Source: https://app06.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2008/01-23/arac/ACS2007-PTE-POL-0046.htm
Timestamp: 2019-09-16 01:13:00+00:00

Document:
1. North Gower Community Design Plan – official plan and zoning amendments (file no. d02-07-0024, file no. d01-01-06-0012)
PLAN DE CONCEPTION COMMUNAUTAIRE DE North Gower – modification du plan officiel et du zonage
1. Approuve le plan de conception communautaire de North Gower (document no 1 au dossier, auprès du greffier de la Ville).
2. Approuve la modification _ du Plan officiel de la Ville d’Ottawa (document no 2) en :
a) retirant le plan du village de North Gower du volume 2C du Plan officiel.
b) milieu rural, afin de modifier la limite nord du village de North Gower et de reclasser les terrains désignés « terres agricoles » et « secteur rural général » en « Village ».
3. Approuve la modification du projet de Règlement de zonage général telle qu’indiquée sur les plans d’emplacement et précisée dans le document 3.
4. Approuve la modification de l’annexe A – Utilisation du territoire afin que la désignation de la section des plaines inondables du ruisseau Steven situées à l’ouest du chemin Fourth Line, au sud de la promenade Roger-Stevens et au nord de la rue Church, soit modifiée en vue de prolonger la désignation « agricoles » des terrains (couleur verte) vers l’ouest, jusqu’aux limites du village;
5. Approuve une nouvelle présentation du Plan de conception communautaire de North Gower devant le Comité sous la forme d’un plan secondaire et qu’il soit intégré au Plan officiel.
1. Deputy City Manager's report Planning, Transit and the Environment dated 8 November 2007 (ACS2007-PTE-POL-0046).
2. Extract of draft Minutes, 10 January 2008.
08 November 2007 / le 08 novembre 2007
Contact Person/Personne Ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Manager / Gestionnaire, Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement
Ref N°: ACS2007-PTE-POL-0046
North Gower Community Design Plan - OFFICIAL PLAN and Zoning amendments (FILE NO. D02-07-0024, file no. d01-01-06-0012)
1. Approve the North Gower Community Design Plan (Document 1 - On file with City Clerk),
2. Approve City of Ottawa Official Plan __ Amendment [Document 2] to
b) Revise City of Ottawa Official Plan Schedule A - Rural Policy Plan to revise the North Gower village boundaries and to redesignate lands from "Agricultural Resource Area" and "General Rural Area" to "Village"
Que le Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales recommande au Conseil :
1. D’approuver le plan de conception communautaire de North Gower (document no 1 au dossier, auprès du greffier de la Ville).
2. D’approuver la modification _ du Plan officiel de la Ville d’Ottawa (document no 2) en
3. D’approuver la modification du projet de Règlement de zonage général telle qu’indiquée sur les plans d’emplacement et précisée dans le document 3.
The North Gower Community Design Plan (CDP) is a result of a collaborative planning process that has included residents, property owners, technical staff/agencies and staff. The North Gower CDP is comprised of various components consisting of: i) existing conditions ii) a land use plan that identifies the proposed location of future uses and associated policies, iii) a parks and open space plan that will assist developers and staff in identifying future park locations resulting from the subdivision approval process, iv) a multi-use pathway plan that identifies a conceptual system that can be implemented by residents, developers, and City and v) a future roads plan that identifies a conceptual collector road system that will help to connect the village together.
The North Gower CDP is a document that reflects the future desired by its residents. Staff has incorporated residents’ comments, concerns and results of their work into the plan. The CDP tries to implement the vision set out by residents at the outset of the planning process and will be used equally by residents and staff in their respective projects and work.
There are no immediate and direct financial implications associated with the approval of the North Gower CDP.
Consultation with residents included a workshop, public meetings/open houses, and separate meetings with the Design Group (interested residents who helped to initiate the village plan). Early on during the planning process, staff experts were also invited to speak at meetings to present ideas and to receive feedback from residents. Copies of draft documents were left at locations in the village to make it more convenient for residents.
This spring staff circulated to interested residents a summary of public and draft Departmental responses to the December 2006 version of the North Gower CDP so that residents would be aware of the range of comments and staff’s response to them. A further round of comments and revisions ensued which has resulted in the North Gower CDP (November 2007) and associated recommendations.
Le Plan de conception communautaire de North Gower (PCC) est le résultat d’un processus de planification avec la collaboration des résidents, des propriétaires fonciers, d’agences et de personnel techniques et du personnel de la Ville. Le PCC de North Gower comporte plusieurs composantes, à savoir : i) la situation actuelle, ii) un plan d’utilisation des terres qui indique l’emplacement futur envisagé pour les diverses utilisations et les politiques pertinentes, iii) un plan des parcs et des espaces libres qui permettra aux promoteurs et au personnel de repérer l’emplacement futur des parcs à la suite du processus d’approbation des lotissements, iv) le plan d’un sentier polyvalent qui propose un concept pouvant être mis en place par les résidents, les promoteurs et la Ville, et, v) un plan des toutes les futures routes, basé sur un concept de routes collectrices permettant de desservir le village.
Le PCC de North Gower est le reflet de ce que ses habitants souhaitent pour l’avenir. Le personnel a incorporé les commentaires des résidents, leurs préoccupations et le résultat de leur travail dans le plan. Le PCC cherche à mettre en œuvre la vision définie par les résidents dès le début du processus de planification et sera utilisé tout aussi bien par eux que par le personnel pour réaliser les divers projets et faire le travail.
L’approbation du PCC de North Gower ne comporte aucune répercussion financière immédiate et directe.
Les consultations avec les résidents ont pris la forme d’un atelier, de réunions publiques et de réunions distinctes avec le Groupe de conception, composé de résidents intéressés qui ont contribué à l’élaboration du plan du village. Au début du processus de planification, on a également invité des experts aux réunions afin qu’ils expliquent les idées proposées et reçoivent les commentaires de la population. Des copies des documents préliminaires ont été déposées à divers endroits dans le village afin que les habitants puissent les consulter plus facilement.
Ce printemps, le personnel a diffusé aux résidents intéressés un sommaire des commentaires du public et les réponses préliminaires du Service au sujet de la version de décembre 2006 du PCC de North Gower, de façon que les gens soit au courant de toute la gamme des commentaires et de la réponse du personnel. Il s’en est suivi une autre série de commentaires et de révisions qui ont finalement abouti au PCC de North Gower (décembre 2007) et aux recommandations correspondantes.
The North Gower Community Design Plan (CDP) is a planning document that will provide direction for the future growth of North Gower while it implements Official Plan policies at the community level. It is a document that identifies issues that are important to residents and provides a framework for change. The North Gower CDP was prepared at the request of village residents who wished to have a plan that would reflect the unique character of their community and would set a direction for the next 20 years. The planning process has been a truly collaborative process that was built on a preliminary plan prepared by a group of residents (Design Group) based on a vision with the input of fellow villagers. In mid-2004, City staff was asked for their assistance with their plan.
Initial work was required to develop an understanding of the existing conditions of the village including matters such as natural systems, planning context, heritage resources, and servicing. Staff organized meetings with the Design Group and staff experts were invited to meetings to present findings (e.g. natural environment and Stevens Creek and flood plain mapping), to solicit input (e.g. North Gower groundwater study) or to discuss approaches that could be undertaken in the CDP (how to maintain built heritage).
In mid-June 2005, a public meeting/workshop was held where staff presented findings and asked residents to provide feedback regarding the community vision and draft goals and objectives that would serve as a guide in developing a plan for North Gower.
Many proposals originally developed by the Design Group, with further refinements and input from technical staff, were incorporated into the CDP. Staff worked in consultation with the Design Group who provided feedback with regard to the development of a parks and open space plan, multi-use pathway plan, heritage design guidelines, environmental matters and an assessment of the village’s groundwater conditions. All of this work was incorporated into the draft North Gower CDP. This CDP was presented to the public during an open house/public meeting on June 20, 2006 and as a result of comments, a revised draft CDP (December 2006) and zoning changes to the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law were prepared for a public meeting/open house in January 2007. This meeting resulted in further public comments that have gone into the revisions resulting in the North Gower CDP found in Document 1.
The North Gower CDP is based on a community vision created by residents outlining the future desired with the following over-arching goals:
§ To manage growth in an orderly way that fosters economic opportunities while providing for a mix of housing for residents recognizing its rural setting.
§ To preserve and enhance the village’s natural features, historic character, open spaces and amenities in order to build upon residents’ sense of community.
§ To ensure that village residents’ safety and security is provided for and that there is adequate infrastructure services to permit growth.
Overview of Community Wishes/Concerns
Design Group and residents’ wishes and concerns were identified throughout the planning process and were addressed in a variety of ways. The following identifies the issues encountered during creation of the North Gower CDP and how they were resolved.
§ Village boundary expansion - The Design Group proposed to extend the village boundaries to include existing settlement areas located outside North Gower, farmlands and other lands. Staff evaluated each location and identified those areas where they were in agreement. The village and expansion areas then became the planning area for the North Gower CDP.
§ Enhance village core – Residents and the Design Group commented on the limited number of businesses that serve the day-to-day needs of residents and visitors as well as the appearance of the core. The North Gower CDP includes a Land Use Plan – Schedule A that proposes a range of commercial and residential uses for this area and a Village Plan that identifies ways that the village core can be enhanced.
§ Future commercial area near core – The Design Group wanted to identify a future commercial area, within proximity of the village core that could accommodate a neighbourhood-serving use (e.g. grocery store) that would require more land than is available in the village core. Since there are no known plans for such a development, it was not possible to show an exact location. Therefore a symbol is shown on the Land Use Plan to identify a conceptual location.
§ Maintenance of village’s history and character – This was important to residents who were interested in ways to retain the rural character and history of their community. This was achieved in development of heritage design guidelines for residential and commercial buildings in the village core, a proposal for future street names to reflect village history, and development of policies for future residential development that would reflect its rural setting.
