-Carling CDP to determine a larger direction for how this site would fit within the development program for the CDP; and

d. approval of an application for Site Plan Control following completion of the CDP which reflects and implements the directions determined through the CDP for the site, and is consistent with the policies of the Official Plan for Mixed-Use Centres.

DEFERRED

Date to be determined

2. OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT - 85 RANGE ROAD

MODIFICATION AU PLAN OFFICIEL - 85 RUE RANGE

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0118 rideau-vanier (12)

(Deferred from the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of 22 June 2010 / Reporté de la réunion du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement du 22 juin 2010)

(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)

Janet Bradley of Borden, Ladner, Gervais and Vince Colizza, Vincent P. Colizza Architects, were present on behalf of the owner.

Jane Gurr and Dennis Jacobs were also present with respect to this item, as representatives of the community.

Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, indicated that the developer and staff had reached an understanding on the preceding Friday, which had been sent to representatives of the community. Mr. Jacobs indicated that the community found the agreement acceptable, though they were less than enthusiastic.

Councillor Bédard, as Ward Councillor, acknowledged that this had been a very contentious issue in the community, noting that it had taken a considerable amount of time to negotiate an agreement. He emphasized that the community was not adverse to intensification where appropriate, suggesting that in this particular case the issues had much to do with the design and height of the building. He expressed that the community wanted a quality building in that location within a residential neighbourhood. The Councillor commended the community for their negotiation on the item, noting that they were reluctantly in support of the agreement. He also thanked Committee for allowing the time for the agreement to be reached.

Committee then approved the report recommendation, as presented:

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve and adopt an amendment to the Official Plan [Volume 2A, Sandy Hill Secondary Plan] to redesignate 85 Range Road from Low Profile to Site Specific High Profile, as detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED

OTTAWA BUILT HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LE PATRIMOINE BÂTI D’OTTAWA

3. DESIGNATION OF THE BURPEE HOUSE, 22 RIDEAU TERRACE UNDER PART IV OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT

DÉSIGNATION DE LA MAISON BURPEE, SITUÉE AU 22, TERRASSE RIDEAU, EN VERTU DE LA PARTIE IV DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0129 Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)

Committee received the following correspondence with respect to this matter, which is held on file with the City Clerk:

· E-mail dated 14 June 2010 from Ian Burton

· E-mail dated 2 July 2010 from Joan Mason and Paul McConnell on behalf of the New Edinburgh Community Alliance (NECA)

· Comments dated 5 July 2010 from Jennifer Lynch

Sally Coutts, Heritage Planner, provided an overview of the property and staff’s rationale for recommending designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. She did so by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Ms. Coutts noted the property had been listed on the City’s Heritage Reference List. When it came to staff’s attention that it the property was on the market, staff undertook some research and determined the building had significance.

In response to questions from the Chair, Ms. Coutts confirmed that the property in question was on the market, and confirmed that the current owners were on record as supporting the designation. She further noted that they had received correspondence from another individual interested in purchasing the property as a single family dwelling if it was designated.

Committee then heard from the following public delegations:

Joan Mason, President of the New Edinburgh Community Alliance (NECA) spoke in support of the designation of the subject property, expressing a desire to preserve both the building and the history it embodied. She emphasized that the home should be preserved, not only to honour a fine example of Edwardian Classicism, but also to honour its prominent Canadian inhabitants and to educate and inform. She encouraged Committee to support designation.

Pierre Richard, resident, spoke in support of designation. He noted that the present owners supported designation, and others were interested in purchasing the house. He suggested the property had contextual value because it was important in defining, maintaining and supporting the character of the area and it was functionally, visually, physically, and historically linked to its surroundings. He noted the owners of the adjacent property, an Edwardian or Victorian type house, had beautifully preserved it while creating a functional modern home.

Alan Cohen, Soloway Wright, spoke against designation on behalf of Robin Fyfe and Bill Metz, who had an agreement of purchase and sale on the property. He was accompanied by January Cohen, Soloway Wright. Mr. Cohen suggested that Routeburn Urban Developments, his clients’ firm, had provided tasteful and elegant infill throughout Ottawa. He noted they had received number of heritage awards, including from the City, for their buildings such as the World of Maps building, the Ottawa Board of Education Office, 30 The Driveway and the Monastery of the Precious Blood. He noted that in investigating the property it had never occurred to his clients that the building was of such merit as to be deserving of heritage status.

With respect to the building itself, Mr. Cohen suggested that the building was in a state of disrepair, and maintained that its qualities had been overstated in the report and in staff’s presentation. He displayed several photographs of the subject property. He suggested that in order to designate a building under part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, that building needed to have significant architectural or historical importance. He proposed that the building in question was not significant, noting there were other better-preserved Edwardian style buildings in the community.

Mr. Cohen also wished to clarify the position of the registered owners of the property, Elizabeth May and Ian Burton. He noted that, although Ms. May had expressed her support for the designation, Mr. Burton had sent an e-mail to staff in which he indicated that, while he was disinclined make a formal protest or voice strong opposition to the heritage designation, he did not think designation would be a very sensible or well reasoned decision. Mr. Cohen proceeded to read Mr. Burton’s e-mail into the record, in its entirety. A copy of the message is held on file with the City Clerk.

Mr. Cohen also spoke to the issue of nomenclature and history. He suggested that, other than staff in their report, nobody referred to 22 Rideau Terrace as the “Burpee House.” He noted that he knew one of Lawrence J. Burpee’s grandsons, who had never mentioned his grandfather or his prominence. He suggested that if he had to search on Wikipedia for the identity of Mr. Burpee, he was not sufficiently prominent to have a building designated in his name. In conclusion, he recommended that the building was not significant enough to be designated under the Act.

In response to questions from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Cohen confirmed that his clients had a signed agreement of purchase and sale for the property, conditional on his clients obtaining variances, and that condition had been waived. Mr. Cohen indicated that he had been previously unaware of the aforementioned offer from another party to buy the property with a heritage designation. He noted this revelation had raised some questions in his mind with respect to a dispute between the seller’s agent and his client.

