|
1. REVIEW
OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN EXAMEN DU PLAN OFFICIEL ET DU PLAN DIRECTEUR DE
L'INFRASTRUCTURE |
agriculturE and rural affairs
committee and Planning and environment Committee recommendation
That Council approve that staff
table in January 2009, a draft Official Plan Amendment, and an amendment to the
Infrastructure Master Plan, that reflect the proposed changes found in this
report.
Recommandation DU Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales et DU
Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement
Que le Conseil approuve le dépôt, en
janvier 2009, d’une ébauche de la modification du Plan officiel et d’une
modification au Plan directeur de l’infrastructure qui reflètent les
changements proposés dans le présent rapport.
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability,
dated 17 November 2008 (ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0231).
2.
Planning
and Environment Committee, Extract of Draft Minutes, 24 November 2008, follows
the French version of the report.
3.
Extract
of Draft Minutes, 27 November 2008.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement
and/et
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Comité d'agriculture et des questions rurales
and Council / et au Conseil
17 November 2008 / 17 novembre 2008
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy
Schepers, Deputy City Manager
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Planning, Transit and the Environment
Urbanisme, Transport en commun et Environnement
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Manager
Planning
Branch/Direction de l'urbanisme
(613)
580-2424 x 22653, richard.kilstrom@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT:
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
Examen du
Plan officiel et du Plan directeur de l'infrastructure |
That Planning and Environment Committee and Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Committee recommend to Co uncil
that staff table in January 2009, a draft Official Plan Amendment, and an
amendment to the Infrastructure Master Plan, that reflect the proposed changes
found in this report.
Que le Comité de
l’urbanisme et de l’environnement et le Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires
rurales recommandent au Conseil le dépôt, en janvier 2009, d’une ébauche
de la modification du Plan officiel et d’une modification au Plan directeur de l’infrastructure
qui reflètent les changements proposés dans le présent rapport.
The purpose of this report is to provide comprehensive information about the proposed changes to the Official Plan and Infrastructure Master Plan, including the background rationale and implications for future land-use planning. It also clarifies the timelines for the review and important milestones.
If a municipality is undertaking a comprehensive review, Section 26 of the Planning Act requires the municipality to hold a special meeting to discuss the revisions that may be required to the Official Plan. This is the Special Meeting.
It is not the intent to require Committee to make recommendations on any of the proposed changes at this time. That is contemplated to be done as part of the Public Meeting scheduled for March 2009.
This report focuses on the key areas of review in the Official Plan and Infrastructure Master Plan. These include the urban boundary, intensification, rural settlement and wetlands.
Document 1 provides a summary, section by section of the reasons for changes to various parts of the Official Plan. It includes a copy of the Official Plan showing all the sections that staff propose to remove (shown as stricken out) and all the sections that staff propose to add (shown as shaded). In many cases the policy has been moved to a more appropriate section and this has been noted.
Document 2 is the Residential Lands Strategy that summarizes the analysis to determine the need for additional urban land, the target areas for intensification, intensification and density targets for different areas and actions that must be taken to support intensification.
Document 3 is the Rural Settlement Strategy, which also includes the natural heritage strategy. Document 4 explains the new wetland designations.
Document 5 is a discussion of proposed changes to Airport Policies. These were not done at the time of the Preliminary Proposals so are included in this package for the first time.
Document 6 is a summary of public consultation on the Official Plan Review and Infrastructure Master Plan. Document 7 is a bibliography of background work undertaken by staff to evaluate, monitor and explore matters related to the Official Plan.
Many previous reports have explained why these reviews are being done now. The Planning Act requires a review of the Official Plan every five years. In addition, the Planning Act has been amended since Council last adopted an Official Plan, and the Province has introduced a new Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The Official Plan must be consistent with the PPS.
In addition, this provided an opportunity to review many existing policies where there has been confusion in the last five years. Some policies have simply been clarified.
Council adopted an Official Plan in 2003 and approved a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and an Infrastructure Master Plan (IMP). The Official Plan provides direction to these supporting plans, which in turn are reflected in the Official Plan in a variety of ways. Those policies that relate to land use are extracted from the Master Plans and included in the Official Plan. Of particular significance are the Transportation Schedules (roads, transit, cycling etc.). However, those aspects of the Master Plans that relate to operational considerations, and the list of required infrastructure projects, remain in the Master Plans.
When staff embarked on a review of these three Plans it was agreed that the TMP review would be based on a return to first principles. However, the review of the Official Plan and the IMP would be an update. There was no intent to revisit the strategic directions that underpin the entire Plan. The Official Plan and TMP continue to move forward in lock step despite the different timelines. In particular, emphasis is on development to support the investment in rapid transit.
Document 2, the Residential Lands Strategy, has more detail on this discussion.
Setting Ottawa’s urban boundary to 2031 is a complex process that involves a balance between policy direction and market forces. Policy direction flows from a variety of sources, including provincial policy, the cost of providing and maintaining new infrastructure and community services, and the type of city we want. Market forces carry a powerful momentum of long-established industry practices, business plans and consumer demand patterns that have evolved over time. While not immune to change, market forces tend to evolve slowly unless unexpected shocks or stimuli cause people to shift preferences more quickly.
Council approved a new growth projection for Ottawa to the year 2031 in November 2007. That growth projection is the basis for the analysis of urban land requirements.
The new population projection for 2031 is lower than the previous one for 2021. But, the household projection is almost the same because the average household size is lower in the new projection due to an older population. Important points related to the projection and the need for urban land are as follows:
Numerous assumptions are imbedded in these calculations, all of which can be questioned and challenged. Staff feel that these represent the best interpretation of data and recent trends. In particular, it is staff’s opinion that the next 20 years will not be like the last 20 years and projections should take that into account. The Official Plan is reviewed every five years and assumptions can be examined at that time.
Through public consultation, positions have been expressed ranging from ‘no boundary expansion’ by some members of the public to a need for 1500 gross hectares by the development community.
Since the outset of the Official Plan review, staff have made a commitment to look beyond the 2031 planning horizon. The Province does not permit municipal plans to use a planning period of more than 20 years. However, for planning purposes, particularly the planning of infrastructure, it is useful to look at the longer term. The City has embarked on a project called “Choosing our Future” which provides an excellent context within which to examine land-use matters in the long term. It will provide insight into potential future scenarios and place the evaluation of future scenarios in the context of sustainability. Work has begun on this project and it is anticipated that by the Spring of 2009 it will be possible to work with the public on this important initiative.
Document 2, the Residential Lands Strategy, has more detail on this discussion.
With regard to intensification, the primary goals are to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and City Council’s direction. The important points are as follows:
The following policies will support the achievement of intensification targets:
The City will need to undertake the following actions to support intensification and promote its success:
An important ingredient in building liveable communities is the creation of quality places for people. It is also generally recognized that successful intensification requires excellent design as well as compatibility with the existing community. The Official Plan already contains design objectives and compatibility criteria. However, a number of enhancements are proposed through the Official Plan review:
The purpose of the Rural Settlement Strategy is to provide direction for the physical development of the rural area and to position policies for development in rural Ottawa within the context of the city as a whole. Document 4, Rural Settlement Strategy contains the detailed approach and also includes a list of every recommendation made by the community-based working groups and the staff response.
Staff proposes that the revised Official Plan contain policies to do the following:
Wetlands
Document 4, Wetlands Policies, has more detail on this matter.
In May 2008 the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) advised the City that it had identified 3,600 hectares of new provincially-significant wetlands and removed 775 hectares that were previously identified as significant. The MNR asked that the new mapping be used as the basis for designating land as part of the 2008 Official Plan Review, in keeping with the Provincial Policy Statement.
It is proposed that the new wetland mapping be incorporated into the revised Official Plan with the exception of the following:
Numerous other changes have been proposed in the Official Plan that will be of interest to specific individuals or groups. Some of these are required under the Planning Act and others are improvements based on experience to date. Each proposed change to the text and Schedules of the Plan is described in Document 1.
1. Inclusion of a list of Provincial interests;
2. Land may not be removed from an Employment Area designation unless supported by a comprehensive review as set out in OP policy;
3. Clarification of where exceptions will be considered for partial services;
4. More explicit reference to air quality and climate change;
5. Emphasis on some key studies that must form part of a community design plan;
6. Permission for renewable and alternative energy systems and installations;
7. Update of policies for Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport and Carp Airport (see Document 5 for a fuller discussion);
8. New policies for land-use constraints due to radio frequency electromagnetic fields
9. Update of flood plain policies;
10. Sorting of policies so that design and compatibility policies related to high-level objectives are in Section 2 of the Plan and those related to development review are in Section 4 of the Plan;
11. Additional headings have been introduced to simplify navigation of the Plan; and
12. Schedule changes have been identified.
Four key changes are being proposed for the Infrastructure Master Plan (IMP):
Capacity Management Strategy: To deal with the demands of intensification and the limitations of its older infrastructure, the City has developed a Capacity Management Strategy with more detailed policy and implementation guidance than is currently available in the Infrastructure Master Plan policies:
Groundwater Management Strategy: Council adopted “The Groundwater Management Strategy’ in May, 2003 and changes to the Infrastructure Master Plan policies have been proposed to reflect the direction of the adopted Strategy. The tasks proposed in the Strategy have been divided into two phases:
Stormwater Management Strategy: Council adopted stormwater management policies in September of 2007. These are being incorporated into the Infrastructure Master Plan. The policies were developed to provide direction to:
Major Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Projects: The IMP contains a list of projects required between 2009 and 2019, and between 2010 and 2031. These include: water feedermains, pump stations and reservoirs, elevated tanks and treatment plant upgrades. With respect to wastewater, the list includes wastewater collectors and treatment plant upgrades. For stormwater management, the list includes ponds and erosion control projects.
The proposed draft amendment that is tabled in January of 2009 will include some matters that are not in this report. It will include:
1. Identification of the recommended locations for urban boundary rationalization based on a descriptive evaluation. Various criteria will be used such as impacts on Agricultural Resource Areas, ease of servicing with water and wastewater, opportunities to secure natural areas, road connectivity, proximity to proposed transit, support for mainstreets and mixed-use centres and the presence of various potential conflicts.
2. Incorporation of some statements or proposed policies from the Algonquin First Nations. They would like to suggest some additions primarily related to waterways and islands. However, their comments are not yet available.
3. A report on the costs associated with implementation of the Official Plan.
4. A comprehensive review as a basis for an Employment Lands Strategy. A report is being finalized by Metropolitan Knowledge International.
5. Discussions have been scheduled with the Homebuilders on some of the study requirements in Section 4. These may result in additional proposed changes to the Official Plan.
6. Revised Schedules I and J to implement the Cycling Plan.
In order to make it clearer how this meeting fits in with the entire process, the following summary is provided. It applies to the review of the Official Plan. The timeline for the Infrastructure Master Plan is the same but the IMP only requires approval of City Council. The Official Plan requires the approval of the Province.
1. Special Meeting: November 24, 2008 (Planning and Environment Committee) and November 27, 2008 (Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee). The purpose is to provide comprehensive information to Councillors and the public on proposed changes to the Official Plan. Emphasis will be placed on rural issues at the meeting of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee. Council shall have regard to any written submissions about what revisions may be required and shall give any person who attends the special meeting an opportunity to be heard on that subject. However, this is not the “official” public meeting and it is not necessary for the public to make a submission at this time.
2. Table Official Plan Amendment: January 27, 2009 at Planning and Environment Committee. The purpose of this meeting is to table the proposed changes to the Official Plan to initiate the formal amendment process.
3. Open House: Staff will hold at least one open house between January 27, 2009 and February 27, 2009 for the purpose of giving the public an opportunity to review and ask questions about the information and material made available on January 27, 2009.
4. Public Meeting: March 24, 2009 at a joint meeting of Planning and Environment Committee and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee for the purpose of giving the public an opportunity to make representations in respect of the proposed Official Plan Amendment. Every person who attends a public meeting shall be given an opportunity to make representations. Recommendations will be made to Council on the Official Plan Amendment based on what is submitted by staff and what the Joint Committee hears at the public meeting or through written submission.
5. Adoption of Plan by City Council: April 2009. The exact date is not yet determined as it depends on the length of the public meeting. Council will consider the recommendation of Committee and make a decision on what to accept or change. Once Council has adopted an Official Plan Amendment, it is submitted to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval. The Council will also give notice of its decision to each person or public body that filed with the Clerk of the City a written request to be notified if the plan is adopted.
6. Decision of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: This will likely be received around the end of 2009. The Minister may approve, modify and approve as modified, or refuse to approve the Official Plan Amendment. The decision of the Minister will be provided to the municipality and to each person or public body that made a written request to be notified of the decision.
