audio test one for the meeting stream. audio test two for the meeting stream. Everyone, we'll get started in one minute. Good morning everyone and welcome to our October 1st, 2026 meeting of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee. I'll ask the committee coordinator to call the role. >> Councelor Kits >> here. >> Councelor Lulof. >> Good morning. Councilor Skullski >> here. >> Vice Chair Kelly >> present. >> And Chair Brown, >> good morning. >> You have quum, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. This is a public meeting to consider the proposed zoning bylaw amendment listed as item 4.2 on today's agenda for the item just mentioned. Only those specifically identified in the planning act who make oral submissions today or written submissions before the amendments are adopted may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In addition, the applicant may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal if council does not adopt an amendment within 90 days of receipt of the application for a zoning bylaw amendment and 120 days for an official plan amendment. To submit written comments on these amendments prior to their consideration by city council on the 8th of October, 2026, please email or call the committee or council coordinator. Are there any declarations of interest, colleagues? Seeing none, uh, confirmation of minutes from Thursday, September 3rd, 2026. Are those minutes confirmed? Thank you. Item 4.1, technical amendments to the permanent signs on private property 2016-326. Um, I believe we may have some questions on that to staff. So, we'll uh stop there and we'll ask staff to come to the table. Thank you. Councelor Skowski, go ahead. >> Thanks. Thank you, Chair. Um, so when we just did a review of the bylaw text, we noticed that there was some omissions in the rural zoning codes. Can you just clarify whether it is accurate or whether we should put forward some changes? >> Uh, thank you, chair. Um the references to definitions of residential zones, institutional zones, commercial zones, and industrial zones in the version of the report that was uploaded did not include specific references to rural zones. Now, other provisions in the uh proposed amendments do include references to those rural zones, but it does require changes to ensure that the bylaw operates uh properly. >> Okay. Okay, so just for clarity, the rural residential V1 to V5 and mobile homes and all the rural commercial codes that this bylaw does apply to those. It's not intended to not apply. >> Yes. >> Great. Thank you. So, I think we will we're working on a motion to make that adjustment. >> I just emailed it to you. >> Colleagues, just bear with us here. Uh, councelor Skolski is going to read in the uh technical amendment here. Okay, thank you. So whereas report AC 2026 PDB PS0068 recommends several amendments to the permanent signs on private property bylaw 2016 326 to comply with the new zoning bylaw and to make other minor amendments of an administrative nature. And whereas report ACS 2026 PDBPS0068 does not contain the language necessary to add the clarity sought and contains several technical errors. Therefore, be it resolved that the following changes be made to document one, amendments to the permanent signs on private property bylaw of report ACS 2026 PDB PS0068 as follows. Replace the entirety of item four with the following in section sorry four in section one. Replace the text of the definition commercial zone with the following mixeduse zone which for the purposes of this bylaw includes the hub zone 1H1, hub zone 2 H2, hub zone 3 H3, Main Street Zone 1, MS1, Main Street Zone 2, MS2, minor corridor 1, CM1, minor corridor 2, sorry, minor corridor zone 2, CM M2, neighborhood mixed use zone N MU, rural commercial zone RC, and rural mix use zone VM. Replace the entirety of item nine with the following 9 point. In section one, replace the text of the definition industrial zone with the following. for the for the purpose of this bylaw includes the heavy industrial zone I industrial and logistic zone IIL, mixed industrial zone IM, rural general industrial zone RG, rural heavy industrial zone RH, and rural industrial zone RIL. Replace the entirety of item 9 with the following 10. Section one, replace the text of the definition industrial zone with the following. for the purposes of this bylaw includes the institutional zone IN zed largescale institutional and recreational zone LG and rural institutional zone R1 sorry R I and D replace the entirety of item 14 with the following 14 in section one replace the text of the definition residential zone with the following for the purposes of this bylaw includes the neighborhood zones N1 to N6 neighborhood unservice zone R N U and neighborhood commercial suffix C rural residential zone RR mobile home park zone MH and village residential zones V1 to V5. Replace the entirety of item 19 with the following in section 612A. Replace the word he with the words the counselor. And replace the entirety of item 30 with the following in section 172B and 172 C. Replace the words DR O1 and L3 zones with the words DR, GRN, and REC. And G in table 6A, replace references to GRN with FAC. And H in table 6B, replace references to IG with IM. That was very technical. Thank you. Thank you for those adjustments. >> Thank you, counselor. Colleagues, are there any questions on that? Seeing none, is the technical motion carried? >> Carried. >> Thank you. And the report as amended. Carried. >> Carried. >> Thank you very much. Thank you, councelor. >> Thank you very much, gentlemen. >> Next item on the agenda, 4.2, zoning bylaw amendment 2095 Dworth Road. There is a presentation and we do have a few delegations. So I'll ask uh the team from planning to come forward. Good morning, uh, chair. I'm a little under the weather today. I apologize. I think this happened last time I had to present here. So, >> take it personally, Cass. >> I I'm so sorry. Uh, so, uh, this is a presentation regarding the zoning bylaw amendment at 2095, uh, Dworth Road. Next slide, please. Uh so this is the