Sheila Burpee Duncan, granddaughter of Lawrence J. Burpee, spoke in support of designation. She wished to highlight the accomplishments of her grandfather and his contributions to Canadian history. She noted the following accomplishments:

· Author of over a dozen books, including The Discovery of Canada, The Search for the Western Sea, Pathfinders of the Great Plains, Among the Canadian Alps, Sanford Fleming Empire Builder, An Historical Atlas of Canada, Index and Dictionary of Canadian History, and The Makers of Canada.

· Founder and/or president of the Canadian Historical Association, Canadian Authors’ Association, Royal Society of Canada.

· Founding editor of the Canadian Geographic Journal.

· Recipient of honourary doctorate from the University of Toronto.

· Founding secretary of the International Joint Commission, a fundamental model for how adjoining countries deal with cross border disputes.

· Ottawa’s first Chief Librarian

In conclusion, Ms. Burpee Duncan suggested that the house in question was reflective of her grandfather, as it was rational and not elaborate.

Philipp L. Hahn, resident of 26 Rideau Terrace, the adjacent property, spoke in support of designation. He noted that his wife had put much effort and resources into their home to maintain the character of the street. He suggested that character would be negatively impacted by removing the house from the subject property and replacing it with a building in a style that has yet to be determined.

Having concluded public delegations, the Chair turned the recommendations back to Committee for discussion and debate.

Councillor Legendre, as Ward Councillor, spoke to the proposed designation. He noted that the Ontario Heritage Act provides that a property may be designated for various reasons, one of which is a rare unique representative of an early example of style or type. He suggested that, while the subject property was representative of such a style, it was not exceptional.

The Councillor noted that the historical or associative value of the subject property was one rationale given for its designation. He urged Committee not to give much weight to the historical rationale, with no disrespect to the contributions of Mr. Burpee. He suggested the historical argument for designation would have been stronger had Mr. Burpee’s prominent activities taken place in the house, and noted that the home was not known in the Community as the “Burpee House.” He suggested a more appropriate acknowledgement of Mr. Burpee’s contribution would be to do so at the National Library.

With respect to the building itself, Councillor Legendre suggested that, while the previous owners may have supported designation, there was little evidence that they had taken good care of the property. He circulated a photograph of the house, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. In conclusion, Councillor Legendre indicated that he supported the designation, on balance, because the house was representative of a certain style.

Councillor Holmes noted that the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) and the City’s professional staff supported designation. She noted the subject property met the heritage value criteria as an example of Edwardian Classicism, and met the historical value criteria as the home of such an eminent person with a significant role in both Ottawa and Canada. She acknowledged the position of the developer, noting it was difficult for smaller developers to find developable land within the greenbelt; however, she expressed her intention to support the staff report.

Councillor Doucet noted he was in a difficult position, as he knew Elizabeth May well and was neighbours with Bill Metz, who had done good work in his ward. He suggested he had a conflict of interest, and indicated he would not vote on the matter. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Council noted that, while it was up to an individual Councillor as to whether or not he declares a conflict under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, he suggested Councillor Doucet’s comments did not reflect a pecuniary interest and thus he was not legally in conflict.

Councillor Doucet left his seat and did not participate in the decision on the matter.

Committee then approved the report recommendations, as presented:

That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the designation of the Burpee House, at 22 Rideau Terrace under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as per the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value included as Document 3.

CARRIED

Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability

SERVICES D’INFRASTRUCTURE ET VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS

PLANNING and growth management

URBANISME et Gestion de la croissance

4. OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT - PART OF 4401 FALLOWFIELD ROAD

PLAN OFFICIEL - PARTIE DU 4401, CHEMIN FALLOWFIELD

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0089 Barrhaven (3)

(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)

A letter dated 6 July 2010 was received from Anthony Creber with respect to this matter, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Janet Bradley of Borden, Ladner, Gervais and Jane Ironside, J. E. Ironside Consulting, were present on behalf of the owner and applicant, seeking deferral of the matter.

The Chair noted that deferral was being requested by the applicant, and that Councillor Feltmate would be moving a motion to refer the matter back to staff, with the agreement of the Ward Councillor. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, advised that the matter would have to be advertised again if and when it came forward to Committee.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate

Be it resolved that this application be referred back to staff.

CARRIED

That the recommend Council refuse an amendment to the former City of Nepean Secondary Plan Areas 9 and 10 to change the land designation applying to the property as part of 4401 Fallowfield Road from “Prestige Business Park” to “Business Park”, as shown on Document 1.

REFERRED TO STAFF

5. ZONING - 601 AND PART OF 645 LONGFIELDS DRIVE

ZONAGE – 601 ET UNE PARTIE DU 645, PROMENADE LONGFIELDS

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0127 Barrhaven (3)

(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250, to change the zoning of 601 and part of 645 Longfields Drive, as shown on Document 3 and as detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED

6. ZONING - PART OF 4051 SPRATT ROAD

ZONAGE - PARTIE DU 4051, CHEMIN SPRATT

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0110 Gloucester-South Nepean (22)

(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)

Mary Jarvis, Urbandale Corporation, was present in support of the application.

Councillor Doucet expressed his concern with the re-zoning of agricultural land to general/ mixed use and wondered why this was required. Michael Wildman, Manager of Development Review, Suburban Services, explained that the proposed rezoning represented an implementation of the intent of the Community Design Plan (CDP.) He noted the lands in question were held in development reserve, which recognized the fact that the lands would be developed.

Committee then approved the report recommendation, as presented:

That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning for part of 4051 Spratt Road from DR- Development Reserve to GM[xxxx]- General Mixed Use, Exception xxxx, as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED

7. ZONING - 230-244 BESERER STREET

ZONAGE - 230-244, RUE BESSERER

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0112 rideau-vanier (12)

(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)

Ainsley Davidson and Brian Casagrande, FoTenn consultants, were present on behalf of the applicants in support of the application. Mr. Casagrande indicated he was would not support a forthcoming motion by Councillor Bédard to hold the By-law until the related Site Plan application has been granted.

Councillor Bédard noted that this file was an example of the community negotiating with a developer to find a resolution. He noted that his intent in recommending a motion to hold the By-law pending approval of the Site Plan had been to allow some time for community participation in light of some recent developments. However, he indicated that he would pursue those same objectives through the Site Plan delegated authority process. Therefore, he recommended Committee approve the report recommendations, while expressing the importance of continuing to keep the community completely involved in the process.

