CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE

BUREAU DU DIRECTEUR MUNICIPAL

Rural Affairs Office

Bureau des affaires rurales

1. RURAL PATHWAYS DEVELOPMENT

AMÉNAGEMENT DES SENTIERS RURAUX

ACS2006-OCM-CMR-0001

Mr. D. Moodie, Rural Affairs Officer, provided a presentation in which he: reviewed the background and the objectives of the Rural Pathways initiative; referenced the recommendations put forward by the Parks and Recreation and the Rural Issues Advisory Committees; discussed some of the concerns as well as the benefits relative to the project; and outlined the staff recommendations. A copy of his presentation is held on file.

Ms. S. Cooper Godoy, Metcalfe/Greely Bicycle Path Group, indicated she had been working a long time on trying to bring this issue to City Council and she expressed support for the proposal. However, she noted the wording of the report recommendation and she asked that the Committee “endorse” rather than “receive” the Rural Pathways Plan (RPP).

Councillor Thompson indicated he would be moving a motion to amend the recommendation so that Committee and Council would “endorse” the RPP.

Chair Jellett requested a staff comment on the proposed amendment. Mr. T. Marc, Manager, Planning and Environment Law, submitted that internally at the City, the word change would not make much of a difference because staff would be cognisant of any report submitted to Council. However, he cautioned that if Bill 51 were enacted by the Province, the proposed wording change would make a difference because the report would become relevant to a planning matter. He explained Bill 51 would require that the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) have regard to any policies adopted by Council.

Chair Jellett wondered if that would be a good or a bad thing. Mr. Marc submitted that was a policy decision to be made by Committee and Council. He noted if the RPP was “endorsed” rather than “received”, it would have more weight relative to planning matters.

Chair Jellett noted that was the community’s desire. He wondered about staff’s reaction to it. Having discussed the matter with various members of Planning and Growth Management staff, Mr. Moodie believed staff was looking forward to using the report as a planning tool.

Councillor Thompson noted that on Tuesday, the Planning and Environment and the Transportation Committees had approved the Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines, which clearly talked about linkages within Village. He felt that report, which would be policy once adopted by Council, went hand in hand with this one. He maintained it would be appropriate to “endorse” the RPP, noting that he would be proposing a few other minor changes to the staff recommendations.

Chair Jellett asked Councillor Thompson to read his motion into the record.

Councillor Thompson tabled the following motion:

That recommendation 1 be amended by replacing the word “receive” with the word “endorse”;

That recommendation 2 be amended by removing the words “either remove or”; and

That a third recommendation be added as follows:

Direct the Rural Affairs Office to develop a strategy that would:

a) Be community driven;

b) Respect private property; and

c) Provide next steps for rural pathways development.

Chair Jellett asked for a staff comment on the deletion of the words “either remove or” from the second recommendation. Mr. Moodie suggested a certain amount of sensitivity had to be used with respect to pathways shown on private property. He felt that by leaving those words in the recommendation, staff would have the opportunity to either use them or to have them not appear at all, depending on the purpose for which they were using this planning tool.

Mr. N. Norenius, Manotick Community Association (MCA), expressed his organization’s disappointment with the use of the word “receive” instead of “endorse” in the report recommendations. He acknowledged Mr. Moodie’s explanations. However, he was concerned with the impact this would have on volunteerism within the communities. He discussed the number of volunteers who had participated in the project and the extent of their work and he maintained that the communities had engaged in this process because they believed they would see some real change; that their report would pass through the various Committees and ultimately go to Council where it would be endorsed and it would become a planning tool for the City. Because this project had cost, in money and in sweat equity, he felt it deserved to be treated with respect, to move forward, and not to become a document that sits on a shelf and gathers dust. He concluded that those volunteers who participated in the development of the RPP needed some assurance that this would become an active document. Mr. Norenius believed the concerns over private property had been blown out of proportion. He maintained the full report talked about private property and the fact that, when planning documents are drafted, they are intended to look ahead 20 years or more. He argued such documents would show lines on land not currently owned by the City but that, as development came forward, those pathways and linkages would hopefully be included as part of the development. While he acknowledged the need to respect private property, he stressed that the RPP needed to lay out, in broad strokes, the potential for future pathways and linkages.