§ Future residential uses – At the request of the Design Group, staff agreed to review the future of undeveloped farmland in the village since the current village zoning shows it zoned as “future development” and it is usually only changed after consideration of a development application. In the CDP, staff proposed “residential” as the future use of these lands and has identified a minimum lot size.
Zoning of existing neighbourhoods – A number of residents were concerned that the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law will permit two-unit development in some neighbourhoods that now only allow single detached dwellings and existing two-unit development. Staff has identified proposed zoning changes to the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law to permit primarily single detached dwellings.
§ Agricultural uses in flood plain – Design Group members were concerned that farming and farmstands would not continue to be permitted in the flood plain in the future. The zoning has been revised to permit these types of uses in the flood plain.
§ Creation of a formal multi-use pathway system – Initially spearheaded by the Design Group, there was a desire for a village-wide pathway system incorporating existing informal pathways situated on private land. Some property owners did not want these conceptual pathways shown on their lands so staff subsequently deleted portions of the conceptual lines, but the concept of a village wide system is still maintained.
§ Servicing the core – The Design Group wanted the City to explore the use of ”servicing the core” to encourage businesses to locate in North Gower. In order that the request be dealt with in more comprehensive manner, staff encouraged members to participate in the rural settlement strategy, as part of the Official Plan five-year review, to discuss this issue with other rural residents living in villages.
Sidewalks, transit, lighting –Area and site specific concerns were identified by residents. Sidewalk improvements were factored into the Multi-Use Pathway Plan and staff has identified these concerns in the CDP and identified contacts and steps for residents to pursue their concerns.
North Gower CDP versus Secondary Plan - There has been discussion as to whether the North Gower CPD should be approved as a secondary plan. This has led to a separate staff report that will specifically deal with the issue and recommend actions to Planning and Environment Committee and to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee for consideration and approval by City Council.
RECOMMENDATION 1. – Approve North Gower Community Design Plan
It is recommended that the North Gower CDP be approved by City Council. This document provides direction for future development in the village, while implementing the Official Plan. Major components of the plan are discussed below and include: a land use plan, parks and open space plan, multi-use pathway plan, village centre plan and future roads plan.
North Gower CDP
At the outset of the project, the Design Group wanted staff to re-evaluate the current village boundaries, some of which do not follow any distinguishable lot line, or natural features. After a thorough review, staff agreed that some of the boundaries could be modified and as a result the planning area was modified (see village boundary expansion discussion under Recommendation b)).
i) Land Use Plan
A major component of the North Gower CDP is the land use plan, which identifies the future use of lands and provides associated policies. The Land Use Plan is comprised of the land uses described below:
The Village Centre is the focus of commercial activity for the village. The majority of commercial activity will take place in this area, which is centred on Roger Stevens Drive and Fourth Line Road, but will also include the North Gower Farmer’s Market, a major attraction in the village. In this designation, buildings will be located close to the sidewalk and there will be a mix of uses (commercial, residential), located either in adjacent buildings or within the same building. A range of main street – type uses, as well as residential uses, will be permitted so that it will be easier for uses to transition to other complementary uses without the need for Zoning By-law amendments. There are a few properties that are located a short distance from the commercial core, but the implementing zoning will reflect their location in a residential neighbourhood.
There are other types of commercial designations shown on Schedule A – Land Use. The Local Commercial designation recognizes limited commercial uses that located outside the Village Centre. The uses in this designation are located away from the Village Centre area and include uses such welding and repair that are not found in the core. The Highway Commercial designation applies specifically to those lands at the intersection of Highway 417 and Roger Stevens Drive. This designation, which is located closest to the 417, accommodates commercial uses that require good highway connections, visibility and larger parcels of land than is found in the Village Centre. To the west of this area, is the Industrial designation that will accommodate industrial uses that are also dependent on good highway access, larger parcels of land and highway visibility. At the specific request of the Design Group, a Future Commercial symbol is shown on the Land Use schedule to show a conceptual location of future neighbourhood-serving use, such as a grocery store needed to serve residents of the village, that could be located close to the Village Centre requiring more land than would be available along the main street. It should be noted that should such a use be proposed, a rezoning and associated public review process must still be undertaken to identify the specific location and proposed uses.
The Residential land use applies to development land (farmland) and existing neighbourhoods in North Gower. In many villages development land is not zoned until a zoning application has been considered by City Council. However, the Design Group wanted the future use of these undeveloped lands to be determined in the context of the CDP. It was agreed that a Residential designation, that accommodates single detached dwellings, was the most appropriate use for these lands after discussions among staff, Design Group and residents. For the development land, due to the fact that lands are privately serviced (private septic systems and private wells), it was necessary to identify a minimum lot size associated with the zoning of these lands. Usually lot size is tied to the ability of certain lands to accommodate a proposed development and is based on a technical study of a specific parcel of land. This information was unknown. It was determined that a minimum lot size of one acre will be recommended as part of the zoning recommendations. It is important to note that technical studies will still be required as part of the subdivision approval process and that through detailed review of site specific conditions the minimum lot size may be adjusted. For existing residential areas, minimum lot size is based on existing lot sizes.
Should higher densities, such as semi-detached or duplex dwellings be desired in existing neighbourhoods or on vacant lands, a rezoning will be required where the development proposal would undergo a public review process and technical review, but would not require an amendment to the Land Use schedule in the North Gower CDP.
The Open Space designation will apply to all City parks and will clearly identify the future use of these lands for park purposes. This designation is meant for parks with play and sports equipment, as well as to those parks with just grassed areas. There is a separate Institutional designation that will apply to the Alfred Taylor Recreation Facility, which has more facilities than locally-oriented parks.
The Institutional land use designation identifies the location of existing institutional uses including churches, municipal buildings and schools. The Alfred Taylor Recreation Facility, a use that draws people from beyond the village due to its size and range of services, is designated as Institutional, which will permit further expansions of the existing building.
The Agriculture designation applies only to the flood plain areas within the village. The uses envisioned in this designation include park and farming uses that would be compatible with being in the Stevens Creek floodplain. Given that there is no specific zone that permits agriculture in a village, a parks and open space zone will be used to implement this designation.
Important components of the North Gower CDP that will be used by staff, residents and land developers are the Parks and Open Space Plan, Multi-Use Pathways Plan and Future Roads Plan.
ii) Parks and Open Space Plan
The Parks and Open Space Plan, as illustrated by Schedule B, shows the location of future parks in the context of existing parks, green space, vegetation, and the Stevens Creek Floodplain. In certain cases, brand new park locations are identified and in other situations, there are proposals to add onto existing parks to take advantage of existing park facilities. In addition, this plan outlines policies regarding future tree plantings, and naming of parks. The Parks and Open Space Plan will be an important tool for staff and individuals involved in the development review process. It will also be useful for residents wishing to improve existing parks since it identifies City programs that may accessed by the community.
iii) Multi-Use Pathway Plan
Prepared at the same time as the Parks and Open Space Plan, staff also designed a conceptual multi-use pathway system (Document 1 – Schedule C). The Multi-Use Pathway Plan, based on ideas originally proposed by the Design Group and residents, will provide pathway links among existing and future parks, informal paths located on private lands, community facilities, and the green space network. Creation of the public pathway system is based on two processes: the subdivision process when staff can identify lands that would be required to be dedicated to the City for pathways and the willingness of property owners to allow access to their lands for pathway construction, since publicly-owned lands in North Gower are limited to parks and municipal buildings.
The Multi-Use Pathway system illustrates the conceptual location of new pathways, bridges and also future sidewalk links that would complete pathway circuits. This plan was reviewed by residents on different occasions and resulted in removal of some pathway segments due to owner concern, in spite of the fact that their approval would be required for any work to occur. There are policies in the plan that relate to incorporation of pathway plans in residential subdivision plans and maintenance of village character via pathway construction details. Implementation matters are identified including priority areas, such as those segments that would create a safer pedestrian environment. The actual construction of the entire pathway system will consist of portions built through the subdivision process and to community efforts to build other portions of the system. An important destination for the multi-use pathway system is the Village Centre.
iv) Village Centre Plan
Important components of the Village Centre Plan for North Gower’s historic core include heritage design guidelines for the residential and commercial properties within the Village Centre area and streetscape improvements. Of particular concern to the Design Group, was to maintain the existing character of the core and its older buildings. A review of North Gower’s buildings in the Village Centre revealed that there is no contiguous area of heritage buildings. As a result, it was decided that heritage design guidelines for new development and building renovations, based on a review of the characteristics of the Village Centre older residential and commercial properties, were the most reasonable way to reinforce the unique character of the Village Centre.
Other ways of improving the Village Centre include streetscape improvements. In the past, these improvements were undertaken by the Improvement Society and this can continue. However, major streetscape improvements (e.g. decorative lighting, sidewalks with pavers) can be initiated when road reconstruction work is slated within the Village Centre area. Also, staff can, through site plan, encourage design of attractive main street storefronts, parking areas and landscaping, thus contributing to a more attractive pedestrian-oriented core.
v) Future Roads Plan
A distinguishing characteristic of North Gower’s existing neighbourhoods is that many are not physically connected to one another, either through pathways or roads. In some cases, there may be informal pathways located on private property, but generally many of these neighbourhoods are “isolated”. In addition to the Multi-Use Pathway Plan, staff prepared a Future Roads Plan, (see Document 1 – Schedule D), which illustrates a conceptual plan of future collector roads to direct future subdivision design so that there will be better road connections between residential areas. It is recognized that there may be variations from the concept shown in Schedule D in the final design, but the overall intent is to create an interconnected village through new roads and pathways.
Future development in the village will be assessed in terms of its impact on Stevens Creek.
vi) Stevens Creek, Stormwater Management and Servicing
In the vicinity of Stevens Creek, natural vegetation will be encouraged through restoration of natural vegetation to improve wildlife corridor function, water quality and fish habitat. Floodplain, slope stability and setbacks will be considered in determining development limits for land adjacent to Stevens Creek.