Committee then approved the report recommendations, as presented.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 244 Besserer Street from Residential Fifth Density zone Schedule 70 (R5F S70) to Residential Fifth Density Exception [1680] zone Schedule 70 (R5F[1680] S70) as shown on Document 1, and to amend Exception [1680] and Schedule 70 as detailed in Documents 2 and 3.

CARRIED

8. ZONING - 73 ABERDEEN STREET

ZONAGE - 73, RUE ABERDEEN

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0125 somerset (14)

(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)

Councillor Holmes noted that there had been concerns expressed by some residents and the

Dalhousie Community Association with respect to parking. In response to the Councillor’s questions, Steve Belan, Planner, provided the following information:

· The parking requirement for the proposed use (an art studio with instructional facility limited to four students) is 1.6 spaces, with an additional space required for the residential unit, for a total of three spaces. There would also be the opportunity for people to park on the street.

· The property is located within a mixed-use centre, where the there is the opportunity for people travel by means other than private vehicle.

· Staff feels there will not be any resulting traffic situations in the area.

· Residential use will remain the main component of the building, with the zoning stipulating a minimum of 125 square meters of residential and limiting the commercial to 65 square meters.

· The City would not issue the building permit for commercial use unless it complied with the zoning. The City could also ensure through the regular complaint process and through zoning enforcement that there would be residential on the site.

· The zoning will remain residential, with an exception to allow the art studio and instructional facility.

· The instructional facility is a defined use tied specifically to the studio, so it cannot be changed to another form of another kind of commercial studio space or commercial instructional space.

Committee then approved the report recommendations, as presented:

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 73 Aberdeen Street from Residential R4S to a Residential R4S exception zone, to permit a Dwelling Unit, an Artist Studio and an Instructional Facility, as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED

9. ZONING - 3738 INNES ROAD

ZONAGE - 3738, CHEMIN INNES

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0126 Innes (2)

(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)

Miguel Tremblay, FoTenn Consultants, was present in support of the application.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council amend Zoning By law 2008-250 to remove the holding symbol on the zone and approve a zoning change for 3738 Innes Road from Light Industrial Zone, Subzone 2, height limit 14, Holding (IL2 H(14) – h) to Arterial Mainstreet – Exception 1443 (AM[1443]), as shown on Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED

10. SITE PLAN CONTROL - 2148 CARLING AVENUE

PLAN D'IMPLANTATION - 2148, AVENUE CARLINGACS2010-ICS-PGM-0033 Bay/Baie (7)

Committee heard from the following public delegation:

Wendo Blondeau president of the Glabar Park Community Alliance, raised a series of questions and concerns with respect to the proposed Site Plan. They are summarized as follows:

· The community is very pleased with the changes made to the proposed building since the public meeting in February.

· There are some outstanding questions and concerns with respect to the calculation of the square footage that is to be demolished. There is a need to confirm what precisely is coming down.

· There are questions concerning the height of the buildings A and B along the front of Carling Avenue. Having only seen the landscape drawings, it is unclear whether it is the same as what was proposed in the spring.

· The community is looking for a speed bump along the east side of the loading zone lane that sees a lot of traffic.

· There is a need to know the timeline on construction of the condo units.

· The community also has concerns with snow dumping on the residential grounds that are along Aaron Avenue

· With respect to the private laneway off Aaron Avenue along the eastern part of the property, while it cannot be closed at this point, the Community would like to see closure of the private laneway once the residential strip is sold off into single family homes. This is because of the amount of traffic that is coming down Aaron, affecting residents from Lenester Avenue to Maitland Avenue.

· Traffic is the primary issue for Glabar Park, and the community’s suggestions include a “local traffic only” sign or perhaps a reduced speed limit to 40 km/h.

· The present design is much improved and more inspiring than previously proposed, and the pedestrian-friendly walkway that goes through that parking lot now has made it far more navigable and safe for the residents.

· The property needs some cleaning, given there are some dangerous materials left out in the parking lot

· There are outstanding questions with respect to precisely where removal of trees will occur.

· Lighting is the final concern. Based on the drawings seen, there is concern about the illuminated signage on three sides, and it is suggested that there need not be signage facing Aaron Avenue.

The Chair suggested the applicant’s agent, in addition to responding to the previous delegation’s concerns in his presentation, take some time to speak with her after the meeting and address the issues in more detail.

Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering, was present on behalf of the applicant, in support of Site Plan approval. His comments are summarized as follows:

· The applicants appreciate the comments made by the previous delegation. They have met on a couple of occasions, have exchanged several emails over the course of the preceding 6 months, and have answered many of the questions raised by the Community Association.

· The project is a significant renovation and retrofit of a tired shopping plaza built in the 1950s.

· The applicants attended a community meeting in February, organized by the Ward Councillor, and the sense they got was that the Community was eager to see the property redevelop.

· While he could not speak to the specifics of the area to be demolished, he indicated that the report references the calculated area of the portion of the existing building to be demolished, which is the small retail space and open mall area of the the existing building.

· The new buildings will conform to the Zoning By-law in terms of permitted height, and indicated that nothing had changed since information had last been provided to Ms. Blondeau.

· With respect to speed bumps, he indicated that the Site Plan actually shows speed bumps in the drive aisle across the back of the building between the building and the residential condominium to the south.

· The timing for construction is driven to some extent by the ability to sign leases with prospective tenants. The work on the existing building is already underway in terms of clean up and demolition. It is expected that the building in the Northwest corner of the site will be under construction before the end of the summer.

· With respect to snow storage, he noted this is occurring on lands that are currently zoned residential, which are undeveloped and vacant. When those lands develop in the future, other alternatives will have to be found.

· With respect to the access road to Aaron Avenue, he noted that some residents had commented that they wanted the entrance to stay open, so that it could be used to access the signalized intersection on Carling Avenue in front of the site. He indicated that, at the present time, there is no intention to close it. However, it is something that could be addressed at the time that the residentially zoned properties along the east side of the site are developed.

· With respect to tree removal, he suggested there were a few trees that would be removed as a result of the construction; however, there are also a significant number of new trees proposed, in particular along the east side of the site, to provide a bit of a buffer between the commercial development and the residential lands to the east.