7. Appeal Period: Once the Minister issues a decision, parties have 20 days within which they may appeal all or part of that decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. However, appeals are only permitted for those persons who, before the plan was adopted made oral submissions at the public meeting (March 24, 2009) or made written submissions before Council adopted the Plan (April 2009).
There has been no consultation on this report per se but it is the culmination of more than a year of consultation. Document 6 summarizes the public consultation to date.
When the draft Official Plan Amendment is tabled in January 2009 it will include a section on the cost of implementing the Official Plan and the Infrastructure Master Plan.
Document 1 Proposed Changes to the Official Plan including Annex 1 to Document 1: Tracked Changes in the Official Plan (Annex 1 to Document 1) (distributed separately and on file with the City Clerk)
Document 2 Residential Lands Strategy (Distributed separately and held on file with the City Clerk)
Document 3 Rural Settlement Strategy (includes the Natural Heritage Strategy) and Annex 1 to Document 3: Recommendations of Rural Working Groups and Staff Response (Distributed separately and held on file with the City Clerk)
Document 4 Wetland
Policies
Document 5 Airport Policies
Document 6 Public Consultation on the Official Plan Review and Infrastructure Master Plan.
Document 7 Bibliography
Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability will prepare a draft Official Plan amendment for tabling with Planning and Environment Committee on January 27, 2009.
PROPOSED CHANGES
TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN INCLUDING
ANNEX 1 TO DOCUMENT 1 DOCUMENT
1
This document identifies all of the proposed changes to the Official Plan text and schedules. Annex 1 to this document shows the proposed changes. A strikeout proposes removal of words and shading proposes the addition of words. Many are the result of changes to the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).
Proposed Changes to Text
In addition to the proposed changes listed below, changes were made throughout the plan to ensure consistency of spelling, but none of these changes was of a substantive nature. (some examples: flood plain instead of floodplain, community design plan instead of Community Design Plan).
1. Section 1.1. The Role of the Official Plan – incorporates the list of provincial interests as required by the PPS.
2. Section 1.6. How the Guiding Principles are Addressed in the Official Plan – enhances the connection to good urban design in A City of Distinct, Liveable Communities.
3. Section 1.7. Interpretation and Implementation of the Official Plan – updates the timeframe of the Official Plan.
4. Section 2.1. The Challenge Ahead – updates the timeframe of the Official Plan and the Growth Projections. Figure 2.2 no longer breaks down the projection to each of the three urban communities outside the Greenbelt. This information is available but should not be interpreted as policy so it has been removed from the Plan.
5. Section 2.1. Managing Growth – the first strategic objective Managing Growth has been modified to recognize that the Official Plan does not ‘direct’ growth to Villages but rather supports growth in villages.
6. Section 2.2. Managing Growth – In response to the Village Working Group, language in the preamble has been changed to incorporate the whole city, with more emphasis on the rural area, especially on villages, than previously was found in this section.
7. Section 2.2.1. Urban Area and Village Boundaries – previously policies related to changing urban and village boundaries were found in separate sections. They have been brought together to emphasize the similar nature of the supporting work required to consider changes to the boundaries. Also the following changes have been proposed:
a. One of the factors in consideration of an urban boundary expansion will be the achievement of the intensification target for the urban area as a whole.
b. A minor change in language is proposed to emphasize that a major criterion in recommending a particular location for urban or village expansion will be the ability to provide infrastructure.
c. Additional words are proposed to emphasize that a community design plan to support expansion in a village or urban area will be supported by a subwatershed plan or environmental management plan.
d. With respect to villages only, it is recommended that the planning time frame be reduced to 10 years so that there will be more control over the rate of growth in the village.
e. With respect to villages, the need to expand a particular village must be assessed within the need for additional village land citywide.
8. Section 2.2.2. Managing Growth Within the Urban Area. – This is the Section of the Plan with the most proposed changes. The preamble has been rewritten to emphasize the philosophy behind the urban growth strategy. The other changes are being proposed in response to the direction of the PPS and its emphasis on setting and achieving intensification targets:
Definition of
intensification:
a. The definition of residential intensification has been quoted from the PPS and is the definition that will be used from this point forward.
b. A definition has been introduced for employment intensification recognizing that this is an area where there is a great deal of potential for intensification.
c. The target areas for intensification are not new but emphasis is placed on the link between target areas and the rapid transit network.
d. An intensification target has been introduced. It is defined as the proportion of new urban dwelling units that are provided through intensification (rather than development in greenfields).
e. Minimum density targets are set for some key areas in Figure 2.4, expressed as people and jobs per gross hectare. These targets will be implemented through individual development applications and their ability to achieve the target.
f. Minimum residential targets will be prepared outside of the Plan (in the Residential Lands Strategy).
g. All targets will be monitored and reported on annually.
h. Existing zoning by-laws, community design plans, secondary plans will be reviewed to ensure that the targets can be met and development applications will be reviewed in light of the targets.
i. The City will commit itself to supporting intensification in target areas through a commitment to good design in the public realm, setting priorities for municipal works, implementing a capacity management strategy and other efforts.
j. As a priority, the City will lead discussions to look at all the technical, regulatory and design matters that will allow the intensification strategy to be successful.
k. Most of this section is not new. However, the target densities for greenfields have been increased primarily through an increase in proposed densities for single-detached lots. Previously single-detached were not referred to separately.
Two changes are proposed here.
l. The first proposal is to direct major office development to the Central Area or to the other target areas for intensification.
m. The second change is to implement the requirement of the PPS regarding the requirement for a ‘comprehensive review’ to substantiate any proposed redesignations of employment lands for other purposes.
9. Section 2.3.1. Transportation
a. Changes are being proposed to reflect the new planning period and to update current and projected transit modal splits.
b. Also, changes have been introduced to reflect the adoption of a new Ottawa Cycling Plan since the last Official Plan.
c. The policies emphasize the need to implement corridor or street design guidelines.
d. A new policy has been introduced to limit the accesses to the rural portion of Ottawa Road 174.
e. Enhancements have been made to the policy identifying the land that the City might purchase related to railway rights-of-ways in recognition of the move towards light rail.
f. The Planning Act now permits municipalities to secure lands for pedestrian pathways and bicycle pathways through the subdivision approval process and these has been included in the proposed policies.
g. The policy allowing the city to control minimum and maximum parking requirements has been extended to all rapid transit stations.
10. Section 2.3.2. Water and Wastewater Services.
a. Incorporates a new policy to reflect the Capacity Management Strategy in areas of intensification and deletes more general policies related to the same issue;
b. Enhances the language to indicate a commitment to look at innovative technologies when reviewing a range of servicing options in the rural area.
c. Updates the policy on partial services to reflect the PPS
11. Section 2.3.3. Drainage and Stormwater Management Services – Proposed changes to the preamble and policies are to recognize the importance of the infrastructure side of stormwater management. Other sections of the Plan deal with the environmental aspects of stormwater management within the context of watershed and subwatershed planning.
12. Section 2.4.1. Air Quality and Climate Change – the existing preamble has been deleted and replaced with a clearer statement of what the City will do to mitigate Climate Change and reduced air quality. The PPS requires planning authorities to support improved air quality and emphasis is placed on the pattern of land use and the use of public transit. This section of the Official Plan and the PPS underline the contribution of growth management to the overall achievement of objectives.
13. Section 2.4.2. Natural Features and Functions – These policies have been revised to be consistent with the PPS.
a. New policy 2 describes the Natural Heritage System (NHS) in Ottawa and is consistent with the PPS.
b. Policies 3, 4 and 5 are simply a reminder of where in the Plan policies protect the NHS.
c. Policy 6 identifies the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) within or adjacent to the NHS regardless of the land-use designation.
d. Policy 4 includes the definition of negative impact as stated in the PPS.
14. Section 2.4.3. Watershed and Subwatershed Plans - the language has been updated to reflect the Natural Heritage System.
15. Section 2.4.4. Groundwater Management – The introduction has been amended to clarify that the City is only one of many bodies with a responsibility related to groundwater. The new policy is drawn from the Council approved Groundwater Management Strategy.
16. 2.4.5. Greenspaces – Policies related to the review of development applications have been moved to Section 4 of the Plan where they belong. A new statement has been introduced related to the key role of development adjacent to greenspaces.
17. Section 2.5.1. Urban Design and Compatibility – This section was previously referred to as Compatibility and Community Design. “Urban Design” is the more appropriate term in this context and is defined in the preamble. Principles have been updated to incorporate additional sustainable design criteria. Design Priority Areas have been introduced to describe areas where particular emphasis should be placed on design. These include target areas for intensification as well as village mainstreets.
18. Section 2.5.4. A Strategy for Parks and Leisure Areas – Policies related to individual development applications have been moved to Section 4 of the Plan where they belong.
19. Section 2.5.5. Cultural Heritage Resources – In recognition of the Rideau Canal becoming a World Heritage Site, policies have been introduced to ensure that the function and heritage character of the Canal be preserved. These policies commit the City to working with Parks Canada in this regard. Policies inserted in Section 4 relate to the review of development applications along the Canal.
20. Section 2.5.6. Collaborative Community Building and Community Design Plans – Two key changes have been introduced. The first is to recognize that community design plans need to be integrated with any other city initiative for the same area such as Neighbourhood Plans. The second is a clarification that all community design plans must include a Master Servicing Study, a Financial Implementation Plan, an evaluation of the adequacy of community facilities and a sub-watershed plan or environmental management plan. Some minor wording changes have also been made to the framework.
21. Section 3.1. Generally Permitted Uses
a. Mainstreets have been added to the list of where Shelter Accommodation may be permitted.
b. Policies for Renewable and Alternative Energy Systems and Installations have been introduced as required by the PPS. They are generally permitted in all designations.
22. Section 3.2. Natural Environment – Some words have been introduced to simply explain what makes up the natural environment for the purposes of this Plan.
23. Section 3.2.1. Significant Wetlands – Previously this was ‘Significant Wetlands South and East of the Canadian Shield’ but consistent with the PPS, this distinction no longer exists in Ottawa. The policies themselves have not changed except for a reference to the potential requirement for a permit from the Conservation Authorities. The actual mapping of significant wetlands has changed and readers are directed to Document 5 for a more detailed discussion of Significant Wetlands.
24. Section 3.2.2. Natural Environment Areas – This section has been updated to more clearly spell out the requirements for an Environmental Impact Statement consistent with the PPS.
a. No lot creation is permitted in a Natural Environment Area.
b. On a lot of record one can have a single-detached dwelling.
c. An Environmental Impact Statement will support a proposal for a severance within 30 metres or a subdivision within 120 metres.
d. The Environmental Impact Statement will show “no negative impacts”.
25. Section 3.2.3. Urban Natural Features – The Environmental Impact required adjacent to Urban Natural Features will be required to show no “significant” negative impacts in recognition that within the urban area, it would be impossible to show no negative impacts. These features do not meet the Provincial definition of “significant” but are part of the Natural Heritage System in the City.
26. Section 3.2.4. Significant Natural Features – The EIS requirements have been clarified.
27. Section 3.2.5. Flewellyn Wetland – new policies have been added to create The Flewellyn Special Policy Area on Schedule A to allow for correction of drainage problems and protection of provincially significant wetlands in the area.
28. Section 3.5. Greenbelt – A small change is being made because a policy was mistakenly placed in the wrong sub-section. It belongs in Greenbelt Rural and was moved.
29. Section 3.6.1 General Urban Area – The policy related to the Barrhaven South Community Design Plan was corrected to recognise matters that were addressed by the Community Design Plan.
30. Section 3.6.2. Mixed Use Centres – A cross-reference has been introduced to the density targets in Section 2.2.2.
31. Section 3.6.3. Mainstreets – The policies related to building heights have been revised. The intention is to support up to six storeys on Traditional Mainstreets and up to nine storeys on Arterial Mainstreets. Previously policies existed as to where exceptions to these heights could be considered. Now the exception policies have been articulated in Section 4.11 and also refer to tall buildings in other designations.
32. Section 3.6.4. Developing Community – Two changes are proposed. The first is a statement of the minimum density to be increased from 29 units per net hectare to 32 units per net hectare. The second is a policy to place emphasis on the need for the identification of a natural heritage system and policies to ensure it is protected.
33. Section 3.6.5. Employment Area and Enterprise Area – A number of clarifications are proposed:
a. An enhancement of the description of Employment Areas in the preamble to recognize the range of functions.
b. Assurance that the minimum employment target in every Area is 2,000 jobs.
c. Some enhancements to the Enterprise Area Designation to clarify that they were conceived to provide for much higher densities and to allow for the mix of uses provided the minimum employment target is met.