The North Gower CDP also includes stormwater management guidelines to be used during the development application review process for subdivisions, but are not intended to replace existing Ministry of the Environment guidance and details. And finally, clear direction is provided that all future development will be on the basis of private wells and private septic systems until the current practices are reassessed.
RECOMMENDATION 2. – Approve City of Ottawa Official Plan Amendment __
In order to implement the North Gower CDP, Official Plan Amendment ___ (Document 2) is recommended for approval by City Council to a) remove the North Gower village plan from Volume 2C of the Official Plan, b) to revise the village boundaries as shown on Schedule A of the Official Plan and to re-designate affected lands to “Village”.
Recommendation 2a) Remove the North Gower Village Plan from Volume 2C of the Official Plan
Village plans prepared prior to municipal amalgamation are found in Volume 2C of the Official Plan. City Council approval of Official Plan Amendment __ will remove the North Gower Village plan from Volume 2C so that the North Gower CDP will be the only document that is referenced with respect to the future growth and development of the village. The Official Plan’s Annex 7 – Rural Village Plans, will be revised to show that a community design plan is in place for North Gower. This does not require an amendment to the Official Plan.
Recommendation 2b) Revise City of Ottawa Official Plan Schedule A – Rural Policy Plan to revise the North Gower village boundaries and to redesignate lands from “Agricultural Resource Area” and “General Rural Area” to “Village”
The Official Plan Amendment ___ also shows a revision to Schedule A – Rural Policy Plan to revise the existing North Gower village boundaries. It identifies three areas where staff recommend boundary expansions. The original proposal by the Design Group included residential areas located outside the village boundaries and a significant amount of development land. The purpose of this request was to i) include residents who already feel that they live in North Gower; ii) include agricultural lands, which at one point in time were to be included in the village; and iii) to incorporate additional sections of Stevens Creek for the future enjoyment of residents.
Village expansions are typically undertaken when there is a lack of development land. This is not the case in North Gower, where it is estimated that there is a 50-year supply based on existing trends. Staff reviewed the residents’ proposal and concluded that boundary expansions could only occur on the basis of the following questions: Have the lands already been approved for development? Is there an impact on the supply of agricultural lands? As a result, the three areas described below are proposed to be incorporated into the village and to be re-designated from their current Official Plan designations.
i) Lands east of Client Service Centre/Works Yard
These six lots are located to the east of the current village boundary and east of the City’s North Gower Client Service Centre and works yard, which are designated as “Agricultural Resource Area”. Three of the lots are occupied by houses and three are still vacant. It is recognized that these contiguous lots have been created as building lots and are zoned for development, except for one lot located in the midst of these lots. It is recommended that these lands be incorporated into the village and the land use be re-designated from “Agricultural Resource Area” to “Village”.
ii) Lands at intersection of Highway 416 and Roger Stevens Drive
A number of years ago, these lands to the east of the village were approved for an industrial subdivision. These lands are designated as “General Rural Area” and are located adjacent to current village boundaries at Third Line Road. More recently, lots have been created and zoned for estate residential development. Since these lands already have been approved for development, staff are recommending that all these lands be brought into the village, even though these lands were not part of the original Design Group proposal. It is recommended that these lands be re-designated from “General Rural Area” to “Village”.
iii) Lands between McCordick Road and west of existing village boundary
These lands are located to the east of the existing village boundaries in the vicinity of Stevens Creek. A significant portion of these lands are developed or are located in the flood plain. This area includes about 15 homes/lots located near the intersection of Church Street and McCordick Road. To the north of this area is farmland, some of which is located in the Stevens Creek flood plain. The proposed village boundary will follow Stevens Creek and existing lot lines. These lands will be brought into the village and re designated from “Agricultural Resource Area” to “Village”. Since a majority of lands in this area have been developed primarily for housing, approximately 4.7 hectares of development land will be brought into the village with this proposed expansion area.
RECOMMENDATION 3.– Implement the North Gower CDP through the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law
Zoning changes are proposed to implement Schedule A – Land Use of the North Gower Community Design Plan through revisions to the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Once Official Plan Amendment __ is approved, staff will prepare an implementing by-law on the basis of Document 3 for passing by City Council.
The North Gower CDP will implement the City’s Strategic Plan by fulfilling the Planning and Growth Management Priority, Objective F5: Preserve Ottawa’s rural villages.
Staff worked closely with the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority in the preparation and review of the North Gower CDP due to the presence of Stevens Creek that winds through the village and its significant flood plain.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority staff state they are “….pleased to see that the plan has incorporated a strong environmental component with emphasis on future development guided by a subwatershed planning approach”.
Staff was sensitive to the fact that North Gower is located in the rural area and is surrounded primarily by lands designated Agricultural Resource Area. Staff recommended village boundary expansions to minimize impact on the surrounding agricultural lands.
There were extensive public consultations throughout the planning process. In consultation with the Design Group, staff organized three public meetings to obtain feedback and comments on the presented materials. Flyers were delivered to all households and ads were placed in the local community newspaper. For the last two meetings, draft CDPs were available for pick-up at several locations in North Gower so that residents could review the document prior to the public meeting. In addition to these meetings, there have been numerous smaller meetings organized by staff with the Design Group to discuss specific topics, proposals or direction. These meetings were also open to interested individuals.
Comments received and responses on the North Gower CDP (December 2006) and staff report are summarized and provided in Document 4 - Consultation Details.
Document 1 North Gower Community Design Plan (On file with the City Clerk’s Office)
Document 2 City of Ottawa Official Plan Amendment__
Document 3 Changes to Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law
· Prepare a by-law adopting City of Ottawa Official Plan Amendment ___ and forward the by‑law to Legal Services Branch.
· Undertake statutory notification when Official Plan Amendment ___ has been adopted by City Council.
· Revise Annex 7 – Rural Village Plans to show a Community Design Plan for North Gower.
· Prepare implementing zoning by-laws and statutory notice after the Official Plan Amendment ___ has been approved..
To the City of Ottawa Official Plan
Official Plan Amendment ___ to the City of Ottawa Official Plan
Part A – The Preamble, introduces the actual Amendment but does not constitute part of the Amendment No. ___ to the City of Ottawa Official Plan.
Part B – The Amendment, consisting of the following text and schedules constitutes the actual Amendment No. ___ to the City of Ottawa Official Plan.
Part C – The Appendices, does not form part of the Amendment but is provided to clarify the intent and supply background information related to the Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is a) to remove the North Gower Village Plan from Volume 2C of the City of Ottawa Official Plan and b) to revise the village boundaries as shown on Schedule A of the Official Plan and re-designate the affected lands to “Village”.
The Amendment affects all of the land within North Gower and adjacent expansion lands.
The North Gower Community Design Plan (CDP) replaces the policies for North Gower that were adopted by the former Rideau Township now found in the Official Plan. The Official Plan 2003 (Section 2.5.6) indicates that community design plans will be the backbone of any significant change in a community and are intended to translate the principles and policies of the Official Plan at a local level.
Remove North Gower Village Plan
Secondary plans that existed prior to municipal amalgamation are included in Volume 2 of the Official Plan. Currently the policies for the village of North Gower are included in the village plan for Burritt’s Rapids, Kars, and North Gower found in Volume 2C. This Official Plan Amendment will delete reference to North Gower in Volume 2C as the policies will be superseded by the North Gower CDP.
The North Gower CDP was prepared on the basis of a collaborative planning process with residents, where City staff worked to develop a plan that includes a variety of means to implement the community vision. It also provides direction and details on how to achieve the residents’ vision, and includes direction on day-to-day matters such as zoning, subdivisions, parks and pathway planning and enhancement of the village core.
Revise village boundaries and redesignate to “Village”
Expansion of the village boundaries was another result of input into the public consultation process. The Design Group, a group of residents who worked with staff during the planning process, identified lands that they felt should be brought into the village. These lands included:
lands east of Client Service Centre/Works Yard over to Third Line Road,
lands at intersection of Highway 416 and Roger Stevens Drive,
lands between McCordick Road and west of village boundary, and
the triangular piece of land bound by Third Line Road and Prince of Wales Drive (Stratton subdivision and lands to the south of this development) located north of village boundaries.
There was a strong desire to expand the village boundaries to i) include residents currently living outside the boundaries since they already feel that they live in North Gower; ii) include lands which at one time in the past were proposed to be included within the village boundaries, and iii) incorporate additional sections of Stevens Creek for the future enjoyment of residents.
Staff reviewed the request in light of Official Plan policies with respect to the relevant land use designations and the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement. Staff concluded that only limited village expansions could be supported. Several criteria were used in reviewing these resident proposed expansions. Are the lands approved for development? Will there be an impact on the supply of agricultural lands?
The following is the result of staff’s review of the lands proposed to be included the village expansion:
1. Lands east of Client Service Centre/Works Yard
There are six lots are located to the east of the current village boundary and east of the City’s North Gower Client Service Centre and works yard, which are designated as “Agricultural Resource Area”. Three of the lots are occupied by houses and three are still vacant. It is recognized that these contiguous lots have been created as building lots and are zoned for development, except for one lot located in the midst of these lots. It is recommended that these lands be incorporated into the village and the land use be re-designated from “Agricultural Resource Area” to “Village”.
It is understood that at one time, lands located between this area, the village boundary and Third Line Road were contemplated to be part of the village. However, due to concerns from a property owner, this was not actually accomplished. It is understood that such concerns no longer exist. All this land is now farmed, contiguous and designated as “Agricultural Resource Area” in the Official Plan. Bringing this land into the village would add to an already very healthy supply of development land in the village. Therefore, staff have recommended that only the lots fronting Roger Stevens Drive, located to the east of the North Gower Client Service Centre, be included in the village expansion.