· With respect to lighting, he noted that the report contained a specific condition requiring that the site lighting be to the satisfaction of staff, and that step in the approval process will be required before the process proceeds

· He noted the technical motion that would be coming forward on behalf of staff to correct special condition number one with respect to the wording of the road widening on Carling Avenue.

In conclusion, Mr. Chown wished to confirm that, should Committee approve the Site Plan, authority over any minor changes would be delegated authority to staff. Under that condition, he fully supported the staff recommendations as outlined in the report, and indicated that he would be happy to have further discussions with Ms. Blondeau after the meeting.

Having concluded all public delegations, Committee then considered the report recommendations.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate

That Special Condition 1. Road Widening of Document 6 of the Site Plan Control report for 2148 Carling Avenue be amended as follows:

That the words “property line” be changed to “centre line of pavement”

CARRIED

Committee then approved the report recommendations, as amended:

That Planning and Environment Committee approve the Site Plan Control application for 2148 Carling Avenue as per the plans and reports included in Document 8 as shown in Documents 2 through 5 inclusive, and subject to the Owner entering into a standard Site Plan Agreement including the conditions contained in Document 6, as amended such that for Special Condition 1, Road Widening, the words “property line” be changed to “centre line of pavement.”

In the event that the Owner fails to sign the required agreement and complete the conditions to be satisfied prior to the signing of the agreement within one year of the Site Plan Approval, the approval shall lapse.

CARRIED as amended

11. DEVELOPMENT OF A CITY OF OTTAWA MUNICIPAL CONCURRENCE PROCESS FOR COMMUNICATION TOWERS

ÉLABORATION D’UN ACCORD MUNICIPAL DE LA VILLE D’OTTAWA CONCERNANT LES TOURS DE TRANSMISSION

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0123 City Wide/À l'échelle de la Ville

Councillor Feltmate noted that often communication towers are located where several wards intersect, and the ward most affected may not be the one where the tower is actually located. She asked staff to look at including delegated authority by all the ward councillors impacted by the tower. Michael Wildman, Manager of Development Review, Suburban Services, indicated staff would take this as direction.

Committee then approved the report recommendations, as presented.

That the Planning and Environment Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee direct staff to develop a municipal concurrence and public consultation process for communication tower proposals in accordance with Industry Canada’s regulatory framework and report back to the appropriate Standing Committees and Council for approval.

CARRIED

CITY OPERATIONS

OPÉRATIONS MUNICIPALES

PUBLIC WORKS

TRAVAUX PUBLICS

12. GROWING A HEALTHY FOREST FOR THE NATION’S CAPITAL

AMÉNAGER UNE FORÊT SAINE POUR LA CAPITALE NATIONALE

ACS2010-COS-PWS-0009 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

An E-mail dated 5 July 2010 was received from the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee with respect to this matter.

John Manconi, General Manager of Planning and Growth Management, and David Barkley, Manager of Forestry Services were present from staff in support of their recommendations. In response to questions from Councillor Monette, Mr. Barkley provided the following information:

· There is a large variety of species available to the City for use in replacement of ash trees, and staff is working with nurseries across Ontario to broaden out the list.

· The City is currently in the last year of the Council-adopted tree program, and as of 2010 the City is spending about $1 million. After 2010 approximately $446 000 dollars is identified in the Long Range Financial plan for tree planting, which represents a significant reduction from the last few years.

· Staff is proposing to continue with a modified version of the tree program that would take into account the community-based program that has been well received. At this point there are no trees remaining to give out as part of the program.

· Staff is looking to have money available to broaden out the lifecycle program to help combat Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) and do more inter-planting in the wards that will be impacted by EAB, as well as continue to do the things that have received much community support, such as like re-greening school yards, parks, churches et cetera.

· The report recommendations represent a step towards a long-term, sustainable tree program.

· Staff is looking at how to monitor inventory to see what steps can be taken to stay ahead of EAB. Looking across the province, inter-planting in conjunction with injections seems to be a sustainable method going forward.

Committee then approved the report recommendations, as presented:

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve:

1. The acceleration of the Trees and Forests Maintenance Program, Quality Standards and Improvement Strategy report (ACS2006-PWS-SOP-0005) implementing the final 3 years in 2011 with an Operating budget of $2,982,000 and 14 Forestry Field staff FTE’s as well as a Capital budget of $660,000; and,

2. In addition, for consideration as part of the draft 2011 Operating and Capital Budget:

a. An Operating Budget increase of $450,000 for the continuation of the Emerald Ash Borer Management Strategy;

b. A Capital Budget increase of $1,175,000 for Lifecycle Renewal – Tree Planting funding to increase replacement tree planting in both the urban and rural forests in response to the loss of trees from Emerald Ash Borer; and,

c. A Capital Budget increase of $625,000 for Community Based Tree Planting initiatives as outlined in the report.

CARRIED

CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE

BUREAU DU DIRECTEUR MUNICIPAL

CITY CLERK & SOLICITOR

SERVICE DU GREFFIER MUNICIPAL & CHEF DU CONTENTIEUX

13. STATUS UPDATE - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE INQUIRIES AND MOTIONS - FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 22 JUNE 2010

RAPPORT DE SITUATION - DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS ET MOTIONS DU COMITÉ DE L’URBANISME ET DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT POUR LA PÉRIODE SE TERMINANT LE 22 JUIN 2010

ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0063 City Wide/À l'échelle de la Ville

That the Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for information.

RECEIVED

COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS

ARTICLES DES CONSEILLERS

Councillor / Conseiller Chiarelli

14. MOTION – WATER BILLING FOR QUALICUM TERRACE BLOCKS F, G AND K

MOTION – FACTURATION D’EAU DES ÎLOTS F, G ET K DE QUALICUM TERRACE

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0032 college/collÈge(8)

The Chair noted that Councillor Chiarelli was not in attendance to speak to his motion, and there was nobody registered to speak to the item. Tim Marc, Legal Counsel, confirmed that staff was not in agreement with Councillor Chiarelli’s recommendation. Committee then approved a motion to receive the item.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate

That the Planning and Environment Committee receive this report.

