Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 2001-07-26 SPLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 26, 2001CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee held a special meeting this date commencing at 7:13 p.m. under Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, with the following members present: Councillors B. Vrbanovic, G. Lorentz, J. Smola, J. Ziegler and M. Galloway Officials Present: Ms. C. Ladd, L. MacDonald, R. Pitfield and Mssrs. F. Pizzuto, B. Stanley, J. Shivas, G. Borovolis, L. Masseo, B. Sloan and L.W. Neil. 1.BPS-01-094-ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 01/11/TC/CL a) INNER CITY AREA (lands bounded by the Conestoga Parkway / Westmount Road and the northerly Boundary of the City of Kitchener) b) 90 WOODSIDE AVENUE - BRIDGEPORT-CENTRE, FOREST-ROCKWAY AND WEST-VICTORIA PARK WARD The Committee considered a City initiated zone change application dealing with an inner city area (lands bounded by the Conestoga Parkway / Westmount Road and the northerly boundary of the City of Kitchener) and 90 Woodside Avenue. It was noted in the report that a comprehensive revision is proposed to Zoning By-law 85-1 to address certain uses within the inner-city that are considered to be incompatible with residential and other sensitive land uses. The proposed zone change has two objectives. Firstly, it would prohibit truck transport terminals as well as warehousing, transportation depots or recycling operations for hazardous, toxic or contaminated materials within certain zones within the inner-city and secondly, it would add a site specific temporary use provision at 90 Woodside Avenue to permit the recycling of contaminated materials completely contained within the existing building for a specified, limited time period. In this regard, the Committee considered Development and Technical Services Department report BPS-01-094, dated July 19, 2001 and a proposed by-law dated July 12, 2001 attached to the report. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Ms. C. Ladd summarized the purpose of the re-zoning and provided explanation as to the comprehensive prohibited uses that had been proposed within certain zones in the inner-city. As well she noted that a maximum two year period was being recommended in the by-law to permit the proposed recycling. Lastly, she advised that residents had been made aware of this matter. Councillor J. Smola commented that eventually a new Highway 7 would be constructed along with a new design for access from Wellington Street and noted that part of the ward may not have direct access after Highway alterations are made. Ms. C. Ladd responded that staff did not consider such issue but commented that there was still reasonably direct access to Wellington Street without having to travel through residential areas. Mr. B. Stanley commented that there was an interchange north of Wellington Street even though there were only two exits but suggested staff could look at the concern expressed by Councillor Smola. Councillor Smola noted that an objective should be to keep as much truck traffic off of Lancaster and Wellington Streets as possible. The Committee was circulated with correspondence dated July 25 and 26, 2001, from Davies Howe Partners, Lawyers, who represent General Environmental Group Inc. and K 1000 Limited which is the registered owner of 90 Woodside Avenue. Their clients object to the proposed by-law and request it not be adopted for the reasons outlined in their July 25, 2001 correspondence. Mr. Robert Sexsmith attended in opposition to the rezoning proposal that would allow General Environmental Group to recycle contaminated materials. He made reference to the 1993 zoning, what future uses were contemplated, notification process, whether the company would try to compress five years work into two years and asked that Council do something to stop the proposal. Mr. L. Masseo and Ms. C. Ladd responded to issues raised by Mr. Sexsmith in respect to stage 6 of the Comprehensive re-zoning that was passed in 1994 concurrently with the Secondary Plan. It was noted that the staff report BPS-01-094 was circulated to each neighbourhood association within the area and the KDBA as soon as it was available. 1.BPS-01-094-ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 01/11/TC/CL PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 26, 2001- 78 -CITY OF KITCHENER a)INNER CITY AREA (lands bounded by the Conestoga Parkway / Westmount Road and the northerly Boundary of the City of Kitchener) b)90 WOODSIDE AVENUE - BRIDGEPORT-CENTRE, FOREST-ROCKWAY AND WEST-VICTORIA PARK WARD (CONT’D) Ms. Ginny Quinn appeared in opposition to the General Environmental proposal and commented there were many omissions of truth by the company representative with respect to their proposal and blatant inaccuracies as to their notification procedure. She remarked on adverse impacts to the neighbourhood from trucking, pollution and road damage and contamination. Ms. Quinn pointed out that the Environmental Assessment report was not provided and suggested the Woodside Avenue site may not