2. Lands at intersection of Highway 416 and Roger Stevens Drive
A number of years ago, these lands to the east of the village were approved for an industrial subdivision. These lands are designated as “General Rural Area” and are located adjacent to current village boundaries at Third Line Road. More recently, lots have been created and zoned for estate residential development. Since these lands have already been approved for development, staff have recommended that all these lands be brought into the village, even though these lands were not part of the original Design Group proposal. It is recommended that these lands be re-designated from “General Rural Area” to “Village”.
3. Lands between McCordick Road and west of existing village boundary
Staff reviewed the possibility of bringing lands located south of Roger Stevens Drive, east of McCordick Road, and west of the existing boundary into the village. A number of residential lots front Church Street and McCordick Road, while there is a fairly contiguous area that is farmed located at the south-east quadrant of Roger Stevens Drive and McCordick Road, north of Stevens Creek. These lands north of Stevens Creek are recommended to remain outside the village boundary. It is proposed that only a portion of these lands consisting of residential lots, farmland and floodplain located to the south of Stevens Creek, a natural and identifiable boundary, be brought into the village. It is estimated that about 4.7 ha (about 11 acres) of development land (farmland) will be brought into the village.
4. Stratton subdivision and farmland to the south
For the most part, these lands bounded by Prince of Wales Drive and Third Line Road are already developed as a residential community. These lands are designated as “General Rural Area” since it is recognized that these lands have less agricultural potential than the majority of lands surrounding North Gower, which are designated “Agricultural Resource”.
Staff originally proposed that all of these lands be brought into the village. However, as a result of negative comments received from many Stratton Drive residents, staff has not included these lands to be part of the village boundary expansion. As a consequence, the farmland located to the south of the Stratton subdivision will not be included in the village expansion.
All of this part of this document entitled Part B – The Amendment consisting of the following text and attached Schedule 1 constitutes Amendment No. __ to the City of Ottawa Official Plan.
2. 1 The following changes are hereby made to Volume 2C – Village Plans dealing with Burritt’s Rapids, Kars and North Gower:
i) Revise Table of Contents heading reference that currently states “Burrit’s Rapids, Kars, North Gower” to read “Burritt’s Rapids, Kars” and revise all subsequent references to only read “Burritt’s Rapids, Kars”
ii) Revise Table of Contents so that “3.7 Village Development (Kars and North Gower)” reads “Village Development (Kars)”
iii) Delete from Table of Contents the following text: “Section 3.7.3 Village of North Gower”
iv) Revise title of section that currently reads: “3.7 Village Development (Kars and North Gower)” to “3.7 Village Development (Kars)”
v) Reword first line of the document to remove “and North Gower” so that it reads “Policies for the Village of Kars”.
vi) Revise section 3.7.1.1 which currently reads “The existing boundaries of the Villages of Manotick, North Gower, and Kars are shown on Ottawa Official Plan Schedule A.” to read “The existing boundaries of the Villages of Manotick and Kars are shown on Ottawa Official Plan Schedule A.”
vii) Revise section 3.7.1.7 which states “The rates of growth in the Villages of Manotick, North Gower and Kars…” to read “The rates of growth in the Villages of Manotick and Kars…”
viii)Remove in its entirety section 3.7.3 Village of North Gower,;
ix) Delete entire section 5.11.4 Special Policy Areas.
x) Delete the text in section 5.13.4.1 that reads “along Ottawa Road No. 5 in the Village of North Gower and” so that the sentence reads “The lands designated C-1 indicate existing General Commercial development located along Ottawa Road No. 13 in the Village of Kars.”
iv) Remove Map 3 Schedule A LAND USE PLAN Village of North Gower so that only Map 4 Schedule A remains.
2.2 Amend Schedule A – Rural Policy Plan in the City of Ottawa Official Plan to re- designate lands from “Agricultural Resource Area” and “General Rural Area” to “Village” as shown on Schedule 1 of City of Ottawa Official Plan Amendment __.
CHANGES TO DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW DOCUMENT 3
North Gower Zoning
Existing Zone Description
AG3 (Agriculture Zone)
Include agricultural use, bed and breakfast, one detached dwelling, intensive livestock farm operation and secondary dwelling unit. There is also a list of conditional uses including an equestrian establishment.
The AG3 zone identifies a 10 ha minimum lot area and minimum lot width 60 m.
DR1 (Village Reserve Zone)
Include agricultural use, community garden, environmental preserve and education area and one detached dwelling.
No minimum lot area or minimum lot width requirements.
O1 (Parks and Open Space Zone)
Include community garden, environmental preserve and education area, flood or erosion control works, and park.
Include no minimum lot width and no minimum lot area.
RC (Rural Commercial Zone)
Include amusement centre, amusement park, artist studio, kennel, parking lot, restaurant, heavy equipment and vehicle sales, rental and servicing and hotel. Conditional uses include bank machine, convenience store and personal service business.
Minimum lot area requirement of 4000 sq.m. and a minimum lot width of 30 m in addition to other provisions. The maximum height limit is 11 m. (about 3 storeys).
RI (Rural Institutional Zone)
Include community centre, day care, emergency service, place of assembly, place of worship, retirement home, school and shelter.
Minimum lot area of 2000 sq.m. and minimum lot width of 30 m. in addition to other provisions. The maximum height limit of the principal building is 10 m.
Same as RI zone.
Minimum lot area (1000 sq.m.), minimum lot width (30 m.) in addition to other provisions. The maximum height limit of the principal building is 10 m.
Minimum lot area (1000 sq.m.), minimum lot width (60 m.) in addition to other provisions. The maximum building height of principal building is 12 m.
Include a bed and breakfast (max. 3 rooms), community garden, detached dwelling, home-based business and retirement home, converted..
Minimum lot area 8000 sq.m. and minimum lot width of 50 m. in addition to other provisions.
RR3 (Rural Residential Zone)
See RR description.
Minimum lot area is 8000 sq.m. and minimum lot width is 60 m. in addition to other provisions.
RR4 (Rural Residential Zone)
Minimum lot area is 4000 sq.m. and minimum lot width is 30 m., in addition to other provisions.
RU (Rural Countryside Zone)
Include agricultural use, animal care establishment, animal hospital, equestrian establishment, forestry operation and intensive livestock farm operation.
There are different requirements depending on the use.
V1A (Village Residential First Density Zone)
Includes detached dwelling, home-based business, and secondary dwelling unit.
· The “A” subzone limits the minimum lot size to 8000 m. sq. on private services and a minimum lot width of 60 m., in addition to other regulations.
· The “B” subzone limits minimum lot area to 8000 m. sq. and minimum lot width of 50 m., in addition to other regulations
· The “C” subzone limits minimum lot area on private services to 4000 m.sq. and a minimum lot width of 45 m. in addition to other regulations
· The “D” subzone limits minimum lot area to 2700 m.sq. and a minimum lot width of 33 m. in addition to other regulations
· The “F” subzone limits minimum lot area to 2000 m.sq. and a minimum lot width of 20 m. in addition to other regulations
· The “G” subzone limits the minimum lot size to 1950 m.sq. in addition to other zoning provisions.
V2C (Village Residential Second Density Zone)
Include bed and breakfast, detached dwelling, duplex dwelling, home-based business, park and semi-detached dwelling.
The V2C zone identifies specific regulations for minimum lot area, minimum lot width and other provisions.
V2C [12r]
· See V2C above.
· Exception [12r] requires min. lot area of 7000 m.sq.
V2C [16r]
· Exception [16r] requires min. lot area of 1800 m.sq.
V2C [578r]
· Exception [578r] also permits retirement home, requires min. lot area of 1.2 ha. and max. of 15 dwelling units in a retirement home.
V2C [590r]
· Exception [590r] requires a min. lot size of 1350 m.sq.
V2C [591r]
· Exception [591r] permits a retail store limited to the sale of antiques and antique reproductions. Further it states that the retail store must be located within a detached dwelling and that the display and sales area for the retail store must not exceed 30% of the gross floor area of the dwelling.
V2C [606r]
· Exception [606r] requires a min. lot width of 20 m..
VM (Village Mixed-Use Zone)
Include amusement centre, animal hospital, apartment dwelling, artist studio, automobile service station, bank, bed and breakfast, community centre, convenience store, daycare, detached dwelling, dwelling unit, medical facility, office, personal service business, restaurant, retail food store, retirement home, service or repair shop, and three-unit dwelling.
· Building outlets, lumber dealers and automotive parts and accessories sales are not permitted.
· Retail store, retail food store and restaurants located on ground floor may also locate above the ground floor.
· All uses on ground floor will have access to the street.
· A maximum of four dwelling units is permitted in a converted dwelling.
· A maximum of 15 residents is permitted in a group home.
Minimum lot area is 1,350 sq.m. and minimum lot width is 20 m in addition to other provisions. There is a minimum building height of 6.7 m. and a maximum height of 11 m. (about 3 storeys).
VM [161r]
See VM description.
· Exception [161r] permits outside storage associated with a permitted use.
VM [162r]
· Exception [162r] also permits automobile body shop, light industrial use, storage yard, truck transport terminal, and warehouse. Outside storage associated with a permitted use is allowed.
VM1 (Village Mixed-Use Zone)
Include bank machine, community health and social services centre, convenience store, retail food store, and service and repair shop subject to conditions that include being limited to less than 200 sq.m. leasable area.
Permitted residential uses including converted dwelling, detached dwelling unit, retirement home, converted are permitted with conditions related to number of residents in a group home or a retirement home – converted and maximum number of dwelling units in a converted dwelling.
Minimum lot area is 1,350 sq.m. and minimum lot width is 20 m. The maximum height limit is 8 m. (2 - 3 storeys).
VM3 (Village Mixed-Use Zone)
See VM description
· The ‘3’ states that all ground floor uses are not required to have direct access to the street. The regulations are different from those of the VM zone.
Draft City of Ottawa Comprehensive Zoning By-law
Proposed zones to be used in North Gower
O1 subzone1 (Open Space and Leisure Zone)
· agricultural use
· environmental preserve and education area,
· flood or erosion control works
RC subzone1(Rural Commercial Zone)
· amusement centre
RC subzone2 (Rural Commercial Zone)
The following uses are only permitted:
· animal care establishment
· detached dwelling
V1C [ex] (Village Residential First Density)
VM [161r] (Village Mixed–Use)
Exception [161r] permits outside storage associated with a permitted use.