CARRIED

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve that the sub-meters within the individual units of Qualicum Terrace Blocks F, G and K be recognized as meters and that each unit be billed separately for the water usage.

RECEIVED

Councillor / Conseiller Cullen

15. BRITANNIA VILLAGE – OTTAWA RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT DIRECTION

DIRECTIVE SUR LE PROJET DE PROTECTION CONTRE LES INONDATIONS DE LA RIVIÈRE DES OUTAOUAIS – VILLAGE DE BRITANNIA

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0027 BAY/BAIE (7)

Marie Arseneault, Britannia Village Community Association, was present in support of the recommendations.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve proceeding the Britannia Village – Ottawa River Flood Protection project based on the following:

a) a revised upset total project cost value of $670,000 as described in this report;

b) the resolution of transfers of easements required to construct the necessary floodproofing works.

2. That subject to undertaking the work, the Deputy City Manager or delegate be authorized to enter into agreement with the RVCA in respect of maintenance costs to the RVCA for sharing 50/50 in the local portion of the lifecycle maintenance costs estimated to be incurred by the works in Britannia Village; the costs of which are to start after the completion of the base regulatory flood protection works and are estimated at $1,000 per year for 25 years.

3. That staff be directed to review existing Ottawa River flooding emergency response measures for Britannia Village, update and document response plans in conjunction with the RVCA, emergency response organizations and the community.

CARRIED

Councillor / Conseiller Desroches

16. MOTION – AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN BY-LAW FOR SOUTH NATION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY INTERPRETATIVE CENTRE, 2925 FINDLAY CREEK DRIVE

MOTION – MODIFICATION DU RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES POUR LE CENTRE D’INTERPRÉTATION DE LA SOCIÉTÉ D’AMÉNAGEMENT DE LA RIVIÈRE NATION-SUD, 2925, PROMENADE FINDLAY CREEK

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0031 gloucester south/sud nepean (22)

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve:

1. An amendment to Part 7 Information Signs of Sign By-law 2005-439 to permit, in any sign District, a non-illuminated information sign used to convey background or historical information related to the park or facility, to a maximum sign face area of 2 square metres, a maximum height of 3 metres and up to 5% of the sign face may be utilized as an acknowledgement recognizing sponsors of the park or facility.

2. That as a technical amendment, the 14 day notification requirement be waived and the amendment be added to the orders of the day for approval by City Council on July 14, 2010.

CARRIED

Councillor / Conseiller Doucet

17. MOTION – CRITERIA FOR DISTINGUISHING WILDLIFE GARDENS FROM PROPERTY STANDARDS CONCERNS

MOTION – CRITÈRES PERMETTANT DE DISTINGUER LES JARDINS SAUVAGES AUX FINS DE L’APPLICATION DES NORMES DE BIENS-FONDS

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0030 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

E-mail correspondence dated 5 July 2010 was received from the City’s Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, advised that the motion in question was rightly within the jurisdiction of the Community and Protective Services Committee, not Planning and Environment Committee, as it is a property standards matter. Therefore, the Chair called for a motion to refer the item to Community and Protective Services Committee.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate

Be it resolved that this item be referred to the Community and Protective Services Committee.

CARRIED

That the Planning and Environment Committee direct staff to bring forth their report on criteria for identifying wildlife gardens as opposed to property standards problems to the next Planning and Environment Committee meeting.

REFERRED

to the Community and Protective Services Committee

Councillor / Conseiller Hume and Councillor/Conseillère Harder

18. REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGE FUNDING POLICY TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANDED USE OF GROWTH-RELATED DEBT TO PAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW COMMUNITY-BASED RECREATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE

RÉVISION DE LA POLITIQUE SUR LE FINANCEMENT PAR REDEVANCES D’AMÉNAGEMENT AFIN DE PERMETTRE UN RECOURS ACCRU AU FINANCEMENT PAR ENDETTEMENT LIÉ À LA CROISSANCE POUR PAYER LA CONSTRUCTION DE NOUVELLES INFRASTRUCTURES RÉCRÉATIVES COMMUNAUTAIRES

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0028 City Wide/À l'échelle de la Ville

Scot Hodge, Riverside South Community Association, was present in support of the recommendation.

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council revise the development charge funding policy to allow for the prioritization of the construction of new community-based recreational infrastructure by expanding the use of growth-related debt.

CARRIED

Councillor / Conseiller Hume

19. RENAMING WELLINGTON STREET TO SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD BOULEVARD

CHANGER DE NOM DE LA RUE WELLINGTON À BOULEVARD SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0026 somerset (14)

Committee received the following correspondence with respect to this matter, which is held on file with the City Clerk:

· E-mail dated 5 July 2010 from David Gladstone

· E-mail dated 5 July 2010 from David Hammonds

· E-mail dated 5 July 2010 from Diana Harrison

· E-mail dated 5 July 2010 from John J. Heney

· E-mail dated 7 July 2010 from Joanne J. Spanton

· E-mail dated 5 July 2010 from Ken Holmes

· E-mail dated 5 July 2010 from Kyla McCandie Glustien

· Letter dated 5 July 2010 from Immanuel A. Giulea and James A. McLean (Société Macdonald-Cartier Society (SMCS)

Councillor Hume advised that he would be remaining in the chair for this item, as it was listed as a regular item on the agenda and not being presented as a standard motion.

Committee then heard from the following public delegations:

David Gladstone, resident, expressed opposition to the recommendation, referring to Ottawa’s history and to Wellington Street being Ottawa’s first street as part of the Rideau Canal Project. He mentioned the burden of administrative costs the name change would entail. He recognized the role Sir. John A. Macdonald played in Canadian history for French and English speaking Canadians alike, but suggested there were other prominent places without names that would be deserving of the name Sir John A. Macdonald, such as the parliament buildings. He noted that Lieutenant Colonel John By had named Wellington Street after the Duke of Wellington for his role in the initiation of the Rideau Canal Project, rather than for his role in the Battle of Waterloo.

