1. A STRATEGY TO RECOGNIZE AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT RECREATIONAL ACCESS FUNCTION OF SELECTED ROAD ALLOWANCES ON THE OTTAWA AND RIDEAU RIVERS

STRATÉGIE VISANT À RECONNAÎTRE ET À PROTÉGER L’UTILISATION DE CERTAINES EMPRISES ROUTIÈRES EN TANT QUE POINTS D’ACCÈS RIVERAINS PUBLICS POUR DES ACTIVITÉS RÉCRÉATIVES SUR LES RIVIÈRES RIDEAU ET DES OUTAOUAIS

HEALTH, RECREATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council approve:

1. The strategy (as included in Appendix A) to recognize and protect the public waterfront recreational access function of selected road allowances on the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers;

2. The development of a Waterfront Access Point sub-zoning to recognize the distinct characteristics of municipal waterfront access points; and

3. The implementation of the road allowance conversion and zoning process for the first priority road allowances (as identified in Appendix B) where there is significant community support to proceed.

AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

That Council approve:

1. The strategy (as included in Appendix A) to recognize and protect the public waterfront recreational access function of selected road allowances on the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers;

2. The development of a Waterfront Access Point sub-zoning to recognize the distinct characteristics of municipal waterfront access points;

3. The implementation of the road allowance conversion and zoning process for the first priority road allowances (as identified in Appendix B) where there is significant community support to proceed; and

4. WHEREAS the Rural Issues Advisory Committee has heard concerns, as part of its consultation with staff around the development of this report, from residents of West Carleton and formerly expressed concerns that the City will be proceeding with the rezoning of road allowances with river access in West Carleton;

AND WHEREAS the implementation of the Village Plan for Constance Bay is not complete and a significant number of road allowances with river access in West Carleton are in Constance Bay;

AND WHEREAS residents of Constance Bay, with the assistance of their Councillor, have formed a Constance Bay Beach Committee to further examine the issue;

AND WHEREAS the staff report does not include any proposed conversion in West Carleton and the report clearly indicates that “no work on the conversion of these properties will be undertaken until a consensus has been achieved by the residents of the Ward on how to best recognize and protect these properties”;

AND WHEREAS Committee and Council must consider each request for rezoning of a road allowance individually in accordance with the Ontario Planning Act;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend to Council that the report be amended to include a fourth recommendation as follows:

That City staff support the work of the Constance Bay Beach committee and, as staff will be bringing forward reports in the future related to consideration by Committee and Council of the conversion of additional road allowances with river access, that no road allowances in West Carleton be considered for conversion until requested by the Councillor for that Ward.

RecommandationS du comitÉ DE LA SANTÉ, DES LOISIRS ET DES SERVICES SOCIAUX

Que le Conseil municipal approuve :

1. La stratégie (jointe à l’annexe A) visant à reconnaître et à protéger l’utilisation de certaines emprises routières en tant que points d’accès riverains publics pour des activités récréatives sur les rivières Rideau et des Outaouais;

2. L’établissement d’une sous-zone « point d’accès au secteur riverain » visant à reconnaître les caractéristiques distinctes des points d’accès au secteur riverain municipal; et

3. La mise en œuvre du processus de conversion et de zonage des emprises routières pour ce qui concerne les emprises routières de première priorité (définies à l’annexe B) lorsque ce processus bénéficie d’un appui important de la part de la collectivité.

RecommandationS modifiÉes du comitÉ DE L’AGRICULTURE ET DES QUESTIONS RURALES

Que le Conseil municipal approuve :

2. L’établissement d’une sous-zone « point d’accès au secteur riverain » visant à reconnaître les caractéristiques distinctes des points d’accès au secteur riverain municipal;

4. ATTENDU QUE le Comité consultatif sur les questions rurales a eu connaissance, lors de sa consultation menée auprès du personnel pour l’élaboration du présent rapport, de préoccupations exprimées par les résidents de West Carleton et d’anciennes préoccupations liées au fait que la Ville attribuera un nouveau zonage aux emprises donnant accès à la rivière à West Carleton;

ATTENDU QUE la mise en œuvre du plan du village de Constance Bay n’est pas terminée et qu’un nombre important d’emprises donnant accès à la rivière à West Carleton se trouvent à Constance Bay;

ATTENDU QUE les résidents de Constance Bay, avec l’aide de leur conseiller, ont créé le Comité de la plage de Constance Bay, chargé d’examiner plus en détail cette question;

ATTENDU QUE le rapport du personnel ne contient aucune proposition de transformation à West Carleton et que ce rapport indique clairement qu’ « aucuns travaux de transformation de ces propriétés ne seront entrepris avant qu’un consensus ne soit passé chez les résidents du quartier quant à la façon de reconnaître et de protéger le mieux possible ces propriétés »;

ATTENDU QUE le Comité et le Conseil doivent examiner individuellement chaque demande d’attribution de nouveau zonage d’une emprise, conformément à la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire de l’Ontario;

PAR CONSÉQUENT, IL EST RÉSOLU QUE le Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales recommande au Conseil de faire modifier le rapport de manière à ce qu’il contienne la quatrième recommandation suivante :

Que le personnel de la Ville soutienne le travail du Comité de la plage de Constance Bay et, lorsque le personnel présentera des rapports portant sur l’examen par le Comité et le Conseil de la transformation d’autres emprises donnant accès à la rivière, qu’aucune transformation d’emprise de West Carleton ne soit examinée sans que le conseiller du quartier en ait fait la demande.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager, Community and Protective Services report dated 14 September 2006 (ACS2006-CPS-PAR-0011).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes 40, Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee meeting of September 21, 2006.

3. Extract of Draft Minutes 33, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meeting of September 28, 2006.

Report to/Rapport au:

Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee

Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux

and / et

Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee

Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales

and Council / et au Conseil

14 September 2006 / le 14 septembre 2006

Submitted by/Soumis par : Steve Kanellakos,

Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint,

Community and Protective Services/Services communautaires et de protection

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Aaron Burry, Director

Parks and Recreation/Parcs et Loisir

(613) 580-2424 x, Aaron.burry@ottawa.ca

Contact Person/Personne ressource :

(613) 580-2424 x 23666,

City-Wide/ Portée générale

Ref N°: ACS2006-CPS-PAR-0011

SUBJECT:	A STRATEGY TO RECOGNIZE AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT RECREATIONAL ACCESS FUNCTION OF SELECTED ROAD ALLOWANCES ON THE OTTAWA AND RIDEAU RIVERS

OBJET :	STRATÉGIE VISANT À RECONNAÎTRE ET À PROTÉGER l’utilisation de certaines emprises routières en tant que points d’accès riverains publics pour des activités récréatives sur les rivières rideau et des outaouais

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve:

1. The strategy (as included in Appendix A) to recognize and protect the public waterfront recreational access function of selected road allowances on the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers.

2. The development of a Waterfront Access Point sub-zoning to recognize the distinct characteristics of municipal waterfront access points.

3. The implementation of the road allowance conversion and zoning process for the first priority road allowances (as identified in Appendix B) where there is significant community support to proceed.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux et le Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales recommandent au Conseil d’approuver :

2. L’établissement d’une sous-zone « point d’accès au secteur riverain » visant à reconnaître les caractéristiques distinctes des points d’accès au secteur riverain municipal.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Public access to the shorelines of the Ottawa and Rideau rivers is an important contributor to the quality of life for City of Ottawa residents. This has been recognized in the City’s Official Plan where it states “The City will ensure that the shoreline of the Ottawa River, Rideau River and Canal, and other shorelines remain accessible…” and recommends that “the City, will use such measures as public acquisition, conservation easements or other appropriate means to secure public access to the shorelines”. Shoreline property is a finite resource and the opportunities to acquire it for public uses are limited. This report presents an opportunity to recognize and protect sixty existing public access opportunities on the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers for minimal expense and effort.

In 2005, the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers Waterfront Recreation Access Study inventoried 326 publicly accessible waterfront properties on the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers. One hundred and ninety-two (192) of these properties are road allowances or rights-of-way providing either existing or potential public access to the rivers. Through the application of defined criteria it was determined that 60 of these allowances offer significant existing or potential public access opportunities.

Over time it has been shown that some of these properties acquire functions that are incompatible with public use including private laneways, residential parking areas, storage areas or other forms of encroachment. Historically, some allowances have also been closed and sold to adjacent property owners resulting in the permanent loss of public access to the shoreline.

RÉSUMÉ

L’accès public aux rives des rivières Rideau et des Outaouais contribue grandement à la qualité de vie des résidents d’Ottawa, ce que reconnaît le Plan officiel de la Ville lorsqu’il mentionne que « [l]a Ville s’assurera que les berges de la rivière des Outaouais, de la rivière et du canal Rideau ainsi que les autres berges demeurent accessibles […] » et recommande que « la Ville [ prenne ] d’autres mesures, comme l’acquisition, la création d’une servitude de conservation, l’adoption de mesures pertinentes pour assurer l’accès public aux berges ». Les rives sont une ressource finie et les possibilités d’en acquérir pour que le public les utilise sont peu nombreuses. Ce rapport présente une occasion de reconnaître et de protéger, à peu de frais et sans beaucoup d’effort, soixante possibilités d’accès public existant sur les rivières Rideau et des Outaouais.

En 2005, l’étude sur l’accès aux installations récréatives riveraines sur les rivières Rideau et des Outaouais a recensé 326 propriétés riveraines où le public peut accéder aux rivières Rideau et des Outaouais. Cent quatre-vingt-douze (192) de ces propriétés sont des emprises routières ou des droits de passage qui donnent, ou pourraient donner, au public accès à ces rivières. Des critères ont été définis, dont l’application a permis d’établir que 60 de ces emprises offrent au public une possibilité, réelle ou éventuelle, importante d’accéder aux rives.

Les emprises routières fournissent en général un accès officieux pour des activités récréatives telles que la pêche, le canotage et la baignade, et offrent un minimum de commodités. À l’heure actuelle cependant, les emprises sont classées parmi les routes et leur fonction récréative n’est pas officiellement reconnue.

Le passage du temps a montré que certaines de ces propriétés acquièrent des fonctions incompatibles avec l’utilisation par le public, lorsqu’elles deviennent, par exemple, des allées privées, des zones de stationnement résidentiel, des aires d’entreposage ou d’autres formes d’empiètement. Par le passé, certaines emprises ont également été fermées et vendues à des propriétaires fonciers avoisinants, si bien que le public a perdu en permanence des accès aux berges.