location map showing the site location. It's quite a large uh parcel of land. Uh it's located northeast of the Highway 416 and Dworth Road interchange. Uh it's the first interchange uh within the city of Ottawa when headed northbound on the 416. Uh it's got frontage all along Dworth Road and then a small amount of frontage in the north uh east of the property along Third Line Road South. Uh and you can just see in the bottom corner of the map, it's also uh northwest of the uh RTO River. Next slide, please. So, the properties currently zoned RU, rural countryside, and EP3, which is the environmental protection zone, sub zone 3. Uh the EP3 subzone corresponds with the limits of the Cranberry Creek proincially significant wetland. Next slide, please. So, the proposed zoning uh the proposed zoning bylaw amendment uh will reszone area A, which is two uh irregularly shaped um areas uh both with some frontage on Dworth Road uh from the rural countryside zone to rural commercial zone sub zone 4 uh sub zone subject to a rural exception and a holding provision. And I'll get into the details of the exception a little bit later. It's quite lengthy. Um, and then area B, which is the balance of the site west of the uh, EP zone, is to be reszoned from RU to the open space facility zone, sub zone 5, also subject to a rural exception. Uh, there's no changes being proposed to the EP3 zoning or the RU zoning at the east of the site on the other side of the EP3 uh, zone. Next slide please. So there are a number of u environmental features present on the site. Um and the new zone boundaries between the RC4 and the FAC5 zones were established in light of uh the presence of these environmental features. Uh so we have flood plane as shown by the blue hatched area. Um depending on which uh layer you have present or which layer you have selected on GIO Ottawa uh you'll get two different versions of the flood plane overlay. So the 2026-50 zoning bylaw layer has the correct uh flood plane layer on it. The previous uh zoning bylaw layer has the old flood plane uh which reflects the uh the configuration of the flood plane before the owner undertook balance cut and fill work uh in accordance with a permit from the Rita Valley Conservation Authority. So the blue hashed area that you see here is the most accurate uh depiction of the flood plane post balance cut and fill work. Um the black hatched area is the natural heritage system core area. Um it's largely outside of the area uh that's affected by the zoning bylaw amendment. Um and it corresponds with the uh the uh wetland and a significant wood lot significant woodland toward the northeast of the site. Um unfortunately the little blue line uh in the water course box did not show up on the screen. Uh but in that white box uh next to water course there should be a blue line running through it to indicate water courses. So uh you'll see that there are uh this is not a great version of the map uh on the big screen but there is a water course um on the western half of the site within the flood plane and on the eastern half of the site there are actually two water courses. One of them extends down into that kind of peninsula flood plane and uh another one is further north and further east and both of them uh flow into the wetland. Uh the blue area is the proincially significant wetland as I mentioned earlier, the Cranberry Creek PSW and that corresponds with uh with that whole blue area and the EP3 sub zone and then the green shaded area is a natural heritage feature which in this case is a significant woodland. So section 4.8 of the official plan uh contains policies that relate to protection of natural heritage features and those include significant woodlands, significant wetlands, and surface water features. Section 4.9.3 of the OP outlines policies that restrict or limit development and site alteration near surface water features and imposes setbacks from surface water features um which also include the conservation authorities regul regulatory flood line as as mentioned the applicant undertook balance cut and fill work in 2024 in accordance with the permit from the RVCA to reconfigure the flood plane to create two larger more regular popularized areas for future development. So based on the policies of section 4.8 8 and 4.9 which as I said are related to protection of natural heritage features and water course setbacks um and also in accordance with uh section 4.9.3 policy 4 the boundary between the RC4 and FAC5 zones was generally established based on the most restrictive of either the reconfigured flood plane limit the 30 m setback from the water course or local wetland and the 50 m setback from the proincially significant wetland because there are some areas where the flood plane is highly irregular. Some smaller sections of the flood plane encroach into the RC4 zone. Um but through uh the zoning bylaw uh any development within the flood plane is prohibited and in the exception which I'll get into uh following the next slide um the exception will impose an additional 6 meter setback uh from the flood plane. And if you return to the previous slide, you can see where uh very very faintly you can see the um in area A on the uh left hand side of the site, there are two small fingers of flood plane that encroach within the RC4 zone. Um we were okay with uh having those within the RC4 zone again because development is uh prohibited within the flood plane. Um and it is throughout the city. There are areas where it's actually the majority of the cases is where the flood plane uh exists regardless of the zone boundaries. Um in this case uh we wanted to exclude the flood plane as much as possible from the RC zone. Um but again with such an irregular and and small area of flood plane we were we were okay with having it encroach there. It's possible as well that the owner is going to undertake future balance cut and fill work to even out the flood plane in those areas. Um, if you can go ahead two slides, please. Just going to take a sip of tea. Thanks. So, the proposed exception to the RC4 zone um is going