need the clean-up that the company has suggested is required. Ms. Carol Ann Mackie attended representing the Cedarhill area, the Highland-Stirling Community Group and the Mill-Courtland Neighbourhood Association to convey their fear and objection to the General Environmental Group proposal and requested that Council not approve the zone change application. Ms. Heather Thomson appeared representing Concerned Citizens for Neighbourhood Preservation (CCFNP) and confirmed that residents did not have any knowledge of the proposal. She noted that they were working on a response to the Ministry of the Environment and that a petition had been circulated requesting the Environmental Assessment be made available. She asked that Council support the proposed zoning restrictions but refuse a 2 year temporary recycling use at the Woodside Avenue site. Ms. Thomson advanced other comments in support of her objection to the recycling proposal. Ms. L. MacDonald and Mr. B. Stanley commented on the zone change and by-law process under the Planning Act and noted it was independent of other comment the City would provide to the Province on environmental issues. Mr. Raj Nandakumar appeared in opposition to the proposed re-zoning, addressed references in the by-law and questioned why the word recycling would be used in reference to hazardous waste. He recommended that the word recycle be removed and replaced by provincial regulation 347, General Waste Management provisions under the Environmental Protection Act which he distributed. In response to Councillor J. Ziegler, he agreed that the protective measures of the proposed by-law be adopted and the Woodside site be deferred and dealt with separately. Ms. L. MacDonald pointed out that recycling was not a defined word under the by-law and that the common definition was used in respect to this land use issue. Ms. C. Ladd advised that staff did consider defining recycling but noted that there was a danger in defining such term that could result in excluding or including something that was not intended. Further, she pointed out that legislation was continually changing and that it was best to approach the subject from a municipal land use planning point of view. Mr. Glen Bender, attended representing the North Ward Neighbourhood Association to speak to the issue of truck terminals and depots. He advised that notice of this matter was just received and requested it be deferred. He noted that the ward has M2 zoned areas accessible only through residential areas. Mr. Mark Grossman, Shuh Cline & Grossman, Barristers and Solicitors, appeared on behalf of Joseph & Co. and Alecal Properties in respect to businesses located at 257 Victoria Street North, 296, 399 Breithaupt Street and 34-36 Lancaster Street. He expressed concern respecting definitions in the by-law in regards to trucking, prevention of business expansion, his client being uncertain whether hazardous materials were being handled and that the proposed by-law may affect business operations. Mr. Grossman requested his clients property be exempt from the provisions of the by-law. Ms. C. Ladd suggested the proposed by-law be deferred if the Committee decides to provide an exemption because it is a comprehensive by-law. Mr. Neil Humphrey appeared in opposition to the rezoning and pointed out that his view was that the Woodside problem with General Environmental Group was brought about as a result of staff interpretation of what was permitted under the existing zoning. He suggested the issue of definitions was central to this matter and that definitions under provincial legislation be utilized. 1.BPS-01-094-ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 01/11/TC/CL PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 26, 2001- 79 -CITY OF KITCHENER a)INNER CITY AREA (lands bounded by the Conestoga Parkway / Westmount Road and the northerly Boundary of the City of Kitchener) b)90 WOODSIDE AVENUE - BRIDGEPORT-CENTRE, FOREST-ROCKWAY AND WEST-VICTORIA PARK WARD (CONT’D) Accordingly, he asked that the by-law be deferred on the basis that it was flawed in respect to language and definition issues. Ms. Adeline Walsh expressed concern that if the by-law was passed approving a temporary use for 2 years, an extension request would be made. Ms. C. Ladd advised that under a temporary use approval, the permitted use would cease after 2 years and any request for extension would be subject to a full public process. Ms. Walsh also expressed concern that odours from the recycling operation could not be eliminated. In response to Councillor G. Lorentz, Mr. B. Stanley pointed out the Company had to provide a deposit with the Ministry of the Environment sufficient to restore the site if the company failed to follow through with plans to remediate the site. Councillor C. Weylie questioned how long General Environmental Group could operate at the site if the proposed by-law was not passed and Ms. C. Ladd responded that the company could operate indefinitely if they received a Ministry of the Environment Certificate of Approval. Ms. Shannon Douglas requested that consideration of the