VM subzone1 (Village Mixed-Use)
· automobile rental establishment
· marine facility
Section 229(i)(b) does not apply.
VM subzone1 [ex](Village Mixed-Use)
See VM subzone1 above.
· Exception [ex] permits a building and lumber outlet dealer
VM subzone1 [162r]
See VM subzone above
· Retain existing exception [162r].
· See Table 1
VM subzone2 (Village Mixed-Use)
· converted dwelling
· duplex dwelling
· home-based day care
· linked-detached dwelling
· secondary dwelling unit
· semi-detached dwelling
· service or repair shop
· three-unit dwelling
A warehouse will be limited to 420 sq.m.
(North of Roger Stevens Drive and East of Fourth Line Road)
Along Roger Stevens Drive and Fourth Line Road and Fourth Line properties north of access to Union Cemetery
VM (Village Mixed-use), DR1 (Village Reserve), V2C (Village Residential Second Density), V2C [578r] (Village Residential Second Density), RC (Rural Commercial)
· See Table 1 for descriptions
VM subzone1
· See Table 2 for description
Developable farmland
DR1 (Village Reserve)
V1C [ex]
· See Table 2
RI (Rural Institutional)
V2C (Village Residential Second Density)
O1 (Parks and Open Space)
(unaddressed) Roger Stevens Drive
V1B (Village Residential First Density)
Portion of Stevens Creek flood plain
O1 subzone1
Shellstar and Craighurst subdivisions
V1G (Village Residential First Density)
2338 Roger Stevens Drive (Perkins Lumber)
VM3 (Village Mixed-Use)
VM subzone1 [ex]
2342 and 2346 Roger Stevens Drive
2392, 2384, 2364 Roger Stevens Drive
(includes Stevens Creek Country Market) and 6606 Fourth Line Road
6608, 6610 Fourth Line Road, 2331 and 2332 Church Street
V2C (Village Residential Second Density), DR1 (Village Reserve) and
V2C [591r] (Village Residential Second Density), VM (Village Mixed-Use)
2361 Church Street and 2383 Church Street (H.O. Wright and Sons)
VM1 (Village Mixed-Use)
VM subzone2
2535, 2589, 2595 Church Street
RR4 (Rural Residential) and AG3 (Agriculture)
V1C (Village Residential First Density)
2549, 2571, 2577 Church Street
AG3 (Agriculture)
V1A (Village Residential First Density)
6725 McCordick Road
RR4 (Rural Residential)
V1D (Village Residential First Density)
6731 McCordick Road
V1F (Village Residential First Density
2550, 2556, 2562, 2578 Church Street
2368 Church Street (Holy Trinity Anglican Church)
RI (Rural Institutional), RI2 (Rural Institutional), and DR1 (Village Reserve)
6624 Fourth Line Road
VM [161r] (Village Mixed-Use) and DR1
VM subzone1 [161r] and VM subzone1
AG3 (Agriculture), DR1 (Village Reserve)
· See Table 1.
6680 Fourth Line Road
RC (Rural Commercial)
RC subzone1
· See Table 2.
V2C (Village Residential Second Density) and DR1 (Village Reserve)
6696 Fourth Line Road
V1G [16r]
· Retain exception
DR1 (Village Reserve), V2C (Village Residential Second Density)
6575, 6577, 6579, 6581, 6583, and 6587 Fourth Line Road, 2311 2317, and 2321 Andrew Street (east side Fourth Line Road and north of Andrew Street)
6595, 6599, 6601, 6603 Fourth Line Road, 2307, 2311, 2313, 2321 and 2323 Roger Stevens Drive
V2C (Village Residential Second Density), VM (Village Mixed-Use), VM1 (Village Mixed-Use), RC (Rural Commercial)
V2C[606r]
V1G [606r]
· See Table 1 for V1G
V1C [12r]
· See Table 1 for V1C
6563 Fourth Line Road (Shipman Surveying)
V2C [587r], DR1
2307 Roger Stevens Drive (Old Co-op)
V2C (Village Residential Second Density), DR1 (Village Reserve)
V1G [590r]
· Retain provisions of exception
2310, 2314, 2316, 2320, 2322 Roger Stevens Drive 6607, 6609, 6613, 6615, 6617, 6619, 6623, 6627, 6631, 6649 Fourth Line Road, 2319 Community Way
V2C (Village Residential Second Density), RI1 (Rural Institutional), VM (Village Mixed-Use), DR1 (Village Reserve)
6635, and 6645 Fourth Line Road
VM [162r] (Village Mixed-Use)
6679 and 6683 Fourth Line Road
O1 subbzone1
2115 Roger Stevens Drive
RC [167r] (Rural Commercial)
· Exception [167r] permits office and recreational and athletic facility
RC subzone2
Portion Stevens Creek Flood plain
RR3 (Rural Residential)
The following table summarizes comments and Departmental responses to them as a result of the consultation undertaken on the revised draft of the North Gower Community Design Plan (December 2006). This revised draft was presented at a public meeting/open house in January 2007 and the following summarize the comments received.
In April 2007, a summary of the public comments and draft departmental response was sent to residents on the CDP mailing list. Afterwards further comments were received from a few individuals with additional comments requesting further changes. The table below summarizes comments received.
North Gower Community Design Plan (December 2006)
“….the North Gower Plan (will be undertaken) in two steps to determine the need for a Secondary Plan. I clearly indicated that I will not be supporting that approach based on the on-going Manotick experience.”
§ The North Gower Design Group have actively participated in the preparation of the North Gower CDP and are aware of the staff recommendations.
§ Staff have made a presentation at the Rural Issues Advisory Committee (RIAC) on August 15, 2006 and was requested to report back with respect to resolution of issues. On June 19, 2007 staff and the chairperson of the Design Group updated RIAC indicating that much had been accomplished and no outstanding issues remained.
§ Resident was very anxious and concerned about the future of her property and requested that pathway crossing their property be removed from multi-use pathway plan.
§ The proposed pathway on resident’s land shown on Schedule C – Multi-Use Pathway Plan will be removed. Further text will be added under Implementation in Section 4.3 Multi-Use Pathway Plan, which will indicate that the City will seek opportunities to complete the pathways, in consultation with landowners at the time of any development applications. In certain situations, existing or proposed sidewalks may complete pathway links.
§ This resident reiterated her parents concerns about a proposed conceptual pathway on their property.
§ She indicated that her parents were uninformed about nature of pathway and conveyed the anxiety caused in their lives.
§ See response to #1.
§ This resident does not support multi-use pathway on his property
§ It is up to the City to ensure developers include sufficient green space for recreation and leisure within the boundaries of new development.
§ A comprehensive review was undertaken of the existing park and open space system. This resulted in proposed locations of future parks that would optimize the use of existing park spaces and open spaces (floodplains).
§ Developers are required to provide land or cash to support this system. The Planning Act permits the taking of parkland (5% for residential subdivisions or 2% for non-residential subdivisions) during the subdivision application process. The Official Plan expresses City Council’s intent regarding the acquisition of parkland, however, specific details on how this will be implemented is required. Staff work is underway.
§ See response to #9 Neighbourhood parks.
§ Proposed multi-use pathway from Edward Kidd Parkette to Prince of Wales Drive runs through backyard and is too close to creek and creates a hazard.
§ Pathway should be moved to north side of creek. Understands that pathway is conceptual and landowner approval is required before it is built.
§ Does not have a problem with proposed pathway, but strongly opposes decision to have it cross over his property.
§ Privacy would be lost with people crossing over property and possible litter.
§ Perhaps proposed sidewalk in front of property could be used.
§ See response to #1
§ Proposed pathway is shown running across property on the bank of Stevens Creek and would like it removed from the plan.
James Craig Street
§ Would like proposed pathway removed from his property.
§ Owners of 6563 Fourth Line are vehemently opposed to proposed conceptual pathway on their property. Requests that a conceptual multi-use pathway not be shown through rear yard due to privacy issues. They also are against a pathway on the undeveloped portion of their lands.
§ Due to site conditions the proposed conceptual pathway crossing 6449 Fourth Line Road, which is bisected by the Taylor Drain, would have a pathway running through a portion of the front yard and rear yard of the house. Relocating the proposed pathway to the other side of the creek would bring it in proximity to the workshop and machine shed.
§ Concerned about the possible “Future Commercial” located on Schedule A – Land Use.
§ This designation is conceptual and a rezoning will be required. Any rezoning would require a public process.
§ “Neighbourhood parks should not be located in the flood plain. If the intention is to develop a parkette then it should not be in the flood plain…. If there are other local parks nearby… and the intention is to provide a more passive area adjacent to the Creek, then fine….the City should negotiate 10% as opposed to 5%…. “Any public land that is owned along Stevens Creek should be purchased using the Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland reserve funds…. Funds which have been accumulated from the rural severances”
§ New neighbourhood parks have not been proposed in the flood plain. In one instance, a new park is proposed adjacent to a flood plain to take advantage of the open space.
§ See #3 Green space for response.
Alfred Taylor Recreation Facility
§ 4.8 Implementation should have a “1b) Acquire additional land adjacent to the Alfred Taylor Recreation Facilities.”
§ Acquisition of additional land may be an outcome of the staff proposed review of the Alfred Taylor Recreation Facility master plan. Until a review of community needs has been undertaken, discussion of land acquisition adjacent to the Alfred Taylor Recreation Facility is premature.
§ Item 5 should be reworded. The cash-in-lieu of parkland was originally intended to fund new items. The purpose was to acquire larger parcels of property rather than take 5% of a 2-acre severance. The philosophy has been to use the fund to purchase land or “new” capital items and not to fund maintenance or “improvements”.
§ See response to #1 Neighbourhood parks.
§ Appendix 3 – add bowling alley to the list of parks and add name to park.