to limit the permitted uses within the zone to uses that could be reasonably considered necessary to serve the local rural community or the traveling public. And this is in accordance with uh section 9.2.2 to policy 2BI I believe. Um there are there are certain um criteria that must be what must be met to permit commercial development within the rural countryside zone. That being one of them. Um so further to that the hydrogeeological and terrain analysis determined that the chloride and sodium levels in the water exceeded what is considered treatable by the Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks. So therefore the limited or the list of permitted uses was further refined and ultimately limited to only those commercial uses which could reasonably operate without relying on a potable water supply. So per the summary of the exception provisions that are up on the screen uh limiting the land uses to uses that can operate without relying on potable water. So, no food preparation, few employees, um things that could be reasonably where you could reasonably operate with a water cooler on the site for your employees. Um so, as additional as an additional measure of caution per uh we've imposed a holding symbol on the zone requiring that all development be subject to site plan control approval in order to assess the cumulative impact of development on storm water management, water quality, and water quantity. Um so this is going to allow us to as each for every new development that uh is proposed for the site they go through the entire site plan control process. We're going to evaluate water quality water water quantity um of the site as it exists prior to development and then for the next development we're going to do the same thing to assess the impact of the previous development on water quality and quantity and storm water management. Uh so because the site is uh the subject property is partially zoned uh EP3 um all development on the site is subject to site plan control anyway per the site plan control bylaw. Should that change the uh holding provision will ensure that that development does go through site plan approval and that's regardless of whether it meets the uh minimum threshold within the site plan control bylaw. Normally on unserviced uh when a development is is proposed on private servicing uh it does not need site plan control approval if it is less than 300 square meters in area but our holding provision will ensure that even if it's less than 300 square meters uh it'll still go through the site plan control process. Uh so the exception uh reiterates that all development is prohibited until all conditions of site plan control approval are satisfied and the associated holding symbol is lifted. But then as an additional mechanism for monitoring and assessing the impact of development on the site, we're specifying that the hold may only be lifted from the portion of the site associated with the limits of each development that gets site plan appro approval. So if they're proposing a small 300 meter self-s storage facility in one of the two area A's in one corner, uh the hold will only be lifted from the limits of of where they've received site plan approval. Uh, and I mentioned 300 uh, square meters specifically because uh, section 1303 sub5 of the zoning bylaw limits an individual commercial occupancy within the RC zone outside of a village to a maximum of 300 square meters of gross leasable floor area. Um, and that is uh, implementing uh, 9.2.22 22BI of the official plan which limits commercial occupancies in the rural countryside designation to 300 square meters of gross leaseable floor area. Um, our provision or in the pardon me, our exception provision specifies that despite uh 1303 sub5 of the zoning bylaw and the definition of gross leasable floor area in the zoning bylaw, uh, we're restricting the maximum total floor area of a building or part of a building associated with an indoor self- storage facility to 300 square meters. So, hallways, um, the offices, etc. that are occupied by the self- storage facility or will be included in at 300 square meters. Uh we've agreed to permit a storage yard and cillery to a self- storage facility limited to an area of 500 square meters. And this will allow future self- storage facility to potentially offer outdoor storage for things like boats, recreational vehicles, but it's ancillary to the uh indoor self- storage facility. So, it can't operate as a storage yard at large without uh restrictions. um it has to operate alongside the uh the self-s storage facility. And then lastly uh the um there's a six meter setback uh from the flood plane uh in accordance with the conservation authorities act and uh oh sorry I said lastly second lastly lastly uh we've also imposed provisions on the future development to ensure compliance with official plan policies. So, we've got uh an alternate front lot line to ensure that we're screening appropriately from Dworth Road and Highway 416. Uh the front lot line is technically along Third Line Road South. Um but because that's on the other side of the EP3 zone and the wetland that that area is outside of uh what's being contemplated for resoning here. So, we moved the front law line for the purposes of development to uh Dworth Road. And uh the uses that we're allowing in the pro in the exception are those uses that can reasonably serve the local rural community or the traveling public. Uh and then the exception to the FAC5 zone will prohibit the construction of any building or structure within the zone uh notwithstanding any uh prohibition against development by virtue of it being within the flood plane. That's the end of the presentation. if there's any questions. >> Thank you very much. Uh before questions to staff, we're going to go to our two delegates. We're going to start with Nikki Trudeell and then go to Judy Garbo. So Nikki, no stranger to the committee. Thank you very much for coming today. You've got five minutes and uh we're going to pull up your PowerPoint presentation here. >> Thank you so much. Good morning all. I am here to raise my concerns regarding the future potential uses afforded to the property on 2095 Dworth as outlined within the zoning bylaw amendment report. Next slide, please. My concerns come back to this diagram. You've you've seen me show this many times which has felt throughout this term of council like a tugofwar between priorities instead of a set of complimentary lenses through which all decisions and actions are passed. Too often one priority is focused on to the detriment of other priorities. Next ch next slide please. Okay. The impacts of a changing climate are once again front and center for the city. Consider the list of unprecedented disasters in the last four years and their impact on homeowners, farms, residents, taxpayers, and the most vulnerable in our city. Next slide, please. The cheapest adaptation action is building and maintaining our natural environment. Allowing our existing wetlands and woodlands, our flood planes to do the heavy lifting of slowing down water, acting as sponges, recharging our aquifers, supporting clean water, preserving ecosystems, and as required, helping to channel water away from infrastructure. Next slide, please. So should a climate lens be applied when a significant change in potential land use is considered? I would say yes as this would help better inform restricted uses. 60% of 2095 Dworth is currently on a flood plane. This is more than a development reszoning request. Climate change is making storms more extreme and frequent which is altering the notion of a flood plane without undertaking steps to redefine and remap the flood plane to better align with existing realities and I know no one wants to do this. Extra extra caution is required in the planning and zoning phase. Next slide please. Effectively, what is proposed here is increasing the land elevation adjacent to Dillworth Road thanks to the cut and fill of material from the rear and the introduction of future uses that include hardscaping and buildings thereby increasing runoff particularly towards the south side of Dworth Road. And those are my circles there at various intersections. Next slide, please. But you know, maps and squiggles, um, lines, arrows, they tell a neat and tidy story. I'm going to show you what it means to have Cranberry Creek running across your front lawn. Yes, my front lawn. My principal ask is that the entire pathway including the junctions noted in the previous chart are analyzed carefully to ensure that runoff moves to the river effectively. Next slide please. On the left side I took the same shot the other day. Then I turned 180 degrees to illustrate the very diffuse flood plane to the south of my property. What is important to realize is that the elevations according to Geo Ottawa between the water course here and the RTO river is only about 0.5 m. Ensuring water is flowing to the river is therefore critical but also tricky especially given the intensity of supertorrm events. Next slide please. >> One minute. >> The applicant's project addresses Oh, too bad. My pictures aren't showing. Uh, the applicants project addresses the term of council priority for a city with a diversified and prosperous economy. As noted earlier, cherrypicking a strategic priority bucket is not the same as looking at the pros and cons across all the strategic priorities and citing the negative externalities in an honest fashion. Next slide, please. Page five of the report states, "The proposed exception to the RC zone limits the permitted uses within the zone to those uses that could reasonably be considered necessary to serve the rural community or traveling public. We don't need a new gas bar." In addition to it being risky, an automotive or heavy equipment service station presents risks including storage and disposal of toxic motor oils, fuels, liquids, hydraulic oil and more. The ecosystem is too sensitive already and adding this type of risk is irresponsible. Next slide. And last slide to wrap up. >> I pardon. I therefore propose that the list of prohibited uses be changed to include the prohibition of the gas bar and the prohibition of heavy equipment and vehicle servicing. Thank you to sa staff for their work and support. It's been invaluable. Thank you councelor um counselors and chair Brown for your time. >> Thank you very much Nikki. Well prepared as always. Um I know you and I have met with uh with each other on this file and with some neighbors as well. based on the staff presentation, you know, and you've just thanked staff for their work and and I think it's great to acknowledge how much back and forth there has been over the last few years between the applicant and city staff. when we had the presentation, did you hear um I guess any of the the restrictions that staff are recommending and did you think that they would be sufficient to ensure the environmental integrity of this site should an application proceed down the line for construction of any of the facilities they were listing? I was very pleased to see that the hold that there was various holds on the on uh development and that everything is going to go through site plan control. That's a very that's a positive for sure. Um what I uh did not see in the list of exclusions was a really good analysis of whether those uh potential uses were really of value to the rural community. And that's why I wanted to highlight that um some of them uh are really not valuable. Some of them are extremely risky to the ecosystem. Um but all in all, I was happy that some things had been excluded and that some limits had been put forth on some of the um allowed uses. And no disrespect to staff, I know they've worked extremely hard on this file and I've uh been very grateful. >> Thank you very much. I'm not seeing any other questions from my colleagues, but thank you very much for your delegation today. >> All right, we'll go to Judy Garbo now. And so Judy, um I believe you have a presentation as well. So we'll get that up on the screen. You've got five minutes. You can start when you're ready. >> Good morning. Um Chair David Brown and the air act counselors. Thank you for your time and kind consideration with my delegation. The city staff have been professional and informative. I commend them for recommending reszoning of RU to OP1 to better protect the wetland area, though forestry is still allowed. Next slide, please. This is our rural neighborhood. It's primarily in a flood plane zone with a mix of forest wetlands in the Cranberry Creek together with the Marbor forest. It's one of the last forested areas in rural West excluding West Carlton. I didn't I didn't go into that. Um so the property is part of a broader rural and environmentally sensitive setting which matters when considering reszoning. Next slide. Um the red triangle rectangle shows the geographic content for the resoning application. Cass's um slide five had a very good um presentation on the types of different flood planes and but pointed out that 60% of the 70 87 acres at 2095 is flood plane. Oh, I just went back to my previous slide. Um, in this area we have Baxter Conservation to the southeast near the RTO River. It's a popular spot with beaches and trail and a bridge at the marsh. It alo also pointing out this is a border. This is the last of rural Ottawa before it uh the 416 crosses the Rita River and um then you're in Leeds Granville. any business at 2095 will be the first ones people see when they're coming into the area. Next slide, please. The residents position um this there was the summary was done um in the report and 80% of residents who submitted comments were against the reasonzoning. The main concern was flooding on their property, well water quality, and protecting the natural heritage of the area. That increase commercial use will bring. Since this 1991 photo, little change has occurred until the property was purchased by Dworth Developments. I miss putting a slide showing the current Google map photo showing the amount of uh top soil that's being has been removed and is being removed from the site and the ashvault laid which sort of shows um intent. Next slide please. Cass's slide also showed uh the areas that had PS uh PSW significant wetlands and the floodlands. Um I want to show you some of the wildlife in this area. Next slide. This is a Blandings turtle um species at risk. The residents protect the nests and hatchlings are released. Next slide. This is a Wilson snite. It breeds in the marsh and then migrates south. It has a haunting aerial display. Next slide. Virginia rail. A shy bird breeds here and migrates south. Local beaver. Oh, next slide, please. Local beaver. Several beaver lodges in the area. And I want to confirm that these are all wildlife in this area. Next slide, please. >> One minute, Judy. >> Oh, concept pl. The light blue areas um show the potential storm water collection. Nikki went over that in good detail. And I just wanted to confirm that no impact statement was given on the effect of the residential properties on this runoff. Next slide. Um residents concerns not listed in the committee report was mainly on the overland flooding and the wellwater conditions the properties at higher elevation and why are we reszoning to allow a broader scale of business. We want assurance that the independent studies and tests will be performed by the city to ensure no risk to the residents and will the city support residents in the future if properties are flooded as a result of storm water and failure of the culverts. Um, next slide. Um, just don't have much time. Yeah, just the businesses that aren't allowed. Next slide. Next slide. Next, next slide. So, appealing to the city councilors, we see little value and reason to warrant a zoning bylaw. Um, the surrounding natural history provide more value to the city. Offer alternatives to the owners to build and enhance that will protect. Next slide. >> All right, this will be the last slide, Judy. >> Yep. and um appealing to Dworth Developments. Share this article with your ownership group. Make a difference in Ottawa. Protect and enhance the natural habitat of the area. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much for your delegation. And again, you know, Judy, you and I have been able to speak uh about this file before, and I appreciate you coming and delegating today. I think it's important that we see residents and neighbors come out to talk about applications like this because ultimately we're the ones who have to live out uh close to them. Um based on the the staff report and presentation, is there anything that you saw on there that you believe will help constrain the site to ensure that neighbors are not going to be negatively impacted long term? I heard a lot of good things and I have a few questions to staff, but when we spoke last, a lot of the concern that was raised was about how this would impact the neighbor. So, do you see any of the feedback that you would have provided to staff reflected in the report and the recommendation today? >> Slide six was very encouraging. However, there wasn't um an impact assessment done for the flooding. I understand that's done at the next level, but it's so significant to the neighbors and to the residents of what zone what flooding will cause. And this is our reason for um being against increased commercial use and uh the amount of permeable surface that will increase flooding in the area. Um yeah, >> thank you very much. I'm not seeing any other questions from my colleagues. So, thank you very much for coming and delegating today. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you. Now, we do have Greg Winters, Robert Tran, and Rod Price um from the applicant side here to answer any questions should colleagues have them. Mr. Price is here uh live and in person. I believe Mr. Winters and Mr. TR are online. So, colleagues, if there are any questions for the applicant, uh please raise your hand. Um Mr. Price, if there are no questions uh for you, is there anything you'd like to say? >> Good morning, Mr. Chair, and thank you. Uh firstly, thank you to staff. Uh it's been a long haul uh with this application process and their collaboration and holding our feet to the fire to get to this point uh is greatly appreciated. Uh we support the staff report as proposed in the in the amendment suggested but happy to answer any questions. And I guess the the one thing I want to remind all stakeholders are, you know, we we've gotten to this point uh through the involvement of key staff uh departments uh Rita Valley Conservation Authority, Ministry of Transportation and all our key technical consultants whether they be traffic, environmental planning, civil engineering uh to provide those technical studies that are requires a complete application to get to this point. Furthermore, the protections provided to both staff, the city is a greater whole, our neighbors uh are in there uh in the form of a holdings zone provision and the tests that we need to meet to bring any future development application in terms of site plan forward and we're happy to commit to reaching out to the community at that time and staying engaged with them so they know what's coming forward and use them in the process as much as possible. >> Thanks. >> Thank you very much. I will acknowledge that significant movement has been made on on your side to get to where we are today and I appreciate that collaborative exercise that took place over the last few years. Uh colleagues, I don't know if you have any questions for staff, but I certainly do and I want to start off by echoing the thanks that have been said today. This has been a challenging file and I think great work has been done. What I hope isn't lost on members of the committee and members of the public are the number of restrictions that are being placed on this to ensure the integrity of the site. And I'd like if we I'd like to go through some of those restrictions uh in a little more detail because I think it's important. The applicant is signing up to go through far more than would traditionally be required from an applicant on a different site. And I want to make sure that it's very clear what we're doing to protect the heritage value of the site, the environmental aspect to it, and then the neighborhood more generally. So, I guess we'll just start with why are we recommending to council through this report to add some of these other restrictions and barriers to ensure compliance longer term? >> Thanks, chair. Are you specifically referring to the like the requirement for site plan at every stage of development? Yeah. So, yeah, as I mentioned in the presentation, um we're we're wanting to continually be able to monitor and and assess the cumulative impact of development on the site. So, you know, it's we want to see say they put, I don't know, let's say the gas bar in um they've got the gas holding tanks and presumably some ashalt. We're going to take a look uh at the um the anticipated impact of that development on the site, including downstream uh storm water management. Um and we'll work with the conservation authority uh on that and that's all through the site plan process. Um and then following a first development, if there is subsequent development, we're going to assess the addition of that new development on the existing on-site conditions. So, what's been happening since that previous area of the site was developed? Um, and what are the anticipated impacts of this second development and and so forth. >> So, very much a step-by-step process. And and one thing I want to highlight from your report and your presentation and when we're going to remove the hold, it is for the area that is being worked on. It is not for the entire site in its entirety. >> Yeah, that's correct. >> Which isn't normal. Correct. Nope. >> All right. I'm and I'm drawing this out because I want to make sure that we're very clear that everything that's been agreed to um through this report is to ensure that we can monitor the development as it takes place and then address concerns and then I'm sure there will be concerns on site as we move through site plan control. And and so I want to highlight for the neighbors that this very much is going to be a restrictive process as the applicant goes forward. And again, you know, the applicants agreeing to this, which shows a a high level of willingness to work with the city and the community. So, um, Mr. Winters, >> thank you, councelor. I just wanted to just put in my two cents worth. I'm apologize I cannot attend today because I'm also monitoring an OOLT hearing at the same time. So, but I just wanted to say that the staff did a very thorough job uh through via this application and and put us through a very demanding process to look at hydro geological storm water analysis. And in fact, the concept plan that was presented in front of you today is something that's not typically required for a zoning application, but was something that was requested by city staff to give some insights on how we're going to be dealing with future proofing the site as we go through a site plan application process. as reiterated by city staff that we're going to be going through this seat uh site plan application process. We will be looking at storm water management. We will be controlling the runoff of the site as typically is done by the city of Ottawa so that we control to pre-development levels on the site. The issues raised around the flood plane are very well known. We've gone through the conservation authority process to review the balance cut fill that was preceding the development of the applications and we believe that the appropriate setbacks have been imposed by both the city of Ottawa and the conservation authority with respect to a 50 m setback to the provinially significant wetland as well as the 30 m setback to water courses and the adjacent local wetlands on the site. We believe that the environmental impact assessment or the environmental impact statement that was produced and reviewed by city staff deals with the natural environmental features on the site and in fact the conservation authority in the city requested even above the setbacks that are imposed through the zoning bylaw an additional setback of 6 mters from the