Pour reconnaître et protéger la fonction récréative de la portion riveraine des emprises routières choisies, Parcs et loisirs propose de modifier la désignation de ces propriétés, à l’heure actuelle considérées comme des routes, et de les zoner « espaces ouverts », comme l’explique le présent rapport.

BACKGROUND

In 2005, the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers Waterfront Recreation Access Study inventoried three hundred and twenty-six (326) publicly accessible waterfront properties on the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers. These included municipal, provincial and federal parks, conservation lands and undeveloped properties as well as privately operated facilities (e.g. Marinas) offering public access. One hundred and ninety-two (192) of these properties are road allowances or rights-of-way (from 2 metres to 20 metres wide) providing either existing or potential public access to the rivers. Through the application of defined criteria (see Table 1 in Section 2.0 in Appendix A) it was established that there are sixty (60) of these allowances that offer significant (existing or potential) public access opportunities. Forty (40) of the allowances are located on the Ottawa River with the remaining twenty (20) on the Rideau River (see the map on page 4 for locations of selected allowances).

The road allowances generally provide informal access for recreational activities such as fishing, canoeing and swimming and offer a minimum of amenities. At the present time however, the allowances are classified as roads and their recreational function is not formally recognized. Over time it has been shown that some of these properties acquire functions that are incompatible with public use including use as private laneways or parking areas for adjacent residences, the storage of materials, or other forms of encroachment. Historically, some allowances have also been closed and sold to adjacent property owners resulting in the permanent loss of public access to the shoreline.

Potential public access point with encroachments

Established community access point

ANALYSIS

As a means of both recognizing and protecting the recreational function of the waterfront portion of the selected road allowances, Parks and Recreation is proposing to convert the existing road allowance designation of these properties to an "Open Space" zoning. This is a two-step process with specific legal requirements (defined under the Provincial Planning Act) including public notification and approval by Council for each step. Parks and Recreation is also recommending that a waterfront access point sub-zoning be established (in consultation with the affected communities) to define permitted uses, setbacks and other measures to support the public access function. The benefits of these actions would be a shift in orientation for these properties from a transportation role to a public access role. Once this process is concluded, the properties would be designated and managed as public waterfront access points with a level of service to be determined in partnership with the communities where they are located. For most of the sites, the intention will be to provide basic public access with limited or no amenities. While it is not anticipated that, for the vast majority of the properties, there would be a significant change in how they are presently being used by the public, it would recognize public access as the primary function and help to ensure that where public access is presently being denied, that the properties are made accessible.

Parks and Recreation recognizes that full implementation of the proposed strategy is a long term objective, thus the Branch is proposing a "phased" approach to its implementation.

The first step, following Council's approval of the strategy to recognize and protect the access of selected road allowances, will be for Planning and Growth Management to create a Waterfront Access Point sub-zoning of the Open Space zoning.

The second step is the conversion of the existing road allowance designation to the Waterfront Access Point sub-zoning of the Open Space zone for the selected sixty road allowances. As a means of facilitating this action, the allowances have been classified into three priorities for implementation. This report recommends the implementation of the road allowance conversion and zoning process for the first priority sites only. Parks and Recreation will only seek Council approval for priority 2 sites if there is a consensus to move forward with the conversion process in West Carleton Ward. Priority 3 road allowances require the resolution of ownership or encroachment issues before approval is to be sought.

Priority 1:

The conversion of twenty-three (23) road allowances on the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers (listed in Appendix B) for which there is an established public access function and where public consultation has shown that there is general support for the re-zoning within the community.

Priority 2:

The possible conversion and zoning of thirty-one (31) allowances in West Carleton Ward, of which the majority have an established public access function but where consensus on how best to recognize this function has not been achieved in the affected communities. No work on the conversion of these properties will be undertaken until a consensus has been achieved by the residents of the Ward on how to best recognize and protect these properties.

Priority 3:

The conversion of six (6) road allowances (listed in Appendix C) with a potential public access function that requires a resolution of issues such as encroachments and possibly further analysis to determine their future public access role.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

Fifty-one of the sixty selected allowances are located in the rural area of which 15 are recommended for conversion in this report (identified as Priority 1 in Appendix B). The primary beneficiaries of this strategy would be rural residents for whom public access to the Rideau and Ottawa Rivers would be recognized and protected.

CONSULTATION

Three public consultations were held to present the proposed strategy and to receive comments.

November 21, 2005: Crystal Bay Community Centre. Thirty members of the community and Councillor Alex Cullen participated.

January 18, 2006: Manotick Public School Gymnasium. Thirty-five members of the community and Councillor Glenn Brooks participated.

January 19, 2006: Kinburn Client Service Centre. Eighty-six members of the community and Councillor Eli El-Chantiry participated.

Summaries of the public comments are provided in Appendix A.

Planning and Growth Management and Corporate Services (Legal Services Branch) were both consulted in the development of this strategy.

The conversion of the road allowance designation to an Open Space zoning requires both public notification and consideration of input from the public.

An Executive Summary of the Report to Committee was circulated to four City of Ottawa Advisory Committees and presentations were made and comments received from three of those Committees (Environmental Advisory Committtee, Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee, Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee and Rural Issues Advisory Committtee). Motions were prepared and submitted by the Environmental Advisory Committee and the Rural Issues Advisory Committes and are as follows:

Environmental Advisory Committee

The Environmental Advisory Committee supports a City Strategy to own, recognize, protect, and manage the 192-identified, publicly accessible waterfront properties for the dual purposes of

1. public access to waterways for defined recreational use

2. ecological protection of these river riparian areas on the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers.

EAC doesn't support the selling of these public lands to private owners, and if so, that there be full public review including input from EAC.

The EAC recommends that the proposed Strategy include the following components:

1. Stewardship Agreements - With each road allowance being designated "Open Space" rezoning that there be a collaborative "Stewardship Agreement" signed between the City and the local community-neighbouring landowners. This Agreement would commit parties to the protection and nature of recreation with shared operating roles and ongoing management of this public property. The Agreement can be re-opened by either party if future problems should arise.

2. Operating Budget - The City designate a small amount of funds for appropriate signage and management of properties, if required.

3. Defining a healthy balance between recreational use and protection of riparian area within property and water quality. For each River access, the City be responsible for establishing a balance between defined recreational use and the protection and enhancement of riparian area and water quality within the "Open Space" section of riverbank. The relevant Conservation Authority and Parks Canada (in case of Ottawa River) review and support of the "Stewardship Agreement", where this balance will be defined. This balance to address existence of riparian vegetation, 30 metre set-back for any buildings and parking areas, collection of garbage, washroom facilities, use of high speed motor boats, noise, nature of road access, etc.

4. Monitoring Reports - Three years following conversion, zoning of road allowances, and signing of "Stewardship Agreements", that City monitor and report on the accumulative impacts of riverbank uses on the health of that section of River watershed and in meeting recreational objectives. EAC would be interested in reviewing these riverbank monitoring reports.

Rural Issues Advisory Committee

BE IT RESOLVED that road allowances in West Carleton Ward be left in the community domain as they are now, and;

That rural road allowances be forwarded to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC), not the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee, and;

That the Rural Issues Advisory Committee (RIAC) refuse to endorse the presentation as submitted, and;

That the RIAC recommend to the ARAC that City staff be directed to permanently remove from its work plan, any effort whatsoever to change the status of waterfront access point abutting the Ottawa River in West Carleton Ward.

Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee

A presentation was made to the Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee and verbal comments were received. The Committee was supportive of the intentions of the report.

Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee

The Committee received the report without providing comment.

Presentation to Rideau Ward Council, North Gower Client Service Centre, July 30, 2006

While not a formal public advisory committee the Rideau Council provides public input to the councillor for Rideau Ward on issues and projects affecting this ward.

An Executive Summary of the Report to Committee was distributed in advance of the meeting and a formal presentation was made. The council supported the Strategy and recommended that it apply to all of the selected waterfront road allowances in Rideau Ward.

Presentation to Constance Bay Community Association, Contance Bay Community Centre, August 17, 2006

Staff were invited to the Constance Bay Community Association meeting to address a series of questions raised by the Association and to clarify the intent of the report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Planning and Growth Management will be responsible for the establishment of a Waterfront Access Point sub-zoning and for the road allowance conversion and zoning process.

An existing Parks and Recreation Capital Budget will be used to fund signage for re-zoned sites.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Appendix A: A Strategy To Recognize And Protect The Public Waterfront Recreational Access Function Of Selected Road Allowances On The Ottawa And Rideau Rivers

Appendix B: Priority 1 Ottawa and Rideau Rivers Road Allowances (Recommended for Conversion)

Appendix C: Priority 2 and 3 Ottawa and Rideau Rivers Road Allowances (for Future Consideration)

DISPOSITION

Community and Protective Services, Planning and Growth Management and Corporate Services are to implement the direction of the Committees and Council.

APPENDIX A

A Strategy to Recognize And Protect Public Waterfront Recreational Access for Selected Road Allowances on the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers

1.0 Introduction

Public access to waterfront is an important contributor to the quality of life of City of Ottawa residents. This has been recognized in the City’s Official Plan where it states “The City will ensure that the shoreline of the Ottawa River, Rideau River and Canal, and other shorelines remain accessible…” and recommends that “the City, will use such measures as public acquisition, conservation easements or other appropriate means to secure public access to the shorelines”.

There are many different facets to public waterfront access. Within the urban area of the City of Ottawa the City’s public beaches and waterfront parks and the National Capital Commission’s extensive network of public lands offer easy access to the shorelines of the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers and the Rideau Canal. On the edges or outside of the urban area however, there are other lower profile properties that offer important public waterfront access opportunities yet whose role is not formally recognized. Shoreline property is a finite resource and the opportunities to acquire it for public use are limited and when available, expensive. In 2005, the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers Waterfront Recreation Access Study prepared for City of Ottawa Parks and Recreation Department identified sixty waterfront road allowances that either already support public recreational access to the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers or could support access in future. This document outlines a strategy to recognize and safeguard the public recreational access role of these road allowances.

2.0 Context

The Ottawa and Rideau Rivers Waterfront Recreation Access Study (2005) inventoried three hundred and twenty-six (326) publicly accessible waterfront properties on the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers. One hundred and ninety-two (192) of these properties are road allowances or rights-of-way (from 2 metres to 20 metres wide) providing either existing or potential public access to the rivers. Through the application of the criteria listed in Table 1 it was established that there are sixty (60) allowances with a significant (existing or potential) recreational function.