§ According to Parks and Recreation staff, if the community wishes to designate this site as a park, then there must be support from the community association and ward councillor who would in turn present a motion at a Community and Protective Services Committee for Council approval. Alternatively this proposal may be included in the plan as part of the CDP approval process.
Opposed to boundary expansion
§ Opposed to boundary expansion in Stratton Drive area.
§ Property owners on Stratton Drive/Third Line will pay at least $100 less if they are outside the village. Cost will increase in future when City tries to pass increased transit costs through property taxes.
§ Adjacent properties will have 5 times the density of existing homes
§ Decision to expand boundary in four locations including Stratton Drive is an inaccurate assumption that residents of Stratton Drive wish to be in the village.
§ Offended by staff proposal because imaginary residents would like it to occur. Perhaps it is a result of lobbying by landowners.
§ There were at least ten Stratton Drive residents who were concerned about being in the village.
§ Specific concerns are:
- risk of future intensification in subdivision
- density of development adjacent to existing residents
- effect on property values
- changes to fees re: burning by-law
§ - potential inclusion of properties in future community improvement applications
§ Originally the Design Group wanted to expand North Gower’s boundaries to include residents living outside of the current boundaries since they feel that they already live in the village. Staff was reluctant to undertake this since village expansions are typically proposed when there is a shortage of developable land and it was estimated that there is over a 50-year supply in North Gower. The Planning Act only permits plans having a 20-year time horizon.
§ In the spirit of compromise, staff recommended limited boundary expansions in four areas, to include primarily lands already developed or zoned for development. The Design Group’s original proposal included the Stratton Drive area, located to the north of the village. Since many Stratton Drive residents do not wish to be part of the village expansion, the Department will change the plan to not include the area bounded by Prince of Wales Drive, Third Line Road and the current village boundary in the proposed village expansion.
As a result, the farmland located south of the Stratton subdivision and to the north of the village boundary will not be included in the village.
§ The property located at the junction of Prince of Wales Drive and Third Line Road must not be located in the village since the property is prime agricultural land as defined in the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement.
§ Inclusion of this land will be in contravention of the City of Ottawa Official Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act.
§ The CDP has not proposed changes to the Official Plan land use designation for the lands in question. According to the Land Evaluation and Area Review (LEAR) these lands do not have the same high quality potential as the majority of lands surrounding North Gower. These lands are designated as “General Rural Area”.
§ Strongly opposed to boundary expansion based on review of available documentation and discussions at public meeting. There are no valid or compelling reasons to support this change.
§ Strongly objects to proposed new village boundaries, specifically the inclusion of Stratton Drive subdivision.
§ See response to #10 Opposed to boundary expansion.
§ Does not see advantages of Stratton Drive to be included in village.
§ Does not want to be included in village boundaries.
§ Purchased property on Stratton Drive because of low density, with no bus service and no home-based business being permitted.
§ Like peaceful country atmosphere on Stratton Drive.
§ Opposed to inclusion of Stratton lands in the village.
§ See response to #10 Opposed to boundary expansion .
§ Stratton subdivision should be excluded from the village of North Gower boundaries. Multiple acre properties …. should remain on the outskirts of the village.
§ Concerned about rationale for village expansion.
§ Objects to extending village boundary to 2273 Roger Stevens Drive.
§ Property is currently located in the village.
§ This resident of Stratton Drive has no problem with boundary change around Stratton with a few exceptions (fire permits, bus service and condition of Third Line Road.)
§ Requirement for hydrogeology study should only apply to subdivision applications
§ Generally this is correct. Development must be in accordance with the City of Ottawa Official Plan section 4.4.2 Private Water and Wastewater Servicing. Development will be reviewed in accordance with current guidelines for hydrogeological and terrain analysis studies
§ Table 3, ref. # 11 - change VM subzone 2 to VM subzone 1
§ This recommendation is directed at two properties (2361 and 2383 Church Street) constructed for non-residential use. The intent of this recommendation is to propose a limited range of non-residential uses that would be compatible with the neighbourhood. A full range of commercial uses which are permitted in the Village Centre designation is not intended for this area. It is also proposed to add a “warehouse” use limited to the size of the existing buildings, which would permit the existing plumbing contractor’s business.
§ Table 3, ref. #19 - remove exception161r (6624 and 6646 Fourth Line Road)
§ This exception applies to two properties on Fourth Line Road and permits outside storage associated with a permitted use. The Department is not prepared to remove this legal and existing use of land.
§ Table 3, #25 – add proposed VM subzone 1 (Co-op building)
§ The Department agrees to the proposed change since this was a mapping anomaly.
§ Table 3, #27 – change zoning for properties south of the creek (Wright’s Welding, Baker Motors & Main Street Automotive) to RC, the same subzone for #28, but permit an existing welding shop
§ 6645 Fourth Line Road (Wright’s Welding), 6649 Fourth Line Road (Baker’s Motors) and 2319 Community Way (Main Street Automotive) will be zoned to a RC zone that will permit “heavy equipment and vehicle sales, rental and servicing” as a permitted use. This change would permit a welding shop.
§ Table 3, #29 – remove hydrogeology study requirement for a detached dwelling, and remove the permitted group home
§ See response to #18 re: hydrogeology study.
§ “Group homes” are supervised residential-use buildings, where there are three or more people who live as a group in a single household living arrangement. The Official Plan requires that where the zoning by-law permits a dwelling unit, it will also permit a group home. Therefore it is not possible to delete a group home use. This has been the case for some time.
§ Table 3, #32 – remove exception 167r from RC[167r]
§ Exception 167r permits an office and a recreational and athletic facility at 2137 Roger Stevens Drive (veterinary clinic). These two uses are suitable uses for this location.
§ Provide recommended zoning for properties between #31 and #32
§ The properties at 2121 and 2127 Roger Stevens Drive are not proposed to be rezoned.
Duplexes, semi-detached and secondary dwelling units
§ Both CDP and Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law provides for new semi-detached units in many areas of the village.
§ The Official Plan recognizes the need to allow for secondary dwelling units, ancillary to the principal unit (Sec. 3.1.1). It does not contemplate singles becoming semis or duplexes, each with the right to secondary units, which appears to be recommended in the CDP and proposed zoning.
§ In an effort to provide opportunities for a broader range of residential uses in response to one of the community’s “vision” – provide more than detached homes in the village, staff proposed allowing two-unit development within existing and new residential subdivisions. During the public and technical review of the plan, staff recognized the difficulties in proposing two-unit dwelling units in a privately serviced village where existing residential subdivisions were designed to accommodate the servicing needs of detached homes. It is therefore recommended that Schedule A - Land Use in the plan be revised to show Residential, permitting primarily single detached dwellings in existing subdivisions. As a result, the proposed zoning for these areas will also be changed.
§ Due to public concerns regarding densities exceeding one unit per lot, the Department recommends that developable farmland within the village will be designated as Residential on Schedule A, which will permit primarily detached dwellings. Recognizing that there is desire for more dense forms of development e.g. semi-detached and duplex dwellings, a rezoning will be required to accommodate other forms of development. However, no changes to the Residential designation in the North Gower CDP will be required.
Requirement for studies for existing lots
§ Within the proposed V2 where are requirements for studies (hydrogeological and terrain analysis studies) to protect residents from leachates?
§ See #19 response to Duplexes, semi-detached and secondary dwelling units
§ Does not see problem for allowing semis or duplexes in future development, but specific development controls under rezoning requirements cannot be relinquished out of the gate.
§ Concerns about cumulative impact of potential servicing issues in existing areas.
§ See #19 response to concerns about Duplexes, semi-detached and secondary dwelling units
§ Has concerns about consultation process and that residents may be affected by zoning changes e.g. down-zoning and may not be aware of proposed zoning changes.
§ Every landowner must be informed individually since they may not understand that new zoning is proceeding with CDP.
§ Considerable efforts have made by staff and the Design Group to notify people about the CDP planning process.
§ Three public meetings/open houses and numerous smaller meetings have been held since late 2004/5. There have been two print notifications for every public meeting: an ad in a free community newspaper delivered door-to-door and flyer delivery to every household in the village. The January 25th 2007 public meeting/open house was clearly identified, in both the ad and flyers, as an event where Official Plan and zoning amendments would be discussed.
§ In addition, draft CDPs have been available at convenient locations in the village for residents to pick-up and Design Group members have assisted with distribution of these documents.
§ Staff have kept residents apprised of the issues and departmental responses as a result of presentation of the draft CDP at the January 2007 open house. A summary of comments and departmental response was sent out to residents in April. This was followed up with a letter sent out October 3, 2007 summarizing proposed revisions to the CDP and associated recommendations. There have been no requests for any further meetings as a result.
§ Opposed to excessive use of V2 zone designation thereby allowing for significantly higher density development than exists in village today which is contrary to maintaining the village character.
See response to #19 Duplexes, semi-detached and secondary dwelling units.
§ Existing areas with single family homes should be preserved.
§ Concerned that existing zoning accurately reflects the existing subdivision.
§ See response to #19 Duplexes, semi-detached and secondary dwelling units.
§ Proposes that development on vacant land be required to provide a transitional area when abutting existing residential areas. For example, a proposed new subdivision abutting single family dwellings would be required to designate single family dwellings for the first street of new development. Subsequent development beyond this transitional area could then be built at higher densities.
§ Staff have included this guideline into the plan under section 4.1.1. Residential policies.
§ One would expect the designation of multiple unit properties, duplexes and senior’s care facilities/residences to be in the village core areas close to the amenities.
§ A wide range of residential uses are proposed for the “Village Centre”. These uses include detached dwellings, apartments and retirement home.
§ Does not understand extensive use of Residential 2 designation and the V2C zone. The logic is flawed. Part of the vision is to preserve the village character by developing in a manner that is compatible with the existing community.
§ “The existing community is a community that has a core containing some appropriate commercial uses and a few multi-residential complexes surrounded by a number of subdivisions containing detached single family dwellings.” This vision of our existing community is both accepted and beloved by my fellow residents.”