34. Section 3.7.1. Villages – Some changes to Village policies are enumerated in Section 2.2 and 2.2.1 related mainly to boundaries. In Section 3, the policies relate to uses within a village. Proposed changes include the introduction of sub-headings and cross-references to more general requirements that apply in the Urban Area and in Villages (e.g. affordable housing). The actual policy changes are as follows:
a. Community Design Plans will be required if public services, village expansion or the development of more than 50 hectares is proposed for a village.
b. In all other villages, every five years a review will be undertaken to identify the need for any updates.
35. Section 3.7.2. General Rural Area – Some clarifications have been introduced along with sub-headings to make the section more readable. Three key policy changes are proposed:
a. The introduction of a “Conservation Subdivision” to promote the preservation of the rural landscape while permitting development.
b. The need for an Environmental Impact Statement if a proposed development is within a prescribed distance of a component of the Natural Heritage System.
c. Clarification that a severance within an existing plan of subdivision need only meet the lot size requirements of plans of subdivision.
36. Section 3.7.3. Agricultural Resources – Many changes were made to this Section of the Plan in a Housekeeping Amendment in 2007 in order to bring it into conformity with the PPS. Two additional changes are required to complete this consistency exercise:
a. The policies for Secondary Uses have been updated with the language of the PPS.
b. All references to severances, except those for a surplus dwelling, boundary adjustment or new farm holding, have been deleted consistent with the PPS.
Changes have also been made to the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) policies to permit the City to consider a variance to the MDS II for expanding livestock operations consistent with the Ministry of Natural Resource guidelines.
37. Section 3.7.4 Mineral Resources – Confusion has always existed around the means to show that a resource is depleted or not suitable for extraction and therefore other uses should be permitted. The proposed changes to this Section are intended to clarify how this is done.
38. Section 3.8 Solid Waste Disposal Sites – Policies for operating and non-operating solid waste disposal sites have been combined for ease of use.
39. Section 3.10 Airports (see also Document 6)
a. The preamble has been updated to emphasize the important role of the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport in Ottawa and to recognize that it has a Master Plan for all of its leased lands. Schedule B has been revised to show the limits of the Airport Lands and a commitment to complete studies for the lands outside of the actual Airport designation. The Airport designation is permitted the uses within an Employment Area designation along with many aviation-related uses.
b. The Carp Airport preamble and policies recognize the completion and approval of an aerospace business park and an accessory residential fly-in community for the Carp Airport.
40. Section 4.3 Walking, Cycling, Transit, Roads and Parking Lots – The reference to a Transportation Impact Assessment Report has been clarified in terms of the three different reports it could be.
41. Section 4.4.1 Servicing in Public Service Area – Have made some specific means to mitigate flows from development on urban lands inside the Greenbelt.
42. Section 4.4.2 Private Water and Wastewater Servicing – clarifies that any development in the rural area on private services may need to provide supporting information. Further:
a. The servicing study must conform to City guidelines
b. A Monitoring well will be required as a condition for new subdivisions
43. Section 4.5 Housing – Section 99.1 of the Municipal Act states that a municipality cannot prohibit or regulate the conversion of a residential rental property that contains less than six dwelling units.
44. Section 4.6.3 River and Canal Corridors – Have added reference to the Rideau Canal and a statement that the City may require site plan approval for all non-agricultural buildings along the Canal to protect its World Heritage qualities.
45. Section4.6.5 Multi-Use Pathways – Has been updated to use the term multi-use pathways instead of Major Recreational Pathways. Policies have been enhanced to place more emphasis on the role of multi-use pathways, the fact that the Planning Act now permits these to be required through subdivision approval and the recognition that these should be part of the development charge by-law.
46. Section 4.7.1 Integrated Environmental Review to Assess Development Applications – Requires proponents of subdivisions and major developments to include a sustainable environmental design checklist to indicate how the sustainable design criteria in Section 2 have been met.
47. Section 4.7.3 Erosion Prevention and Protection of Surface Water – Some updates have been introduced to clarify requirements that already exist:
a. Reference is made to the Slope Stability Guidelines and the Slope Stability Study to be used in addressing the issue;
b. Reference is made to the requirement for approval of the Conservation Authority for certain projects near a lake, river, stream or wetland;
c. Clarification that development and site alteration is not permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with federal and provincial requirements;
d. Statement that there must be clear access to a working space adjacent to drains.
48. Section 4.7.6 Stormwater Management – A cross reference is made to the Infrastructure Master Plan regarding on-site stormwater management and a policy allowing the City to have proponents in areas of intensification, contribute to the rehabilitation of the sewer system.
49. Section 4.7.8 Environmental Impact Statement – A restatement of where an EIS is required has been consolidated in this section.
50. Section 4.8.1 Floodplains – The policies have been entirely replaced to be consistent with the PPS. In summary, they provide for the following:
a. In simplified terms development is prohibited in the floodplain except for minor additions;
b. However, the Conservation Authority has identified four areas where a “flood fringe” is identified within the floodplain. In flood fringe areas more development is permitted, excluding lot creation.
51. Section 4.8.2 Wellhead Protection – Policies have been modified to reflect that the wellhead protection Areas at City-owned well sites have been completed.
52. Section 4.8.3 – Unstable Soils or Bedrock – Policies have been updated to be consistent with the PPS regarding the prohibition of hospitals, schools, emergency services etc in areas of unstable soils or bedrock.
53. Section 4.8.5 Former Landfill Sites – Policies have been integrated with Contaminated Sites
54. Section 4.8.7 Land-Use Constraints Due to Airport and Aircraft Operations – The first change is to expand the focus from noise to: aircraft noise, airport zoning regulations (which often relate to height) and wildlife management (which often relates to land-use attractive to wildlife). The preamble has been changed to clarify these three interests. Aircraft noise policies at the Macdonald-Cartier International Airport have been slightly changed for clarification.
55. New Section 4.8.10, Land Use Constraints Due to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. – The Communications Research Centre (CRC), located within the Greenbelt at 3701 Carling Avenue, is the Canadian government's leading centre of expertise in satellite communications. The CRC site contains a large satellite antenna field that emits radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields represents a possible hazard to human health. Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Canada has produced Safety Code 6 – “Limits of Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3kHz to 300 GHz” to specify maximum levels and durations of exposure to radio frequency fields of frequencies between 3 kHz and 300 GHz to prevent human health effects. The intent of the Plan is to limit the height of buildings within the area affected by the Safety Code 6 to avoid the possibility of impacts of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields originating from the CRC antenna and to prevent new structures from blocking or adding possible sources of radiofrequency interference at the CRC site.
56. Section 4.9 Energy Conservation Through Design – Some minor wording changes to clarify wording.
57. Section 4.10 Parks and Greenspace Requirements – Formerly this section was only related to Greenspace. Now all of the development oriented policies formerly in Section 2 related to parks and greenspace have been moved to Section 4 where they belong. New proposed policies relate to design adjacent to major greenspaces in the city and waterways. Polices related to Parkland dedication will be added to this section by a separate official plan amendment.
58. Section 4.11Demonstrating Urban Design and Compatibility – a number of new policies are being proposed:
a. More emphasis on the need for good design or the proposal will be rejected;
b. Definitions of building profiles
c. Where high-rise buildings will be considered
d. How taller buildings must be integrated with the community
59. Section 5.2 Implementation Mechanisms by Authority under the Planning Act – Changes have been made under the heading “Site Plan Control Area’:
a. In recognition that the Planning Act now permits municipalities to regulate the exterior design of buildings, an enabling policy is being proposed. The actual details will be spelled out in the Site Plan Control By-law but must be in the Official Plan to allow that to happen.
b. Provision is made for the Site Plan Control By-law to regulate development along the World Heritage Site – the Rideau Canal.
60. Section 5.2 Implementation Mechanisms by Authority under the Planning Act – A couple of additions have been made to the list of amenities, which might result in increased height or density being permitted. These are environmental matters at the request of the Environmental Advisory Committee. This list was never meant to be all inclusive.
61. Section 5.3 Other Implementation Policies – A policy from section 3 was moved here related to boundary adjustments.
62. Section 5.4 Interpretation – This section is proposed to be amended to permit technical revisions to the Official Plan without going through an Official Plan Amendment. This section defines technical revisions.
63. Section 5.6 Summary of Studies – When the 2003 Official Plan was approved, a number of commitments were made to do strategic level studies to enhance the Official Plan. These have mostly been completed and the list is no longer necessary.
These schedules amend Schedules A and K.
These islands were not identified in the mapping of the 2003 City of Ottawa Official Plan. This oversight was identified when the comprehensive zoning by-law was being prepared.
The designation and the identified flood plain are consistent with the designations in the former Township of West Carleton Official Plan.
WETLAND POLICIES DOCUMENT
4
In May, 2008 the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) advised the City that it had identified 3600 ha of new provincially-significant wetlands and removed 775 ha that were previously identified as significant. The MNR asked that the new mapping be used as the basis for designating land as part of the 2008 Official Plan Review, in keeping with the Provincial Policy Statement. The City notified about 1500 property owners affected by these boundary changes in June, but given the release of the information so close to the summer, staff did not schedule any public meeting to discuss the new mapping. The notification to residents said Council would consider the new mapping at a meeting in the fall.
The purpose of this Document is to update Council on the wetland mapping and describe the broad direction of the changes to wetlands proposed for the Official Plan amendment to be tabled in January.
Since June, 2008:
o
The
MNR has modified some wetland boundaries as a result of field investigation
over the summer
Several property owners in Petrie Island and the Goulbourn Wetlands invited MNR to visit their properties and Ministry staff flew over parts of the Goulbourn wetland to verify boundaries. The MNR made several boundary adjustments as a result of these and other investigations. The largest changes were deletion of pockets within the Flewellyn Road area of the Goulbourn wetland and deletion of the whole of the Fernbank wetland. Affected property owners were advised of these changes early in November and directed to Ottawa.ca to view the MNR mapping on e-maps. The significant wetland areas mapped in October, 2008 will form the basis of the proposed wetland amendments to the Official Plan, subject to several proposals described below. The wetland amendments will be included in the larger Official Plan amendment to be tabled in January 2009.
o City
staff have asked the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing(MMAH) for
assistance in addressing wetland issues in Ottawa.
Senior provincial and MMAH staff met on August 25, 2008 to discuss wetland matters. City staff advised the Province that in 2006, City Council made several commitments to property owners in the Flewellyn Road area following identification of new wetlands within the Goulbourn complex. Council committed not to designate these areas in the Official Plan until several years after local drainage problems had been addressed through construction of a new municipal drain.
With the Official Plan Review concluding early in 2009, City staff said they wanted to find a solution to the protection of these wetlands that satisfies both Provincial policies and Council's commitments.
The City also requested information about how new wetlands are being identified in other parts of the Province, to see whether there are lessons to be learned. The MMAH provided information on the following municipalities:
City staff also canvassed eight upper and lower-tier municipalities adjacent to Ottawa to learn more about wetland identification there. Only three municipalities had experienced wetland boundary adjustments in the last three years—two municipalities had reductions and one had an increase. The increase occurred in Merrickville-Wolford, where the MNR assessed wetlands along the Rideau Canal as having significant status. The change attracted little public discussion.
Compared with other municipalities elsewhere in the province, Ottawa seems unique with respect to the amount of new wetland identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources. This may be because Ottawa may have a larger area of significant wetland than most other municipalities, and new technology and aerial photography make it easier to map these wetlands.
o In
response to Council’s direction, staff have prepared a special policy for the
Goulbourn Wetlands within the Flewellyn Road area.
At
its meeting on October 8, 2008 City Council directed staff to prepare a special
policy for the land within the Flewellyn Road area where the MNR identified new
wetlands in 2006. The policy is to
implement Council's direction in 2006 not to designate these lands as wetland,
while also addressing the Provincial policy that requires protection of
significant wetlands. Staff were to
develop this policy in consultation with the Province, the Wetland Stakeholders
Group and other interested parties.
The
link to the Council direction is here:
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2008/10-08/arac/01-ACS2008-CCV-RIA-0002.htm
The
draft policy proposes to keep the current Official Plan designations in place
and reaffirms the City’s commitment to a new wetland evaluation in the area no
sooner than five years after completion of drainage improvements. However, if a
property owner wants to change the land use and files a development application
with the City, then any significant wetlands shown on maps maintained by the
MNR will be subject to the Plan’s wetland policies. This special policy, which has been reviewed by the Wetland
Stakeholder group, is included in the proposed policy changes to the Official
Plan in Section 3.2.5.
o City
staff propose that the appropriate planning approach to certain of the wetlands
is not to designate them as significant wetland in the Plan.
A few of the significant wetlands identified by the MNR are the subject of previous planning decisions. In a letter to MMAH on October 14, 2008, City staff proposed that the appropriate planning approach, having regard to the transitional rules of the Planning Act and the requirement to be consistent with Provincial Policy, is that three areas not be designated as significant wetland. These areas are:
o Portions of the South March Highlands in the urban area, within a draft-approved plan of subdivision filed in April 2003 and approved at the Ontario Municipal Board in 2006;
o Portions of the Leitrim Wetland in the urban area, approved for urban development since the late 1980s;
o Portions of the Goulbourn Wetland in the Flewellyn Road area, where Council has conserved mineral aggregate resources since the mid-1970s. The Provincial Policy Statement does not favour one use over another.
In addition, City staff are following up with the MNR on minor boundary adjustments approved by MNR in the past that are not reflected in the current MNR mapping.
AIRPORT POLICIES DOCUMENT
5
Requirement
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) requires municipalities to plan for uses in the vicinity of airports so that the long-term operation and economic role of airports is protected. The PPS defines an airport as all Ontario airports with Noise Exposure (NEF)/Noise Projection (NEP) mapping.
There are two airports in Ottawa as defined by the PPS, the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport and the Carp Airport. Section 3.10 of the Official Plan contains policies for the City’s airports.
The Rockcliffe Airport, operated by the Rockcliffe Flying Club, does not have NEF/NEP mapping, therefore it does not meet the criteria for an airport in the PPS.
Current Policy
The Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport is designated on Schedule B. Section 3.10.1 of the Official Plan provides general policies that list the permitted uses that include civilian or military airport; employment uses as described in Section 3.6.5 and hotels and related commercial uses. The policies also state that consideration of land uses on airport lands will be based on the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority Land-Use Plan.
Discussion
Currently the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport designation as shown on Schedule B does not apply exclusively to the Airport Authority’s demised premises. The designation includes significant parcels of land owned by others such as the National Capital Commission (NCC), the Department of National Defence and the City of Ottawa. These properties are not in reserve for airport development and therefore should not be designated as such. Also, not all of the Airport Authority lands are within the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport designation. The Authority holdings include other lands that are designated Natural Environment Area, Greenbelt Rural, Sand and Gravel Resource Area and General Rural Area. The Airport Authority has requested that the Authority’s lease holding with Transport Canada adjacent to the Airport be shown in the Official Plan.
The Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport has prepared a land-use plan for the airport. The primary objective of the Land-Use Plan is to provide strategic direction and planning focus for the future development of the airport. The Plan identifies employment areas, airport operational/terminal areas, and environmental areas.
Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport is located within the National Capital Greenbelt and the National Interest Land Mass, which is defined as lands essential to the long term functioning of the Capital. The NCC has approved the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority’s Land-Use Plan subject to a number of conditions including requiring secondary plans to be prepared, detailed design guidelines being in place prior to development and detailed environmental studies being completed.
The designations in the Official Plan are consistent with those in the Greenbelt Master Plan. The Official Plan policies for the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport should be updated to set out a framework for how the airport lands will be developed in the future that is consistent with new Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Land-Use Plan.
Proposed Direction
The land
within the Macdonald-Cartier International Airport designation that is not
leased by the Ottawa International Airport Authority is being changed to
Employment Area. The Employment Area
designation is more appropriate for these lands as they are not part of the
airport.
It is proposed to add policies to the Official Plan to provide specific direction for future development of all of the Macdonald-Cartier International Airport lands. Future development of employment uses will require the development of concept plans to:
· identify the type, density and location of land uses;
· establish land use, environmental and design guidelines;
· set out an implementation strategy for the proposed development.
It is proposed to show the area leased by the Ottawa International Airport Authority on Schedule B. For lands leased by the Airport Authority outside the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport designation within the greenbelt and rural area, any change in the designations will require an Official Plan amendment that:
· is supported by studies prepared by the Airport Authority in consultation with the City, the National Capital Commission and other airport stakeholders; or
· implements land use changes recommended through the NCC Greenbelt Master Plan Review process.
Current Policy
The Carp Airport is designated on Schedule A with the intent of providing airport facilities that serve the general aviation needs in Ottawa. The land uses permitted in the designation are aviation and other land uses associated with an airport.
The Official Plan states that City will undertake a study of the Carp Airport and lands in the vicinity of the airport in order to explore opportunities to strengthen the local economic and employment role of the facility. This study would consider:
· The boundaries of the area;
· Land use in and around the airport;
· Transportation and servicing issues;
· Economic benefits to the city.
The study may also explore the viability of limited residential development adjacent to the airport, where the residential development includes provisions for aircraft storage.
In 2005, the City approved a master development plan for the Carp Airport that provided for retention and development of the core airport area, and development of aviation related land uses components that included an aerospace business park and an accessory residential fly-in community.
The studies required by the Official Plan to explore the future development potential of the Carp Airport were completed as part of the development approval process for the master development plan for Carp Airport The City approved the development plan for in 2007.
Proposed Direction
The policies for the Carp Airport
are being updated to reflect development plan that has been approved for the
West Capital Airpark.
Requirement
While Section 3 of the Official Plan deals with the land uses permitted at the Airports, Section 4 of the Plan deals with matters that must be considered when proposing development in and around the airport. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) requires municipalities to protect airports from incompatible land uses and development by:
Current Policy
Section 4.8.7 of the Official Plan contains policies to address the impacts of airport operations on land use that result in two categories of constraints on development: aircraft noise, and Airport Zoning Regulations.
The Ottawa ‘Airport Operating Influence Zone’ (AIOZ) is based on the most restrictive of either the 30 NEF and NEP contours. Within this area, residential and noise sensitive development is not permitted. Notwithstanding, very limited residential infill and redevelopment may occur subject to criteria established in the Official Plan.
The Airport Vicinity Development Zone (AVDZ) is based on the more restrictive of either the 25 NEF and NEP contours, as well as Ottawa International Airport Zoning regulations. Within the AVDZ building standards on residential and other noise sensitive development are impose to reduce the impact of aircraft noise indoors.
The Airport Zoning Regulations:
· ensure building heights and natural vegetation respect airport obstacle limitation surfaces as established by federal aerodrome standards or airport zoning regulations, whichever case applies;
· restrict land uses, activities and the use of building materials that interfere with the performance of navigation aids and telecommunication.
The Official Plan contains policies to address
noise from Carp and Rockcliffe Airports but there are no policies to indicate
that developments in the vicinity of airports should comply with Transport
Canada manual TP 1247 – Land-Use in the Vicinity of Airports and manual TP 312
- Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices.
Discussion
The boundaries of the AOIZ and the AVDZ were revised in 2005 (Official Plan Amendment 36) to reflect the new noise contours prepared by the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority. Schedule K and Annex 10 to the Official Plan; however, do not reflect the current boundaries of the area affected by the Airport Zoning Regulations, particularly the bird hazard areas. The Official Plan also needs to be revised to contain policies regarding managing activities in a manner that will not increase wildlife presence and elevate risks to aviation operations.
Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport has requested that description of the Land Use Constraints Due to Aircraft Noise be revised to better explain constraints due to operational conditions of the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport, specifically aircraft noise, airport zoning regulations and wildlife management.
No zoning regulations have been enacted
under the Aeronautics Act for Carp or Rockcliffe Airports. In the absence of zoning regulations,
developments are required to comply with Transport Canada manual TP 1247 –
Land-Use in the Vicinity of Airports and manual TP 312 - Aerodrome Standards
and Recommended Practices, which address:
a. Protection
of navigational aids and telecommunications systems at the airport through
attention to building height, orientation and use of metallic substances that
could interfere with these systems;
b. Restrictions
on land uses that could attract birds and wildlife and pose a hazard to
aircraft operations.
Future
Direction
The Official Plan is proposed to be revised as follows:
PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE OFFICIAL
PLAN REVIEW
AND INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 6
Consultation
Activities Report
Scope
and Timing of Reviews
|
Date |
Activities and
Reports to Committee and Council |
|
January to March, 2007 |
Informal discussions with interest groups and Councillors |
|
February, 2007 |
Report to Committee – Scope and Timing of OP, TMP and IMP Review |
|
March, 2007 |
Report to Committee – Consultation Strategy |
Identification of Issues and Options
|
Date |
Activities and
Reports to Committee and Council |
|
March, 2007 |
Rural Workshop I – Rural Settlement Strategy Workshop I - Identified 5 Rural Working Groups |
|
April, 07 to January, 2008 |
5 Rural Working Groups rural residents in 5 groups and involving 30 or more meetings –discussed issues related to development inside and outside villages; groundwater, agriculture and process. |
|
July, 2007 |
Report to Council: consultation strategy for the OP, TMP and IMP |
|
August, 2007 |
White Papers
City staff
developed white papers for discussion on issues to inform the official plan
|
|
August, 2007 |
Background Papers Prepared by the Rural Working Groups with recommendations for changes
to policy and processes. |
|
September, 2007 |
Public Information Meeting – on Growth Projections |
|
October, 2007 |
Report to Council
on Growth Projections |
|
October, 2007 to December 2008 |
E-news: email newsletter to inform residents on consultation events and review issues |
|
October, 2007 |
Ottawa Talks – online interactive forum for discussion |
|
November, 2007 |
Rural Workshop II – Rural Café - 4 Working Groups recommendations presented to and discussed by Rural Community |
|
November, 2007 |
City Café : public consultation in the “world café” style to gather feedback and opinions on the White papers |
|
November, 2007 |
Councillor Briefing: in the City Café style to solicit feedback from City Councillors |
|
January 2008 |
Meeting with Agencies, City Departments and
representatives of adjacent municipalities to discus the OP review and
agency interests |
|
January 2008 |
Business Breakfast: Ottawa Carleton Homebuilders and the Building Owners and Managers Association. Featured speaker: Deputy City Manager – Planning Transit and the Environment Department Nancy Schepers |
|
January 2008 |
Rural Summit II Provided feed back on City actions coming from Rural Summit I and addressed some of the matters raised by the Rural Working Groups |
Preparation
of Preliminary Proposals
|
Date |
Activities and
Reports to Committee and Council |
|
April 2008 |
Report to Council – Review of the
Official Plan – Preliminary Proposals |
|
May 2008 |
Rural Workshop 3 Staff presented response to the Rural Working Group recommendations
and the public consultation. Staff Preliminary Proposals presented for
questions and answers. |
|
May – June 2008 |
General public information meeting
(various) Community Association Information meeting (May 20): gathering feedback on the preliminary proposals for changes to the official plan Committees of Adjustment meeting (June, 2008) · Intensification Forum: Three sessions with outside experts to educate residents on the aspects of intensification · City Advisory Committee consultations (May and June, 2008) |
|
January, 2007 to November, 2008 |
Greater Ottawa Homebuilders Association – regular meetings to discuss issues |
Note: Throughout the period of the Review of the Official Plan and Infrastructure Master Plan, staff have met with various individuals and groups at their request to discuss issues or explain assumptions. These meetings are not documented in this table.