Dr. Alastair Sweeny spoke in opposition to the renaming of Wellington Street. He informed Committee that he had authored a biography of George Etienne Cartier and created a web portal called the John A. Macdonald portal. He suggested several reasons why he believed Sir. John A. Macdonald would be opposed to the motion. Firstly, he suggested the creation of Wellington Street in 1826 was a defining moment in Ottawa’s history, as Colonel By initially intended its construction be a wagon road to build a fortress (today’s Parliament Hill) to protect the Rideau Canal. He listed the various streets that radiate from Wellington Street and their historical significance with regards to the history of the Duke of Wellington, such as Victoria Street, Murray Street, Dalhousie Street, Cathcart Street and Gloucester Street. He went on to state that the streets on the other side of the Rideau Canal connecting to Rideau Street were named by Colonel By after the Royal Family of the time, such as Kent Street, Cumberland street, York Street, and Charlotte Street.

Speaking to the motion, he inquired as to the appropriate consultation process and as to when staff would report back. He opposed City staff undertaking such a consultation, arguing it is not within the Committee’s purview. He remarked that there were many other City and Federal properties that could alternatively be named in Macdonald’s honour. He objected to comments made by Bob Plamondon in the Ottawa Citizen to the effect that Macdonald was the father of the country, and without him there would be no capital, arguing that Plamondon had ignored the many other fathers of confederation. He also challenged suggested Sir. John A. Macdonald would be appalled by Plamondon’s other quotes that not enough had been done to recognize Macdonald in the capital where he gets “half billing on a bridge and an airport.”

When Councillor Bellemare asked if Mr. Sweeny would welcome a name change from Wellington Street to Macdonald-Cartier, Dr. Sweeny negated the possibility, and emphasized his support for an unchanged street name. He referenced examples in Washington DC where they have maintained the original street names, such as Capital Circle North, Capital Circle South, Capital Circle West, and emphasized the need for an open process.

Following Councillor Holmes’ inquiry as to how many federal buildings are on Wellington Street and whether those departments and ministries should be requested to comment on the issue, Dr. Sweeny listed the various buildings and questioned whether the City had any business getting involved in the matter. He suggested that perhaps there were other streets that would be more worthy of name change and noted there are already streets named after Sir. John A. Macdonald and Georges Etienne Cartier.

Mr. Immanuel Giulea, Executive Director – Société Macdonald-Cartier Society, spoke in opposition to changing the name of Wellington Street. Mr. Giulea also submitted detailed written comments and numerous background documents, which were circulated to members of Committee and are held on file with the City Clerk. The following summarizes the points raised in supplement to his written submission. Mr. Giulea began by emphasizing his opposition to changing Wellington Street to any other street name, indicating this was based on historical and heritage reasons, and common sense. He noted that a Macdonald street has existed in Somerset Ward since 1880, parallel to Cartier Street. He further noted that, until recently Somerset Ward was called Wellington Ward, which was one of five original wards dating back to 1840.

Further, Mr. Giulea summarized the important role Wellington played in the War of 1812, and other military endeavours, including the battle of Waterloo. He also highlighted the subsequent defence structures that Wellington commanded be built, such as various forts and the Rideau Canal. He noted that the Legislative Assembly had adjourned for the purpose of mourning the death of Wellington. In conclusion, he read a quote from the Wellington that demonstrates the great interest the he had in Canada, contradicting any claims that Wellington was not interested in Canada.

Michel Prévost, Chief Archivist, University of Ottawa and President of the Société d’histoire de l’Outaouais, spoke in opposition to the proposed name change. He stated that street names must respect the rules of toponymy, the science of place names. He suggested there were no justifiable reasons to change the name of Wellington Street, Ottawa’s oldest street. He noted that, after the British won the War of 1812, they were reluctant to take on the immense task of building a canal to connect the Ottawa River to the St. Lawrence River, and it was only with the arrival of the Duke of Wellington and Colonel By that such an undertaking commenced in 1826. Further, he suggested that, as Philemon Wright was moving to develop the other side of the Ottawa River, perhaps Canada’s capital would have been Gatineau had Wellington not undertaken the project. In conclusion, he maintained that Wellington Street, being part of Ottawa’s foundation, is deserving of its toponymy and argued it would be a grave error to change this historical street in the heart of the capital.

Councillor Bellemare solicited the delegation’s opinion on the possibility of consulting the Federal government on changing the street name to Macdonald-Cartier as opposed to simply Sir John A. Macdonald. Mr. Prévost responded by stating that adding the name Cartier did not affect his argument concerning toponymy.

Councillor Legendre inquired about changing the name of Sussex Drive as opposed to Wellington Street, to which Mr. Prévost responded that more research would need to be undertaken as to the connection of Sussex to the region. He emphasized that Wellington Street was not named after the Duke of Wellington for his defeat of Napoleon, but rather as a token of Colonel By’s appreciation for his confidence in him.

Councillor Doucet stated that he agreed with the argument that the name Wellington was rooted in time, and that the purpose of the name is to remind us of our history dating over 150 years.

Mr. John J. Heney concurred with the previous speakers and presented two questions. The first pertained to the order of the procedure of the question at hand. He noted that Council would likely direct staff to consult with certain affected landowners, namely the Federal Government, adding that the public consultation had indeed already begun by discussion in Committee. He questioned how many parties would be consulted, whether it would be every property or uniquely the NCC. His second question pertained to the removal of the historical value of Wellington Street. He noted that people were now learning about its historical significance due this item being presented to Committee. He recommended that the entire proposal be dropped and stated that there were other ways of commemorating Sir John A. Macdonald.

Councillor Holmes inquired to staff about whether or not there is a historical naming policy. Arlene Grégoire, Chief Building Official, explained that the City’s policies give no preference based on the age of a street name; however, preference is given to names with historical value over those without.

David Jeanes spoke in opposition to the renaming of Wellington Street. He noted that there is a special procedure for renaming processes, which differs from the Commemorative Naming process, in that it requires City Council as the final approval authority, rather than the Commemorative Naming Committee. He suggested that previous decisions by Council had not been implemented by staff. He made particular reference to a report approved by Council in 2002, suggested that the hidden text of the document indicates that a section of the report with respect to naming guidelines had been deleted, significantly watering down the wording.