proposed by-law be deferred until definitions in the by-law were improved and a Ministry of the Environment Certificate of Approval had been received. Ms. C. Ladd pointed out a time restriction could not be put on the Certificate of Approval unless the by-law provides for such restriction. Councillor G. Lorentz questioned what the outcome might be if the Council banned the temporary use and Ms. C. Ladd advised that if the by-law was appealed, the matter would be decided by the Ontario Municipal Board. Mr. Alex Ziemen appeared in opposition to the Woodside proposal to ask Council prohibit the use. Councillor B. Vrbanovic questioned what the risks would be to the City if it did not grant an exemption for the Woodside property. Ms. C. Ladd advised if appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, their decision would be final unless it could be shown that they made an error in law. Further, if the city-wide portion was deferred, there was a risk that another use similar to the Woodside Avenue proposal could establish itself but there was no risk to deferring the temporary use portion of the by-law. Other comment was made respecting deadlines for receipt of comment by the Ministry of the Environment respecting the Certificate of Approval Application of General Environmental Group and whether the Ministry of the Environment should be informed as to the City’s consideration of the by-law that would permit the temporary use. Mr. B. Stanley noted that the Ministry of the Environment procedure is to request the municipality to confirm if the property is properly zoned. It was further noted that the draft by-law could be split and additional discussion followed in respect to the comprehensive portion being dealt with as well as alternative approaches in that regard that would include a list of prohibited sites. Ms. Heather Thomson made the following additional comments: · the existing by-law prohibits the use · there was an incorrect interpretation of the existing by-law · Council has stated throughout that the City had no intent to allow such use · waste disposal is not recycling, why construe the Woodside Avenue proposal as recycling. Ms. Thomson maintained that the matter was not a by-law issue and that the residents supported that position. Further, she commented that the foundry sand at the Woodside site is not hazardous if it was left undisturbed, but there was a need to know the level of contamination. Ms. C. Ladd responded that it would be an easy solution for staff to admit to making a mistake in respect to this entire matter. She outlined the criteria as to consideration of recycling proposals at the municipal level and commented on the issue in respect to soils with no part being disposed of except the contaminated portion. Councillor B. Vrbanovic questioned what the appeal mechanism would be if Council was to 1.BPS-01-094-ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 01/11/TC/CL PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 26, 2001- 80 -CITY OF KITCHENER a)INNER CITY AREA (lands bounded by the Conestoga Parkway / Westmount Road and the northerly Boundary of the City of Kitchener) b)90 WOODSIDE AVENUE - BRIDGEPORT-CENTRE, FOREST-ROCKWAY AND WEST-VICTORIA PARK WARD (CONT’D) interpret recycling as suggested by the residents. Ms. C. Ladd responded that interpretation is not a formal process under the Planning Act and the only avenue open would be to make application to the Courts to appeal such decision. At this point, Ms. L. MacDonald requested the committee meet In-Camera for the purpose of receiving legal advice. On motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic – It was resolved: “That an In-camera meeting be held immediately to consider a matter subject to solicitor- client priviledge.” The meeting recessed at 9:10 p.m. and re-convened at 9:19 p.m. following an In-camera meeting. On motion by Councillor G. Lorentz - It was resolved: “That consideration of the following recommendation in Development and Technical Services report BPS-01-094 be deferred and referred to the August 27, 2001 Council meeting: That Zone Change Application ZC 01/11/TC/CL (Inner City area and 90 Woodside Avenue - City initiated) requesting a change in zoning to prohibit certain industrial uses within the inner city in the Service Commercial Zone (C-6), Retail Core Zone (D-1), East Market Zone (D-2), Warehouse District Zone (D-6), Industrial-Residential Zone (M-1) and General Industrial Zone (M-2); and also requesting the addition of Temporary Use Provision 8T to the existing General Industrial Zone (M-2), with special use provisions 156U and 159U for the lands described as Part of Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 183; Lot 359 and Part of Lots 365 and 366, Municipal Compiled Plan of Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract; Lots 49 and 85 and Part of Lot 116, Streets and Lanes, being part of Part 1, Plan 58R- 11219, municipally known as 90 Woodside Avenue; be approved, in the form shown in the attached “Proposed By-law” dated July 12, 2001.” 2.ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk