Since the summer, I have discussed a Zoning Amendment and Official Plan Amendment application for 1966 Roger Stevens Drive in this column several times. On October 17th, I hosted a very well attended community information session to discuss the application and provide the community in North Gower and Kars the opportunity to speak directly with the applicant. While I did detail the application in one of my September columns, I think it is an important enough file to discuss further at this point in time.

To begin, in case you may be unaware of this application, Broccolini is proposing to alter the zoning for the property at the southwest corner of Highway 416 and Roger Stevens Drive. The current zoning permits a variety of uses on the site and was originally designated by Rideau Township in the late 1990’s. In 2003, the development was registered with residential lots being severed off along Third Line Road. The uses on the remainder of the site include automobile service station, gas bar, hotel, restaurant, retail store, animal hospital, among others, in the Rural Commercial zone while uses in the Rural General Industrial zone includes largely the same things in addition to heavy equipment sales, light industrial uses, truck transport terminal and waste processing and transfer facility. Both zones permit the use of a warehouse. Lot size and building size are not specifically defined in the zoning save that the current maximum building height is 15m. Therefore, there are currently an array of options for development on that site today.

The proposal from Broccolini certainly veers from what was originally envisioned. They prefer a single building rather than many and they would prefer an industrial building more centralized on the property, away from the property edges. They would also prefer a 30m height maximum rather than the current 15m. To fully appreciate the differing visions for this property, picture the industrial park at the corner of Carp Road and the 417. It is home to the OZ Dome, Italfoods, Waste Management, Green Tech, the City’s snow dump, a gas station and more. Now picture the new Giant Tiger distribution centre just on the edge of Prescott, near where the 416 meets the 401. Those are the two options we must consider. Let’s now build on that.

Both options come with truck traffic, light pollution, noise concerns, traffic impacts, hydrogeological issues, etc. These are all issues that need to be addressed. It is my job to ensure that these issues are mitigated through any development, whether an application came forward with the Carp Road option or an application came forward with the Giant Tiger option. The question many in the North Gower have is why I support the proposal put forward by Broccolini.

First off, I support growth. Given my nine years on Council and even in the two election campaigns that I ran in before I became a Councillor, this should not come as a surprise. Secondly, I believe when an application comes forward, we need to deal with it on its merits according to all governing policies. In this case, it would be the North Gower Secondary Plan, the Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement. Lastly, I believe the best option in the long-term interests of nearby residents is the option with the least impact. Allow me to explain why I feel this is less impactful than the original vision.

Above, I highlighted some issues and concerns that would be relevant regardless of what type of industrial development was being proposed. However, there are other matters that distinguish the two options. From an environmental impact viewpoint, a single building with one well and one waste treatment facility is less impactful than multiple wells and septic systems. The subject property is just under half the size of the industrial park on Carp Road. In that space, they built over 40 properties. That would give you the scale of the number of wells required. For this to be a true comparison, I have only looked at the portion of the Carp Road development that is not on municipal water. Keeping with environmental impact, tree loss is a significant concern. A Carp Road development would eradicate most of the trees on the site. A single facility development could be sited where the least amount of impact is felt, and it also provides opportunities for additional tree planting. These issues and the ones mentioned earlier can all be addressed during the Site Plan application process and I can assure residents that I will be active in working to address those concerns. Broccolini is fully aware of that.

Future management of a site like this is also a key factor to consider. When concerns arise with a single facility property, it is one contact person to deal with those concerns. If we have persistent noise or traffic concerns in five to ten years, we continue to work with the one property owner rather than many.

Finally, one of the main considerations for me and my position on this application is from a policy perspective. I liken this to the Minto controversy in Manotick. The community was against it. The Councillor was against it. The existing policies were open to interpretation enough for the development to be permitted. Council voted against it and it ended up being approved through the appeal process.

In the case of the North Gower Secondary Plan, the same issue of interpretation exists. On height, the Secondary Plan makes no recommendations as it pertains to the height on this property. Height limitations only exist in the village centre as defined in Schedule E of the Secondary Plan. On the permitted uses, they are also defined in the Section 4.7 of the Secondary Plan. This is the section that speaks to development benefitting the farming community. That statement is included under “intent.” Permitted uses do not then prescribe that intent in the zoning. This creates an opening for interpretation. Municipalities cannot govern by intent. They need to speak clearly through motions and zoning policy. When Council votes against items that could be permitted under current policy, it puts the community in a disadvantaged position. I do not believe in voting against something just for the sake of voting against it and taking my chances through the appeal process. The way I have always done this job is that I work collaboratively to make applications better.

The way I see it, this application is likely headed for an appeal either way. My job is to find a solution that is in the best interests of the communities that I represent. Opposing the current proposal and hoping that we can be successful through appeal is not doing my job. Getting to work with the applicant and concerned community members to refine the current application and make it better is my job. If residents disagree with my philosophy, so be it. I would rather be up front and honest with my constituents than pander to them. The truth is not always what we want it to be, but elected officials cannot be afraid to be honest.

If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please feel free to email me at [email protected] or contact me by phone at 613-580-2491. For information on Rideau-Goulbourn issues, please visit RideauGoulbourn.ca.