Table 1

Criteria used to identify road allowances with a significant existing or potential recreational function

¨ Minimum width of 20 metres[1] and a maximum distance of 150 meters from the shoreline to an intersection with a public roadway

¨ Either a minimum of 400 square metres of the road allowance available for public access or the road allowance provides access to adjacent public waterfront property

¨ A shoreline that is amenable to waterfront recreational activities (boat launching, swimming, fishing etc.)

The following table gives a breakdown of the location of the sixty allowances:

Table 2

*River*	*Ward*	*Allowances with Rec. Potential*
Ottawa	West Carleton	31
Ottawa	Kanata	2
Ottawa	Bay	4
Ottawa	Orleans	1
Ottawa	Cumberland	2
Rideau	Capital	2
Rideau	Gloucester-Southgate	1
Rideau	Bell-South Nepean	1
Rideau	Osgoode	4
Rideau	Rideau	12
		Total: 60

Fourteen of the allowances are in the community of Constance Bay, four in the community of Crystal Bay and eight others are concentrated in an eight kilometre section of the Rideau River near Manotick. Maps showing the location of each of the allowances are provided in section 7.0.

3.0 Existing or Potential Function

In most instances the existing or potential function of the allowances is to provide informal access to the shoreline of the rivers for residents of the immediate neighbourhood. In a limited number of cases they service the needs of the larger community through the provision of a boat ramp or other basic services. Many of the allowances offer a gently sloping shoreline that allows the launching of small watercraft such as canoes or kayaks and in some instances boats on trailers. In certain locations the allowances provide an informal park function and are used for picnicking and swimming whereas, in other instances they provide access to publicly owned shoreline properties that are adjacent to the allowances.

The potential of these properties is limited by a number of factors. All of the selected allowances are 20 metres wide and the properties are generally quite small, ranging in size from less than 1000 square metres to a maximum of just over 5000 square metres with the majority being between 1000 and 2000 square metres. In many instances there are developed residential properties on both sides of the allowance and in certain locations the allowance is used to provide motorized vehicle access to these properties. There are generally no amenities other than the odd picnic table or garbage can and the City of Ottawa provides little or no maintenance. In some instances residents of the neighbourhood look after a site while at others the site is in a natural state and un-maintained. There are issues at certain sites including encroachments and problems with trash.

4.0 Issues

There are a number of issues associated with road allowances that provide public waterfront access:

¨ Road allowances that do not have a transportation function and which are not actively used by the public tend, over time, to acquire other functions, some of which are incompatible with public use (e.g. private laneway or parking, storage of materials, private docks)

¨ The recreational activity taking place on these sites is not legally recognized

¨ No modifications to the sites are legally permitted

¨ The public access potential of these properties is sometimes not being achieved due to a number of factors (e.g. lack of awareness that they are public property, private use, conflicts with neighbouring landowners)

¨ Over time unused allowances are vulnerable to being sold

¨ The City must justify ownership of an unused road allowance when a request to purchase is made

¨ The City has limited ability to manage certain activities on these properties (e.g. motorized vehicle use including snowmobiling and all-terrain vehicles)

¨ The majority of the sites are not regularly maintained and there are some where problems such as dumping occur

Residents and councillors have voiced a concern that, while these properties are often valued public resources, the community has little say in how the properties are managed by the City. The City with minimal public consultation can sell an allowance. Adjacent property owners can also apply to use the allowances as a means to access their property. Encroachments are not uncommon and the development or redevelopment of adjacent properties can diminish the recreational potential through the removal of vegetation and/or the construction of large homes whose impact extends right up to the edge of the property line.

In 2003, based on the concerns of residents in the Crystal Bay community, Bay Ward councillor Alex Cullen brought forward a motion:

That staff prepare a report for Committee on the re-designation of the road allowance accesses from Grandview Road and Nesbitt Street to the Ottawa River as parkland.

The intent of this motion was to establish a recreational vocation to replace the existing transportation role of the road allowances. The strategy being proposed in this document will address the intent of the motion brought forward by Councillor Cullen however, the issue has been examined in the larger context of the sixty road allowances (including those on Grandview Road and Nesbitt Street) on the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers that were identified in the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers Waterfront Recreation Access Study as having a significant (existing or potential) recreational function.

The goal of this strategy is to establish and implement a means to recognize the public waterfront access role of selected road allowances.

5.0 Methodology

The methodology employed to recognize the recreational function of road allowances that provide waterfront access is as follows:

1. Identify the road allowances that either provide public access to the Ottawa or Rideau Rivers for recreational activities or offer the potential to provide public access in the future;

2. Evaluate alternative means to recognize the recreational function of the selected properties and identify the most appropriate approach;

3. Validate the selection of the properties and the means by which they will be recognized through public consultation;

4. Seek approval of the strategy by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) and the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee (HRSS) and City Council;

5. Implement the strategy.

6.0 Review Process

The inventory of public waterfront properties that was completed as part of the Ottawa And Rideau Rivers Waterfront Recreation Access Study resulted in the identification of one hundred and ninety-two road (192) allowances and rights-of-way. An initial screening[2] of these properties documented approximately eighty (80) allowances with recreational potential. All of the sites were then visited in the fall of 2004 in order to validate the initial assessment and determine each site’s primary advantages and disadvantages. Ultimately, sixty road allowances were identified as having a significant existing or potential recreational function.

For each of these sites the following information was collected:

¨ A description of the human context including, the existing facilities and the use being made of them, neighbouring land uses, encroachments, proximity to other public waterfront access points;

¨ A description of the natural context including topography, vegetation, character of the shoreline, presence of unique natural features or habitats;

¨ A summary of the site’s advantages and constraints;

¨ An estimation of the potential of the site to support future activities including boating, swimming and fishing;

¨ Digital photos of the site’s features

Data sheets listing all of this information have been prepared for each of the sites and are available in a separate document. In addition, all of the sites were mapped using ArcView GIS and an associated database with assessed attributes for each site was created. The attributes included: large boat access, small boat access, parking capacity, beach potential, emergency access and conservation values.

7.0 Options For Recognizing The Public Waterfront Access Function of Selected Road Allowances

The objective of this strategy is to recognize and protect the recreational function of road allowances that provide public waterfront access. A road allowance is land that has been set aside either at the time of the initial land survey or during the land development process for transportation purposes. All of the road allowances identified in this strategy are public property owned by the City of Ottawa. Active road allowances are either “open” or “unopened” and the difference is generally reflected by the standard of construction and level of maintenance provided[3]. Road allowances cannot be zoned and, while they are often used to delimit a zoning designation, unless a zoning designation boundary exists, zoning flows over an allowance to the adjacent property.

There are essentially three designation options that could support the public waterfront access function: The first option is for these properties to remain as road allowances; the second is to close the road allowance[4] and re-zone the property (where required) as Open Space. The third option builds on option two with the creation of a Waterfront Access Point sub-zone of the Open Space zoning for the waterfront road allowances.

Option 1: Maintain the property as a road allowance

The advantages of leaving the properties as road allowances are:

Ø From a legal standpoint a road allowance is a solid land use definition that can easily be defended in court if there are issues of illegal access lanes or encroachments;

Ø The City can limit the creation of private laneways and private accesses on the portions of road allowances that provide waterfront access as long as there are alternative access routes to private properties;

Ø The City can allow the portion of the road allowance that is being used for recreation purposes to be operated as an informal public access point without the requirement to zone the land as such.

The limitations of the status quo are:

Ø A road allowance can be sold or re-zoned through a process that requires public notification and the approval of council;

Ø There is no formal recognition of the public recreation function of the property;

Ø The City has fewer options for managing public activities in unopened road allowances in comparison to land zoned as Open Space;

Ø At any time an application can be made to the City to purchase an un-opened road allowance and the City must consider this application triggering a process that involves an internal review of the application and notification of nearby property owners.

Option 2: Convert the waterfront portion of the selected road allowances to an Open Space zoning

The advantages of this option are:

Ø Provides a clear recognition of the public role of these properties and some protection of their function;

Ø Eliminates the possibility of the City granting permission for private vehicular access lanes to adjacent properties;

Ø Re-zoning would generally be required for the sale of the property, a public process requiring council approval.

Limitations of this option are:

Ø Unless the property is designated as a park the actual role of the property is not specifically defined within the Open Space zoning (could be a utility corridor, hazard land etc.)

Ø Public waterfront access function not specifically recognized

Option 3: Convert the waterfront portion of the selected road allowances to an Open Space zoning with a Waterfront Access Point sub-zoning

The advantages of this option are:

Ø Defines and recognizes the specific function of the property;

Ø Re-zoning would generally be required for the sale of the property, a public process requiring council approval;

Ø Offers the possibility of establishing permitted uses, setbacks and other measures to support the public access function.

Limitations of this option are:

Ø Would only recognize and protect the public access function of a limited number of waterfront road allowances.

The recommended strategy is Option 3 as it provides the clearest recognition of the public waterfront access function and offers the greatest protection of this activity while providing enough latitude to support the range of interests of the different communities.

8.0 Summary of Public Input

Three public consultations were held to present the options for the recognition of the public waterfront access function of the road allowances and to gather comments on the options and the specific road allowances identified.

Ottawa River Consultation, Crystal Bay November 21, 2005

This consultation focused primarily on the four allowances on Grandview Avenue and the one road allowance on Nesbitt Street. There was generally strong support for the need for protection of public access function of these road allowances. Some concerns expressed that the Open Space designation is too vague and open to interpretation. There was greater support for a sub-zoning designation with a clear definition of the function of the sites. Some concerns were expressed that the change in zoning could result in increased use of the road allowances and a loss of privacy for the adjacent landowner.

Rideau River Consultation January 18, 2006

The majority of the participants at this consultation were residents of the area along the Rideau River between Manotick and Kars. Most were supportive of the re-zoning proposal although, similar to the residents of Crystal Bay, some expressed concerns about the vagueness of the Open Space zoning and preferred the Waterfront Access Point sub-zoning proposal. There were numerous questions about specific road allowances, particularly those with encroachment issues.

Ottawa River Consultation, West Carleton Ward January 19, 2006

The consultation in West Carleton was quite different from the previous two. From a number of the participants there was a negative, almost hostile reaction to the proposals. Some of the arguments against the proposals were that the status quo works fine, a concern that that the re-zoning would increase the visibility of the sites and invite use by people who live outside of the community and, that the proposals do not take into account the particular needs of the community. On the other hand there was support for the proposals from a number of the participants, particularly from residents who do not live on the water. There was no clear consensus on the best approach to preserving the public access points despite a general agreement that the road allowances play an important role in providing local community access to the Ottawa River and that there are numerous management issues related to their existence.

City of Ottawa Advisory Committees

Pedestrian and Transit Committee, City Hall, June 15, 2006

An Executive Summary of the Report to Committee was received without a presentation and no comments or motions were provided

Environmental Advisory Committee, City Hall, July 13, 2006

An Executive Summary of the Report to Committee was distributed in advance of the meeting and a formal presentation was made. The Committee supported the Strategy and offered four motions to guide the management of the waterfront access points. These motions emphasized the use of stewardship agreements between the City and the local community group managing the access point, the designation of an operating budget to manage the properties, defining a healthy balance between public use and protection of the riparian area, and the preparation of monitoring reports to measure the benefits and impacts of the public activity.

Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee, City Hall, July 17, 2006

An Executive Summary of the Report to Committee was distributed in advance of the meeting and a formal presentation was made. Question and comments were received from the Committee but no formal motions were offered.

Rural Issues Advisory Committee, Kinburn Community Centre, July 18, 2006

An Executive Summary of the Report to Committee was distributed in advance of the meeting and a formal presentation was made. A contingent of West Carleton residents also attended the meeting and provided their input along with members of the Committee. The Committee refused to endorse the presentation and recommended that the road allowances in West Carleton be left in the public domain and that the City not consider changing the status of any road allowances in West Carleton.

Presentation to Rideau Ward Council, North Gower Client Service Centre, July 30, 2006

While not a formal public advisory committee the Rideau Council provides public input to the councillor for Rideau Ward on issues and projects affecting this ward.

Presentation to Constance Bay Community Association, Constance Bay Community Centre, August 17, 2006

While not a formal public advisory committee the Constance Bay Community Association provides public input to the councillor for West Carleton Ward on issues and projects affecting this ward.

Staff clarified the intent of the report and addressed specific questions by the Association.

9.0 Recommendations

Upon completion of the public consultations it was recognized that while in the longer term there would be merit in re-zoning all of the sixty road allowances identified, in the shorter term a strategic approach based on a phased implementation of the re-zoning would be most effective. Re-examining the selected allowances resulted in the identification of three stages of implementation.

The first stage is the conversion and zoning of twenty-three (23) road allowances on the Ottawa and Rideau River for which there is an established public access function and general support for zoning within the affected communities.

The second stage is the possible conversion and zoning of thirty-one (31) allowances in West Carleton Ward of which the majority have an established public access function but where consensus on how best to recognize this function has not been achieved in the affected communities. No work on the conversion of these properties will be undertaken until a consensus has been achieved by the residents of the Ward as how to best recognize and protect these properties

The third stage is the conversion and zoning of the six (6) road allowances that offer a potential public access function but which require a resolution of issues and possibly further analysis to determine their future public access role.

9.1 Process

It is proposed that for the closure and re-zoning of the road allowances the City follow a three-step process.

Ø The first step is to establish the parameters for the proposed Waterfront Access Point sub-zoning in consultation with Planning and Growth Management and the affected communities.

Ø The second step would be to convert the sections of the selected road allowances that have been identified as providing a public waterfront access (based on the direction provided in Section 9.0).

Ø The third step would be to zone the converted portion of the allowances with Waterfront Access Point sub-zoning. The second and third steps require a specific legal process that includes public notification and approval by City Council.

The table on the next page summarizes the status of the sixty road allowances examined in this report.

Table 4: Ottawa River Road Allowances: Summary Table and Location Maps

*Site ID*	*Ward*	*Access Road*	*Area in square metres*	*Open or Unopened/Closed Allowance*	*Existing or Potential Use*	Stage of Implemen-tation	*Defining Elements*
219	West Carleton	MacHardy	1200	Open	Neighbourhood	3	Forested, no paths or laneways
317	West Carleton	Creek	1360	Unopened	Community	2	Steeply sloped forested property in Fitzroy Harbour, 30 m. wide
19	West Carleton	Crossland	680	Unopened	Community	2	Gravel road way used as public access, boat launch ramp
20	West Carleton	Willola	1800	Open	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, wetland vegetation, mucky shoreline not easily accessed
21	West Carleton	Moorhead	870	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, grass with trees lining the property, maintained by residents, sand/muck shoreline with grasses
303	West Carleton	Moorhead	800	Open	Neighbourhood	2	Sand beach, partially wooded, local use
24	West Carleton	Laurentian	1120	Unopened	Community	2	Gravel roadway, boat ramp and standpipe for refilling water trucks
32	West Carleton	Dunrobin	1200	Open	Community	2	Sandy beach with a natural ramp, no facilities, gravel road
45	West Carleton	Opeongo	1500	Open	Neighbourhood	2	Forested, sloped, private dock
84	West Carleton	Bayview	923	Open	Community	2	Cement and gravel ramp and dock, standpipe for fire trucks, portable toilet
81	West Carleton	Bayview	1200	Open	Neighbourhood	2	Gravel roadway, very gradual sandy beach, laneways on both sides
80	West Carleton	Bayview	920	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Forested with a sandy track, sand beach
79	West Carleton	Bayview	920	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Forested with a gravel laneway used to access house on the east side, sandy shoreline with grasses
76	West Carleton	Bayview	920	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, gravel roadway, sandy beach, a few dispersed trees
75	West Carleton	Bayview	2230	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, sandy track, mostly grass bordered by conifers, sand beach
72	West Carleton	Bayview	766	Unopened	Community	2	Flat, sandy track providing access to a community beach, portable toilet
70	West Carleton	Bayview	1556	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, sandy/gravel track, access to shoreline, laneways on both sides
68	West Carleton	Bayview	1944	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, forested with a grass understory, sand beach, no roadway
67	West Carleton	Bayview	1654	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, narrow laneway with mature forest, steep slope down to the shoreline
66	West Carleton	Bayview	690	Open	Community	2	Flat, access to the community beach, portable toilet and garbage can
65	West Carleton	Bayview	1530	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, gravel roadway, access lanes to adjacent homes, a few mature trees
61	West Carleton	Bayview	1480	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, gravel roadway, laneways to houses on both sides, sandy shoreline
87	West Carleton	Bayview	1226	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, forested with a sand/gravel track, laneway on one side, sand beach
183	West Carleton	Armitage	1218	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Forested natural, mature deciduous trees, no road or pathways, sand beach
90	West Carleton	Armitage	980	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Mature wetland forest, no public activities, sandy/muck shoreline with grasses
92	West Carleton	Armitage	1000	Open	Neighbourhood	2	Forested, mature trees, no roadway, lane to the south, sand/muck shoreline
328	West Carleton	Armitage	1655	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Laneway providing vehicular access to homes and to the shoreline
98	West Carleton	Rockforest	860	Open	Neighbourhood	2	Steeply sloping, grass and shrubs, no roadway, no public use
110	West Carleton	Baskins Beach	1800	Open	Neighbourhood	2	Gravel road, ditches on both sides, rocky shoreline, diverse scrubby vegetation
112	West Carleton	Barlow	2278	Closed	Conservation	2	Forested wetland with a creek, steep rocky slope leading down to a shingle beach, no public use
119	West Carleton	Thomas A. Dolan	960	Open	Community	2	Asphalt down to the shore, grass bordered by forest, memorial garden, sand beach
121	Kanata	Berry	1600	Open	Neighbourhood	2
122	Kanata	Riddell	5937	Unopened	Community	1	Road allowance part of a larger public property, Kanata Sailing club
205	Bay	Grandview	1000	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Pavement and gravel roadway, laneways on both sides, shallow gravel beach
207	Bay	Grandview	1939	Unopened	Neighbourhood	1	Partially paved roadway, laneways on both sides, muck shoreline
208	Bay	Grandview	1409	Unopened	Neighbourhood	1	Gravel roadway, bordered by vegetation on west side, rocky beach with muck
209	Bay	Grandview	940	Unopened	Neighbourhood	1	Sand/gravel laneway and beach, mature trees on east side, fairly steep slope
136	Orleans	Hiawatha	1430	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Closed asphalt boat ramp, open grassed areas on both sides
148	Cumberland	Quigley Hill	1067	Unopened	Community	1	Grass park land, located in a picnic area, road lay-by site
150	Cumberland	RR 174	939	Unopened	Conservation	1	Mature forest, no roadway, steep rocky shoreline

*Site ID*	*Ward*	*Access Road*	*Area in square metres*	*Open or Unopened/Closed Allowance*	*Existing or Potential Use*	Priority for Implementation	Defining Elements
318	Capital	Clegg	400	Open	Community	1	Grass and forest buffer between the end of Clegg and the Rideau
319	Capital	Brantwood	6675	Open	Community	1	Linear parkland parallels Rideau River, mature trees with grass
155	Gloucester Southgate	Balmoral	3457	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Grass bordered by trees, no roadway or lanes, natural shoreline
321	Bell-South Nepean	Winding Way	1363	Closed	Neighbourhood	3	Grass with some trees near the shoreline, no public use, stony shore on crown land
15	Rideau	Tighe	343	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Small section of the road allowance included in the inventory of city parks
310	Rideau	Hill	1000	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Grass bordered by hedges and trees, bench and stored boats, essentially a neighbourhood park
325	Rideau	Van Vliet	1060	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Grass bordered by trees, forested wetland on one side, good access to the shoreline
170	Osgoode	Rideau Forest	2288	Closed	Neighbourhood	3	Used as a driveway to an adjacent home, forested closer to the river, no public use
171	Rideau	Kelly-Marie	800	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Gravel laneway with deep ditches on both sides, muck/sand shoreline
172	Rideau	Southwick	350	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Asphalt ends 15 metres from the shoreline, grass, required access to home on the north side of the RA
173	Osgoode	River	2190	Open	Neighbourhood	3	Access to shoreline blocked, no public use
323	Rideau	Boucher	600	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Grass, blocked to vehicles, neighbourhood park
174	Rideau	Rideau Narrows	1039	Closed	Neighbourhood	1	Grass, blocked to vehicles, neighbourhood park, hedges on both sides, steps down to the shoreline
201	Rideau	Phelan	4499	Closed	Conservation	1	Mixture of grasses, forest and wetlands, no public activity
178	Osgoode	Summerside	980	Closed	Neighbourhood	1
324	Rideau	Clingin	841	Closed	Neighbourhood	1	Forested, stone dust trail leading to dock, neighbourhood park
179	Osgoode	Doyle	2333	Open	Neighbourhood	3	Site used and maintained by adjacent landowner, steep slope down to the shoreline, no public activity
10	Rideau	Greenline	720	Open	Community	1	Road allowance adjacent to Reeve Craig Park, boat ramp and parking
281	Rideau	Malakoff	600	Open	Community	1	Gravel roadway, direct access to shoreline, natural ramp
283	Rideau	Hebron	2000	Open	Neighbourhood	3	Gated laneway, pasture with a natural shoreline, no public activity

Table 5: Rideau River Road Allowances: Summary Table and Location Maps

Appendix B: Priority 1 Ottawa and Rideau River Road Allowances

Ottawa River Road Allowances
*Site ID*	*Ward*	*Access Road*	*Area in square metres*	*Open or Unopened/Closed Allowance*	*Existing or Potential Use*	Priority for Implementation	*Defining Elements*
122	Kanata	Riddell	5937	Unopened	Community	1	Road allowance part of a larger public property, Kanata Sailing club
205	Bay	Grandview	1000	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Pavement and gravel roadway, laneways on both sides, shallow gravel beach
207	Bay	Grandview	1939	Unopened	Neighbourhood	1	Partially paved roadway, laneways on both sides, muck shoreline
208	Bay	Grandview	1409	Unopened	Neighbourhood	1	Gravel roadway, bordered by vegetation on west side, rocky beach with muck
209	Bay	Grandview	940	Unopened	Neighbourhood	1	Sand/gravel laneway and beach, mature trees on east side, fairly steep slope
136	Orleans	Hiawatha	1430	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Closed asphalt boat ramp, open grassed areas on both sides
148	Cumberland	Quigley Hill	1067	Unopened	Community	1	Grass park land, located in a picnic area, road lay-by site
150	Cumberland	RR 174	939	Unopened	Conservation	1	Mature forest, no roadway, steep rocky shoreline
Rideau River Road Allowances
*Site ID*	*Ward*	*Access Road*	*Area in square metres*	*Open or Unopened/Closed Allowance*	*Existing or Potential Use*	Priority for Implementation	Defining Elements
318	Capital	Clegg	400	Open	Community	1	Grass and forest buffer between the end of Clegg and the Rideau
319	Capital	Brantwood	6675	Open	Community	1	Linear parkland parallels Rideau River, mature trees with grass
155	Gloucester Southgate	Balmoral	3457	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Grass bordered by trees, no roadway or lanes, natural shoreline
15	Rideau	Tighe	343	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Small section of the road allowance included in the inventory of city parks
310	Rideau	Hill	1000	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Grass bordered by hedges and trees, bench and stored boats, essentially a neighbourhood park
325	Rideau	Van Vliet	1060	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Grass bordered by trees, forested wetland on one side, good access to the shoreline
171	Rideau	Kelly-Marie	800	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Gravel laneway with deep ditches on both sides, muck/sand shoreline
172	Rideau	Southwick	350	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Asphalt ends 15 metres from the shoreline, grass, required access to home on the north side of the RA
323	Rideau	Boucher	600	Open	Neighbourhood	1	Grass, blocked to vehicles, neighbourhood park
174	Rideau	Rideau Narrows	1039	Closed	Neighbourhood	1	Grass, blocked to vehicles, neighbourhood park, hedges on both sides, steps down to the shoreline
201	Rideau	Phelan	4499	Closed	Conservation	1	Mixture of grasses, forest and wetlands, no public activity
178	Osgoode	Summerside	980	Closed	Neighbourhood	1
324	Rideau	Clingin	841	Closed	Neighbourhood	1	Forested, stone dust trail leading to dock, neighbourhood park
10	Rideau	Greenline	720	Open	Community	1	Road allowance adjacent to Reeve Craig Park, boat ramp and parking
281	Rideau	Malakoff	600	Open	Community	1	Gravel roadway, direct access to shoreline, natural ramp

Appendix C: Priority 2 and 3 Ottawa and Rideau Rivers Road Allowances

Ottawa River Road Allowances
*Site ID*	*Ward*	*Access Road*	*Area in square metres*	*Open or Unopened/Closed Allowance*	*Existing or Potential Use*	Priority for Implementation	*Defining Elements*
219	West Carleton	MacHardy	1200	Open	Neighbourhood	3	Forested, no paths or laneways
317	West Carleton	Creek	1360	Unopened	Community	2	Steeply sloped forested property in Fitzroy Harbour, 30 m. wide
19	West Carleton	Crossland	680	Unopened	Community	2	Gravel road way used as public access, boat launch ramp
20	West Carleton	Willola	1800	Open	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, wetland vegetation, mucky shoreline not easily accessed
21	West Carleton	Moorhead	870	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, grass with trees lining the property, maintained by residents, sand/muck shoreline with grasses
303	West Carleton	Moorhead	800	Open	Neighbourhood	2	Sand beach, partially wooded, local use
24	West Carleton	Laurentian	1120	Unopened	Community	2	Gravel roadway, boat ramp and standpipe for refilling water trucks
32	West Carleton	Dunrobin	1200	Open	Community	2	Sandy beach with a natural ramp, no facilities, gravel road
45	West Carleton	Opeongo	1500	Open	Neighbourhood	2	Forested, sloped, private dock
84	West Carleton	Bayview	923	Open	Community	2	Cement and gravel ramp and dock, standpipe for fire trucks, portable toilet
81	West Carleton	Bayview	1200	Open	Neighbourhood	2	Gravel roadway, very gradual sandy beach, laneways on both sides
80	West Carleton	Bayview	920	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Forested with a sandy track, sand beach
79	West Carleton	Bayview	920	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Forested with a gravel laneway used to access house on the east side, sandy shoreline with grasses
76	West Carleton	Bayview	920	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, gravel roadway, sandy beach, a few dispersed trees
75	West Carleton	Bayview	2230	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, sandy track, mostly grass bordered by conifers, sand beach
72	West Carleton	Bayview	766	Unopened	Community	2	Flat, sandy track providing access to a community beach, portable toilet
70	West Carleton	Bayview	1556	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, sandy/gravel track, access to shoreline, laneways on both sides
68	West Carleton	Bayview	1944	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, forested with a grass understory, sand beach, no roadway
67	West Carleton	Bayview	1654	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, narrow laneway with mature forest, steep slope down to the shoreline
66	West Carleton	Bayview	690	Open	Community	2	Flat, access to the community beach, portable toilet and garbage can
65	West Carleton	Bayview	1530	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, gravel roadway, access lanes to adjacent homes, a few mature trees
61	West Carleton	Bayview	1480	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, gravel roadway, laneways to houses on both sides, sandy shoreline
87	West Carleton	Bayview	1226	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Flat, forested with a sand/gravel track, laneway on one side, sand beach
183	West Carleton	Armitage	1218	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Forested natural, mature deciduous trees, no road or pathways, sand beach
90	West Carleton	Armitage	980	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Mature wetland forest, no public activities, sandy/muck shoreline with grasses
92	West Carleton	Armitage	1000	Open	Neighbourhood	2	Forested, mature trees, no roadway, lane to the south, sand/muck shoreline
328	West Carleton	Armitage	1655	Unopened	Neighbourhood	2	Laneway providing vehicular access to homes and to the shoreline
98	West Carleton	Rockforest	860	Open	Neighbourhood	2	Steeply sloping, grass and shrubs, no roadway, no public use
110	West Carleton	Baskins Beach	1800	Open	Neighbourhood	2	Gravel road, ditches on both sides, rocky shoreline, diverse scrubby vegetation
112	West Carleton	Barlow	2278	Closed	Conservation	2	Forested wetland with a creek, steep rocky slope leading down to a shingle beach, no public use
119	West Carleton	Thomas A. Dolan	960	Open	Community	2	Asphalt down to the shore, grass bordered by forest, memorial garden, sand beach
121	Kanata	Berry	1600	Open	Neighbourhood	3

Rideau River Road Allowances
*Site ID*	*Ward*	*Access Road*	*Area in square metres*	*Open or Unopened/Closed Allowance*	*Existing or Potential Use*	Priority for Implementation	*Defining Elements*
321	Bell-South Nepean	Winding Way	1363	Closed	Neighbourhood	3	Grass with some trees near the shoreline, no public use, stony shore on crown land
170	Osgoode	Rideau Forest	2288	Closed	Neighbourhood	3	Used as a driveway to an adjacent home, forested closer to the river, no public use
173	Osgoode	River	2190	Open	Neighbourhood	3	Access to shoreline blocked, no public use
179	Osgoode	Doyle	2333	Open	Neighbourhood	3	Site used and maintained by adjacent landowner, steep slope down to the shoreline, no public activity

A STRATEGY TO RECOGNIZE AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT RECREATIONAL ACCESS FUNCTION OF SELECTED ROAD ALLOWANCES ON THE OTTAWA AND RIDEAU RIVERS

ACS2006-CPS-PAR-0011

Committee members received correspondence from the following individuals in support of the report, copies of which are held on file :

a. A. Bennett, E-mailed comments dated 20 September

b. C. Fitzpatrick letter dated 20 September

Aaron Burry, Director of Parks and Recreation provided a PowerPoint presentation of the item, a copy of which is held on file. The more salient points noted were as follows:

- this is a policy issue and outlines a process to examine certain properties the City owns which lead to the waterfront; the strategy will identify lands that offer existing or potential public access;

- road allowances do not provide any particular recognition of these specific areas so it is proposed that a waterfront access sub-zoning be created; this would allow staff to proceed with a process that looks at high priority road allowances;

- in 2006-2007 there will be a conversion of 23 allowances with an established public access function; over the longer term, there is a potential to convert 31 allowances in West Carleton ward that offer public access opportunities; however, the latter require community consensus before moving forward.

With regards to the public consultation, Councillor Feltmate inquired whether the neighbours of affected shoreline properties were informed. Staff confirmed they had been. The councillor indicated that if we change the designation of these and there is an expectation or one possible use is around swimming as a recreational purpose for the area, she inquired whether the public should expect testing of these sites for ecoli for example. Mr. Burry advised that this particular report does not speak to changing the function of any of these locations; therefore, if someone is currently swimming there, they are doing so at their own risk and without City testing. He explained that it was not staff’s expectation that the function of these sites will be changed significantly.

Councillor Cullen noted that this report does not change the function of these road access to the river, but protects and maintains these accesses as public property. Mr. Burry confirmed, but added it is also to recognize an additional function as a river access point thereby providing a level of review that is higher than would be for a road allowance. With regards to river access in West Carleton, the councillor noted that one of the concerns raised by that community is that rezoning could be a method of developing those sites as parks. Mr. Burry confirmed that it is not the intention of the rezoning to spend any money on these lands and that should the community wish to pursue conversion of use, they would have to apply to a separate process, which would have to go through Council.

When asked to comment on the recommendations provided in the report by the Environmental Advisory Committee, Mr. Burry explained that each road allowance has to be considered individually and these all form the framework depending on what the community wants to advance with this. If the community is going to adopt this, then stewardship and some of the other recommendations are going to be included in that process.

Councillor Doucet referred to the river accesses in his ward and asked that staff consult with his community to identify more possible access sites than the two mentioned in the report. The Director confirmed that staff would work with the councillor with regards to the possibilities in the downtown area. He agreed that the City should preserve water accesses for the future so that the City does not end up in the same situation that presently exists in the downtown area. Councillor Bédard agreed there should be more accesses provided to residents in the downtown area, noting the difficulty downtown residents have accessing the canal and the rivers. Mr. Burry agreed this is another example of what could be done in the core.

Kathy Black, resident of Constance Bay objected to the report and requested that the Committee reject it as written for a variety of reasons, some of which are noted as follows:

1. The recommendations are not appropriate for the rural accesses in the former township of West Carleton.

2. West Carleton residents wish to have status quo with regard to waterfront road allowances, i.e., “local community” access.

3. On 18 July 2006, the Rural Issues Advisory Committee refused to endorse the presentation and report as submitted and recommended that staff be directed to permanently remove from its work plan, any effort whatsoever to change the status of the waterfront access points abutting the Ottawa River in West Carleton.

4. The City has installed illegal outhouses on some accesses in very close proximity to residents’ private wells; these have been tipped over and have potentially caused contamination to the water.

5. There is an incorrect assumption that residents do not want the transportation function to continue; in fact, the community wants to continue to use the accesses for transportation, including snowmobiles, ATVs and boat launching; emergency vehicles and the fire department continue to use these access.

In closing, Ms. Black recommended:

§ That the report be amended to reflect the RIAC motion adopted in July

§ Item 2 of Section 9.0 should reflect that West Carleton residents have loudly and clearly expressed that they support the RIAC motion and that said wording should be incorporated into the report

§ That the West Carleton accesses remain as they currently are and not be rezoned; if it is the collective desire of the West Carleton and Constance Bay residents to do so, they would improve the accesses to meet the needs of local residents and that the residents will engage the City if they feel it is appropriate to do so.

A copy of her written submission which contains additional details is held on file.

Councillor Cullen questioned what the delegation is opposed to since the lands in question are already public property. While she recognized this, Ms. Black explained that most residents do not want any improvements made to them and recommend that they be kept for local community use only. When asked what she thought would happen with the rezoning, Ms. Black was concerned there may be more outhouses put on those lands, which has already been raised as a health and safety concern.

In response to questions posed by the councillor, staff confirmed that what is recommended in the report does not change the transportation role of the road allowances and that whatever they are currently being used for, is what they will continue to be used for. With regards to the concerns about portable toilets, Mr. Burry stated there are a number of issues in Constance Bay that are beyond the scope of this report, such as those related to its beach. He confirmed that some such amenities have been placed on the road allowance at the request of residents. He further confirmed that this report does not include any road allowances in West Carleton and that it would not create more outhouses on these lands.

In response to a question posed by Councillor Bédard, Ms. Black acknowledged that the road allowances were public, but maintained that the beaches are private and residents want to keep them as such. The councillor remarked that they are already publicly used and could not conceive how people could be kept away who were not from the immediate community. Ms. Black explained that the community has a different perception of what they want to see done in their area and are working together collaboratively and cooperatively to develop a strategy that will work for the residents.

Councillor Brooks posed a series of questions to the delegation regarding local issues being governed by the local community and the anticipated increase in traffic that may result as a result of the rezoning. Ms. Black believed there was concern on the part of local residents that if signs are erected it would generate more traffic and she agreed that an increase in traffic would ultimately result in more by-law related issues.

In response to a question posed by the Chair, Mr. Burry confirmed this same report would be considered by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee on 28 September. He added that the report could change or additional reports could be brought back if additional accesses are brought forward, but each would be dealt with individually. He commented that what is proposed is a flexible approach to addressing local needs, i.e., some want signage, some want improvements.

Gerald Jette, resident of Constance Bay reiterated many of the concerns raised by the previous delegation and provided the following additional comments:

- believed that the proposed zoning change removes the transportation function and creates waterfront parks; access by emergency vehicles for life-saving operations must take priority over parkland;

- maintained that reducing the number of accesses will significantly increase the traffic on the remainder and stress their fragile ecology;

- suggested that by-law enforcement, not rezoning, is the answer to protecting these road allowances;

- believed that rezoning would make outhouses legal and he was particularly concerned about the health risks associated with tipped outhouses;

- the rezoning contravenes the Village Plan for Constance Bay; most participants were opposed to waterfront parks and they envision a residential community – not a tourist destination.

For the reasons noted, he suggested the Committee refuse to accept the report as written or not recommend it to Council until the following are removed:

1. Priority 2

2. Recommendation 2 of Section 9.0

3. Any other references to West Carleton river accesses in this report except to state that West Carleton will retain its current access zoning.

A copy of his submission is held on file.

In response to questions of clarification posed by Councillor Cullen, the Director confirmed that the proposed rezoning does not remove the transportation function or create water front parks on these road allowances. With regards to concerns that rezoning would make outhouses legal, Mr. Burry indicated that there is currently nothing in the road allowance zoning that stipulates these cannot be located on these, but confirmed the report does not legalize their use there either. He added that West Carleton is not part of this report, although mention is made of those accesses for thoroughness, but nothing would be added until there is community consensus. The Deputy City Manager, Steve Kanellakos confirmed this fact.

Natasha Thiessen, President, Crystal Bay Community Association provided the Committee with a short PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file. The more salient comments noted were as follows:

- there are four road allowances in Crystal Bay that are reflected in the report: Arden Street, Pitt Street, Jay Street and Grandview Road; all have served as access to the Ottawa River for over 75 years and have become an integral part of their community;

- redevelopment of existing properties has been a source of concern for residents because the abutting property owners have committed serious encroachments; this has mobilized the community to ensure these accesses remain protected;

- the CBCA supports adoption of the recommendations and the preservation of accesses in their current state; they see it as a means to protect these accesses and are not willing to support any change to their appearance or use and the Association understands that the rezoning would provide a greater level of protection for these areas.

In response to a question posed by the Chair about whether or not tree planting could occur on these road allowances, Mr. Burry advised that it could if it is the wish of the community.

Doug Lazier, resident, Constance Bay spoke as a property owner in Constance Bay for many years and agreed with the previous suggestion to delete Recommendation 2 of 9.0 from the report. He was disturbed by the fact that the report contains a summary of the events of the January 19 meeting, which he attended, at which time there was standing room only and there was overwhelming support in favour of maintaining status quo.

Councillor Cullen did not believe that what is proposed will encourage people to use these access points and should not be seen as promoting their use. He maintained that what the report does is ensure the road allowance will not be sold off and will be better protected.

That the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend Council approve:

1. The strategy (as included in Appendix A) to recognize and protect the public waterfront recreational access function of selected road allowances on the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers.

2. The development of a Waterfront Access Point sub-zoning to recognize the distinct characteristics of municipal waterfront access points.

3. The implementation of the road allowance conversion and zoning process for the first priority road allowances (as identified in Appendix B) where there is significant community support to proceed.

CARRIED

A STRATEGY TO RECOGNIZE AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT RECREATIONAL ACCESS FUNCTION OF SELECTED ROAD ALLOWANCES ON THE OTTAWA AND RIDEAU RIVERS

ACS2006-CPS-PAR-0011

Mr. A. Burry, Director of Parks and Recreation, began by explaining that the City owns a significant number of road allowances. These lands have been set aside for road purposes and remain in the inventory, but over time some have assumed other functions. He explained that the purpose of the report was to set out a strategy for reviewing the properties and formally recognizing some of the functions they have assumed over time. Mr. Burry went on to provide a presentation in which he discussed the overall objectives of this initiative, provided examples of lands to be reviewed, discussed some of the issues that have prompted this initiative and he outlined how the strategy would be implemented. A copy of his presentation is held on file.

The Committee then heard from the following public delegations.

Ms. A. Thomas, Vice-President of the Crystal Bay Community Association, began by describing the community of Crystal Bay and its evolution from a group of seasonal cottages to a vibrant year-round community. She advised that the four Crystal Bay road allowances, which are part of the initial 23 for conversion, have served as accesses to the Ottawa River for over 75 years for the purpose of recreation and have therefore become an integral part of the community. She showed photographs of the four road allowances in her community, noting that three out of the four had experienced encroachments due to the redevelopment of existing properties. Ms. Thomas emphasized the importance of these accesses for the community, submitting that any encroachment would be devastating. In closing, she urged Committee to support the report recommendations. She suggested that the report be seen as a means to protect the accesses, not to change their appearance or their use and she expressed the Crystal Bay Community Association’s full support of its implementation. Ms. Thomas spoke from a PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Ms. M. Hegan, Chair of the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), noted that when the EAC received a presentation from staff about the strategy in July, it was still being defined, therefore their recommendations may be little out of date. She advised that EAC members had attended 2 of the 3 public meetings on this initiative in order to get a sense of how residents in the affected communities felt about the access points. She expressed the EAC’s support for the intent of the strategy; to own, recognize, protect, and better manage some of the road access, and to keep them in the public domain. However, she had hoped one of the objectives of the strategy would have been to balance recreational access with the protection of shorelines and water quality. She also urged that, when looking at each access road, there be an understanding of the expectations of the local people. She noted that many residents care for the properties and she proposed informal stewardship agreements. Because of the nature of the activity, she felt stewardship agreements would be an excellent collaboration between the City and those local communities who have taken ownership of the subject lands. She also recommended that any signage include stewardship signs, with messages such as “Don’t dump your garbage”, “This is a species at risk”, etc. Ms. Hegan felt this would result in a lot more comfort in the community involved, particularly in West Carleton where residents are unsure about how the strategy will affect them. In closing, she urged that any work to be done should reflect the dual intent; access roads for recreation and better care of the waterways and shorelines.

Mr. G. Jette, resident of Constance Bay, referenced statements made at the September 21 meeting of the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee, and questioned why time and money was being wasted when nothing would really change from the status quo. He submitted that during a January 19, 2006 meeting at the Kinburn Client Service Centre, West Carleton residents had overwhelmingly proven their support for the status quo with respect to accesses from Dunrobin to Fitzroy Harbour. He added that the Constance Bay Village Plan, adopted by the ARAC and Council in May, clearly showed consensus on the issue. He wondered why the Ward Councillor was now prepared to discount the recommendation of the Rural Issues Advisory Committee and ignore the Constance Bay Village Plan because of a petition from a handful of people and why he had not informed the residents’ Beach Committee of a motion he intended to present on this matter. In closing, Mr. Jette asked Committee to endorse: that West Carleton retain its current public waterfront access zoning; and that all references to the re-zoning of West Carleton public waterfront accesses be permanently removed from the report. A copy of Mr. Jette’s submission is held on file.

Responding to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Burry confirmed that currently there is no waterfront access zoning on the road allowances and that staff is proposing a change from road allowance designation to waterfront access zoning. He agreed that, with respect to residents’ use of these lands, the status quo will remain. However, he maintained that the proposed strategy would allow that use to be preserved in the future, even as communities redeveloped.

In response to questions from Councillor El Chantiry, Mr Burry asserted that what the report proposes is essentially the same as what the presenters are asking for, which is to designate the areas as riverfront access points. He pointed out that they are currently designated as road allowances, which is not a formal zoning but simply a designation for road purposes.

As requested by Councillor El-Chantiry, Ms. M. L. Filion, Legal Counsel, explained the distinction between a road allowance and an unopened road allowance. The distinction is one of maintenance and expenditure of finances by the City. She explained that with a road allowance, the City must undertake certain measures on a regular basis to maintain it and keep it clear, whereas an unopened road allowance is not used for the passage of any vehicles, nor does the city necessarily expend any money on it at any time. She confirmed that in order to have a stronger protection for those unprotected road allowances, they need to be renamed as waterfront access. She submitted it was difficult for the city to protect them as unopened road allowances because there were no resources to monitor encroachment onto those properties.

Mr. Burry maintained staff would not move forward on any of the accesses until there was consensus in the affected communities. He noted that none of the road allowances in West Carleton had been included in the first part of the strategy. He suggested if residents’ objective was to have those areas identified as river access points, that was entirely consistent with the report.

Mr. Jette expressed concerns with respect to residents’ ability to drive on or park vehicles on the subject lands and with the concept of stewardship of the subject lands. He worried that the City would expect residents to maintain the accesses, since it did not have the resources to do so. He maintained the subject lands were in fact road accesses because people use them to launch boats and the Fire Service uses them to access water.

Mr Burry emphasized that the strategy is not a one size fits all solution. He pointed out that residents in some areas want everything left exactly as it is, whereas residents in other areas are asking to do some very basic improvements. He asserted that the strategy would allow both options. He re-iterated that it would not involve significant change for any of these points, and that anything that is legally going on there would continue to go on there.

In response to a question from Councillor Thompson, Mr. Burry explained all the road accesses could not be done at once. He indicated the first 23 would be actioned immediately because of requests from the public and members of Council. He suggested it would take approximately 2 years to get through the first group because each one would involve further public consultation and discussions. He added that, if stewardship agreements were the desire of the community, staff would work on them.

Mr. Jette stressed that the Constance Bay Village Plan recommended maintaining the status quo for access points in that area and that the community did not want them touched.

Chair Jellett agreed that nobody wanted them touched and he maintained no one was trying to ban parking or boat launching on those accesses. He submitted the report was not changing anything. It was merely putting a formal name to what was already in place. He also wanted assurances that there would be no hidden or extra costs to any homeowner adjacent to these properties. Mr. Burry confirmed there was no intention to impose costs on homeowners. He re-iterated that each access point would be considered individually and that any recommendations coming forward would be based on community consensus.

Chair Jellett noted the community’s uncertainty that things would remain as they are. Mr. Burry suggested the element of trust would develop over time, as communities saw how the strategy unfolded in other areas during the first phase and how staff handled the issues. He recognized the sensitivity of these issues and assured Committee that staff would involve the respective communities and Ward Councillors.

In response to a question from Councillor Cullen, Mr Burry indicated nothing in the report would change the ability of emergency service providers to use these properties to access the river when they needed to. He clarified that, whereas in Britannia there is formal access and it is maintained to a high standard, emergency service providers also use other informal road accesses.

Councillor Brooks questioned whether the City had a responsibility to maintain those unopened, unmaintained road allowances if they were used by emergency vehicles. Ms. Filion explained that under the new Municipal Act, a specific by-law is required by the City to direct such maintenance. She submitted each road allowance would have to be reviewed on a one-by-one basis to determine whether or not there was a maintenance obligation. She added any by-law would depend on whether the access had been acknowledged and approved by the City.

In response to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Burry explained the intent of the sub-zoning category and why the report proposed to protect 14 of the 39 road allowances in Constance Bay. He indicated the 14 were chosen based on criteria such as width and relative size. He re-iterated that of the 23 road allowances being recommended for immediate action, none were in West Carleton.

Mr. B. McClure, resident of Constance Bay, submitted there was already a process in place for the sale of road allowances, which included informing the community. Therefore, he questioned why this strategy was even being discussed. He expressed concerns with regards to Table 1 of the report, which stated “Criteria used to identify road allowances with significant existing or potential recreational function.” He feared this potential recreational function would result in the sites being advertised as parks, leading to an influx of visitors in an area that could not handle the volume.

Mr. Burry explained that the strategy was undertaken for purposes of completeness, taking into account the entire City and planning for the future. He agreed that there were a number of issues in Constance Bay beyond road allowances, however he submitted this report was not intended to make those issues go away. He appreciated the concerns of residents, adding that the strategy provided more tools to deal with encroachment and traffic issues.

In response to a question from Chair Jellett, Mr. Burry assured Committee that the accesses would not suddenly be advertised or promoted as recreational areas. He maintained the strategy would merely provide formal recognition and protection of the informal recreational use that already takes place. He reiterated that staff would be coming forward with an individual zoning recommendation on each one of the road allowances and that the intended uses could be clearly stipulated in those agreements

Mr. D. Lazier, resident of Constance Bay, began by pointing out that, just as private landowners have remedies if somebody encroaches on their land, so does the City, even under the current designation. He suggested the defence against encroachments is not dependant in any way on this proposed redesignation. He opposed the approval of the strategy report (appendix A), adding that should the Committee recommend its approval, he would suggest that the RIAC motion be passed as an amendment - recommending that City staff be directed to permanently remove from its work plan any effort whatsoever to change the status of waterfront access points abutting the Ottawa River in West Carleton Ward. He also requested that recommendation 2 of the report be deleted. He felt recommendation 2 was inconsistent because it recommended that nothing be done until consensus is achieved, implying that City staff would proactively seek such consensus at some future date.

Councillor Jellett wondered why there was such opposition to a zoning chance since the access would remain and people would still be able to use the accesses as they always had. Mr. Lazier maintained that the status quo worked perfectly, provided the City defended against encroachments. He echoed the fears expressed by Mr. McClure, that the proposed designations would result in proactive measures by the City to bring about recreation functions. He indicated that despite assurances from Mr. Burry, he would be more comfortable if Committee deleted recommendation 2.

Councillor El Chantiry indicated waterfront accesses had been an issue in Constance Bay for a very long time. He noted that, both waterfront owners and non-waterfront owners wanted those accesses maintained in the ownership of the community. He submitted that official designating and protecting those accesses would eliminate some of the current stress. Although Mr. Lazier agreed with the goal of protecting the accesses, he felt the status quo was sufficient.

In response to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr Burry indicated there had been some difficulty in determining the community’s intentions with respect to road allowances in West Carleton, he recognized that more time was needed in that area, and he assured Committee that the next stage would only move forward when the community was ready to do so.

Ms. J. Nightingale, resident of Constance Bay, simply expressed concurrence with the comments made by the previous speakers as well as with the submission to be made by Ms. K. Black.

Ms. J. Currie, resident of Constance Bay, discussed her family’s history, as long-time residents of Constance Bay. She felt the beaches and waterfront accesses should be available to all residents. She noted that a Constance Bay beach protocol committee had been established in order to get community consensus on the use of the accesses and beaches. She indicated she, and several other residents, had obtained over 200 signatures on a petition supporting the suspension of the motion for rezoning road allowances until the Constance Bay beach protocol committee had completed its work and put forward recommendations. She submitted that, although most of the residents wanted to keep the accesses available to all residents of Constance Bay, they did not want the words “status quo” and “permanently” to be misinterpreted. She suggested: they wanted funding from the City of Ottawa where possible and applicable; they wanted the beaches maintained; they wanted encroachment on accesses stopped; and they wanted to be able to use the beaches in total, not just the beaches at the access points. She added that residents also wanted: help from the City to make any changes that may arise from the beach protocol committee’s recommendations; help with the enforcement of the concerns brought forward by the community; and to not have accesses sold. She indicated the residents of Constance Bay were frustrated and wanted these issues resolved once and for all.

In response to a question form Chair Jellett, Mr Burry confirmed that the proposed river access zoning would make it more difficult for the property to be sold, as it would require an additional step.

Ms. K. Black, resident of Constance Bay, requested that West Carleton retain its current access zoning, that the report be adopted for the other than West Carleton public waterfront accesses, and that the recommendations contained in this report for West Carleton not go forward to Council until the outstanding inconsistencies had been resolved. She also listed several concerns that remained unaddressed by City staff after her presentation at the HRSS Committee meeting of September 21. Ms. Black listed the information she had requested from staff and suggested that, before the Committee consider making any recommendations on the report, they may wish to validate some of the details in the report concerning West Carleton. A copy of her submission is held on file.

Responding to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Burry confirmed that the report did not propose a City work program expenditure on converting the allowances to parks. He also confirmed that nothing would change residents’ ability to access the Ottawa River as a result of this report. He clarified the transportation function of the road allowances, noting that tractors, snowmobiles and other recreational vehicles were not considered transportation functions for the purposes of this report.

Mr Burry also confirmed that this report did not deal with outhouses on public accesses. However, he clarified that on lands owned by the City, porta-potties could legally be placed by the City but could not be placed by private residents or community groups without express permission. He agreed with a comment made by Councillor Cullen, that the unused sites were vulnerable to being sold and therefore the new designation would better protect these lands without changing their function.

Ms. Black read a written submission on behalf of Ms. A. Auger-Johnstone, resident of Constance Bay, into the record. In her submission, Ms. Auger Johnstone requested that West Carleton retain its current access zoning and that the report be adopted for waterfront accesses in areas other than West Carleton, and that the recommendations in this report pertaining to West Carleton not go forward to Council until the outstanding inconsistencies had been resolved. A copy of her submission is held on file.

Mr. F. Gramann, resident of Constance Bay, indicated he represented the majority of Constance Bay. He referenced a petition, signed by 218 Constance Bay residents and submitted to Councillor El-Chantiry. He noted that the Constance Bay beach committee, of which he was a member, was formally formed three months ago. He indicated this committee would come to the City and present the Constance Bay community’s wishes wit respect to waterfront accesses. He believed all residents wanted to protect the waterfront accesses but that there were differences of opinion with respect to how that should be done. He expressed a desire to have the community work together to achieve consensus.

Councillor El Chantiry read the preamble of the aforementioned petition into the record:

“We the undersigned residents of Constance Bay are opposed to the wording of the Rural Issues Advisory Committee (RIAC ) motion, “…that the RIAC recommended to the ARAC that City staff be directed to permanently remove from its work plan any effort whatsoever to change the status of waterfront access points abutting the Ottawa River in West Carleton ward.” City staff has informed residents at a recent meeting that the City has no intention of pursuing rezoning of the accesses in West Carleton without community consensus, which has not been determined at this time. The wording of this motion will remove the opportunity for collective community decisions related to water access zoning and possible future benefit could be lost. Access issues are currently being addressed in a 39-member Beach Protocol Committee and future decisions could not be implemented under the current wording (eg. rezoning, funding etc.). Until the community has a further opportunity to examine its road access points, re-zoning decisions should not be made. Decisions should be made after public meetings are held, surveys have been tabulated, and recommendations from the community have been finalized. We are expecting that this will be completed by late spring or early summer of 2007.”

Councillor El-Chantiry submitted the petition for the record (held on file with the City Clerk) re-iterated that it had been signed by 218 residents. He also referenced a letter he received from the Constance Bay Community Association with respect to the RIAC recommendation. He noted that the Community Association wanted the Constance Bay accesses removed until the community had completed its beach and waterfront activities, as defined in the Village Plan. Based on these submissions, the Councillor acknowledged that the community was divided on this issue. However, he submitted that the community association and the residents who had signed the petition simply wanted the word “permanently” removed until the community could reach a consensus. He discussed the great community efforts that had gone into the Village Plan and noted the community needed a little more time to deal with its waterfront issues. He recognized and respected the efforts of other communities and Ward Councillors to move forward on this initiative and indicated he did not wish to hold up the entire report, though he would ask that West Carleton be left out at this time.

In response to a question from Councillor Brooks, Mr. Burry clarified that from his perspective, there were no inconsistencies between the report and the petition. However, he believed Councillor El-Chantiry would be proposing a motion, which would strengthen the petition’s intent. He noted the report proposes a strategy to recognize and protect waterfront accesses in general. It then goes on to deal specifically with 23 of those accesses where there is community consensus to move forward. He indicated staff would come back to the other, including those in West Carleton, only when there was community consensus to move forward with them.

Councillor El Chantiry acknowledged residents’ fears that Constance Bay would become a public beach area. He submitted that Constance Bay’s problems went beyond waterfront access; they include issues such as parking, beach maintenance and porta-potties. He acknowledged that the current report did not address all the problems. However, he supported Councillor Cullen’s desire to deal with waterfront access issues in his Ward. In conclusion, he asked that his community be given more time to resolve its waterfront access issues and that the door not be shut by “permanently” removing West Carleton from the strategy. He introduced a motion to that effect:

WHEREAS the Rural Issues Advisory Committee has heard concerns, as part of its consultation with staff around the development of this report, from residents of West Carleton and formerly expressed concerns that the City will be proceeding with the rezoning of road allowances with river access in West Carleton;

AND WHEREAS the implementation of the Village Plan for Constance Bay is not complete and a significant number of road allowances with river access in West Carleton are in Constance Bay;

AND WHEREAS residents of Constance Bay, with the assistance of their Councillor, have formed a Constance Bay Beach Committee to further examine the issue;

AND WHEREAS Committee and Council must consider each request for rezoning of a road allowance individually in accordance with the Ontario Planning Act;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend to Council that the report be amended to include a fourth recommendation as follows:

Councillor Cullen asserted that, while some presenters felt the status quo was sufficient to protect the allowances, the status quo was not working in his Ward. He discussed some of the issues that could, and do, arise from the fact that these road allowances were not formally recognized and protected. He maintained the need for a policy to direct the City, so that when someone tries to buy a road allowance, they can be told that it is not for sale because it has a waterfront access designation. He expressed his support for the staff report and stressed the importance of recommendation 2, the development of a waterfront access point sub-zoning to recognize the distinct characteristics of municipal waterfront access points. He also supported recommendation 3 because it would allow some areas to be addressed immediately at the same time as it would allow for delay in areas where communities were not ready or willing to move forward.

Councillor Brooks indicated he would support the report and Councillor El-Chantiry’s motion. He also wished to ensure that, should the residents in Constance Bay eventually determine that they wanted West Carleton to be permanently removed from any further action, the Committee would accept that recommendation as the will of the majority of residents. Chair Jellett stated that, while nobody could speak for the future Council, the intent was clear; that the Committee wanted the people of West Carleton to have the opportunity to decide for themselves what was best for their community.

Councillor El-Chantiry thanked the Committee for its support and thanked the residents for their work and for coming forward to express themselves.

In response to a question from Chair Jellett regarding the ownership of a particular location in Cumberland Ward, Mr. Burry reminded Committee that as staff went through each of the 23 initial road allowances for zoning, the details with respect to each one would be reviewed. However, he assured Chair Jellett that the referenced site was publicly owned, either by the National Capital Commission or by the City.

Councillor Thompson asked for assurance that land owners in Osgoode Ward had been informed and consulted, pointing out that there is no community association, just individuals that own property along the river. Mr. Burry indicated all the people living in that general vicinity had been contacted. He reminded the Committee that staff would review each road allowance individually, with more public consultation and more notifications. He stressed that approval of this report did not constitute approval of any re-zonings. It would merely get the ball rolling in terms of a process for reviewing the various road allowances.

The following written submissions were also received by the Committee and are held on file with the City Clerk:

· Memo from the Environmental Advisory Committee dated 25 August 2006;

· Memo from the Rural Issues Advisory Committee dated 22 September 2006; and

· Memo from the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee dated 26 September 2006.

Moved by Councillor E. El-Chantiry

AND WHEREAS the implementation of the Village Plan for Constance Bay is not complete and a significant number of road allowances with river access in West Carleton are in Constance Bay;

AND WHEREAS residents of Constance Bay, with the assistance of their Councillor, have formed a Constance Bay Beach Committee to further examine the issue;

AND WHEREAS Committee and Council must consider each request for rezoning of a road allowance individually in accordance with the Ontario Planning Act;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend to Council that the report be amended to include a fourth recommendation as follows:

CARRIED

The committee then voted on the report as amended.

That the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve the following, as amended:

1. The strategy (as included in Appendix A) to recognize and protect the public waterfront recreational access function of selected road allowances on the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers.

2. The development of a Waterfront Access Point sub-zoning to recognize the distinct characteristics of municipal waterfront access points.

3. The implementation of the road allowance conversion and zoning process for the first priority road allowances (as identified in Appendix B) where there is significant community support to proceed.

AND WHEREAS the implementation of the Village Plan for Constance Bay is not complete and a significant number of road allowances with river access in West Carleton are in Constance Bay;

AND WHEREAS residents of Constance Bay, with the assistance of their Councillor, have formed a Constance Bay Beach Committee to further examine the issue;

AND WHEREAS Committee and Council must consider each request for rezoning of a road allowance individually in accordance with the Ontario Planning Act;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend to Council that the report be amended to include a fourth recommendation as follows:

CARRIED as amended

[1] While this strategy focuses on properties with a twenty-metre width (as this was assumed to be the minimum width to offer significant recreational potential), there are a limited number of public rights of way whose widths are less than 20 metres that offer recreational potential for the immediate neighbourhood where they are situated. While these properties were not considered in this strategy they could be assessed for re-zoning in the future

[2] The allowances without significant recreational potential were limited by a number of factors such as, width, topography, quality of the shoreline, distance from the shoreline to a roadway.

[3] For more information on the differences between Opened, Unopened and Closed road allowances please see Appendix 1

[4] It is proposed that for road allowances with laneways that provide legal and required access routes to private properties that only the portion of the road allowance that is not required to access the adjacent properties be closed and re-zoned.

*River*	*Ward*	*Allowances with significant* *recreational potential*	*Open* *allowances*	*Unopened or Closed allowances*	*Allowances adjacent to, or providing access to public land*	*Allowances with existing public use*	*Allowances with no existing public use*	*Boat Launch facilities (ramp)* *Formal(F)* *Informal(I)*
Ottawa	West Carleton	31	12	19	11	22	9	2F,3I
Ottawa	Kanata	2	1	1	1	2	0
Ottawa	Bay	4	1	3	4	4	0	2I
Ottawa	Orleans	1	1	0	1	0	1	1F[5]
Ottawa	Cumberland	2	2	0	2	1	1	1F
Rideau	Capital	2	2	0	2	2	0
Rideau	Gloucester/Southgate	1	1	0	0	0	1
Rideau	Bell-South Nepean	1	0	1	0	0	1
Rideau	Osgoode	4	2	2	0	0	1
Rideau	Rideau	12	9	3	3	9	3	1F, 1I
Totals		60	31	29	24	40	15	5 (F), 6(I)

HEALTH, RECREATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

Documentation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

RÉSUMÉ

APPENDIX A

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Context

Criteria used to identify road allowances with a significant existing or potential recreational function

Table 2

3.0 Existing or Potential Function

5.0 Methodology

6.0 Review Process

Option 1: Maintain the property as a road allowance

The limitations of the status quo are:

Option 2: Convert the waterfront portion of the selected road allowances to an Open Space zoning

Limitations of this option are:

Ottawa River Consultation, West Carleton Ward January 19, 2006

City of Ottawa Advisory Committees

Pedestrian and Transit Committee, City Hall, June 15, 2006

Environmental Advisory Committee, City Hall, July 13, 2006

Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee, City Hall, July 17, 2006

Rural Issues Advisory Committee, Kinburn Community Centre, July 18, 2006

9.0 Recommendations

9.1 Process

Table 3

Table 4: Ottawa River Road Allowances: Summary Table and Location Maps

Stage of Implemen-tation

Defining Elements

Road Allowances

Open Road Allowances

Unopened Road Allowances

Closed Road Allowances

APPENDIX B AND C

Reference for Appendix B and C - Summary of Ottawa and Rideau River Road Allowances

Appendix B: Priority 1 Ottawa and Rideau River Road Allowances

Ottawa River Road Allowances

Priority for Implementation

Rideau River Road Allowances

Defining Elements

Appendix C: Priority 2 and 3 Ottawa and Rideau Rivers Road Allowances

Ottawa River Road Allowances

Priority for Implementation

Rideau River Road Allowances

Priority for Implementation