BIBLIOGRAPHY DOCUMENT
7
Bibliography: Reports, Studies, Monitoring Completed since
May 2003 (date of adoption of City of Ottawa Official Plan) *
1.0
GENERAL
DATA REPORTS
1.1
Demographic-Economic
Facts, November 2003 {Census tract data summaries}
1.2
2001
Census Characteristics by Ward for the City of Ottawa, September 2003 (old
wards)
1.3
Data
Handbook - Collection of tables of most often requested data, November 2005
1.4
2001
Census Characteristics by Wards for the City of Ottawa, September 2006 (new
wards)
1.5
2006
Census Characteristics by Wards for the City of Ottawa, November 2008
2.0
POPULATION
2.1
History
of Population Projections in Ottawa 1915-2001, March 2004
2.2 Background Report on New Growth Projections for 2006-2031, June 2007
2.3
Growth
Projections for Ottawa: Prospects for Population, Housing and Jobs 2006-2031,
November 2007
2.4
Residential
Land Strategy for Ottawa, 2006-2031, October 2008
3.0
EMPLOYMENT
3.1
Employment
in Ottawa: Results of the 2001 Employment Survey, August 2003
3.2
Employment
in Ottawa Summary: Results of the 2001 Employment Survey, August 2003
3.3
Employment
in Ottawa Atlas, August 2003
3.4
Employment
in Ottawa: Results of the 2006 Employment Survey, November 2007
4.0
LAND
SUPPLY
4.1
Rural
Residential Land Survey, 2006 Update, June 2007
4.2
Vacant
Urban Residential Land Survey, 2007 Update, July 2008 and previous years
(annual survey)
4.3
Vacant
Urban Residential Land Survey 2007 Update, July 2008, Detailed Parcel List with
map
4.4
Inventory
of Vacant Industrial and Business Park Lands, 2006-07 Update, August 2008 and
previous years (biannual survey)
4.5
Employment
Land Study Strategy, Phase 1, November 2008
5.0
HOUSING
5.1
Where
Will We Live? Housing Potential in Ottawa, October 2004
5.2
Understanding
Residential Density, December 2005
5.3
City
Housing Strategy 2007-2012, September 2007
6.0
LAND
USE
6.1
Land
Development Activity in the Vicinity of Transitway Stations, 1997-2002 Update,
June 2003
6.2
2005
Urban Land Use map, December 2005
6.3
2005
Rural Land Use map, December 2005
6.4
2005
Land Use Survey, April 2006
6.5
Downtown
Living, A Guide to Downtown Residential Development, June 2008
6.6
Residential
Intensification in Ottawa 2001-2006, September 2008
7.0
OTHER
RESEARCH AND MONITORING REPORTS
7.1
Annual
Development Report 2007, April 2008 and previous years
7.2
Ottawa
Retail Report 2005
7.3
Ottawa
Counts, 12 issues
8.0
WATER
PROTECTION
8.1
Eastern
Ontario Water Resource Management Study Final Report
8.2
Eastern
Ontario Water Resource Management Study Figures
8.3
Eastern
Ontario Water Resource Management Study
8.4
Preliminary
Evaluation of Relative Aquifer Vulnerability
8.5
Preliminary
Evaluation of Relative Aquifer Vulnerability
8.6
Protecting
Our Rural Water Supply
9.0
DESIGN
GUIDELINES (includes complete list from before 2003)
9.1 Regional Road Corridor Design Guidelines, Delcan Corporation, July 2000
9.2
Downtown
Ottawa Urban Design Strategy, Urban Strategies Inc., March 2004
9.3
Urban Design: A Reference Guide to Creating Great Places and Great
Spaces (2007)
9.4
Urban
Design Guidelines for Development along Traditional Mainstreets, May 2006
9.5
Urban
Design Guidelines for Development along Arterial Mainstreets, May 2006
9.6
Infill
Housing Design Guidelines, Low-Medium Density, October 2005
9.7
Urban
Design Guidelines for Large-Format Retail, May 2006
9.8
Urban
Design Guidelines for Gas Stations, May 2006
9.9
Urban
Design Guidelines for Drive-Through Facilities, May 2006
9.10
Outdoor
Patio Design Guidelines, January 2006
9.11
Right-of-Way
Lighting Policy, McCormick Rankin Corporation, February 2008
9.12
Urban
Design Guidelines for Greenfield Neighbourhoods, September 2007
9.13
Transit-Oriented
Development Guidelines, September 2007
10.0
COMMUNITY
DESIGN PLANS AND AREA STUDIES (includes complete list from before 2003)
10.1
Kanata
West Concept Plan, August 2002
10.2
St.
Joseph Boulevard Corridor Study, March 2003
10.3
Orléans
Industrial Park Land Use and Design Study, Urban Design Guidelines, December
2003
10.4
Carp
Road Corridor Community Design Plan, May 2004
10.5
A
Community Design Plan for the Village of Carp, June 2004
10.6
Village
of Greely Community Design Plan, February 2005
10.7
Leitrim
Community Design Plan, July 2005
10.8
Riverside
South Community Design Plan Implementation Guidelines, June 2005
10.9
East
Urban Community, Community Design Plan for the Phase 1 Area, July 2005
10.10 A Community Plan for the Village of
Constance Bay, May 2006
10.11 South Nepean Town Centre Community
Design Plan, July 2006
10.12 Barrhaven South Community Design
Plan, September 2006
10.13 Mer Bleue Community Design Plan, May
2006
10.14 Beechwood Community Design Plan, September
2006
10.15 North Gower Community Design Plan,
November 2007
10.16 Bayview/Somerset Area Secondary Plan
Study, December 2004
10.17 Richmond Road/Westboro Community
Design Plan, July 2007
10.18 Uptown Rideau Community Design Plan,
January 2005
10.19 Hospital Lands Area Plan, September
2008
10.20 Mer Bleue Mixed Use Centre,
Community Design Plan, October 2006
10.21 Longfields Concept Plan, July 2002
11.0
TRANSPORTATION
11.1
Strategic
Analysis of Travel Demand, July 2003
11.2
Roadway
Requirements and Staging Plan, July 2003
11.3
Land
Use Strategies to Support Increased Transit Ridership, March 2003
11.4
Strategies
to Increase Ridesharing, May 2003
11.5
Transportation
Goal Setting and Monitoring, June 2003
11.6
Transportation,
Air Quality and Climate Change, November 2003
11.7
Transportation
Performance - Objectives and Indicators, Phase I, December 2005
11.8
Transit
Ridership Growth Plan, March 2006
11.9
Transportation
Performance - Objectives and Indicators, Phase II, September 2008
11.10 Road Corridor Design Guidelines -
Urban & Village Collectors and Rural Arterials and Collectors, March 2008
12.0
WHITE
PAPERS October 2007
12.1
Addressing
Ottawa’s Transportation Challenges
12.2
The
Balance of Jobs and Housing in Orléans
12.3
Climate
Change and the Official Plan Review
12.4
Compensations
Options for Wetlands and Other Environmental Lands
12.5
Development
in the Greater Ottawa-Gatineau Area
12.6
Moving
Forward with Rapid Transit
12.7
Ottawa’s
Natural Environmental System: How Well Is it Working?
12.8
Residential
Intensification: Building More Vibrant Communities
12.9
Supporting
Growth in Ottawa: Water and Sewer Challenges
12.10
Development
in the Greenbelt - June 2008
13.0
RURAL
DISCUSSION PAPERS October 2007
13.1
Development
Outside Villages
13.2
Village
Development
13.3
Groundwater
Resources – Their Wise Use and Protection
13.4
Process
Working Group
13.5
Agriculture
- January 2008
14.0
PRELIMINARY
PROPOSALS
14.1 Review of the Official Plan and Infrastructure Master Plan –
Preliminary Proposals, April 2008
Planning
and Environment Committee
Comité
de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement
and/et
Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee
Comité
d'agriculture et des questions rurales
and
Council / et au Conseil
17
November 2008 / 17 novembre 2008
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers,
Deputy City Manager
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Planning, Transit and the Environment
Urbanisme, Transport en commun et
Environnement
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Richard
Kilstrom, Manager
Planning Branch/Direction de l'urbanisme
(613) 580-2424 x 22653,
richard.kilstrom@ottawa.ca
|
Ref N°: ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0231 |
OBJET :
|
Examen
du Plan officiel et du Plan directeur de l'infrastructure |
SUBJECT:
|
REVIEW
OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN |
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement et le Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales recommandent au Conseil le dépôt, en janvier 2009, d’une ébauche de la modification du Plan officiel et d’une modification au Plan directeur de l’infrastructure qui reflètent les changements proposés dans le présent rapport.
That Planning and Environment Committee and Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Committee recommend to Council that staff table in January, 2009, a
draft Official Plan Amendment, and an amendment to the Infrastructure Master
Plan, that reflect the proposed changes found in this report.
Le présent rapport a pour objet de fournir de l’information détaillée sur les modifications proposées au Plan officiel et au Plan directeur de l’infrastructure, notamment sur la raison d’être et les conséquences de l’aménagement du territoire futur. Il clarifie en outre le calendrier de révision et les étapes importantes.
Dans le cas des municipalités procédant à une révision détaillée, l’article 26 de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire exige que ces municipalités organisent une réunion extraordinaire visant à discuter des révisions devant être apportées au Plan officiel.
Il n’est pas prévu de demander au Comité de faire, à l’heure actuelle, des recommandations sur l’une ou l’autre des modifications. Ce pourrait en revanche être le cas à l’occasion de la réunion publique prévue en mars 2009.
Le présent rapport est axé sur les principaux points faisant l’objet d’une révision du Plan officiel et du Plan directeur de l’infrastructure, comme les limites urbaines, la densification le peuplement rural et les terres humides.
Le document 1 propose un résumé, section par section, des motifs des changements proposés aux diverses parties du Plan officiel. On y retrouve un exemplaire du Plan officiel illustrant toutes les sections que le personnel propose de supprimer (illustrées par les rayures) ou d’ajouter (illustrées en ombré). Dans de nombreux cas, les politiques concernées ont été déplacées dans des sections plus appropriées et les changements ont été notés.
Le document 2 correspond à la Stratégie sur les terrains résidentiels, qui résume l’analyse visant à déterminer la nécessité d’aménager des terrains urbains supplémentaires, les secteurs ciblés pour une densification, les objectifs de densification et de densité pour divers secteurs, et les mesures devant être prises pour favoriser la densification.
Le document 3 est la Stratégie de peuplement rural, qui contient également la stratégie de patrimoine naturel. Le document 4 explique les nouvelles désignations de terres humides.
Le document 5 contient les propos d’une discussion sur les modifications proposées aux politiques sur l’aéroport. Ils ne figuraient pas dans les Propositions préliminaires et ont donc été intégrés dans le présent document pour la première fois.
Le document 6 est un résumé des consultations publiques menées sur la révision du Plan officiel et du Plan directeur de l’infrastructure. Le document 7 contient une bibliographie du travail de fond entrepris par le personnel en vue d’évaluer, de surveiller et d’approfondir les sujets liés au Plan officiel.
De nombreux rapports ont déjà expliqué les motifs justifiant ces révisions actuellement. La Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire exige une révision du Plan officiel tous les cinq ans. De plus, la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire a été modifiée depuis la dernière adoption d’un Plan officiel par le Conseil, et le provincial a mis en place une nouvelle Déclaration de principes provinciale (DPP). Le Plan officiel doit donc être conforme à cette DPP.
En outre, cette révision était l’occasion de réviser de nombreuses politiques ayant prêté à confusion au cours des cinq dernières années. Certaines d’entre elles ont tout simplement été clarifiées.
Le Conseil a adopté un Plan officiel en 2003 et a approuvé un Plan directeur des transports (PDT) et un Plan directeur de l’infrastructure (PDI). Le Plan officiel fournit des orientations visant ces plans complémentaires, qui à leur tour sont reflétés de diverses manières dans le Plan officiel. Les politiques touchant l’utilisation du sol sont issues des plans directeurs et sont intégrées dans le Plan officiel. Les annexes sur le transport sont particulièrement importantes (routes, transport en commun, cyclisme, etc.). Toutefois, les aspects des plans directeurs touchant les considérations d’ordre opérationnel ainsi que la liste des projets d’infrastructure requis sont toujours traités dans ces documents.
Lorsque le personnel a entamé la révision de ces trois plans, il était convenu que la révision du PDT devait être fondée sur un retour aux principes d’origine. Toutefois, celles du Plan officiel et du PDI ne devaient constituer qu’une mise à jour. Il n’était pas envisagé de réexaminer les orientations stratégiques à la base de l’ensemble du Plan. Le Plan officiel et le PDT continuent de progresser simultanément malgré des calendriers différents. L’accent est mis en particulier sur le développement afin de soutenir les investissements dans le transport en commun rapide.
Le document 2, Stratégie sur les terrains résidentiels, propose davantage de détails sur cette discussion.
L’établissement des limites urbaines d’Ottawa en 2031 est un processus complexe qui requiert un équilibre entre l’orientation des politiques et les forces du marché. L’orientation des politiques découle de sources diverses, notamment les politiques provinciales, le coût de construction et d’entretien de nouvelles infrastructures et celui des services communautaires ainsi que le type de ville que nous voulons avoir. Les forces du marché possèdent un momentum puissant de pratiques industrielles établies, des plans d’affaires et des modèles de demande de la clientèle qui ont évolué avec le temps. Bien qu’elles ne soient pas imperméables au changement, les forces du marché ont tendance à évoluer lentement si aucun choc ou coup de fouet inattendu ne vient influer plus rapidement sur les préférences des résidents.
Le Conseil a approuvé en novembre 2007 de nouvelles prévisions de croissance à Ottawa d’ici à l’an 2031. Ces prévisions constituent une base d’analyse des besoins en matière de terrains urbains. Les nouvelles prévisions démographiques pour 2031 sont plus faibles que celles précédemment établies pour 2021. En revanche, les prévisions du nombre de ménages sont presque équivalentes car la taille moyenne des ménages est plus faible dans les nouvelles prévisions en raison du vieillissement de la population. Voici quelques points importants en matière de prévisions et de besoin de terrains urbains :
De nombreuses hypothèses sont liées à ces calculs, et peuvent toutes être remises en question. Le personnel estime que ces calculs représentent la meilleure interprétation des données et des tendances récentes. Plus particulièrement, le personnel estime que les 20 prochaines années seront différentes des 20 dernières, et que les prévisions doivent tenir compte de ce fait. Le Plan officiel est révisé tous les cinq ans et les hypothèses peuvent être examinées à ce moment.