§ This must be the baseline for the creation of the community design plan.
§ “A great deal of time and effort went in to the plan for North Gower to discuss how the core should develop. The resultant designations and proposed zones I feel are an accurate reflection of what is envisioned by the committee and would generally be accepted by the community. Great effort was spent on the environment, parks and recreation, heritage and infrastructure. I would suggest that the plan is sound in these regards as well.”
§ Residential 1 is basically the status quo and permits a single detached dwelling on each lot. This designation must predominate the plan and the zoning by-law.
§ The Residential 3 designation recognizes that future higher density residential uses will be considered, permitting up to five units. The problem is that this designation is not shown on the land use schedule. Perhaps this should be shown in an appropriate location, but the zoning would not be changed so that a rezoning application would need to be filed to implement the land use plan and to allow full public consultation.
§ Only a single Residential land use designation will be shown.
§ The Residential 2 designation is used throughout the village. Over 90% of the village has this designation. This is not an appropriate use of the designation.
§ Converted dwellings, duplex dwellings and semi-detached dwellings are not an appropriate form of development for 90% of the village and is not in keeping with the character of the village.
§ “Gross and manifest error” occurred when the former Rideau Township zoning by-law was used to develop the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law. This error must be corrected. “I know that members of the Design Group are unaware of the significance of this error.”
§ The Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law was based on a review of all former municipalities zoning by-laws and consultation was undertaken.
§ Staff have proposed changes to the North Gower zones in the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law that will permit primarily single detached dwellings.
§ Staff erroneously converted the zoning of the developable farmland within the village to V2 thereby allowing two-unit dwellings such as duplexes and semi-detached dwellings.
§ See #19 response Duplexes, semi-detached and secondary dwelling units.
§ A review of zoning in villages outside of the former Rideau Township shows that zoning only permits single detached dwellings. The Rideau Township zoning by-law also only allows detached single-family dwellings. It also recognizes converted dwellings, duplex dwellings and semi-detached dwellings if they existed prior to 1977. It was intended that only those uses that existed were permitted and not new ones.
§ The CDP must be changed to show a Residential 1 designation and V1 zoning which would permit only single family dwellings.
§ The studies undertaken to date support lots of at least ½ acre lots and detached dwellings.
§ To allow duplexes and semi-detached dwellings would mean that these uses would be twice as dense and would require significant evidence to support that density.
§ The definition of converted dwelling is alarming. It says that a residential use building that has been altered to increase the number dwelling units to three or more.
§ Questions whether “mini apartment buildings” on 90% of the village.
§ A converted dwelling means an existing building that has been converted to create additional units. The scenario described would not be possible on 90% of the village.
§ Perhaps some lands near the core could be considered for duplexes and semi-detached dwellings.
§ A range of residential uses are permitted in the core including apartments, detached and.semi-detached dwellings.
§ Due to concerns of potential failure of the private septic systems and being adjacent to Agricultural Resource Area, it is proposed that lands located between Prince of Wales Drive, Third Line Road and Stevens Creek should have a Residential 1 designation and should be zoned V1A-h or V1B-h V1C-h zone should be highest density permitted. This proposal is for lands located between the village boundary and Stratton Drive. This area can be developed as part of any subdivision, but must be in keeping with the area.
§ Originally this area located in the village was proposed for development permitting up to two units. It is now recommended that the area be zoned to allow primarily single detached dwellings.
§ Usually lot size is determined as a result of study of site conditions, however, the Design Group wished to zone developable farmland in the village as part of this study. As a result, in the absence of detailed hydro-geological studies at this time, it is proposed that all developable farmland be zoned V1C. The “C” indicates that the minimum lot size is 4000 sq.m. (1 acre approx.). This is believed to be an adequate size for detached dwellings.
§ Proposes gas station as a permitted use for industrial zones.
§ The Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law permits in gas bar and automotive service station (permits sale of gas) in the RG zone (Rural General Industrial). There are no proposals in the plan to change this.
§ Buildings and structures should be permitted use in an open space zone. When parks are zoned, there may be a desire to limit buildings and structures to certain parks.
§ The current designation and zoning for the North Gower community centre does not permit expansion of the existing building.
§ All parks other than the Alfred Taylor Recreation Facility are proposed to be zoned as O1, which permits uses such as park, community garden and flood or erosion control works. A park, as defined in the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law includes a playground, athletic field, outdoor swimming pool and may also include accessory buildings or structures such as a maintenance building and washroom.
§ For the Alfred Taylor Recreation Facility, the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law rectifies the existing problem in the Rideau Township Zoning By-law by showing an RI3 zone (Rural Institutional Zone), which permits a range of uses including community centre and park among other uses.
§ Residential 2 land use designations (and corresponding V2 zones) should not be shown throughout most of North Gower
§ Would like to see greater percentage of land devoted to lower than higher density
§ Consider designating VR1, VR2 and VR3 zones, but the actual shape and location would change.
§ Map A description found in Table 3 in public and technical circulation zoning chart should read “North of Roger Stevens Drive and West of Fourth Line Road”
§ This has been revised.
§ Insufficient population in village to have bus service.
§ There are currently two routes that serve the village: one express bus and another that brings seniors into the urban area.
§ Does not agree with having to pay for OC Transpo service, which he does not use. Users should pay.
§ This comment will be forwarded to Transit Services staff.
§ Consolidation of overhead wires and poles should be considered in spite of expense to improve look of Village and save on the cost of maintenance.
§ The proposal for burial of hydro wires has already been noted as a community desire in the plan.
§ Would like to see embellishment in village centre. It looks like a depressed village in 1950s.
§ Would like to see screening for certain existing businesses to hide eyesores.
§ Section 4.4 Village Centre Plan identifies a variety of ways in which physical improvements can be carried out.
§ It is often difficult to deal with existing eyesore buildings. Staff have referred this person to property standards staff to talk about the businesses in question.
§ Concerned that property will be designated as heritage since it is not of a significant age or has characteristics of “historical” significance.
§ The property in question is not designated a heritage property. It is located in an area that has been considered important to have heritage design guidelines.
§ Idea of maintaining village and preserving historical past is great and a commendable idea.
§ Under 4.8 Implementation there should be a 2B) improve existing and add new sidewalks and streetlights in the village.
§ This has been revised in response to the comment.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Mar. 21 ‘07
§ CDP is well written and pleased to see it has a strong environmental component with emphasis on a subwatershed planning approach.
§ Housing options are limited by current City policy that only permits development on the basis of individual private wells and septic systems.”
§ Reference to two to five housing units under single ownership being permitted on private well and septic system is not longer applicable. Current legislation requires private servicing for more than one lot to be under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Environment. It is no longer permitted as a right.
§ The Official Plan indicates that in rural areas new development will occur on the basis of private individual services. This means a privately-owned and maintained well water supply and a privately-owned wastewater disposal system that serves the development on the lot.
§ The CDP has been revised to remove this reference to two to five housing units being permitted on private well and septic systems.
Stevens Creek Flood Plain
§ Add the following additional bullet to support environmental health of Stevens Creek (p. 19 –20):
“Establish development setbacks/buffers in accordance with policies contained in Section 4.7.3 of the Official Plan.”
§ The plan has been revised to include this suggestion.
§ As development applications are received, the Conservation Authority strongly advocates conveyance of lands adjacent to watercourses to the City or other public agency (p. 20).
§ The Conservation Authority fully supports the proposed implementation strategy to acquire pathway as development progresses.
§ Significant segments of the proposed pathway plan are located adjacent to Stevens Creek.. Section 4.3 Multi-Use Pathway Plan indicates that creation of a public pathway system is predicated on the subdivision process and willingness of property owners to allow public access on to their lands.
§ The plan acknowledges that a subwatershed study is the preferred approach for integrated land use planning for the village. The RVCA supports subwatershed study as preferred approach for integrated land use planning.
§ RVCA recommends that this recommendation is significant and that it be included in the implementation strategy portion of the CDP.
§ This recommendation has been added to the Implementation Strategy table found in section 4.8.
§ Text currently states new parks should be located to take advantage of existing park facilities and be located adjacent to the flood plain. For clarification, it was suggested that a passive park use (no buildings or structures) is an appropriate use of flood susceptible lands (p. 37)
§ The wording in section 4.1.8 Open Space has been amended.
§ Suggest alternative land use designation for agricultural lands in the village that are located within the Stevens Creek flood plain. The existing land use designation “Development Reserve” implies that development will be permitted at some future date. Possible idea is to change designation from “Development Reserve” to “Agricultural Reserve”.
§ “Development Reserve” is noted in Land Use section of the CDP, but it is not listed as a designation on p. 29 and does not appear on any of the schedules.
§ A proposed agricultural land use designation in a village is an anomaly since it is within village boundaries where development is anticipated. Stevens Creek extensive flood plain limits development, but is also used for agricultural purposes in North Gower. Staff realize that a “Development Reserve” zone is not the most ideal zone designation. As a result of discussions with the zoning team, it is proposed that an “Open space” subzone will be assigned to the flood plain lands. This subzone will permit agricultural use and a limited range of additional uses.
§ Policy 1 on p. 49 should also state that the restoration of natural vegetation along Stevens Creek and its tributaries also improves water quality and fish habitat.
§ Change has been made to the plan.
Implementation Strategy – Stevens Creek
§ Add “water quality” to item 1.
§ Item 2 notes that a request has already been made to the Conservation Authority to investigate the condition and role of the dam on Stevens Creek. Elsewhere in the CDP there is note that the dam may be an obstruction to fish migration and could be interfering with spawning. To initiate a formal request from the Conservation Authority a written request from City staff is required for consideration by Conservation Authority staff and for the information of Board of Directors.
§ Change has been made to the plan and a request to the RVCA has been prepared from the Director of Planning to investigate the condition and role of the dam on Stevens Creek.
§ For agricultural lands located within the flood plain, wording for the zoning changes must be consistent with the new draft zoning by-law.
§ The reference to one detached dwelling should be deleted to avoid confusion as to what uses are permitted.
§ Noted.
§ Concerned about deadline imposed that compromises ability for North Gower residents to understand and support the CDP.
§ Although several public meetings and open houses were held, he does not recall that the public was properly informed as to the scope of the changes resulting from the approval of the document.
§ Only recently understood ramifications of the plan and associated zoning changes.
§ Does not feel that the Design Group or staff understands implications of proposed changes.
§ Ads and flyers distributed in advance of the public meetings have clearly identified the purpose of the meetings. In addition, staff has made presentations highlighting the pertinent information for residents.
§ Additional time has been provided to allow for residents to provide comments.
§ Believes that proposed changes misinterpret or generalize existing zoning.
§ Amendments proposed are to the Draft Zoning By-law. There is not a mention of the current zoning. This is inherently flawed and devious.
§ The Design Group must be given more information regarding the current zoning as well as a broader understanding of the original draft zoning by-law and the amendments proposed as a result of the CDP.
§ At the January 25, 2007 public meeting/open house, described above, staff presented the zoning recommendations. In addition, display material included maps showing i) existing zoning as per the former Rideau Township Zoning By-law and ii) the zoning from the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law and copies of the associated documents.
§ The regular members of the Design Group, and especially the chairperson, were well aware that the zoning proposals were going to be made to the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law and not to the current zoning.
§ The proposed zoning dated February 14 was created after the last public meeting (Jan. 25, 2007) and the changes are not minor in nature at all and would be in contravention of the Planning Act sections;
§ 16.1 (prescribed process),
§ 21 (amendment or repeal of a plan),
§ 36 (holding provision) and most notably section
§ 17.15.c (public consultation) and
§ 17.15.d (public meeting)
§ City of Ottawa Official Plan section 5.2.2 (amendments to the Official Plan and 5.2.3 (public notification).
§ Only slight changes made when technical details were being prepared by staff for the technical and public circulation.
§ Staff followed the notification procedures as per the Planning Act.
§ The Rural Issues Advisory Committee (RIAC) passed a resolution on August 15, 2006 which said that a revised draft must be presented to RIAC prior to going to ARAC.
§ On June 19th, 2007 staff and the Design Group chairperson made a presentation to RIAC indicating that the community issues had been resolved and it was aiming to have a report to ARAC in the Fall.
§ More meetings should be held to deal with issues prior to the CDP goes to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
§ Staff have consulted with the public and updates have been provided to residents on the mailing list. In addition, staff have held many discussions with the Design Group to resolve all the identified issues. No other meetings are required.
§ Supports fellow resident’s request for further revisions followed by public consultation.
§ See response to #33 More meetings
§ Questions process and feels that only one body should be responsible for the Official Plan if it is to be administered consistently with regard to public interest.
§ Plan falls short of meeting sound planning principles.
§ City Council created the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) with rural planning matters. Staff is obligated to bring the North Gower CDP to ARAC.
§ The preparation of the North Gower Community Design Plan has involved the review and implementation of Official Plan policies, which is an approved document.
§ Does not support paving Third Line Road unless speed limit is enforced at 40 km/hr since traffic is already too fast.
§ In support of grading and repairing Third Line
§ Comment forwarded to the Public Works and Services Department.
§ Was impressed with efforts as this was first meeting attended.
§ Opposes changes to the North Gower CDP and associated draft zoning by-laws and amendments.
§ Third Line Road is in a deplorable condition. It requires more than just grading the roads.
§ Comment forwarded to Public Works and Services Department.
§ Non-resident response to proposed changes should not be assumed to be acceptance. It should be seen as a confirmation of the overly busy lives of many families and lack of effective and informed communication between City planners and village residents.
§ See response to #19 Consultation process.
§ Chart regarding building permits in North Gower is severely erroneous. This must be corrected.
§ This information has been confirmed through available records.
§ Using open ditches for storm water management is a stupid idea. Reference p. 31, policy 2) ii)
§ This idea was already rectified in the CDP.
§ What is a pedestrian-friendly storefront? (Ref. p. 30 policy 3) This would force drivers to park in the back in a muddy and gravel parking lot and not in front of the business where it might be convenient.
§ There is a resident support to create a commercial core and one of the ways to do this is through physical design. One of the distinguishing characteristics of existing main streets is the presence of buildings located near the sidewalk area (e.g. Manotick, Metcalfe, and Cumberland villages).
§ Does not support gravel parking lots where we require that new residential subdivisions are required to provide asphalt.
§ This design guideline has been deleted.
§ Park benches in front of the library and archives does not make sense when there is a shortage of 30 parking spaces.
§ There is no such proposal in the latest CDP.
§ Ensure to state to that stormwater management guidelines should only apply to subdivisions and not for rezonings, minor variances and severances.
§ Currently the plan states that the guidelines will be implemented “during the development application review process for subdivisions.”
§ Schedule D – Future Roads the roadway connecting Relin Way to Maple Forest Estates should be relocated about 50 metres south.
§ Schedule D has been amended.
§ Some photos are too small. Without any description or caption, it is not possible to identify photo. See pages 11, 16, 18, 20, 25, 26, 29, 38, and 39.
§ We will rectify this in the final CDP.
§ p. 10 It says that it is the Design Group’s desire to recreate in North Gower some of the activities that existed in the 1800’s. It is not possible to replicate activities that existed at that time.
§ The text will be edited.
§ Map 1 is missing a north arrow.
§ This has been corrected.
§ p. 14 More should be said about the formation of a community association and membership in a Ward 21 Council.
§ Circumstances have changed since the plan was prepared. This new information will be included.
§ p. 15, the title on the bottom of the page should be on next page.
§ This has been rectified.
§ p. 23, under “Water and Wastewater”, the term “North Gower” appears 4 times.
§ The paragraph has been edited.
§ p. 37, the policies are numbered starting with “2”.
§ A correction has been made to the text.
§ Only pages 41, 43, 47, 48 and 50 have a “policy” section followed by an “implementation” section. The “implementation text” appears to be nothing more than motherhood statements. Why?
§ Not all sections require an implementation section since some sections will only serve as reference for staff consultation. However, an implementation section will be added following the land use plan. This is already reflected in the table found in 4.8 Implementation.
§ Regarding section 4.7.4, since there is a Park-n-Ride site which is close to the 416, there could be an express bus link directly to downtown which could serve commuters from the surrounding villages.
§ Suggestion forwarded to Transit Services staff.
§ p 53, first line, the term “document” should be inserted after the term “policy” for clarity.
§ The suggestion has been incorporated in the text.
§ In the table for Implementation Strategy, the heading for the “Village Centre Plan” should be on the top of the next page, for clarity.
§ p. 56 - the page number for “4.9 Monitoring” is missing.
§ The page number has been inserted.
§ On the past page of the plan, the term “Recreation” is repeated for the fifth entry and the date 1993 is missing.
§ The text has been corrected.
§ Issuing of fire permits should be determined by size of property and where you are located and not because of zone he lives in.
§ This is correct.
North Gower Community Design Plan – official plan and zoning amendments
ACS2007-PTE-POL-0046 RIdeau-goulbourn (21)
Ms. R. Kung, Planner, provided a presentation in which she reviewed the details of the above-noted report and the staff recommendation on it. A copy of her presentation is held on file.
Ms. Kung stated that over several consultations and meetings with the community and groups, the community itself has come on board with the plan.
Councillor Hunter commented that on the open space map it included these lands but on the other maps it did not. Staff responded stating that it would be corrected. He also voiced concern of what happens when the village does expand to the boundary that is shown there, is the property owner left with a slim portion of the land.
Ms. Kung responded stating that staff did look at that case scenario but because that would be vacant land, how long before it gets developed under the present trends. It was felt that it would take 50 years and it was felt that they did not need to bring additional lands.
Councillor El-Chantiry commented on a section of the report on page 5 dealing with agricultural uses on flood plains. It reads: farming and farm stands would not continue to be permitted in the flood plain in the future but that zoning was changed to permit it. What is the policy citywide and what happens for other parts of the city such as Carp.
Ms. Kung stated that this was for North Gower only and that staff looked at the underlying use and it was identified with the design group as a concern, but it would not be that space.
Lesley Paterson, Program Manager, Planning Policy and Area Planning stated that farming is permitted in the flood plain but that it is unusual to see farming within the actual village and as long as you are able, you can continue to farm. The statement is in the report to reinforce that they can continue to farm.
WHEREAS it is recognized that a Community Design Plan has been prepared for the village of North Gower and is now before the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee for consideration;
AND WHEREAS a mapping anomaly has been identified on Schedule A – Land Use of the North Gower Community Design Plan;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Schedule A – Land Use be amended so that the portion of the Stevens Creek flood plain located west of Fourth Line Road, south of Roger Stevens Drive and north of Church Street be changed to extend the “Agriculture” land use designation (green colour) westward to the village boundary.
WHEREAS Community Design Plans (CDP) represent the vision and desires of communities;
WHEREAS CDPs have been prepared by City staff in association with residents to accommodate growth, while complementing the character of the existing community;
WHEREAS CDPs have been identified as the primary means in the Official Plan by which to translate the Plan’s direction and policies into concrete measures at a local community level;
AND WHEREAS it is recognized that a Community Design Plan has been prepared for the village of North Gower and is now before the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee for consideration;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the North Gower Community Design Plan be brought back to committee in a Secondary Plan format and be incorporated in the Official Plan.
The Committee then considered the departmental recommendations as amended.
3. Approve an amendment to the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law as shown on the location maps and as detailed in Document 3;
5. Approve that the North Gower Community Design Plan be brought back to committee in a Secondary Plan format and be incorporated in the Official Plan
1. Email from Robin Craig, Chair, North Gower Community Design Group dated 9 January 2008.

References: § 4

§ 6645

§ 16

§ 21

§ 36

§ 17

§ 17