Chair Jellett believed Councillor Thompson’s motion would satisfy the delegation, however he asked Mr. Norenius to comment on the notion of leaving in the words “either remove or”. The speaker indicated he had some concerns about removing potential future pathways and submitted that the problem could be addressed by adding an addendum or an asterisk to the maps to identify private properties and to clarify that there were no demands or requirements placed on them at this time. He felt that would allow the RPP to go forward as a complete planning document that gives a broad strokes picture of what the rural areas’ linkages could look like.

Chair Jellett referenced a case in his ward where, after the RPP report was made public on the MCA website, a property owner contacted him to say that a path was shown as going across her land and people were already using it. He noted that in this case, the “future” path was at the top of an escarpment where there was a 50-foot drop. The property owner contacted her insurance company and was told that, should someone get hurt, she would be liable. Therefore, the referenced property owner did not want any pathways shown across her property. Although Mr. Norenius understood that position, he wondered how it could be balanced with the over-all greater good. He submitted that in any planning exercise, there would be anomalies. However, he maintained the importance of the concept.

Mr. G. Jette, Carleton Landowners’ Association, outlined his organization’s concerns with respect to the RPP. He noted that the publicly available RPP provided suggested routes on private lands. However, he wondered what sensitivity had been shown to private lands when the document showed pathways on private lands without apparent prior consultation with the affected landowners. He maintained that no publication, proposed or otherwise, should take place without the prior consent of the affected landowners. He referenced the staff report, which suggested that there would be improved tourism opportunities as a result of the proposed pathways. However, he reminded Committee of the recently approved Constance Bay Community Design Plan, which stated that the community was not a tourist destination. He argued, if a Council-approved community design plan could not make the City understand the things it wanted to protect, what chance would a landowner have with respect to the use of his or her land. Mr. Jette talked about some of the concerns landowners have with respect to public use of their lands and he urged Committee to remove proposed routes across private lands from any further publication.

Mr. B. Tupper, Vice-Chair of the Rural Issues Advisory Committee, believed the RIAC would be pleased if Councillor Thompson’s motion passed. He expressed his disappointment when he read the report recommendation to “receive” the report. He noted that the RIAC had endorsed the RPP and he hoped that Standing Committee and Council would do the same. He indicated the RIAC felt it important that any pathway that came into being would be community-drive and would not go forward without the endorsement of the local community. Although Mr. Tupper felt it was imperative that the RPP have a planning and administrative home within the City’s administration, he suggested it was interesting that the Rural Affairs Office had volunteered to become the headquarters to this project. He thought Parks and Recreation would have been the natural home for it. In closing, he endorsed all the previous comments made with respect to public property, community consultation and the need to move forward and he reminded Committee of the Rideau Trail, which was a good example that the public could use a trail and have respect for its ownership.

Responding to a question from Chair Jellett, Mr. Tupper agreed that, if a private landowner absolutely did not want a map showing a trail across his or her property, they should have the right to ask that the path be removed from publications.

Chair Jellett requested a friendly amendment to Councillor Thompson’s motion to keep the words “either remove or” in the report recommendations. Councillor Thompson indicated he did not view that as a friendly amendment. Although he appreciated the comments made about property rights, he felt it was important that the link not be removed. He believed the remainder of recommendation 2, coupled with the recommendation he proposed to add, would address concerns with respect to private property rights. He did not believe that removing the words “either remove or” from recommendation 2 would denigrate landowners’ rights.

Chair Jellett acknowledged Councillor Thompson’s arguments, however he did not agree. He maintained that landowners should have the right to say no. He felt the problem related to how private properties would be clearly identified and whether or not users would read the document thoroughly to know and understand that the pathways were on private property and only intended for potential future use. He indicated he would propose a motion to add the words “either remove or” back into recommendation 2.

Councillor Chiarelli indicated he would move the motion on Chair Jellett’s behalf.

Moved by Councillor R. Chiarelli

That Councillor Thompson’s motion be amended by adding the words “either remove or” as outlined in recommendation 2 of the staff report.

LOST

YEAS (1): R. Jellett

NAYS (2): R. Chiarelli, D. Thompson

The Committee proceeded to a vote on Councillor Thompson’s motion.