Lors des consultations publiques, on a tenu des positions allant de la cessation de tout agrandissement des limites urbaines, pour les résidents, à un besoin de 1 500 hectares bruts, de la part du secteur du bâtiment.
Depuis le lancement de la révision du Plan officiel, le personnel s’est engagé à regarder au-delà de l’horizon temporel de 2031. Le provincial n’autorise pas la prise en compte d’une période de planification supérieure à 20 ans pour les plans municipaux. Toutefois, à des fins de planification, particulièrement celle des infrastructures, il peut s’avérer utile de projeter à plus long terme. La Ville s’est engagée dans un projet intitulé « Choisir notre avenir », qui offre un excellent contexte pour examiner les questions d’utilisation du sol à long terme. Il donnera un aperçu des scénarios futurs et replacera leur évaluation dans le contexte de la durabilité.
Les travaux liés à ce projet important ont démarré et il est prévu qu’il sera possible dès le printemps 2009 de collaborer avec le public.
Le document 2, Stratégie sur les terrains résidentiels, propose davantage de détails sur cette discussion.
En ce qui concerne la densification, l’objectif premier est de rester conforme à la Déclaration de principes provinciale et aux orientations du Conseil municipal. Voici les principaux points à ce sujet :
Les politiques suivantes permettront d’atteindre les objectifs de densification :
La Ville devra appliquer les mesures suivantes pour soutenir la densification et favoriser sa réussite :
La création de lieux publics de qualité constitue un ingrédient essentiel d’une collectivité où il fait bon vivre. Il est en outre reconnu qu’une densification réussie exige une excellente conception et une compatibilité avec le quartier existant. Le Plan officiel contient déjà des objectifs de conception et des critères de compatibilité. Toutefois, un certain nombre d’améliorations sont proposées avec la révision du Plan officiel :
La Stratégie de peuplement rural a pour objet d’orienter l’aménagement physique des zones rurales et de remettre les politiques d’aménagement des zones rurales d’Ottawa dans le contexte d’une ville prise dans son ensemble.
Le document 4, Stratégie de peuplement rural, décrit l’approche détaillée en la matière et contient une liste de toutes les recommandations faites par les groupes de travail communautaires et des réponses qu’en a données le personnel.
Le personnel propose d’intégrer dans la révision du Plan officiel des politiques ayant pour but de :
Le document 4, Politiques sur les terres humides, propose davantage de détails à ce sujet.
En mai 2008, le ministère des Richesses naturelles (MRN) avisait la Ville qu’il avait désigné 3 600 hectares de nouvelles terres humides d’importance provinciale et avait supprimé la désignation de 775 hectares précédemment désignés comme importants. Le MRN a demandé que la nouvelle cartographie serve de base, lors de la révision de 2008 du Plan officiel, à la désignation des terres, conformément à la Déclaration de principes provinciale.
On a proposé que la nouvelle cartographie des terres humides soit intégrée dans le Plan officiel révisé, mais avec les exceptions suivantes :
Toutefois, si un propriétaire souhaite modifier une utilisation du sol et effectuer une demande d’aménagement auprès de la Ville, aucune terre humide d’importance figurant sur les cartes et entretenues par le MRN ne pourra être soumise aux politiques du Plan sur les terres humides;
De nombreuses autres modifications proposées dans le Plan officiel pourraient s’avérer intéressantes pour certains particuliers ou groupes. Quelques-unes d’entre elles sont exigées en vertu de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire et d’autres constituent des améliorations fondées sur l’expérience acquise à ce jour. Toutes les modifications proposées au texte et aux annexes du Plan sont décrites dans le document 1.
13. Ajout d’une liste des intérêts provinciaux;
14. Les terres ne peuvent être supprimées d’une désignation de secteur d’emploi sauf si ces suppressions sont appuyées par un examen détaillé, tel que mentionné dans la politique du PO;
15. Clarification des exceptions envisagées pour des services partiels;
16. Référence plus explicite à la qualité de l’air et au changement climatique;
17. Accent mis sur certaines études clés qui doivent faire partie d’un plan de conception communautaire;
18. Autorisation de systèmes et d’installations d’énergie renouvelable et de remplacement;
19. Mise à jour des politiques visant l’aéroport international Macdonald-Cartier d’Ottawa et l’aéroport de Carp (voir le document 5 pour consulter l’intégralité des discussions);
20. De nouvelles politiques sur les contraintes d’utilisation du sol, en raison des champs électromagnétiques à radiofréquence
21. Mise à jour des politiques sur les zones inondables;
22. Tri des politiques permettant d’intégrer celles sur la conception et la compatibilité liées aux objectifs de haut niveau dans la section 2 du Plan, et celles liées à l’examen des demandes d’aménagement dans la section 4 du Plan;
23. Des titres supplémentaires ont été ajoutés pour simplifier la consultation du Plan;
24. Des modifications aux annexes ont été désignées.
Quatre changements clés sont proposés au Plan directeur de l’infrastructure (PDI) :
Stratégie de gestion de la capacité : Afin de faire face aux demandes de densification et aux limites de son ancienne infrastructure, la Ville a élaboré une Stratégie de gestion de la capacité, contenant des politiques plus détaillées et orientant mieux la mise en œuvre que celles proposées actuellement dans le Plan directeur de l’infrastructure :
Stratégie de gestion des eaux souterraines : Le Conseil a adopté la Stratégie de gestion des eaux souterraines en mai 2003, et des modifications ont été proposées aux politiques du Plan directeur de l’infrastructure afin de refléter l’orientation de la stratégie adoptée. Les tâches proposées dans cette stratégie ont été réparties sur deux phases :
Stratégie de gestion des eaux pluviales : Le Conseil a adopté les politiques de gestion des eaux pluviales en septembre 2007. Ces politiques, intégrées dans le Plan directeur de l’infrastructure, ont été élaborées afin de permettre une meilleure orientation dans les domaines suivants :
Principaux projets liés à la distribution d’eau, à l’évacuation des eaux usées et des eaux pluviales : Le PDI contient une liste des projets devant être réalisés entre 2009 et 2019 et entre 2010 et 2031 : amenées principales, stations de pompage et réservoirs, châteaux d’eau et réfection des usines de traitement. En ce qui concerne les eaux usées, la liste contient les collecteurs d’eaux usées et la réfection des usines de traitement. Pour ce qui est de la gestion des eaux pluviales, on y retrouve les bassins et les projets de lutte contre l’érosion.
La version provisoire modifiée qui sera présentée en janvier 2009 contiendra certaines questions qui ne sont pas abordées dans le présent rapport :
7. La désignation des emplacements recommandés pour une rationalisation des limites urbaines, fondée sur une évaluation descriptive. Divers critères seront utilisés, comme les répercussions sur les secteurs de ressources agricoles, al facilité de viabiliser en eau et en eaux usées, les possibilités de protéger les espaces naturels, la connectivité des routes, la proximité des lignes de transport en commun proposées, la protection des rues principales et des centres polyvalents ainsi que la présence de divers éléments de conflit potentiel.
8. L’intégration de certains énoncés ou de certaines politiques proposées par les Premières nations algonquines. Celles-ci aimeraient suggérer quelques ajouts, touchant essentiellement les cours d’eau et les îles. Toutefois, leurs commentaires ne sont pas encore disponibles.
9. Un rapport sur les coûts associés à la mise en œuvre du Plan officiel.
10. Un examen détaillé constituant la base d’une Stratégie des terrains d’emploi. Un rapport est en voie de finalisation par Metropolitan Knowledge International.
11. Des discussions avec les constructeurs ont été programmées pour traiter certaines des exigences d’étude figurant à la section 4. Elles pourraient donner lieu à des propositions supplémentaires de modification au Plan officiel.
12. La révision des annexes I et J afin de mettre en œuvre le Plan sur le cyclisme.
Afin de clarifier la manière avec laquelle cette réunion s’intègre au processus global, le résumé qui suit est proposé. Il s’applique à la révision du Plan officiel. Le calendrier de révision du Plan directeur de l’infrastructure est le même mais le PDI ne nécessite que l’approbation du Conseil municipal. Le Plan officiel nécessite quant à lui l’approbation du gouvernement provincial.
8. Réunion extraordinaire : Le 24 novembre 2008 (Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement) et le 27 novembre 2008 (Comité de l'agriculture et des affaires rurales). Cette réunion a pour objet de fournir aux conseillers et aux membres du public de l’information détaillée sur les modifications proposées au Plan officiel. À la réunion du Comité de l'agriculture et des affaires rurales, l’accent sera mis sur les enjeux ruraux. Le Conseil devra tenir compte de toutes les présentations écrites concernant les éventuelles révisions nécessaires et permettre à tous les participants d’être entendus à ce sujet. Toutefois, il ne s’agit pas de la réunion publique « officielle » et les membres du public ne sont pas tenus de faire des présentations à cette occasion.
9. Dépôt de la modification au Plan officiel : Le 27 janvier 2009, lors de la réunion du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement. Cette réunion aura pour objet de présenter les modifications proposées au Plan officiel et lancer le processus officiel de modification.
10. Réunion portes ouvertes : Le personnel organisera au moins une réunion portes ouvertes entre le 27 janvier 2009 et le 27 février 2009, afin de permettre aux membres du public d’examiner les modifications et de poser des questions sur l’information et le matériel mis à leur disposition le 27 janvier 2009.
11. Réunion publique : Le 24 mars 2009, dans le cadre d’une réunion conjointe du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement et du Comité de l'agriculture et des affaires rurales. Elle aura pour but de permettre aux membres du public de faire des représentations sur les modifications proposées au Plan officiel. Quiconque assiste à une réunion publique doit être en mesure de faire une représentation. Des recommandations sur la modification du Plan officiel seront faites au Conseil, sur la base de l’information fournie par le personnel et de ce que le comité conjoint aura entendu à la réunion publique ou lu dans les présentations écrites.
12. Adoption du Plan par le Conseil municipal : Avril 2009. La date exacte n’a pas encore été fixée car elle dépendra de la durée de la réunion publique. Le Conseil examinera la recommandation du Comité et prendra une décision quant aux éléments à accepter ou à modifier. Lorsque le Conseil aura adopté une modification du Plan officiel, il la soumettra à l’approbation du ministère des Affaires municipales et du Logement. Le Conseil informera de sa décision chaque personne ou entité publique ayant soumis au greffier municipal une demande écrite d’être avisé de l’adoption du Plan.
13. Décision du ministère des Affaires municipales et du Logement : Elle devrait survenir vers la fin de 2009. Le Ministère peut approuver, modifier et approuver tel que modifié, ou rejeter la modification au Plan officiel. La décision du Ministère sera transmise à la Ville et à chaque particulier ou à chaque entité publique ayant fait une demande écrite d’être avisé de la décision.
14. Période d’appel : Lors que le Ministère rendra sa décision, les parties intéressées ont 20 jours pour en appeler, en tout ou en partie, de cette décision auprès de la Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario. Toutefois, les appels ne sont autorisés que s’ils émanent de personnes ayant fait, avant l’adoption du Plan, une présentation orale lors de la réunion publique (le 24 mars 2009) ou une présentation écrite avant l’adoption du Plan par le Conseil (avril 2009).
Aucune consultation sur le présent rapport n’a été faite, mais celui-ci est l’aboutissement de plus d’une année de consultations. Le document 6 résume les activités de consultation publique organisées à ce jour.
Lorsque la modification provisoire au Plan officiel sera déposée, en janvier 2009, elle contiendra une section sur le coût de mise en œuvre du Plan officiel et du Plan directeur de l’infrastructure.
Document 1 Modifications proposées au Plan officiel, y compris l’Annexe 1 du Document 1 : modifications suivies dans le Plan officiel (Annexe 1 du Document 1 distribuée séparément et déposée auprès du greffier municipal)
Document 2 Stratégie sur les terrains résidentiels
Document 3 Stratégie de peuplement rural (qui contient également la stratégie de patrimoine) et Annexe 1 du Document 3 : Recommandations des groupes de travail ruraux et réponse du personnel (Annexe 1 du Document 3, distribuées séparément et déposées auprès du greffier municipal)
Document 4 Politiques sur les terres humides
Document 5 Politiques sur les aéroports
Document 6 Consultation publique sur la révision du Plan officiel et du Plan directeur de l’infrastructure.
Document 7 Bibliographie
Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités préparera une modification provisoire au Plan officiel, qui devrait être remise au Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement le 27 janvier 2009.
REVIEW OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN
EXAMEN DU PLAN OFFICIEL ET DU PLAN DIRECTEUR DE L'INFRASTRUCTURE
ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0231 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
A comprehensive PowerPoint
presentation (held on file with the City Clerk and Solicitor) and video on
intensification were presented by the following staff:
·
Lesley
Paterson, Program Manager of Planning Policy and Area Planning West
·
Ian
Cross, Program Manager of Research and Forecasting
·
Alain
Miguelez, Planner III
·
Bruce
Finlay, Planner III
Councillor Doucet noted monster
homes and high-rises that the community do not like are two outcomes of
intensification and infill. He explained
that mid-rise development comprised of four to five storeys is the cheapest to
build, with taller buildings costing twice as much per square foot to
build. He asked how the Official Plan
(OP) refresh would help to achieve intensification that is more compatible.
Ms. Patterson explained that one of
the key additions to this version of the OP is a policy on high-rises (10
storeys or more) to be permitted when one or more of the following occurs:
· Located within 600 meters of a rapid transit station
· In an area already zoned or that has high-rises
· With direct access to an arterial road
·
If the
community has gone through a Community Design Plan (CDP) and identified the
site as appropriate for a high-rise
Ms. Patterson added that guidelines
would also be included to judge whether a tall building is appropriate for a
specific site with precise criteria (e.g. width of the street). Zoning will be looked at to determine if
density targets can be met; however, staff believe that on the vast majority of
traditional main streets they can be met in the existing zoning. With respect to achieving a common vision
for a particular area, she noted a CDP is the best tool to bring together all
parties. Council has directed that a
CDP can also be made into a Secondary Plan.
In reply to a question from
Councillor Holmes on implementation, John Moser, Director of Planning and
Growth Management, explained that a concerted effort by the corporation and
partners is required to keep moving forward with this vision.
The branch acknowledges the need for
specifically allocated staff to achieve the vision and will work with other
units, such as Community Sustainability, to assist with outreach to landowners.
With regard to intensifying
mixed-use government sites, such as the Booth lands, Mr. Moser said that
the federal government has been receptive and discussion must be on-going. He noted the zoning of those sites allows
for greater density now, adding that the City will need to review the zoning in
the density target areas to ensure development achieves those marks.
With respect to urban design, Jack
Ferguson, Planner III, clarified that people do not want the City to define
what constitutes good design; that being said, some high level direction in the
OP provides indications with regard to compatibility, context and transitions,
while allowing flexibility and creativity.
Design guidelines are referenced extensively within the OP and provide
an opportunity for discussion. The Planning Act now provides authority
through site plan control to deal with urban design. In that regard, policies are added to Section 5 and the Site
Plan Control By-law will have to be amended to ensure implementation.
In response to further questions
from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Ferguson explained that high-rises would be
permitted depending on analysis and location criteria outlined above, including
proximity to a transit station. Ms.
Patterson explained that the central area is defined in Schedule B and includes
the Market, Sandy Hill and Centertown down to Gloucester Street.
Vivi Chi, Manager of Transportation
and Infrastructure Planning, advised that the Cycling Plan was approved and is
rolled into the Transportation Master Plan.
The Pedestrian Plan has been drafted by staff and will be wrapped up
shortly.
Councillor Holmes observed that
cycling and pedestrian plans have been around for years, but are never
supported with adequate funding.
In response to further questioning
from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Cross clarified that Lebreton Flats is part of the
central area in terms of density targets, but is listed separately for
clarity. He noted that a significant
number of jobs are planned for Lebreton, which will contribute to meeting the
target. He explained that the plan
recognizes that the City must invest in public infrastructure as an important
part of the City intensification strategy.
Specifically in the central area, the Escarpment Plan identifies key
greenspace. Ms. Patterson commented
that more specific reference was added on the need for an evaluation of
community resources as part of the CDP process.
With respect to proposals for increased height, Mr. Moser explained the OP seeks to address where development should be channelled (mixed use centres, central area, arterial main streets) to achieve density targets.
Councillor Feltmate touched on
enterprise areas. Ms. Patterson
conceded that the designation did not work to intensify business parks. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) states
that municipalities should provide a range of employment locations to satisfy
all demands and that a comprehensive review must be undertaken before lands are
converted for other uses. A Council
decision on employment lands is not subject to appeal. No incentives in the plan exist to encourage
development in enterprise areas.
Councillor Feltmate asked if it is
possible to provide documentation that shows the boundaries of the proposed
density target areas. Ms. Patterson explained that the areas reflect the
boundaries designated on Schedule B. She
offered to provide it in more detail.
With regard to the Riverside South
Town Centre, Mr. Cross replied that it is not a designated town centre in
Schedule B or subject to a density target.
It is identified in the Transportation Master Plan and was subject to a
CDP.
Councillor Feltmate noted that the
OP proposes that major office developments be located in areas that are served
by existing or planned high order transit services. She inquired whether there is a similar provision for major
retail outlets. Ms. Patterson indicated
it is not the case.
With respect to big box stores and
intensification, Ms. Patterson replied that the rules explain where retail is
not permitted. The intention is to
target retail on main streets and at the centre of communities to service
residents. She explained that the
policies for major urban facilities have not changed.
With respect to the development of
rural country estate lots, Mr. Finlay said that discussion occurred as part of
the Rural Settlement Strategy. The plan
reintroduces the notion of a conservation subdivision, which allows for a
smaller subdivision, while maintaining a larger natural area as part of the
development. The approach has been to
continue to use private individual wells and septic systems in the rural area,
as they are the most efficient.
Communal systems are expensive and the responsibility of the operator is
much higher. During discussions on the
strategy, many rural people did not want to stop development; rather, they
wanted applications to be reviewed using the best possible criteria. In terms of rural water, direction also
comes from the Source Water Protection
Act and regulations.
With respect to liability and wells,
Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, advised that the City requires that the well
driller certify the quantity and quality of the water produced. He explained that if well water is
contaminated it is the responsibility of the owner. For new developments, a building permit would not be issued.
In response to questions from
Councillor Desroches, staff explained the following points:
·
Discussions
are on-going with the federal government to ensure alignment with the City’s
transit vision with respect to the location of federal offices.
·
The
intention is to maintain employment growth either in the central area or in
nodes such as Tunney’s Pasture or Confederation Heights that have access to
rapid transit.
·
There
is no intention to develop parts of the Greenbelt.
·
One of
the key policies of the OP is that new development in a target area must meet
the density target.
·
Town
centres will develop as population accrues.
·
Municipal
Affairs and Housing is responsible for reviewing OPs to ensure compliance with
the goals of the PPS. The City did
consult with adjacent municipalities in terms of employment and population
targets.
Councillor Desroches reflected on
the video, remarking that not all roads are bad. He noted that the City has approved new developments and the City
must address former rural roads due to safety issues.
Following a recess, the Committee heard from public delegations.
Christina
Haydorn, Jack Sterling and Ted Phillips, on behalf of the Home Builders
Association, addressed the process and areas of disagreement with proposed
changes to the plan:
· The Home Builders have been meeting with the City of Ottawa since February 2007 to try to reach some agreement as to how some of the new policies should be shaped to accommodate residential growth in the municipality until 2031. They would like to continue liaising with the City in the future to deal with some of the outstanding issues.
· Malone Given Parsons and Hemson Consulting were retained to analyze the assumptions that went into the projections and changes to policy, to which concerns were highlighted regarding the aggressive number of apartments. The apartment trend for seniors over 65 is declining, as they now live longer and can afford to stay in their family homes or in a similar residential form.
· Staff assume that over the next 25 years, 28 per cent of new units will be in the form of apartments; however, historic trends show that the proportion is around 13 per cent.
· They agree that the number of singles drives urban expansion, but disagree with the demand the City is projecting.
· Intensification will be a very important component for accommodating future growth. The 40 per cent intensification target staff presented is very aggressive and unachievable. It will have implications on urban boundary expansion and cost of land. Additional land must be brought into the urban boundary.
· With respect to greenfield development, the City has suggested some strategies to support higher suburban densities with a minimum density of 26 units per net hectare. Discussions between City staff have been ongoing to address rigid engineering standards with respect to roads widths and requirements for supporting lands, such as parks. All of these supporting land uses go into the demand for suburban land.
· Staff should be directed to reconsider and justify the growth and development assumptions that are presented in the residential land strategy.
Replying to questions from members, the delegates commented as follows:
· Ultimately, the market drives intensification.
· Agreement exists with regard to trends; however, the builders disagree with the rate at which these trends will occur and suggest that the 40 per cent intensification target and increase in greenfield density are unachievable.
· Regarding greenfield development, residential construction occupies only 26 per cent of the land. A great deal of work would be required to achieve the targets proposed due to other land uses such as roads allowances, buffers, schools and parks.
Mr. Moser thought it important to understand there has been significant changes to the marketplace, noting intensification has picked up since amalgamation and will continue to occur. The approach is to see what can be achieved, with changes at the next five-year review. He clarified that intensification will increase over time, from 36 per cent for the next 10 years, then 40 and 44 per cent in the subsequent periods. There has to be a conservative effort to achieve these aggressive targets, both from the City and the industry. If not, the urban boundary will continue to grow.
Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager of Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, stated that the OP goes hand in hand with other important planning documents such as the Transportation Master Plan. Internal rigors will be required to achieve and implement the vision.
Chris Peck, Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital, explained that the Alliance hopes that the OP will provide a certain amount of protection for greenspace in environmentally sensitive areas. They are encouraged by the proposed amendments that take into account the serious need to pursue sustainable growth, encouraging greater intensification, and giving more attention to the City’s natural heritage. Mr. Peck expressed that if the City is serious about intensification and curtailing sprawl it should be committed to a fixed or semi-fixed urban boundary.
Regarding rural residential development, he emphasized that the PPS allows for limited residential development outside of villages, but the OP should explicitly set limits and prohibit country lot subdivisions. The Alliance is generally happy to see that Ottawa’s natural environment will receive increased policy protection in the OP; however rural natural features should be exempt from development. In summation, he noted that the Alliance has some concerns regarding lands deemed to be environmentally significant, and he suggested landowners are altering sites to avoid designation. The Alliance’s submission is held on file.
Audrey Jacob, on behalf Mattamy Homes, supported the earlier points put forth by the Home Builders Association. In terms of housing demand by unit type, she advanced that row housing has been under estimated. Regarding intensification, she said the City would be relying on redevelopment within the Greenbelt.
She thought the City should take a more moderate approach in ascertaining how greenfield residential lands will take place.
Rachael Goldberg and Chris Gordon, also representing Mattamy Homes, touched on the following:
·
The
assumptions should be re-evaluated as they have led to aggressive targets.
·
Additional
land should be added to the urban area, while weighing how each criterion will
contribute to the growth management objectives of the City. Agricultural
resource areas should not be dismissed, if they meet criteria.
·
Transit
is key to sustaining growth and should be looked at as the most important
evaluation criteria on which the urban boundary expansion will be
determined. To this end, specific
Mattamy land holdings in South Orléans would be suitable.
J.P. Vorolef, a rural landowner landowner,
stated that his property, outside of the village of Stittsville, is assessed as
a wetland. He explained that previously there was no water, but since the
construction of Highway 7, water from the north side has been diverted onto his
property. He would like to maintain his property for his family, but is limited
to what he can do due to the wetland designation.
Chair Hume suggested that staff work
with Mr. Vorolef regarding his property to determine if he should appear before
the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.
Lloyd Philips, representing Metcalfe Reality Corporation Ltd., addressed 936 March Road and another piece of property located on the south side of Highway 417, just east of the interchange with Carp Road. He mentioned the two properties are candidates for urban expansion and his clients are interested in pursuing this throughout the process. With respect to the proposed provincially significant wetland designation in the vicinity of the South March Highlands, he believed the boundary may be overstated and somewhat arbitrary. A letter dated November 10, 2008 is held on file.
Russ Cooper, Briarbrooke Morgan’s Grant Community Association, expressed that the Association is generally pleased with the concepts that underpin the OP, specifically controlled intensification and the designation of urban natural features. He noted that the OP does not currently ensure that development plans engender or ensure social cohesion. It does not require the assessment of a development project regarding the ability to integrate in a social sense with the host community. Mr. Cooper strongly recommended that the OP address this shortfall by introducing impact on social cohesion factors within planning guidelines. Such an initiative could be folded into the application and pre-application consultation process.
In response to question from members, Mr. Cooper defined social cohesion as communities that are diverse, pluralistic and integrated. He provided the example of a proposal for Kanata North that had the potential of restricting 300-400 homes to members of a particular religious affiliation.
Councillor Feltmate clarified that
the example related to a proposal from the Kanata Muslim Community, explaining
that the homes would not be restricted to members of that faith.
Mr. Cooper reiterated the need for
discussion among the community and proponents to ensure compatibility and
social cohesion.