flood planes on the site. So we're not changing the flood plane again. The flood plane is well known. It's existing and as I said the storm water management will deal with those matters later. The issues around drinking water are very well known for the site and this is quite typical for sites in the rural area. You have sites that service the local needs of the traveling public. This is well-known city policy and it supports that. Um and the issues around drinking water are dealt with through the appropriate uh limitations on the uses that were imposed by city staff. So overall, we support staff's recommendation and we think they did a great job on this. Thank you for the time today. >> Thank you very much and appreciate the opportunity to hear from you. I'm not seeing any other hands raised. So, colleagues, the recommendations are as follows. that the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee one recommend council approve an amendment to zoning bylaw 2026-050 for 2095 Dworth Road as shown in document one to permit future commercial development and to identify and protect water courses, wetlands, and the flood plane as detailed in document two and approve the consultation details section of this report. Is this item carried? >> Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda 5.1 status update agriculture and rural affairs committee inquiries and motions for the period ending 21 September 2026. Is this item received? Received. Thank you very much. There are no in camera items. No one has registered for the open mic portion of our agenda. Uh we'll move to item 8.1 motions of which notice has been previously given. Vice Chair, I believe there may be an amendment or there has been change from our last meeting. So perhaps I'll get you to read the motion out in its entirety. >> Absolutely. I'll just wait. Oh, there it is. Uh whereas a lot was created a part of lot concession for concession 7 Fitzroy in 1990. Whereas lot levies a precursor to development charges were prepaid in full at that time amounting to $4,152. Whereas the development charge rate in effect for singles and semi- detached dwelling in the rural area unserviced is $46,14. Whereas the established city practice has been only to recognize these payments as a credit on dollar for-dollar basis toward development charges owing. And whereas the current development charge rate exceeds the prepaid lot levy amount by $41,952. And whereas recognizing that these lot levy payments were made a long time ago when municipalities were responsible for funding fewer services. >> Vice Chair, you're muted. Have I been muted the whole time? >> No. You've been doing you've been doing well up until 30 or >> Okay. Fantastic. Whereas recognizing that these lot ley payments were made a long time ago when municipalities were responsible for funding fewer services such as public transit, parks, development, recreation, fire, police, paramedic service, libraries, public works with lot levies. And whereas recognizing the prepayment as full satisfaction of development charges owing beyond the established dollar fordoll credit would constitute a discretionary exemption to be funded from the city's development charge exemption budget. Therefore, be it resolved that the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee recommend the council uh that the prepayment for a part of lot 4 concession 7 Fitzroy in 1990 be recognized as payment in full exempting $41,952 of development charges uh in respect to one dwelling unit. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. vice chair, is there any context you want to provide or >> uh just I mean this has been a conversation that has been ongoing between the this particular applicant and staff for a little while. I I have been involved uh only in communicating um you know staff's position to the to the resident and and working back and forth between um those two groups to try and find a resolution that would work for everyone. And um it it does seem that that staff are are coming back with a resolution that this resident and and applicant um would be would be happy about. And uh I'm not sure if um people are are concerned about this setting a particular precedent because I I do believe there are a handful of other lots in the city that that may have a the same issue. Um but I'm encouraged with the fact that there is actually an account for this kind of thing. So, it must pop up somewhat regularly. Um, and I'd be happy to support staff's recommendations here today. >> Thank you very much, Vice Chair. Councelor Skolowski. >> Thank you, Chair. So, I just had a few questions just to situate this. Yeah, I think uh, Councelor Kelly kind of touched on the the possibility for a precedent. So, I'm I'm not sure who's the right person to ask staff, but I I did have some questions about I'll just start with um how many other lots actually could make a comparable claim across rural Ottawa. >> We don't have an estimate of of how many lots would be there. It's largely pre-amalgamation. So, but we understand there could be a handful, for example. >> Okay. Okay. And do we know how many have already been given the opportunity or like I guess have already proceeded with development and were charged a full development charge but received the credit for the dollar fordoll kind of consideration in the past. >> We don't track um which would have received dollar fordollar so I don't have the the number but again it would have been a small handful as well. >> Okay. And are you supportive of the approach that's being presented or do you see it as being precedent setting in some way? It would set certainly a precedence for a small handful that would be remaining. Um, another option that has come up as well is potentially indexing the payment to bring it to today's dollar. Um, so that was another finance recommended option where we wouldn't be required to fund the the the discretionary exemption that's on the motion today. >> Okay. Do we have a sense of how much has anyone done the math to see how much that would credit? Yes. Yeah. So, if we