With respect to the motion at hand, Mr. Jeanes listed many of the historic addresses on Wellington Street where important historic events had taken place, including the Langevin Block, the Rideau Club the former American Emabassy, several historic banks, St. Andrew’s Church, the Supreme Court, and the residences of several prominent Canadians. As such the historical name should be preserve. He noted that the ceremonial route including Wellington Street had been given the unofficial name of Confederation Boulevard, and saw no reason why Macdonald should be elevated above the other fathers of confederation. He indicated the same logic held for Sussex Drive, which is also a part of Confederation Boulevard.

Further, Mr. Jeanes pointed out that the Duke of Wellington, while he was the head of ordinance in the British cabinet, was responsible jointly with the Duke of Richmond for planning the fortifications of Canada after the Napoleonic Wars. Kingston and all the way down the St. Lawrence River. In conclusion, he reiterated his support for the retention of the name Wellington Street.

In response to questions from Councillor Hume as to whether he had examples of where staff had not implemented Council’s directions with regards to naming, Mr. Jeanes referenced an example of the proposed renaming of Broad Street on Lebreton flats, noting he had fought staff’s recommendations at Council and won to retain the name of Broad Street.

Bob Plamondon spoke in support of the motion. He noted that he had learned of Sir John A. Macdonald’s greatness while doing research for his recent book on historical Canadian Conservatives. He suggested that, were it not for Macdonald, Canada might have been taken over by the American manifest destiny, and Canada would not be a place where French and English would be reconciled, which are things that the Duke of Wellington did not provide. He emphasized that it is not always necessary to maintain the status quo, noting Bytown had become Ottawa, and that Canadian soldiers used to fight under the red ensign and today fight under the red maple leaf. He credited himself and Marc Sutcliffe for the renaming idea and informed the Committee that he had consulted with a number of prominent historians and former Prime Ministers before presenting the idea to the City of Ottawa. He argued in favour of proceeding with consultation with the Federal Government and the NCC, suggesting that debate over the specific case in favour of Sir John A. Macdonald as opposed to the Duke of Welling should take place following the consultation. He indicated that he would argue for the change at that time. He suggested a debate of national scale that included all of the proponents was a healthy one.

Councillor Feltmate questioned why Mr. Plamondon would not have started the consultation process himself instead of requiring City resources to conduct the consultation, when there isn’t an overwhelming expression of interest in the item. She stated that it would be more appropriate for the people in favour of the proposal to do the work and present it with the overwhelming sense that the public wants the name change. She questioned the precedence of the undertaking given the lack of City resources.

Councillor Hume confirmed that Mr. Plamondon’s request for a widespread consultation is the City’s responsibility. Further, he announced that, in consultation with Ms. Grégoire of Building Code Services, he had agreed to shoulder the administrative and budgetary responsibility for the consultation, due to staff’s lack of resources.

Councillor Monette stated that, while he originally had some concerns, he agreed with the procedure if the proposal is to have a consultation where the findings would make their way back to Committee for a decision at a later date. However, he indicated he had not yet taken a position on the name change itself.

Councillor Doucet agreed with Councillor Feltmate’s point regarding lack of public expression and lack of City resources, and stated that he would like to see a stronger interest before imposing such an administrative burden on the Chair’s office. He objected to taking on such a discussion when Sir John A. Macdonald is already commemorated throughout the country.

Mr. Plamondon added that the Committee had learned a lot about Wellington from those in favour of maintaining the street name and that not much was said about Sir John. A. Macdonald because the debate was focused on whether to proceed with a consultation or not. He suggested the supporters of the name change to Sir. John A. Macdonald would be happy to answer the councillors’ questions in Committee at the appropriate time.

In response to questions from Councillor Qadri, Mr. Plamondon confirmed his understanding that there were many more supporters of the name change who were not in attendance at the meeting due to the fact that the present discussion was only on whether to proceed with a consultation process. Councillor Qadri wished to emphasize that Committee was not voting on whether to proceed with the name change, just on whether to go ahead with consultation.

Councillor Cullen spoke to historical significance of Wellington Street, which was named by Colonel By after his patron. He noted that Colonel By was tasked with the Rideau Canal Project, without which Ottawa would not be the capital of Canada. He listed many of the names of former Prime Ministers and royalty who had walked along Wellington Street. He suggested that the issue of renaming the street was before Committee, not because people are questioning the significance of the Duke of Wellington, but rather because it is a project by someone very interested in Sir John A. Macdonald. He suggested Canadians have so little history to fall back on and argued that it would be a false statement to say that Sir John A. Macdonald is not already well recognized in this country. He voiced that it would be a waste of time to generate a discussion to argue about the rightful place of these nation shapers, and that there was debate that the Duke of Wellington played a central role in making Ottawa the nation’s capital.

Councillor Holmes described the public input she had received in opposition to the name change. She noted her Community Association and other heritage associations had set up the savewellingtonstreet.ca website, and further suggested that the Francophone community would oppose changing the name uniquely to Macdonald as opposed to Macdonald-Cartier. She noted that street renaming processes can be difficult, citing the example of a request for a street name change by the polish community. While that request was rejected by Committee, a monument was erected instead. She suggested perhaps a similar scenario could take place to commemorate Macdonald. She also suggested another roadway, such as the Airport Parkway, could be considered. She predicted that the consultation process with the church and the Federal Government would be extremely time consuming, and argued it would be inappropriate to ask them to change their addresses.

Councillor Bellemare supported a name change to reflect Canadian history in lieu of local history, and stated that it would be a valid debate. He noted that Britain had bestowed knighthood upon Sir John A. Macdonald and later to Georges Etienne Cartier, and spoke of the partnership that existed between the two men, and how the union of their names represents the union of two cultures. He stated that he would support consulting with the federal government on Macdonald-Cartier, based on the significance of the street being in front of the parliament buildings and based on the commemoration of the interprovincial bridge and the airport which also recognize them.

At the suggestion of the Councillor Hume, Councillor Bellemare put forward a friendly amendment to the motion, to amend the recommendation as follows:

That staff be directed undertake the appropriate consultation with the affected landowners, including the Federal Government, on the proposal to change Wellington Street to Sir John A. Macdonald Boulevard or Macdonald-Cartier Boulevard and report back to Planning and Environment Committee and Council with a recommendation.

Councillor Hume confirmed that this would be a friendly amendment.