Moved by Councillor D. Thompson

That recommendation 1 be amended by replacing the word “receive” with the word “endorse”;

That recommendation 2 be amended by removing the words “either remove or”; and

That a third recommendation be added as follows:

Direct the Rural Affairs Office to develop a strategy that would:

a) Be community driven;

b) Respect private property; and

c) Provide next steps for rural pathways development.

CARRIED

The Committee then voted on the item as amended.

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:

1. Endorse the Rural Pathways Plan, as a community initiative, for information purposes to be used by staff as a planning tool in the development of multi-use pathways in the rural area of Ottawa;

2. Ensure that further printing of the report and the enclosed maps clearly identify that proposed routes on private land are schematic and subject to consultation and agreement with the private landowners; and

3. Direct the Rural Affairs Office to develop a strategy that would:

a) Be community driven;

b) Respect private property; and

c) Provide next steps for rural pathways development.

CARRIED as amended

PLANNING & GROWTH MANAGEMENT

URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND STRATEGIC PROJECTS

DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE ET PROJETS STRATÉGIQUES

2. completing broadband coverage in rural ottawa

achèvement du réseau À large bande dans le secteur rural d’ottawa

ACS2006-PGM-ECO-0018

Mr. C. Cope, Communication Technology Consultant, provided a presentation in which he reviewed the City’s broadband strategy, discussed the current status of broadband coverage, and outlined the current proposal to complete broadband coverage in rural Ottawa. A copy of his presentation is held on file.

Responding to a series of questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Cope confirmed that with only the tower scheme previously considered, even with the proposed towers, there still would be gaps in service areas. Although the proposal would certainly improve coverage (from the current 60% to approximately 85%), there would remain approximately 15% of the area. He indicated there currently was not a co-location agreement for service providers. He indicated it could be a provision of the RFP, that the successful vendor would have to agree to accept other vendors on its towers so that ultimately, there could be fewer towers. However, he submitted that although the City could put strong language into the RFP in that regard, at the end of the day, the approval for tower sites rested with Industry Canada. He suggested using the report prepared by Morrison Hershfield as a guideline and advised that staff would be including as many of those guidelines as possible into the RFP. He assured Committee that the City did not intend to change the way it deals with current providers, including small providers where the City does everything it can to facilitate their growth.

Chair Jellett requested clarification on the requested funding for this initiative. Mr. Cope confirmed this did not represent a budget pressure. He explained that $300,000 would come from existing rural money allocated and $700,000 would come from an existing road restoration budget.

In response to a further question from Chair Jellett, Mr. Cope indicated he hoped to have the RFP out within a few weeks of Council approving the report with vendors responding approximately 4 weeks hence. Therefore, he hoped to have a vendor identified before the end of the year.

Ms. K. Black posed questions with respect to the RFP process and the current coverage map. In response, Mr. Cope explained the intent of the RFP will be to find a private sector partner to partner with the City to contribute capital funding to provide the infrastructure for broadband coverage to all remaining rural gaps. The RFP will be prepared by City staff, with the assistance of consultants, and will be issued by the City through its procurement department. The City’s procurement process is available for viewing on the City’s website. Mr. Cope indicated he could e-mail the speaker a copy of the most up to date coverage map.

Following this brief discussion, the Committee voted on the report recommendations.

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve the proposed public-private partnership framework to complete broadband coverage in rural Ottawa, as outlined in this report;

2. Authorize staff to initiate the procurement process to complete rural broadband coverage;

3. Authorize a funding contribution of up to $1,000,000 for this initiative; and

4. Receive Morrison Hershfield's report entitled "TOWER FORECAST & DEPLOYMENT PLAN" and instruct staff to incorporate the principles contained therein related to communication tower management and avoidance of tower proliferation.

CARRIED

PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS

APPROBATION DES DEMANDES D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE

3. SITE PLAN CONTROL – 906 QUIGLEY HILL ROAD

PLAN D’IMPLANTATION – 906 CHEMIN QUIGLEY HILL

ACS2006-PGM-APR-0204

Pursuant to his declaration of a conflict, Chair Jellett did not participate in discussions on this item.

Councillor Thompson took the Chair. He noted that staff had prepared a replacement motion and he invited questions and comments from Committee members. Councillor Chiarelli indicated he would move the replacement motion drafted by staff.

A written submission was received from Mr. T. Leesnurm and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Moved by Councillor R. Chiarelli

That Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee approve the Site Plan Control application for 906 Quigley Hill Road as shown on the following plans:

1. Site Plan, A0.1 prepared by Barry Padolsky Associates Inc., Architects, dated April 28, 2006, revised August 29, 2006 (Rev.7) and received by the City on September 13, 2006.

2. Cart Storage Site Plan, A0.2 prepared by Barry Padolsky Associates Inc., Architects, dated April 28, 2006, revised August 29, 2006 (Rev.7) and received by the City on September 13, 2006.

3. Site Servicing and Grading Overall Plan, C1.2 prepared by Trow Associates Inc., dated April 2006, revised August 29, 2006 (Rev.5) and received by the City on September 7, 2006.

4. Site Servicing and Grading, C2.2 prepared by Trow Associates Inc., dated April 2006, revised August 29, 2006 (Rev.7) and received by the City on September 7, 2006.

And subject to the conditions as contained in Document 6.

CARRIED as amended

public Works and Services and

planning and growth management

Services et Travaux publicS et

urbanisme et gestion de la croissance

Traffic and Parking Operations (PWS)

Circulation de stationnement (STP)

4. transportation inpact assessment guidelines

lignes directrices de l’evaluation de l’impact sur les transportS

ACS2006-PWS-TRF-0021

The following staff appeared before Committee: Mr. M. Flainek, Director of Traffic and Parking Operations, Mr. M. Wildman, Manager of Infrastructure Approvals, and Mr. G. Kent, Program Manager, Design Review and Implementation.

Mr. Flainek introduced the item, noting the report was a joint effort undertaken by Public Works and Services and Planning and Growth Management. He outlined the report’s objectives (to update the guidelines for traffic impact assessment study requirements relative to new development) and advised that the development community had participated in the preparation of the report. He indicated this report dealt with many of the concerns expressed by the public as well as by the development community.

Responding to questions from Councillor Thompson, Mr. Flainek confirmed that these guidelines would apply to new roads created as a result of new development as well as existing roads impacted by development. He explained that the guidelines do not differentiate between urban versus rural. They refer to traffic impacts felt as a result of new development.

In response to a question from Chair Jellett, he confirmed that the triggers were not so low as to trigger a traffic impact study if someone wanted to build 3 or 4 houses in a row. He noted that approximately 20 to 35 traffic impact studies were undertaken annually and in the past 2½ years, 4 of them were in rural areas.

Mr. G. Kent, Planner, provided a presentation in which he discussed the purpose of the traffic impact assessment (TIA) guidelines, he reviewed the process followed in preparing the current report, and he provided an overview of the proposed guidelines. A copy of his presentation is held on file.

Chair Jellett referenced the second report recommendation and inquired as to the definition of “minor”. He wondered if peak hour trips would be considered minor. Mr. Flainek confirmed that peak hour trips would not be considered minor. He submitted that if staff were to raise the peak hour trips, the public would object because there would be a perception that the development community was getting away with nothing to do reviews. On the other hand, if staff were to lower the peak hour trips, the development community would protest. Therefore, he viewed peak hour trips as significant and assured Committee that a change of that nature would require Council approval.

Following this brief discussion, the Committee voted on the report recommendations.

That the Transportation Committee, the Planning and Environment Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:

1. Adopt the attached 2006 Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines (Document 3); and

2. Approve the delegation of authority to the Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Service to modify the guidelines for minor or administrative matters as required.

CARRIED

INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED

INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT

A. vOLUNTEER firefighter management program UPDATE

PROGRAMME DE GESTION DES POMPIERS BÉNÉVOLES – MISE À JOUR

ACS2006-CPS-OFS-0005

RECEIVED

«OPEN MIKE» SESSION

TRIBUNE LIBRE

ROADWAY DESIGN – DITCH DEPTH

Mr. R. Eastman raised a matter with respect to rural roadway design. He submitted that the City used to build roads with nicely sloped ditches, which farmers could maintain whereas now, the City was building roads with deep ditches that were much more difficult to maintain. He felt this was resulting in problems with weeds and brush along roadways.

Councillor Thompson acknowledged the problem and indicated he would look into it.

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

Original signed by Original signed by

D. Blais R. Jellett

Committee Coordinator Chair

Centre du service à la clientèle de Metcalfe

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

TRIBUNE LIBRE

ROADWAY DESIGN – DITCH DEPTH