were using uh construction price indexing in in alignment with the background study indexing, it's roughly $11,000. That would be the indexing value. So, it would bring it to uh the delta owing would be 31,000 from the applicant. And I guess that would in some way set a precedent as well. That that would be the new approach that the city would take going forward. >> Correct. It would also set the precedence. Okay. I think for me personally where I'm struggling is just that I I have now lived the life of 15 months of precedent setting reactions and um and try to avoid them uh where I know that they can in the long term not necessarily set the best public policy precedent when you know all these development dollars today are used for real things. So um I'll thanks for the answers that'll help inform my my decision. >> Thank you counselor. Um Mr. you had indicated that there was a potentially another option with the indexing that didn't make it into the motion here. Can we have some I guess context on how staff worked through this? >> Yes, there are three options. Obviously, the current option um that we do today is recognizing the payment that they have provided in 1990 which was the $4,000 and they would be required to pay the delta. The second option uh that was recommended would be to index it to today's dollars uh to provide that partial relief to today. Um and then the third option of course was is what's before us today which is recognizing it in full which would have been done um pre99. >> No, thank you. And I I agree with councelor Skolski. You know, one concern that we have here is that although we look at things on a case-by case basis, it is a challenge when we do something for one landowner, one applicant and then someone else in a similar situation comes forward. And so that's the struggle I guess for this side of the table. Um I I think staff have worked to find a solution to move forward and uh certainly that's what we see before us today. uh it is a very large it is a very large gap that we are filling or that we're being asked to to vote on. Um I don't know if there's any feedback from my other colleagues online. What's before us today is what's before us. Um, and I'm not seeing anybody else with their hands up. And so if not, u, thank you very much for coming and and speaking today. >> Hear me. >> Councelor Kits. >> Okay. Sorry, my hand went up late. I'm just wondering if we should maybe u defer a decision to the next meeting because it sounds like there's different options that have not been fully worked through. So maybe the, you know, I'll obviously I think councelor Kelly should weigh in here, but maybe the ward counselor can take this back with staff um and bring something back at the next meeting >> through the chair. Maybe I'll just jump in here. I mean, I think uh my colleague from finance has laid out the various choices. It's not complex in terms of the different options. I think we were asked to to support drafting a motion that would uh address this resident's concern and uh the balance would be taken up by taxpayers, but it's a relatively small amount of money and we think there's relatively few of these. But it is precedent sending whichever way this stands. And if it's the uh recommendation of this committee to uh to do something more like indexing, then we can refine that option. But it really it really is which which issue do you want to solve and how do we think any of uh either option does go some way to address the core concern that we agree needs to be addressed which is recognizing the resident paid money and that should be credited at today's dollars. So, we agree with that, but how far we go, I think, is it depends what you're trying to solve for and and so we we could support a motion either for either option uh at the direction of the council. We do know that the the current option you have in front of you, as councelor Kelly said, is what what is um amable to the resident that was the reason this came forward in the first place. >> Thank you very much for that. Vice Chair, do you want to weigh in? >> Yeah. Um, sure. I I don't So, first of all, can I ask a question? Can Can someone define a handful? >> How many How many properties constitute a handful? >> We have Gary in the room as well, so he said 20, 30, 40. Okay, that's a little more than I thought might be in a handful, but good to know. Um, I don't I don't want to I'm happy to support the motion as written uh by staff today, but I also don't want to create a precedent that's going to uh cause issues in the future or if we're going to have to hear four of these in every ARC meeting moving forward. That's not something I want either. So, um I if if there is someone who wants to to move deferral, um I I don't think that would be an inappropriate outcome. That's something uh that we we could uh broach at a at another meeting and have a more wholesome discussion about it and a and a greater understanding of what exactly the consequences and effects would be of this. Um but I would if no one moves that, I I won't move it and I will support the motion as written. Thank you very much, colleagues. I think what I'm going to do is call the question on the motion that's before us today. If there is a willingness or a desire to work on this uh between now and council, I think that's something that uh interested parties can do offline, but I'm prepared to make a decision today. And so, barring any other questions, I'll ask the coordinator to call for the vote. Councelor Kits. >> Yes. >> Councelor Lulof. >> Yes. >> Councelor Skolski. >> No. >> Vice Chair Kelly. >> Yes. >> And Chair Brown. >> No. >> Three yays. Two nays. >> Thank you very much, colleagues. And thank you very much, staff. I don't believe there are any notices of motion. However, I stand to be corrected if any colleague wants to jump in here. Are there any inquiries? Any other business? All right, we will adjourn. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday the 5th of November 2026. Thank you very much colleagues and to the team assembled today we are journed