Councillor Doucet stated that
building forms have created self-segregation along income lines since the 1960s
and still do today. He said that in
his ward he does not see more diversity coming from intensification, he sees
less. .
Ms. Patterson replied that the goal
is to provide an appropriate mix of housing types in any community. She noted that there is a desire to have a
certain percentage of affordable housing.
Presently, the plan calls for a maximum 40 per cent composition for
singles and 10 per cent for apartments in greenfield developments.
Mr. Miguelez explained that staff
see intensification as contributing to the diversity of housing.
Linda Hoad, resident of Hintonburg, expressed
concerns with the following matters:
· The
definition of low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise (not necessarily the same as
presently defined in certain CDPs)
·
Intensification
inside and outside the targeted areas
·
The
new policy that sets criteria to permit high-rises
Ms. Patterson clarified that
existing CDPs may be reviewed where possible to examine what is being provided
for to achieve density targets. If a
CDP were already achieving what the OP states, it would not be a priority for
review.
In reply to a question from
Councillor Holmes, Ms. Patterson stated that the affordable housing provisions
have not been reviewed; however, a strategy is coming forward in the future.
She stated there is some work related to density incentives and the provision
of affordable housing.
Councillor Holmes noted that the
previous OP definition for affordable housing looked at the percentile income,
which was $180,000 per unit. Ms.
Patterson undertook to provide the current amount.
The Committee then considered the
staff recommendation.
That Planning and Environment Committee and
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend to Council that staff table
in January 2009, a draft Official Plan Amendment, and an amendment to the
Infrastructure Master Plan, that reflect the proposed changes found in this
report.
CARRIED
REVIEW OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN
EXAMEN DU PLAN OFFICIEL ET DU PLAN DIRECTEUR DE L'INFRASTRUCTURE
ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0231 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Comment
sheets, (held on file with the City Clerk and Solicitor) were received from Gary
Chandler regarding Renewable Energy in the Official Plan and William
Davidson regarding the hectares to be added to the urban boundary expansion
(500/850).
John
Moser, Director of Planning Branch; Leslie Paterson, Program Manager, Planning
Policy and Area Planning West; Judy Flavin, Program Manager, Natural Systems;
and Bruce Finlay, Planner III presented a review of the Official Plan (OP) and
Infrastructure Master Plan (IMP).
Mr.
Moser explained that the proposed recommendations include changes in the rural
areas. During the consultation process,
staff reviewed Rural Summit recommendations.
Subsequently, staff organized three public workshops, which included
rural communities.
Councillor
El-Chantiry thanked staff, especially Mr. Finlay, for engaging the rural
community. Mr. Finlay explained that
the Rural Café, was utilised very successfully in the second workshop and the
public would have an opportunity to provide input on the OP amendments.
In
response to a question by Councillor El-Chantiry, Ms. Paterson confirmed that
staff were proposing to cleaning the language to incorporate what was
originally approved for the Carp Airport within the new OP.
Councillor
El-Chantiry then raised the application designation of two-zone floodplain,
also known as a modified zone. He
inquired about the existing lots in those areas, along the river (i.e. MacLaren
Landing, Constance Bay, and Dunrobin Shore). He questioned if there was still
an opportunity for development. Ms.
Paterson explained that under floodplain policies, one cannot build a house on
an existing lot in the floodplain unless it is in a two-zone floodplain policy
area, which staff are formalizing in the Plan.
In Constance Bay, a house could be built under the new policy on an
existing lot of record but not in other locations.
Councillor
El-Chantiry inquired about another location on the Ottawa River in the same
area of Constance Bay. Ms. Paterson
said that the intent is that staff only use the two-zone system where there is
appropriate flood barriers in place or where the conservation authority has
done the modelling to show that it is safe to build. Work was done for Constance Bay but to her knowledge no other
work was done along the Ottawa River.
An OP Amendment would be required and the Provincial Policy Statement is
followed.
Glenn McDonald, Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA), a Senior Planner with
RVCA agreed with Ms. Paterson stating exceptions require a two-zone
designation, which involves technical analysis to define the floodway.
Councillor
El-Chantiry referenced the evaluation for additional urban land and asked if
staff would be reporting back to Committee.
Mr. Moser advised that there will be a joint meeting with the Planning
and Environment Committee in January as it has an impact on the rural area.
Councillor
El-Chantiry asked if there was a policy regarding wetland donations. Mr. McDonald confirmed that the RVCA has a
foundation, which is considered a charitable organization that provides
receipts to residents.
In
response to additional questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Finlay
explained that the Province has policies that regulate wells and septic systems
and Michael Kearney advised that staff are looking to enhance guidelines for
wells and servicing to assist with development review. Mr. Kearney added that rural sub division
approval was formally the responsibility of MOE but is now subject to delegated
authority at the City.
Mr.
Moser explained that staff has been working with practitioners and developers
in the rural areas. He advised that
staff will bring a report forward next year to Committee and Council.
Councillor
Brooks questioned where the municipal drainage is reflected in this
document. Ms. Flavin explained that the
OP refers to the Drainage Act but the thrust of the policies in the OP
are implementing Council’s policies under the Planning Act. She advised that the policies that have the
greatest effect on municipal drains and rural drainage are those surrounding
fish habitat and erosion control. In
addition, the provisions acknowledge the Fisheries Act and the need to
protect fish habitat.
Councillor
Brooks referred to the Rural Settlement Strategy and said that there are
proposed changes in the document and asked how the general public would be
informed. Ms. Paterson advised that
staff send out notices to a mailing list of approximately 3500 residents and
advised that two public information meetings (urban and rural) are planned in
the new year. Finally, staff will
produce the amendments the same way, with the shaded areas to show changes.
Councillor
Thompson asked if staff still supported country estate sub-divisions. Ms. Paterson advised that the policy for
country estate sub-divisions is the same with the addition of the conservation
sub division.
Chair
Jellett asked if the City would be responsible for preparing the guidelines or
can it be the conservation authorities.
Mr. Moser advised that most of the work was being done in-house with the
assistants of consultations in the industry and rural developers.
Chair
Jellett acknowledged that there would be more monitoring of groundwater but was
concerned with duplication in doing the same as the conservation
authorities. Ms. Paterson advised that
the groundwater characterization studies would be updated periodically. They are also proposing to retain access to
wells in each sub-division to monitor the groundwater.
In
regards to the urban boundary expansion and how it would not impact rural land,
Mr. Moser assured that staff is not looking at agriculture lands for expansion
and advised that staff would be presenting the results of the evaluation in
January.
In
response to a question from Councillor Brooks, Ms. Paterson confirmed that a
conservation sub division is a hybrid between a country lot sub-division and
conservation.
Lloyd Phillips, Metcalfe Realty Corporation Limited made a presentation to
Committee, which is held on file with the City Clerk and Solicitor. Mr. Phillips presented to the Planning and
Environment Committee on November 24, 2009 and reiterated his concerns regarding
expanding the urban areas and the proposed wetlands complex designations.
Larry Spencer, Spencer and Company, made a presentation to Committee, which is
held on file with the City Clerk and Solicitor. His presentation touched on the history of Upton Developments’
undertaking an application from the owners in the former Rideau Township on
Rideau Valley Drive in 2005. The
proposed OP amendment application was deemed premature at the time and were
given options in which they decided to work with staff and hold the application
until the OP review was completed. In
the Rural Settlement Strategy, he listed four key elements in which in his
opinion, two were addressed:
Conservation Sub-Division and the acknowledgement that country acreages
are a justifiable for housing. What has
not been acknowledged is that there is a defacto form of new housing in the
rural areas. He concluded by requesting
that the Upton Development be recognized as a settlement area within the OP and
that it be designated a growth area within that settlement area.
Ms.
Paterson recalled that at the beginning of the staff presentation that there
was a slide that showed 20 per cent of the land and natural environment and 40
per cent in designations where they look at development. This proposal is an agricultural resource
area and staff said they see an opportunity in the OP to do this sort of
development, although should be in general rural natural feature, which they do
not have provisions in the OP to create a new settlement area in the
agricultural resource area.
Mr.
Spencer referred to the Rural Policy Plan, Schedule A of the OP and argued that
it would be impossible in most cases to expand urban without affecting
rural.
In
response to a question from Councillor El-Chantiry, Ms. Paterson explained that
in 2003, staff included the existing policies and plans in Volume 2; therefore,
some may be out of date. She pointed
out that there are 26 villages listed in the OP. Many are in agricultural resource areas and if they do expand, it
would be in agriculture, but she was not clear that there was a desire to
create another village in agricultural resource area or a new cluster of
development.
Ms.
Paterson continued that all villages are categorized as settlement areas,
meaning they have a boundary around them and growth management policies for
them but the OP already provides for that.
Councillor
Brooks advised that this land has been idle for almost a decade. If the farming community are not interested
in this land for use or lease, maybe it is not good agricultural lands.
Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering,
represents many landowners in the rural area.
He spoke of three matters:
1) lot creation in rural area,
2) natural heritage, and
3) opportunity for recreational facilities in the
rural areas.
1) Novatech
strongly supports the re-introduction of concept of conservation sub-divisions
to allow more choice.
2) He
suggested the City clearly outlined the designated areas or cannot be touched
by landowners.
3) One
of the biggest users of land within the urban area are large recreational
complexes (soccer fields, ball diamonds, etc.)
He suggested locating some of these facilities in the rural area in
proximity to urban communities. He
agreed that the PPS does not let the City create recreational facilities in agricultural
resource areas. There may be other
reasons to pursue this at a higher level, then the City should do it. He believed that is an opportunity for a
recreational facility at Mitch Owens and Limebank Road where a school and a
driving range are already located.
Chair Jellett agreed with first two points but not
yet sold on third point because of infrastructure and cost, transit, etc. Mr. Chown agreed to speak further to
Councillors and continue discussions with staff.
Debbie Belfie asked the Committee to reconsider the proposed country lot policies for
severances. Currently in the OP, the
policy is to only allow for severed residential country lot in the general
rural area but it is the balance of the land that it has to be about 25 acres
in size. The PPS speak to limited
development in the rural area without qualifying “limited”.
She
argued that the OP is already limiting residential development in the rural
areas. Country lot severances are not
permitted in wetland and mineral resource areas. Out of the 230,000 hectares in rural Ottawa, about 75 per cent is
protected from residential development.
Twenty five per cent is available in general rural with 15 per cent
designated as rural natural features, which limits on development. These numbers are shown in the Rural
Settlement Strategy document. The
City’s working group spent many months carefully examining the development
outside of villages and had recommended that residential development should be
allowed. The meetings she attended discussed
choice, in terms of lot and size of homes.
She asked Committee to consider options to allow two-acre country estate
lot severances without the criteria that the balance of the lands be 25 acres.
Chris Szpak, Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital, made a presentation to
Committee, which is held on file with the City Clerk and Solicitor. He outlined the following principals
regarding the OP review.
·
The OP provide sufficient protection for Greenspace and environmentally
sensitive area;
·
Sustainable development should be promoted by limiting inefficient and
wasteful urban sprawl;
·
The new or amended policies are required to reinforce the stated
strategy directions already agreed to in the OP;
·
The policies should conform to the letter and spirit of the PPS; and
·
The interests of the community must take precedence over vested or
individual self-interest.
He
added that there are a number of issues, particularly involving rural
development that are of concern that need to be addressed in the OP. The Alliance is not against development per
say but it is against development that is ad hoc, wasteful, costly and a threat
to the environment.
Councillor
El-Chantiry commented that he did not like the word ‘sprawl’ being referenced
in the delegation’s presentation. Mr.
Szpak clarified the key word should be uncontrolled. The Alliance is an environmental advocacy group working to ensure
that significant natural features, wetlands and woodlands are taken into regard
when planning is done and development occurs.
Chair
Jellett understood that it is a balancing act with various pressures. For instance in the east, Clarence/Rockland
will double in size within 20 years placing pressure on highway and transit
systems. Those citizens of adjacent
municipalities do not pay taxes to fund those services.
Councillor
Brooks referenced the 9 per cent target growth for the rural area asking if the
delegation objected to a 12 or 15 per cent target. Mr. Szpak said it depends on the projections and what is really
going to happen. The question is who
will service that growth.
Councillor
Brooks added who will pay for the services when the development is outside of
service area. Mr. Szpak said that the
concept of limited residential growth needs to be clearly laid out in the OP.
That Planning and
Environment Committee and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend to
Council that staff table in January 2009, a draft Official Plan Amendment, and
an amendment to the Infrastructure Master Plan, that reflect the proposed changes
found in this report.
CARRIED
* In some cases, the entire list has been included for reference purposes so there may be a few projects completed before May, 2003