Councillor Doucet suggested that it was ridiculous to suggest that the City only needed to consult with a few landowners along Wellington Street to decide whether or not we can change the name, suggesting the name of the street belongs to the City and the people of Canada. He noted that the delegations, including the MacDonald-Cartier Society and major heritage advocates, had indicated the name should not be changed.

Councillor Monette emphasized that the matter before Committee was whether to proceed with the name change consultation. He suggested that not just the owners on Wellington Street would be consulted. He noted the Federal Government would be consulted, which includes MPs, senators etc, suggesting a substantial debate would likely take place. He further suggested that if Council did not want to proceed with the consultation, it should be changing its policies to clarify that the City will not accept name changes under certain conditions. He recommended the City should proceed with the processes in place, and proceed with the consultation, and have the debate and decision when the results come back to Committee and Council.

To conclude debate, Councillor Hume reiterated that his office staff would provide administrative support to the Planning department, and clarified that he would not be advocating on behalf of one position or another. He further clarified that the consultation would be conducted in the same manner as it would for other streets. He also heard the direction that the consultation should be as broad as possible, emphasizing that that the City should undertake the consultation process in order for it to be done properly. He acknowledged that there was much discussion and debate on both sides, and recommended moving forward to obtain the required information from stakeholders.

Committee then considered and approved the recommendation, as amended:

CARRIED, as amended

YEAS (4): M. Bellemare, P. Hume, B. Monette, S. Qadri

NAYS (3): C. Doucet, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes

20. Relocation of Traffic Control Power Feed Cable – Wellspring Centre

DÉPLACEMENT D’UN CÂBLE D’ALIMENTATION DE FEUX DE CIRCULATION – CENTRE WELLSPRING

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0029 alta vista (18)

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve that:

1. $30,000 be allocated to relocate a traffic signal power cable located on 1492 Caledon Street; and

2. The provisions of the Notice By-law respecting amendments to the budget be waived.

CARRIED

21. EXEMPTION FROM THE DEMOLITION CONTROL PROCESS FOR 219 CARRUTHURS AVENUE

Exemption du processus de réglementation des démolitions pour le 219, avenue Carruthers

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0033 KITCHISSIPPI (15)

In response to questions from the Chair, Arlene Gregoire, Chief Building Official, confirmed that the building in question was already in poor condition, and the recent earthquake had exacerbated it to the point where it could collapse on its own.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve 219 Carruthers Avenue be exempted from the requirements set out in the Demolition Control By-law to enable the demolition of the building without delay, subject to the Owner agreeing to seed/sod and maintain the property and to not use the property for other interim use between the demolition of the existing building and the time of the construction of any replacement building(s).

CARRIED

Councillor / Conseiller Qadri

22. MOTION – CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION RECYCLING INITIATIVES

MOTION – INITIATIVES VISANT LE RECYCLAGE DES DÉCHETS DE CONSTRUCTION ET DE DÉMOLITION

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0024 City Wide/À l'échelle de la Ville

The following correspondence was received with respect to this item and is held on file with the City Clerk:

· Memorandum dated 29 June 2010 from the Chair of the City’s Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC)

· Letter dated 5 July 2010 from Lori Gadzala, on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Ottawa Chapter of the Canadian Green Building Council

· Letter dated 5 July 2010 from Renée Gratton on behalf of the Construction Recycling Initiatives Task Group

Renée Gratton, Lori Gadzala and Kimberley Mantas were present in support of the recommendations.

Councillor Qadri took a moment to thank everyone involved in the preparation of the motion, including City staff, and thanked the public delegations for attending Committee in support of the motion.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve:

1. That the City of Ottawa demand the Provincial Government restart the Waste Diversion Act review immediately and proceed to prepare draft amendments to the Waste Diversion Act for first reading forthwith;

2. That City of Ottawa solid waste, planning, and infrastructure staff develop and implement a policy encouraging the recycling of Construction and Demolition waste during all demolition, site plan approval and subdivision pre-consultation and consultation phases and through the development review and approval process, regardless of the size of the project;

3. The policy consider including the following:

a) An information package to development applicants on the: benefits of recycling Construction and Demolition waste; private companies that recycle Construction and Demolition waste in the area; obligations to recycle Construction and Demolition waste under the Waste Diversion Act and Ontario Regulations 102/94 and 103/94;

b) A requirement for proponents of all major projects submitted for site plan approval to have a demolition and construction waste diversion plan as required by Ontario Regulations 102/94 and 103/94;

c) All development applicants be informed of their ability to enroll in the City’s Construction and Demolition waste recycling program that will publically recognize projects that adhere to recycling principles set out in the LEED certified level guidelines;

4. That the City of Ottawa in all of its Construction and Demolition projects lead by example by targeting LEED certified level guidelines for construction and demolition projects where practical;

5. That the City of Ottawa encourage the Ontario Ministry of the Environment make the necessary resource allocations to ensure requirements in the Waste Diversion Act and Ontario Regulations 102/94 and 103/94 are enforced and complied with;

6. That the City of Ottawa encourage the Ministry of the Environment meet with members of the Ottawa construction industry, including developer, homebuilder, property management, and construction associations, in order to provide information on waste diversion requirements contained in the Waste Diversion Act and Ontario Regulations 102/94 and 103/94;

7. That City of Ottawa Solid Waste staff expedite the implementation of differential tipping fees for recyclable ICI and construction and demolition materials as markets become available;

8. That the City of Ottawa no longer receive clean loads of recyclable dry wall (gypsum board) at its Trail Road landfill as viable recycling opportunities for this material exists in close proximity to the municipality.

CARRIED

INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED

INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT

A. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESERVE APPOINTMENT - ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

NOMINATION D’UN MEMBRE SUPPLÉANT AU COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR L’ENVIRONNEMENT

ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0064-IPD CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

RECEIVED

NOTICES OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING)

AVIS DE MOTION (POUR EXAMEN LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE)

Inquiries

DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS

OTHER BUSINESS

AUTRES QUESTIONS

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

1:10 pm.

NEXT MEETING

PROCHAINE RÉUNION

Monday, 5 July 2010

le lundi 5 juillet 2010

Committee Coordinator Chair

Minutes 77 / ProcÈs-verbal 77

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve that: