inFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES AND COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY

SERVICES D’INFRASTRUCTURE ET VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS

 

PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT

URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE

 

1.         COMPREHENSIVE FIVE-YEAR REVIEW OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN - PUBLIC MEETING

RÉVISION QUINQUÉNNALE DÉTAILLÉE DU PLAN OFFICIEL -  ASSEMBLÉE PUBLIQUE

ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0080                                    CITY-WIDE à l'échelle de la VillE             1

 

(This matter is subject to Bill 51)

 

At the beginning of each day, the Chair read a statement relative to the Official Plan listed as item 1 on the agenda.  The Chair explained that only those who make oral submissions at the public meeting or written submissions before the Amendment is adopted may appeal the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board. 

 

Councillor Peter Hume was in the Chair and advised that he and Councillor Jellett would move motions on behalf of non-members of either ARAC or PEC in order to facilitate consideration and discussion of these motions.

 

John Moser, General Manager of Planning and Growth Management, Lesley Paterson, Program Manager of Land Use & Natural Systems Policy, and Ian Cross, Program Manager of Research & Forecasting provided a PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk.  The following staff from the Policy Development & Urban Design Branch accompanied them throughout the meeting:

·        Jack Ferguson, Planner III

·        Judy Flavin, Planner III

·        Bruce Finlay, Planner II

·        Amy MacPherson, Planner II

·        Myles Mahon, Planner II

 

Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, was also in attendance to respond to questions.

 

In response to questions from committee, staff supplied the following responses:

 

Urban Expansion

·        The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) requires municipalities to plan for at least a 15-year residential land supply and no more than 20 years.  Toronto is allowed to plan for 30 years.  The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) does not have a problem with the City of Ottawa planning up to the year 2031 to coincide with a census year.

·        The Fernbank lands should not be excluded as they form part of the Community Design Plan (CDP).

·        Lands recommended for inclusion are at different stages of development potential.  Some could probably commence development shortly, while studies will be required for others to proceed within the planning period.

·        Larger expansion areas termed “Urban Expansion Study Areas” (UESA) will require more detailed on and off site requirements, as well as a formal public consultation process.  Contrary to the two other categories of added land, UESAs will require an Official Plan Amendment (OPA), including a traffic and transportation impact study that looks beyond the actual site.  During the public process, the terms of reference would address requirements before development could occur (i.e. roads, etc.).  UESAs do not appear as “urban” in Schedule A but are reflected on Schedule B.  Ninety per cent of the feedback on Areas 1 and 11 was that the process was moving too quickly.  The additional step will allow additional public consultation to occur with an OPA.  The proponents will be responsible for the studies and the City will undertake the Terms of Reference.

·        The score for Area 11 has changed significantly since the last draft due to a more sophisticated analysis of the screen line data and volume to capacity ratio.

·        Regarding the Maxwell lands in Area 1, the Department of National Defence (DND) has asked that it not be included.  Staff supports DND’s position that the lands not be residential, but recommends that a buffer should be accommodated on DND property.  DND has indicated that they would not be adverse to employment on these lands.  With respect to servicing potential, the servicing changes and is more difficult moving east.

·        If a parcel is not designated, the proponent cannot appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) for its inclusion.  If Council decides to not designate additional lands, it is not subject to appeal; however, Planning staff recommend the addition of close to 850 hectares of land moving forward as a balanced approach.

·        Generally lands in the Leitrim area score poorly because it is small and cannot provide the major facilities that other communities provide.  Evaluations were redone with little impact because of the comparative nature of the analysis.

·        Staff expects a development proposal to show how it would link to future development, even if it is not presently in the urban boundary.  It was an evaluation criterion to determine how a parcel could integrate with an existing community, including road stubs that would eventually extend into other lands.

·        With regard to the cost of expansion, a study conducted by Hemson Consultants showed that development inside the Greenbelt brings in a net revenue of close to $1000 per year to the City.  Suburban development has a net cost to the City of approximately $50 per year and village and scattered rural development have the highest cost to the City per year.  Overall this study supports more intensification.

·        The criteria used to evaluate urban expansion areas address the relative merits of one area over another; therefore, the cost presumably would be very similar in terms of any expansion.  The challenge is balancing a realistic view of intensification with a realistic view of demand for single detached homes.

 

Agricultural Lands

·        Agricultural lands were not considered as candidate areas with the exception of two parcels, one in the centre of Fernbank, as well as Area 10, south of Avalon, which historically was surrounded by agriculture but no longer is.

·        Staff have committed to doing a comprehensive review of agricultural resource areas, commencing this summer.  The Land Evaluation and Area Review (LEAR) analysis looked at soil capability for agriculture as the primary criterion.  Staff cannot confirm if a portion of Area 11 could meet the criteria for an agricultural designation.

 

Employment Lands

·        Employment lands have not been added to the urban boundary.  Staff assumes that a certain amount of employment will go in the expansion areas, but not in terms of business parks or industrial lands.  The Employment Land Strategy looked at employment land supply/demand over the planning period and it concluded that there was more than ample supply.  Some argue that servicing remains an issue in some instances while others argue that the job/housing balance in Orléans must be addressed.

 

Long-Term Planning

·        The Choosing Our Future initiative is a 100-year strategy that will help inform the next review, which will also look at the next large growth area.

 

Housing Types and Demand

·        New immigrants are accounted for in the projected demand for various forms of housing.  Data shows that 50 per cent of new Canadians live in apartments.  Last year, over 40 per cent of new housing starts were single detached; however, changes are presently occurring in the housing market.  Trends and projections will be reviewed again in five years.

·        There will be a large supply of land for apartments for the future.  Whether these apartments get built, the price level and their size are questions of economics determinant on the market.  The issue of rental supply is a long-standing one that includes market rates and rental levels.  There is a supply of land that could be reasonably used for future supply if it were built.  The distribution of land for apartments is concentrated around rapid transit stations and main streets; furthermore, all CDPs completed in the last five to six years incorporated a requirement that at least 10 per cent of the units be apartments.

·        Propensity data from the last 25 years was used to determine the demand per housing type by age group.  The 2006 census data showed a shift away from singles for the elderly, partly as a result of the resurgence of the condominium apartment market and new housing choices.  Fifty per cent of population growth will be for people 65 years of age and over, while there is virtually no growth for the child age population.

·        The zoning by-law cannot be used to require that new apartment construction include a sufficient t number of larger units to cater to families.

 

Growth Outside Ottawa

·        Staff monitors the population around the fringes of Ottawa and have observed, with more than 30 years of data, that this city’s share of Eastern Ontario’s population  has remained steady.  Growth in these areas varies up and down depending on factors such as gas prices and the cost of housing, suggesting there are push and pull factors working in both directions.

 

Intensification

·        Densities have been rising slightly inside and outside of the Greenbelt driven by higher proportions of townhouses, in particular stacked townhouses in the suburban areas.

·        The Plan seeks to encourage a more compact and denser development in greenfield development by increasing the density for singles from 21 units to 26 units per net hectare, which is roughly 20 per cent more than what is currently being built.  It relates to the size of the lots and does not effect the provision of bicycle paths or protection of natural features. 

·        The OP has a multi-faceted intensification strategy; moreover, from this point onwards, the intensification targets must be achieved before the city is expanded further.  Staff are putting together an intensification group that is going to be able to address impediments and obstacles.

·        Staff will evaluate the existing zoning and CDPs where necessary to determine if they allow for the targeted intensification.  It is expected that the zoning along traditional mainstreets does not require any changes, as they typically provide sufficient development as set out in the intensification targets; however, mixed-use centres, rapid transit stations and the central area might have to be re-examined.

 

Transportation Master Plan (TMP)

·        The OP implements the TMP, which Council has already considered.

 

MacDonald-Cartier Airport

·        Changes were made to clarify noise policies, zoning regulations in terms of bird hazards, electronic interference, and height restrictions.  The policies in Section 3.10 set out a clearer description of the land uses for the airport.  The plan directs that the land uses for the airport would be consistent with the employment area designation.

·        The National Capital Commission (NCC) is concerned with any process that could alter land uses in advance of the Greenbelt Master Plan review.  Chair Hume felt that the NCC is not dealing with the Airport in an appropriate or just way, by unnecessarily delaying a plan for the economic potential of the Airport.  He undertook to discuss the matter with the NCC.

 

Sustainability

·        The OP seeks to achieve greater sustainability and marry land use planning with the TMP and Infrastructure Master Plan (IMP).  Staff seeks to find a balance in terms of establishing intensification targets and allowing some urban expansion to occur (2.4 per cent of the span of the plan).

 

The Joint Committee recessed at 12 p.m. and reconvened on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 to hear from public delegations with Councillor Rob Jellett in the Chair.

 

Thomas Kral, a resident of the peaceful, picturesque, rural community of Cumberland, where most residents live on large lots and are stewards of the land and forests, spoke in opposition to the inclusion of Area 11 to the urban boundary.  He expressed shock with the clear-cut of some 50 acres of woodland in Areas 11F and 11G, noting City planners had deemed these areas unsuitable for development because of this woodland.  He opposed the urbanization of the area, commenting that the wishes of the people that would be most effected by this proposal are held in low regard.  Speaking to the scoring system, he noted planners have assessed the road capacity and jobs/housing balance which each received a score of zero.  In simple terms, the residents of this area must travel to the City to work and the road that they must take to and from work cannot sustain the traffic, as Orléans has seen tremendous residential expansion, while transportation infrastructure remains lacking.  He added that his taxes have increased since amalgamation, as the City sees fits to spend money on multi-lane highways and public transit expansions to the west and south; but expects the east to bear a disproportionate share of the housing burden.  Mr. Kral indicated that Area 11 represents 40 per cent of the land area being considered for expansion, while the City’s own analysis shows that expansion into this area would be a net revenue loss for the City.  To counter the City consideration of expanding this area, he made the following suggestions:

·    Houses need to be built closer to where the jobs are.

·    Focus efforts on attracting employers closer to areas where people live.

·    Build roads to move people to and from the houses before building them.

·    The City should respect its own unmet intensification targets within the existing urban boundary before annexing this area.

·    Demand the design and execution of a reforestation plan to replace the 50 acres of destroyed woodland, or make the rules equal for everyone.

 

Catherine Caule, Centretown Community Health Centre, put forth the following points:

·    Intensification should not promote noise growth.

·    Noise contributes to chronic illness, children’s learning disabilities, and reduces quality of life.

·    The City must consider the health issues related with intensification before implementing the OP, which must protect the pre-construction ambient noise level of a community like it protects other aspects of the City’s environmental qualities.

·    There is no distinction between intermittent and continuous noises within the plan and no mention of target noise levels for a community, or a framework for how to maintain and enforce community noise levels, which are not established in the noise by-law.

·    The OP must leave a health footprint on the City and healthy communities must be an integral component of the City’s long-term vision.

 

Councillor Holmes recommended that the delegate contact the Minister of Health, who is also concerned with noise levels.

 

Responding to questions from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Cross explained that Section 4.8.8 deals with environmental noise control, along with guidelines that were adopted by Council.  These policies were put into the plan in 2006 to address concerns from the Federation of Citizens’ Association, which had appealed the previous OP regarding the inadequacy of the noise policy.  There are policies in the Plan that deal with stationary and road noises, as well as any development that would create a new noise source.  Any equipment that generates noise requires a Certificate of Approval from the Ministry of Environment (MOE) under the Environmental Protection Act. 

 

Responding to further remarks from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Cross agreed that the MOE could look into dealing with the effect of equipment on the neighbourhood as a whole, rather than the actual equipment.

 

Robert Brocklebank, Federation of Citizens' Associations of Ottawa-Carleton (FCA), began by stating that at the previous meeting of March 31, 2009 the FCA called for five changes to be made to the OP and are pleased that the staff report has taken note of the issues they raised and thanked them for their consideration.  Mr. Brocklebank indicated that the population projections are lower in 2031, yet it is suggested that more land is needed to accommodate less population.  He suggested this is counter-intuitive and indicative of a collective failure to move toward a more compact and efficient urban form.  The report states that an expected increase in the density of single detached units was not met; moreover, by further expanding the urban boundary, it sends the wrong message about achieving targets for increased density over the next five years.  The FCA continues to encourage Council to stop the development of Country Lot Estates.  In conclusion, the FCA continues to fear that bold statements about density targets will be rendered meaningless by uncertainty about measurement, that tall building may be inappropriately authorized, and that the public discussion about urban development takes insufficient account of non-housing issues.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Brocklebank confirmed that the staff report justified urban boundary expansion partly on the basis that over 1500 acres were developed since the last OP.  He reiterated that the anticipated population in 2031 would be less than the one anticipated for 2021; yet more land is being added to the urban boundary for fewer expected people.

 

Gérald Dutrisac stated that he agrees that the land between Tenth Line and Mer Bleue Roads on the north side of Wall Road should become part of the urban area.

 

Murray Chown, Novatech on behalf of the Monarch Corporation, accompanied by Rob Pierce, spoke to the policy dealing with the establishment of a minimum requirement for density for single-family homes.  He spoke to a number of guidelines that will make it very difficult to achieve the proposed minimum density for singles, noting the following additional points:

·    Guideline 5 states that existing healthy trees should be incorporated within development blocks or lots, which Monarch strives to achieve when working on greenfield subdivisions.  The only way to do so is by creating over-sized lots.

·    Guideline 6 speaks to the incorporation of landform features and topography in the design of road and block patterns.  This reduces the ability to develop in a traditional grid pattern and larger lot sizes have to be used.

·    Guideline 9 deals with a concentration of higher density residential units around neighbourhood focal points, including transit stops and commercial areas.  The objective in these growing communities is to concentrate the residential development around these facilities; likewise, it is not to spread the residential development all over the place by increasing residential densities away from these facilities.

 

Next, Mr. Chown noted that the 2003 OP included a number of policies that place emphasis on transit-oriented development and the preservation of trees and the augmentation of tree cover existing in the City of Ottawa.  In order to preserve trees in private development, flexibility in design is required and cannot be achieved by forcing to minimize the size of residential lots.  Speaking to historic densities for single-family homes, the recommendation by staff to require a minimum density for single-family home of 26 units per hectare represents a 27 per cent increase over the average, a 22 per cent increase over the highest recorded density for single-family lots since 2001.  He related that staff has said that the density of 26 units per hectare can be achieved by creating an average lot of 358 square metres, or an average 40 foot lot.  These limitations compromise the design of residential neighbourhoods of the future.

 

Mr. Chown stated that there are two choices, either create much smaller single-family lots (which create further problems such as snow storage, reduced ability to provide on street parking), or go to much shallower lots with wider frontages.  The second choice reduces driveway parking, the rear yard amenity area, and the opportunity to provide street planting.  He added that residential development is not the only consumer of land in these developing communities.  The policy does not address the efficient use of school sites and parks or reducing row standards, all of which would attain the same objective that staff are trying to achieve with this policy.  Concluding his presentation, Mr. Chown recommended maintaining a blended residential density target, eliminating single detached dwelling density targets, and setting a minimum density target for single-detached dwellings of 21.5 units per hectare.

 

In response to comments from Councillor Harder, Mr. Pierce confirmed community opposition to the introduction of stacked townhomes in Stonebridge.  Monarch did modify the development plans in response to community opposition in an area that was designated medium density for an excess of 10 years.  He commented that it is a challenge to achieve these densities in the suburbs, as it is in the inner community when dealing with community opposition.  He suggested the best approach is a blended rate, which will allow some variety. 

 

Councillor Harder stated that she would be introducing a motion with regard to single-detached density in response to some of the concerns she has heard.

 

Councillor Wilkinson noted that moving to 26 units per net hectare might force the City to purchase woodlots and hedgerows that have often been saved by incorporating them to private property.  She spoke of the necessity for overall planning, touching on the preservation of trees in a subdivision in her ward.  Mr. Chown noted hedgerows are probably easier to save if they are part of the lot fabric.

 

Councillor Hunter suggested that hedgerows, rock crops, schools and parkland could be excluded from the calculation.  Mr. Chown conceded it was an interesting suggestion that may make calculating the minimum net densities more complicated.  He stated pie-shaped and corner lots would still need to be addressed.

 

Wally McMillan, Cumberland Village Community Association (CVCA), spoke against the inclusion of Area 11 as part of the urban boundary, noting the community does not oppose development but it must be done right.  He added that the infrastructure is not present to accommodate development in this area, with existing traffic issues.

 

Tamara Belle-Isle, CVCA, also opposed the proposed urban boundary expansion for the following reasons:

·        It does not comply with the PPS, nor supports the proposed rapid transit plan.

·        The PPS declares that intensification targets must be established and reached before the expansion of the urban boundary.  The City of Ottawa has not yet reached the 40 per cent target.

·        The PPS also indicates that in rural areas, located in municipalities, we must avoid the need for unjustified or uneconomical expansion of infrastructure.  As per the Hemson Consulting Study, the operating and capital cost exceed revenues for residential development, in areas outside of the Greenbelt. All candidate areas are in this category.

·        The PPS encourages the promotion of recreational tourism, and other economic opportunities by providing opportunities for sustainable tourism.  As the Nation’s Capital, tourism should be recognized as a significant source of revenue and employment.  Area 11, in particular, offers great potential for tourism, due to its proximity to the Ottawa River, and the presence of the City-operated Cumberland Village Heritage Museum. Candidate Area 11 is adjacent to a particularly scenic route, which is currently frequented by tourists; furthermore, urban style development in this area does not promote tourism.

·        The PPS should be read in its entirety and all relevant policies are to be applied in each situation.  As per the transit plan, which will be developed in phases from the city core outward, so should intensive, residential development.  This will result in sustainable growth patterns and increased ridership. The LRT and BRT corridors should be the starting point for intensification.  Development beyond that should follow each phase of the transit plan.  In order to access federal government gas tax funding, cities will be required to have an integrated community sustainability plan.

·        The OPA states, while not immune to change, market forces tend to evolve slowly, unless unexpected shocks or stimuli cause people to shift preferences more quickly.  The leading edge of the baby boom turns 65 in two years, combined with the current global economic recession, which is forecast not to recover for the next three years, the transit strike last winter, and two winters of record snowfall, the lack of job security, would all qualify as unexpected shocks.

·        Population projections have been lagging behind actual population growth by an ever-widening margin since amalgamation, as is the number of new apartments constructed was under-projected between 2001-2006 (the actual number was 23 per cent, which is double that which is anticipated.)

·        Recent studies from the Conference Board of Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and Ipsos-Reid indicate a significant share of new residential projects will be condominiums.  A housing type that meets the needs of the aging population.  One-third of Ottawa residents polled would consider purchasing a condominium apartment as their primary residence. 

·        The Greater Ottawa Homebuilders claim that the final house price is linked to government charges by a percentage of 38 per cent, which includes development fees.  As fees are scheduled to rise in Ottawa, so too will house prices.  They also state the cost of a new home will not drop due to the increase price of labour and land.  This makes the dream of home ownership out of reach for many in the City. These facts question the claim for an increased need in single-family homes.

 

Mathieu Blanchard commented on the impact of sprawl development on Ottawa’s character and charm.  He noted that the current infrastructure and transportation network is at the end of its lifecycle, and will cause budgetary pressures over the next five budget cycles.  He advised that expansion plans should be examined closely given external forces such as the economic situation.  In addition, the population of Orléans has grown from 6000 in 1971 to 95,000 and the road infrastructure has been unable to keep pace.  He noted land being designated for long-term growth will be developed almost immediately, as developers need to keep on building to remain viable.  He noted the Ottawa-Carleton Homebuilders Association is an aggressive lobby group and urban expansion should be slowed down.

 

Dr. Ranjit Perera, Humanics Universal Inc., a long time resident of the former City of Cumberland, does not oppose the extension of the urban boundary in Area 11, provided it is done subject to certain conditions. He supports urban expansion in this area to address on-going transportation infrastructure and service needs, including Highway 174, water and sewers, roads, commercial prospects, employment opportunities, and schools, which are all lacking.  As a result of all these factors, people living in and around the area of Cumberland Village have to drive to Rockland or Orléans to get any of the above-mentioned services.  He suggested this not only adds to the transportation problem, but also pollutes the environment.  The Cumberland Village area cannot be a complete community, as referenced in the OP, without addressing these concerns.  He suggested Highway 174, from Trim Road to the 174/417 split, must be expanded to six to eight lanes and re-routed past Trim Road and bypassing the Village of Cumberland.  Water and sewers must also serve Cumberland Village, which is not properly serviced.

 

Janet Bradley spoke on behalf of Jim Maxwell, a local Kanata farmer, who owns a 12.5-hectare parcel of land on March Valley Road (Area 1F). It is situated immediately to the east of the Brookside subdivision, which is currently being constructed and adjacent to the Greenbelt.  She proposed that this remnant piece of property should be included in the urban area to be developed with the adjacent subdivisions.  She noted the parcel was ranked high in earlier evaluations but was excluded due to concerns raised by DND, because it is too close to an explosive range operated in the Greenbelt lands to the east.  She advised that the explosive range is actually 1 kilometre to the east, behind a very large nine-foot chain linked fence with barbed wire, in addition to some landscape buffering.  DND began operating this explosive range without any contact with adjacent property owners; therefore, it had to be assumed that DND took the position that its use would not impact the adjacent lands.  Staff have said that any mitigation or buffer must be accommodated within the range.  She suggested the land is small, can easily be serviced, and should be developed at the same time as the adjacent subdivisions.

 

Lisa Della Rosa accompanied Janet Bradley, representing Richcraft Homes.  Ms. Bradley began by stating that Richcraft has several parcels of land and has made extensive submissions to the City.  She focused her comments on a 47-hecatre parcel (Area 2 in the Kanata Highlands), which is immediately west of the Terry Fox Drive extension and part of lands owned by Richcraft within the urban boundary and open space gifted to the City.  She noted the initial intent of the urban boundary review was to find parcels close to the existing boundary, which would take advantage of the availability of services and round out existing developments.  This parcel has consistently scored high and is only three points from being recommended for inclusion. 

 

Ms. Bradley stated that in her view, the PPS obligates Council to ensure the City has enough land available to meet its projected needs for 20 years with a supply of up and running, ready-serviced, available land for 10 years.  She suggested this particular Richcraft parcel is a perfect example of why one looks 20 years ahead, and considers how to use the availability of infrastructure.  In addition, one of the projects identified by the City of Ottawa a shovel ready for the federal stimulus funding, is the completion of the Terry Fox Drive extension, which has a completed Environment Assessment.  The City of Ottawa is now actively acquiring the land, in order to get the rest of Terry Fox constructed.  If the Richcraft lands are to be developed and included in the urban area at some point, the services should be installed when building Terry Fox Drive.  Richcraft has offered to upfront some of those costs but no developer could do it if there was no assurance that those costs would be paid off, or that their land would be developed.  If the Richcraft lands do not get added, the road allowance will have to be ripped up to install the services, which will be a great inconvenience and cost a great deal more; moreover, if the lands are used as part of development, there will be a conveyance of those lands to the City for free, but if they are not in a development scenario, then the City will have to acquire them at full market value.  Walkways along Carp River could also be undertaken as part of the development plan. In conclusion, she stated it would be incredibly shortsighted not to include this parcel in the urban area at this time.

 

Chair Hume commented that the City of Ottawa is currently meeting the PPS’ tests regarding the provision of land for residential development.  Ms. Bradley restated her opinion that focus should be put that it is a five-year review of a 20-year analysis to determine if enough land is available for 20 years from now.

 

Chair Hume noted that staff advised that the City has an 18-year supply of singles and semis over the period and the addition of lands brings the City well over the 20-year horizon.  Ms. Bradley responded that staff is relying on extensive intensification, which is a dramatic change from the current situation.  She recalled that many existing neighbourhoods are resistant to intensification.  In short, she stated the projected 18-year supply is very optimistic.

 

Chair Hume countered that this whole process seems more like a lottery than urban planning, stating that he is trying to get to how much land the City really needs to satisfy the PPS.  He would like to hear more reasons as to why the urban boundary should be expanded.

 

Murray Chown, on behalf of Ray Bell, Grace Bell, Sid Bradley and Ross Bradley, began by asking to turn to page 92 of the report; this page depicts a number of candidate areas that staff was evaluating for expansion around Stittsville.  Areas 5a and 5b are being recommended to be included in the future urban designation that is associated with the Fernbank lands, and Areas 6a, 6b and 6c are being recommended be added to the urban boundary.  His clients are owners in Area 6c; as well for the record he indicated that he is also representing the landowners located in Area 6b, which include Howard and Molly McGuire, Noreen Brown and Diane and Eric Moore for the Faulkner Trust.  .  He addressed the three different designations proposed by staff for the supported areas for urban expansion.  With respect to the three density policies that staff is recommending, he encouraged the committee to only apply these density provision to the large parcels (UESAs), as was done in 2003.  He suggested not applying these density provisions to the small pieces where it is going to be difficult if not impossible to achieve.

 

Chair Hume asked if he shared Ms. Bradley’s submission that the City is required to have a projected 20-year supply and an available 10-year supply of developable land. Mr. Chown replied that he did, noting staff have made some assumptions in arriving at the conclusion that an 18-year supply exists.  If these assumptions with respect to density are unrealistic or not achieved then there may be a question as to whether an 18-year supply is available.

 

Chair Hume added that the challenge is to balance off whether or not these assumptions are correct or not, how much land is needed to meet PPS targets, and whether or not the intensification targets are reasonable or aggressive enough.

 

Mr. Chown commented that he felt that Council has four options involving urban expansion, including:

·    Add nothing;

·    Add the Fernbank lands (5a and 5b), and the developing communities expansion lands;

·    Add the 850 hectares that staff is recommending; or,

·    Add more than 850 hectares.

 

The Chair agreed with these statements adding that somewhere within this range of options represents the right thing to do.

 

Ralph Robinson said he had purchased a parcel of land, 10 acres in size, 20 years ago that was serviceable into country estate lots.  Recently he had decided to apply for a severance, only to find out that since amalgamation, two-acre country lot severances were not permitted without a 25-acre remnant parcel.  He can apply for a three-lot subdivision, which would cost upwards of $100,000 and is non-refundable without any certainty of approval.  He did not believe that most rural residents want subdivisions in rural areas, as they prefer incremental infill growth by way of country lot severances on existing residential roads where additional infrastructure is not necessary.  He noted that he has been told that building individual country state lots in rural areas is a net tax loss to the City, which is trying to force services and amenities into rural areas.  He felt that towns and villages should be allowed to grow commercially, thus reducing commuting into the downtown area.  He also felt that none of the recommendations expressed by rural residents have been taken into consideration and only the developers promoting subdivisions are being heard.  In closing, he stated that the OP should be amended to allow country lot severances in general rural areas where it is practical, sensible and is in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.

 

Ted Fobert, FoTenn Consultants, explained that wording was added to the OP regarding public utilities in floodplains, which disregards the original intent of the policy permitting public utility facilities and infrastructure that are subject to the Environmental Assessment Act in all land use designations, including floodplains.  He stated this policy is problematic for the delivery of electricity, as corridors must by nature traverse large expanses of lands including floodplains.  He noted that they have raised this with staff and have followed up with the issue and suggested new wording, which they support.  It is their understanding that the word that was put in the May draft was not meant to impact public utilities but was to address concerns related to municipal services.  In order to address this concern, they have created a new definition for municipal services, which creates a clear distinction between it and public utilities.

 

Ted Fobert recalled that the last OP contained some disconnect between policies involving intensification and heritage conservations districts.  The conflict between the polices often pits the developer, who is trying to intensify on lands, against the heritage community and Local architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) with respect to what is the appropriate development of these lands.  Staff has revised the wording in the latest draft to provide a better balance by giving a clear recognition when intensifying that one must be responsible and preserve the requirements under the heritage policies.  The difficulty is that the current heritage conservation district plans often set out very restrictive regulatory controls on the future of those communities.  Currently, it will require that this issue will have to be dealt with on a site to site basis, of which neither parties on either side are happy with this arrangement.  He opined that the policies in the OP that address both heritage resources and intensification should be the policy framework for all secondary-planning studies including the preparation of heritage conservation district plans.  He concluded that where there is a conflict between a heritage conservation district plan and the OP, the OP must take precedence.

 

On the issue of single-detached density in suburban locations, Mr. Fobert stated that the proposed target of 26 units per net hectare for single-family homes, which he viewed as aggressive, should not be focused on particular site, but the achievement should be averaged out over all of the single-family homes.  His concern is that the requirement will lead to uninspired and cookie-cutter subdivisions, as it would not allow for the type of variety required in community planning.  He felt that the more general target of 32 units per net hectare should be the governing factor, which would provide the ability for larger lot singles provided that the density target is met for the area.

 

Chair Hume advised that Ms. Paterson and Mr. Cross will meet with Councillor Harder to prepare a motion that does not violate the overall policy thrust but allows some flexibility.

 

Ted Fobert, on behalf of Canadian Pacific Railway  (CPR) regarding Employment Areas, explained that CPR own approximately 60 acres of land in the Walkley Yard area that is surplus to their needs for future rail use.  These lands, which run between Bank Street and Conroy Road, are currently under review through a study that the City is undertaking to find an appropriate use for those lands, which are currently designated for employment.  He noted that Policy 2.2.25 of the proposed OPA, which implements Section 1.3 of the PPS, states that conversion of employment lands to non-employment use will only be considered at the time of the five-year OP Review.  An application received between these refreshes will be deemed premature unless Council directs that a comprehensive review be initiated that demonstrates the land is not required for employment purposes over the long term and there is no need for conversion.  He explained that the definition of comprehensive review in the PPS states that the review can occur during an OP review or through an OPA, which is initiated or adopted by a planning authority.  This wording has not been accommodated in the policy reference in the OP; therefore, it would limit CPR’s ability to designate the lands for non-employment uses outside the five-year reviews.  He suggested the wording in the OP should be changed to reflect the PPS definition.

 

On the issue of intensification and heritage conservation district plans, Councillor Doucet noted that Sandy Hill, which is limited to buildings of four-storey height, is the densest neighbourhood in Ottawa. 

 

Mr. Fobert responded that he can appreciate the inner city communities are denser; however, the difficulty is that a piece of land in the medium profile area, which supports heights in the range of six to nine storeys, might also have a maximum height in the district plan of four storeys.  He stated that amounts to two directions in respect to development and the OP trumps heritage policies, which creates a huge tension throughout the process.  He suggested the LACAC does not have any faith that the Heritage Conservation District study has any meaning to the developers who are looking at the OP direction and are feeling a huge resistance with respect to heritage.  The district designation does not necessarily mean that all of the buildings have heritage features or resources requiring protection.  In summation, he suggested the matter be addressed or risk dealing with the issue on a site-by-site basis.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Fobert confirmed his views on heritage conservation districts are his own and that he is not representing a particular party on the matter.

 

Replying to a series of questions from the Chair on urban boundary expansion, Mr. Fobert agreed with Ms. Bradley’s earlier assessment regarding land supply in terms of the planning period.  He felt that the crux of the issue is balancing intensification and allowing a reasonable expansion, based on current community values.  He pointed out that the neighbourhood regardless of the size, density or height fights every intensification project.  Mr. Fobert emphasized that his firm has not taken a position on the urban boundary issue.  FoTenn feels that this is a complex issue that speaks to dealing with community values, accommodating variety, and ensuring that intensification is achievable.  He stated that intensification is the appropriate priority, but in his view some level of accommodation of expansion makes sense.  He spoke of a range of opportunities to accommodate growth outside the Greenbelt, specifically with regard to Stittsville, Orléans and Leitrim, which needs some additional population in order to get some of the services that will make it a community.

 

The Committee recessed with Councillor Jellett in the Chair in the afternoon.

 

William Murray, representing a Coalition for a Sustainable Ottawa, an ad-hoc committee lobbying councillors to hold the line on urban sprawl and urban expansion, noted that a rally took place at noon in front of City Hall where approximately 150-200 people attended.  He put forth the following points:

·        New Canadians require services that become difficult to access when the population is spread out due to sprawl.

·        Urban sprawl has a cost with less money to spend on other social needs.  More tax dollars must be invested within the urban boundary to ensure sustainability and a better community life. 

·        He noted that if Council holds the line on urban expansion, expensive appeals to the OMB would not be required. 

·        He reflected on a letter that Councillor Hume wrote to the Premier in response to a Lee Greenberg article in the Ottawa Citizen on February 4, 2009.  There is an indication that the Province is willing to help the City of Ottawa curb sprawl, especially if Ontario laws are getting in the way of that goal.  The letter took the Premier on the offer, but no response was received.  He suggested asking for a response from the Province before moving forward. 

·        He suggested councillors who received money from developers or those associated with the development community should return the money or abstain from voting on matters related to the urban boundary.

 

Councillor Harder questioned the delegate about union donations.  Mr. Murray said that if a union gave money to a specific person and then something in the union’s interest was in a matter before committee, he believed that there is a reasonable apprehension that there may be some bias.

 

Joanne Hamilton said that thousands live in the horseshoe shaped area of highrise condominium and apartment buildings encompassing the Ottawa River Parkway, Richmond Road and Poulin Avenue.  At the top of the horseshoe is the NCC mud lake parkland conservations on the Ottawa River.  Off to one side is a small section of houses and in the centre is a field that abuts NCC’s property.  In the Richmond Road Westboro Community Design Plan, this field is zoned as an open area leisure linkage zone.  She was told that in the 1970s, this field was gifted for one dollar by the City of Ottawa, and a small single storey building to house physically disabled adults was constructed.  She spoke of the wonderful views and access to greenspace; however, she lamented that a developer acquired the field and has plans to erect a 20-storey condo building, a 12-storey subsidized housing building, and another low-rise building to replace the now single-storey structure for the disabled.  She went on to discuss issues with the zoning application, including traffic and increased density, adding that Councillor Cullen also opposes the proposal.  She pointed out that Richmond Road in Westboro is beginning to resemble the downtown core with all the new construction of low, mid and high-rise buildings.  Additionally, she feels that this community has far more of its fair share of subsidized housing.  She noted open space is needed and Mud Lake is reported to be threatened and under stress from human use. 

 

With regard to the OP, she noted that the language used in existing policy concerning new construction of mid and high-rise buildings, particularly Policy 14, emphasizes only positives outcomes with the use of terms such as how it will “improve and enhance user comfort and enhance existing or create new views, vistas and landmarks”.  She suggested that the City of Ottawa’s first obligation to the taxpayers is to look at new construction in terms of how it may diminish, deteriorate and detract.  She commented that intensification can only be considered smart growth if it factors in more than just engineering capacity.  It should be obvious that building mid or high-rise buildings represents a significant loss of economic value to the existing home and condo owners, a huge loss in the appreciation of their property, their neighbourhood and community.

 

Debbie Belfie spoke on behalf of the Sweetnam family who owns 11 acres of vacant property at the southwest corner of Hazeldean Road and Fringewood Drive in Stittsville.  At the 31 March 2009 public meeting, she made a presentation to extend the arterial mainstreet designation along Hazeldean Road.  City staff reviewed their request and proposed to extend this designation along most of Hazeldean Road frontage in Stittsville.  Staff noted that this part of Hazeldean Road is changing from a rural highway with scattered rural and industrial uses to a busy arterial road servicing developing suburban residential community.  The plan widening of Hazeldean Road to four lanes will influence the types of development the corridor will attract and the redevelopment of the under utilized sites.  It is an area that is in transition and the arterial mainstreet designation will also allow the City to apply design provisions and the Council-approved arterial mainstreet design guidelines.  While agreeing with the arterial mainstreet designation, staff also proposes a specific policy within Stittsville to limit the depths of the designation to 150 metres.  She requested that some flexibility be built into the wording of the policy so that the depth could exceed 150 metres where it makes sense.  For example, the Sweetnam’s property is 152 metres in depth.  The land was created in the 1960s, when 500 feet was appropriate, which equals to 152 metres, and backs onto an existing residential development.

 

Representing Guy Whissel, owner of a five-acre parcel of land at 2990 Wilhaven Drive, Ms. Belfie requested changes to the rural residential severance policies to allow the severance of two-acre lots in the general rural area without the need to have a 25-acre retained portion.  A presentation was made at the 31 March public meeting and staff recommended that there be no changes to this existing policy.  Their reason was that the intent was to reduce the re-division of small parcels and to prevent strip development.  She countered that some additional opportunities for country lot severances should be allowed.  The current policy promotes scattering of developments throughout the general rural area, which is not the most cost effective way to provide municipal services.  Policies should be introduced to allow infilling of country lots, as a way to avoid strip development.  While the OP currently allows some infill severances, there are only allowed within small historical settlements.  The property at 2990 Wilhaven Drive is in an area that is surrounded by rural residential homes and two-acre country lot subdivisions.  It is in on a paved road, with the snowploughs, garbage trucks and school buses already traveling along the road to service the existing homes.  There is no impact on natural features, wetlands, or agricultural resources.  A severance in this location would not extend strip development as it is surrounded by other residential homes and would be an appropriate location.  Staff has also indicated that they wanted to reduce the re-division of small parcels but on the other hand, staff is also recommending that within plans of country lot subdivisions, the re-division of lots can occur as long as the severed and retained parcels are both two acres in size.  The same policy could apply in the general rural area as well.  In summary, they feel that country lot severances are one alternative that provides a choice for affordable rural living.  Infill policies can be introduced to avoid stripped development.  It is an affordable way to provide municipal services such as snow ploughing, garbage pick up in the rural area and two acres severed and retained lot sizes are an efficient use of the limited amount of general rural land in Ottawa.

 

Ms. Belfie also represented Amazon Land Development Corporation who have an agreement of purchase and sale with 1694019 Ontario Inc. for the property that is located in part of lot 22 Concession 9 of the former Township of Goulbourn.  This property does not have a municipal address, it is approximately 20 acres in size, located south of the urban boundary of Stittsville to the west of Main Street and north of Healy Avenue.  A portion of this property in the current OP is designated as significant wetland with the balance in a general rural designation. She noted that a written submission was provided to consider this land as a candidate area for urban expansion.  Staff has indicated that the land would not be considered for urban expansion due to environmental features on this land and the limited amount of land that is available for development.  Through discussion with staff since the 31 March 2009 meeting, it has been determined that the significant wetlands designation on the property was removed under an OMB decision in April 2003; furthermore, staff is now recommending that the significant wetland designation be changed to a rural natural features designation.  They agree with the removal and the change in this designation; however, they would like to reserve the right to have their own biologist conduct a site inspection and comment on the environmental features on this property and where the boundary line should be located.  Ms. Belfie added that not only does the rural natural features designations have implications for the consideration of the land for urban purposes, but it also prohibits development on this portion of land within the designation, as well as limiting the development of the property within 120 metres of the property.  She noted that they would be conducting this investigation as soon as possible and request that this designation be changed should their investigation show that the size of the designation is incorrect.

 

John Reid, Chair of Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee (AHCAC), focused on the issue of public art with the following points:

·    In 2003 Council adopted the 20/20 Arts Plan which specifically called for the recognition of public art in the OP.

·    There are provincially legislative public art programs in Quebec that require contributions from private developers.

·    The City of Toronto’s OP supports public art in all significant private sector developments.  The “Percent for Public Art Program” recommends that a minimum of one per cent of the gross construction cost of each significant development be contributed to public art.

·    Developers in the City of Toronto have three options when making public art contributions: on-site, off-site and on-site/off-site.

·        AHCAC is recommending that the City of Ottawa entrench the one percent for public art policy for major city capital projects and adopt the Toronto formula for private sector funded public art in the OP.

·        In staff’s response to AHCAC’s submission from 31 March 2009, the response ignores the decision that Council made in the Arts Plan.  Staff calls for further study in the context of a review of the Arts and Heritage Master Plan (AHMP).  With the staff cuts that have been made in the culture sector it seems unlikely that any such plan will be completed any time soon.

·        Council must show leadership now by directing inclusion of public art in the OP as they have already agreed by approving the AHMP.

 

Councillor Doucet agreed with Mr. Reid that the one per cent policy should be included in the OP.  He inquired about the Poet’s Pathway initiative, which Mr. Reid explained the City has finally provided funding through the Heritage Grants Program to put up three plaques and add to the website.  The plaques will be located in the Beechwood area, Britannia area, and in the vicinity of McCarthy Woods.  This is a circular pathway around the built up part of the City, it will celebrate not only the art that happens in the City, but also art history.

 

Councillor Holmes inquired whether the City’s art policy was part of the OP. Ms. Paterson explained that the OP deals with planning application matters, the one per cent for public art is a policy that sits outside of the OP and all of the programming and administration is with the Arts and Cultural branch.  When asked if staff felt if inclusion in the OP would strengthen the policy, Ms. Paterson replied that she felt it would have no impact.

 

Murray Chown, on behalf of M & A Rentals, stated that his clients own a significant portion of the expansion candidate lands identified as Area 3, which were one point short for urban boundary inclusion.  He suggested that adding another scattered few hundred hectares every five years just to meet the PPS requirement is not good planning.  With respect to servicing, he submitted that the PPS is actually unreasonably restricting the City’s ability to properly plan for infrastructure.  The pipes going into the ground in Kanata West, will only be providing sufficient sewer, storm and water capacity to service that development, and not another single house.  Area 3 may be added in the future, but the pipes that will already be in the ground may unfortunately already be too small to accommodate the next logical area for expansion.  He felt that this is an issue that needs to be explored sooner rather than later, before pipes go into the ground.

 

In response to comments from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Chown advised that longer range planning should occur when dealing with infrastructure.  He felt that the City should not be limited by the PPS that states a municipality can only designate sufficient land for a 20-year supply.  It should not tie the City’s hands in terms of planning the infrastructure that goes into the ground.  For a nominal additional cost, and not necessarily to the City, additional capacity could be provided when the pipes go in the ground that provides flexibility when making decisions five to 10 years in the future.  He felt that they needed to separate infrastructure planning from what is being designated in the OP.

 

Councillor El-Chantiry asked how he would expect the landowner who’s land is not presently designated for urban expansion to contribute money when there are no assurances the lands will be designated in the future.  Mr. Chown commented that in the case of Area 3, his client is prepared to make an investment in infrastructure when the pipes go in the ground to protect the flexibility whenever his lands are developed.

 

Jan Haubrich of Metcalfe Realty and Robert Wingate, Senior Engineer at the IBI Group accompanied Lloyd Phillips. Mr. Phillips noted that he would be speaking to 936 March Road, wetlands to the north and west of Old Carp Road and islands in Fitzroy Harbour.  The lands at 936 March Road have been identified as candidate Areas 1b and 1f for the urban expansion area.  In the last round of revisions, Area 1f was recommended for exclusion, due to constraints caused by the proximity to the DND facility.  In addition, the lands between the railway line and 936 March Road were cut back yet again to roughly half of what they once were, without justification or reasoning.  With respect to servicing, Mr. Wingate advised that there are no problems servicing all of 1b, which has been split into two (1b west is included and 1b east has not).  With respect to water, the staff report shows that 3,690 units are possible in Areas 1a, 1b and 1c.   In regard to wastewater, the report states that parts of Area 1b may be serviced by upgrading a small trunk leading to the pumping station.  Area 1b is within the Shirley’s Brook Subwatershed Plan and there are no constraints. They have consistently made these submissions in consultation with staff, so they are surprised at this stage to see that this is now being raised.  He noted that Area 1b had a very high score initially in its entirety; however, Area 1b(w) still has a high score and Area 1b(e) has a score just below the cut off line.   He stated that all of the calculations thus far have been the result of a mathematical exercise to meet the requirements of the PPS.  He felt that this is only one aspect of doing proper planning, especially when making an important decision such as an urban expansion area.  It is the submission of Metcalfe Realty that other aspects must also be considered. The lands in question are directly adjacent to the Brookside subdivision, which is presently rapidly developing.  They fail to understand why this arbitrary approach has cut the lands in half without any regard for what the proper land use planning requirements would be on those lands.  In summation, the delegation ask that all of Area 1b be included, with inclusion of 1b(e) on Schedule R34, and the proposed urban boundary expansion study area also be amended on Schedule A in the OP.

 

Speaking to the issue of wetlands, Mr. Phillips stated letters were submitted that raise doubt on the boundaries proposed by the MOE and followed by staff, as shown on Schedule R26.  With respect to the islands, he explained that Alexander and Simcoe Islands, which are located in Fitzroy Harbour, are not presently included in the OP.  Staff proposes adding them with rural natural features and floodplain designations to restore the designations that were in the former West Carleton OP.  The owner believes that the matter should be studied properly before the designations are made; furthermore, for the record, they object to those designations.

 

David Gladstone, explained that his interpretation of the OP is that it incorporates the TMP, but he felt that the proposed tunnel timeframe in the downtown will make the proposed transit capacity unworkable.  The Transitway through central Ottawa is at capacity presently, while idle railway lines presently include one of the bridges across the Ottawa River.  He felt that leaving existing railway lines unused does not make sense or achieve the desired goals of value for money, development, intensification and the cessation of urban sprawl.  He strongly feels that this proposal for the OP needs to be reworked.  For example, new housing or commercial developments should be linked to the O Train.

 

Richard Rogers, R. J. Rogers Landscaping Ltd., applauded the vision contained in the Ottawa 20/20 plan. His concerns touched on urban sprawl and developers buying up farmland outside the urban boundary.  He referenced the efforts and leadership of Portland, Oregon, which has curbed sprawl.

 

Mary Jarvis, representing Urbandale and the owners of Area 9b, was accompanied by Doug Kelly of Soloway Wright.  She noted that a list of questions and comments to clarify the text and schedules of the Plan was provided to the City on May 4, 2009.  She advanced that the population projections and density targets for Riverside South as shown on Schedule D, do not reflect the CDP and the light rail transit (LRT) agreement between RSCC and the City of Ottawa.  The agreement signed in 2006 granted the City full access to the lands covered by the developing community designation and the CDP for the construction of a rapid transit system.  The agreement put the development in Riverside South on hold during the construction period of the LRT system, thus the population projections have lagged behind other areas.  She noted that the change from LRT to bus rapid transit offends the existing LRT agreement and Urbandale is asking the City not to approve this change in designation.  Comments were also made regarding trail and bicycle path locations and the applicability of the agricultural resource area designation and the Greenbelt designations on lands at the corner of Leitrim and Limebank Roads in the Riverside South.  With regard to Leitrim, she suggested urban expansion in this area would create a consistent urban phase along Bank Street from Leitrim Road to the current southerly limit of the urban area on the west side of Bank Street.

 

Ms. Jarvis explained that Area 9 was not recommended for inclusion into the urban area in the most recent staff report.  This parcel of land is on the east side of Bank Street, one farm south of the existing urban area and directly across from the urban boundary and the urban uses in the Leitrim CDP.  These lands are approximately 75 acres with access onto Bank Street that will be supported by public transit to serve the existing urban area.  She explained that it receives the highest ranking for water, wastewater and stormwater services and received one less score than Area 9a in categories associated with proximity to agricultural land, emergency, depth to bedrock, mainstreet and transit.  This parcel is directly across the street from the current urban area and separates the existing urban area on the east side of Bank Street from the Leitrim stormwater management pond, which was built in the rural area to service the urban area.  She requested that Area 9b be re-evaluated for inclusion in the urban boundary as a smaller expansion area, creating a compact urban form with opportunities for the efficient use of services planned for the Leitrim/Bank Street corridor.

 

Brian Tansey commented on the emphasis on urban boundary expansion and the power given to business interests.  He suggested Council should have imposed a moratorium on all development until the smart growth plan was set in stone.  He noted that single-storey, flat-roofed huge box stores and schools are being built on slabs exceeding the permitted zoning, when they should be building upwards instead of out.  In summation he asked committee to think hard about where the pressure is coming from to expand the urban boundary and how they going to put a stop to it.

 

Responding to a comment from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Tansey replied that his reference to the Shoppers Drug Market being built on a slab deals with intensification.  He suggested it is terrible land use, which is tied to boundary growth and reasonable intensification.

 

Rod Price, Cardel Homes, voiced that the Greater Ottawa Home Builders has backed off its original thought that 2000 hectares was required and is now in agreement with the staff report.  The question now becomes where is the best fit for this expansion, suggesting now is the time to seriously look at pieces that square off certain existing communities.  He pointed out that Cardel would like to add a parcel to square off the Barrhaven South community.  They are of the opinion that it is an adequate piece of property that should be considered, as existing infrastructure is available with little if any impact on associated transit and traffic patterns and roadways.  With respect to the proposed density requirements for developing communities, he argued the 26 units per net hectare target seems excessive.  As a smaller builder in the City, who does mostly customized homes and lots, he commented that this proposal would basically destroy smaller builders.  Typically the largest lot that they would build on would be 43 feet wide with.  The proposed density requirement would eliminate any lots above 40-feet wide. He suggested this would lead to cookie-cutter, run of the mill type communities that would not take into consideration things such as natural features and typography that make communities unique.  He added that there is a certain segment of the market, who are looking for larger sized lots in the suburban area.

 

Councillor Harder indicated that staff have offered to sit down and work on the density issue. She endeavoured to straighten out the boundary line in Barrhaven to use Barnsdale as the line.

 

Fran Stronach, a resident of Cumberland and former lower tier councillor, relayed a number of concerns regarding the addition of Area 11 to the urban boundary:

·        The amalgamated City of Ottawa needs to take a deep breath before continuing to expand development into rural areas.  In the past two years, Cumberland has had several planned estate lot developments proposed and accepted by the City.  These rural areas add less than 200 homes, but the lot sizes are two acres.

·        The new Tamarack plan adds 1400 homes to a rural area, which is adjacent to large lots varying in size from three-quarter to 10 acres.  It is her understanding that because of the expense of bringing City water to the area, the plan is to intensify the housing by including row housing and apartments in a rural setting, which is out of character for the entire area. 

·        Council must first address traffic and infrastructure concerns in this area.  The new proposal would add more than 400 cars to an already crowded road system. Old Montreal Road, the only access to the proposed development is a curving two-lane road, which leads to Trim Road.  Trim Road is jam-packed during the morning and evening commute, backing up to Highway 174.  The park and ride area at Trim Road is presently filled to capacity and the existing highway cannot handle any more commuters.

·        She wondered if Tamarac plans to build an access road to Highway 174 to service this development, where it is almost impossible to put in an intersection.  Highway access in the east to the core is severely lacking.

·        Presently there is no regular bus service for the rural area.  Should buses be added, the park and ride would have need to be expanded and service would need to increase substantially. This would generate increased taxes for residents in the area, who presently pay $174 a year for a system that is of no use for the majority of rural residents. 

·        All of rural Cumberland is serviced by individual wells.  With piped services being extended to the development will existing landowners be forced to pay and receive these new services.  The Village of Cumberland asked for City water years ago and was turned down.  She asked if developers pay for the water system entirely or will rural tax payers be expected to contribute.

·        Environmental concerns are a real issue, with regular discharges into the Ottawa River.  She questioned if the sewage plant would be able to handle increased development.  She also queried if stormwater ponds would be planned to avoid direct flow into the river.

·        She touched on the clear-cutting that occurred within Area 11, despite Council’s stated commitment to the environment.

·        She requested that no development should be approved for this areas until due consideration is given to all aspects of this development, including traffic, water, impact on existing residents, and environmental concerns.

 

Valerie Yersh commenced by saying that she is glad that Council is talking about the future and engaging and planning for the benefit of Ottawa citizens.  She spoke of the impact of adding Area 11 to the urban boundary on the day-to-day lives of the residents of Cumberland.  She compared what the future would look like with the development and without, touching on traffic, congestion on Highway 174, quality of life, country lifestyle, noise, wildlife and other issues.  She commented that the village of Cumberland is a reprieve to the residents of Ottawa, as a unique country option for families.  She said tourist attracting events have become part of this economy; the farmer’s market has grown; the museum has expanded its role as a destination place; and the community has taken more of a role in protecting what is uniquely Cumberland.  Development in Cumberland has been wise, strategic and has met with the approval, partnership and respect of the Cumberland community and its residents.  Most homes are on two-acre lots, making Cumberland one of the more desired communities for people who have the will and desire to regularly invest in the time and gas to commute to everything.  She added that the residents continue to take pride in the unique quality of life in Cumberland with nature and wildlife.  In conclusion, she requested that Area 11 not be included for urban expansion and that the City focus on getting road infrastructure in place first and foremost and then re-visit the plan and bring the development more in the alignment with the unique nature of this beautiful piece of Canada’s capital.

 

Patrick Malcolm respectfully asked that Council listen to the concerns of Cumberland residents with the proposed development of Area 11.  He would like Council to affirm its leadership in order to prevent development from occurring into an area where services have not been delivered.  He used traffic on Trim road and Highway 174 as examples of existing infrastructure issues.  Mr. Malcolm reiterated that Area 11 scored a zero on with regard to traffic caused by adding 4500 homes.  He advised that he is not against development, nor against the developers for this proposed area; however, their vision for this area needs to be tempered with Council’s rational analysis of what they are planning to ensure that it fits with the city’s goal for a sustainable city.  Mr. Malcolm explained that he lives next to the proposed development location and touched on the inadequacies regarding consultation and information sharing.  He felt the developers want to fast track development, including infrastructure spending and road widening.  He respectfully asked that Council consider deferring urban boundary expansion to allow long-term planning and visioning to occur.  He expected councillors to look at the facts, with due diligence and the care necessary to make sure it is not the developers interests that are at heart, that it is the interests of the community and the people that are represented.  He suggested this would ensure responsible, intelligent, manageable development of the infrastructure, and a city worth living in.  In closing, Mr. Malcolm informed Committee that he has collected at petition with over 400 signatures from individuals residing in the area in support of his position.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Harder, Mr. Malcolm indicated that the City should focus on development within the urban boundary to make good use of existing service-capacity and avoid continuous extension of the urban boundary.

 

Councillor Hunter indicated that a lot of individuals have raised the point regarding developers want to expand the urban boundary, he asked if he was aware of the reason the developer wanted to build in the area that he spoke about.

 

Councillor Hunter stated his long-standing argument that if the City did not get in on planning for its next suburban community, then the developers were going to do it for them.  He noted that adding a limited land supply pushes up the cost of land and housing, and potential buyers might decide to locate outside and into communities like Rockland. He touched on Highway 174 for which the Province requested the City fund one third of the costs for its expansion, thus funding those residents that do live outside Ottawa.  He noted developers buy land to develop houses because other people want to buy them.  He stated the City would be irresponsible not to provide sufficient land as a City, because it pushes the tax base outside of the City of Ottawa.

 

Mr. Malcolm agreed with the councillor’s comments, adding that Area 11 must be analyzed with regard to its potential impacts.

 

Sean Crossan, Cardinal Creek Community Association (CCCA), made the following points as the CCCA’s Director of Planning and Development and Past President:

·    He noted concern over the lack of transparency and responsiveness of staff on planning and infrastructure matters related to this OPA process.  He suggested it is a disgrace that no summary analytical tables were made available to the public for all OPA area, which has limited public debate and informed decision-making. The CCCA is still awaiting responses to enquiries.

·    The size of Area 11 must be compatible with the projected economic growth for the City of Ottawa.  The TD Bank is forecasting a decline in growth until 2011 and then moderate to gradual growth until 2013.  This moderate growth is forecast to take place over a three-year period. 

·    The CCCA is supportive of reasonable growth in Area 11 that would involve putting a 10-year moratorium on all growth south of Old Montréal Road until such time as the lands (11a, 11b and 11e) north of Montréal Road are fully built out.  The CCCA requested that (Technical OPA Amendment #69) not be permitted to apply to Area 11 in the future and that a full Council vote be required in the future to bring the 10-year moratorium area into the build zone.

·    The CCCA is in support of the 167-acre expansion area north of Montréal Road (11a, 11b and 11e) as long as our the following preconditions are met, thus demonstrating that Tamarack (Queen Street Corp) has taken sufficient steps to address concerns and gain support moving forward.

 

1.   Complete the Cardinal Creek Subwatershed Study and Environmental Management Plan before allowing the consideration of the Community Design Plan.  This will ensure that independent City staff completes the proper environmental baseline studies.  Ensure this work is completed by 30 September 2009, as it is a year and one-half late.

2.   Secure Tamarack support to complete Highway 174 to four lanes from Trim Road to the entrance of the mixed-use commercial-Cardinal Village Sports Complex to be located adjacent to Highway17 (Area 11e). Ensure a safe and secure traffic light and merge lane at this location.  

3.   Secure Tamarack support and plans for the four-laning of Montreal Road to Trim Road.

4.   Secure City Council approval and funding to accelerate the development of the Trim Road re-alignment, the four-laning of Trim Road to Innes Road and construction of a clover leaf at Trim Road and Hwy 174 to accommodate increased traffic demands from the new Cité collégiale, new commercial-industrial expansion and urban growth.

5.   Secure Tamarack written concurrence to ensure all treed areas adjacent and backing onto Ted Kelly Lane are removed from their OPA Area 11 submission.

6.   Secure Tamarack written concurrence to plant a minimum of $250,000 value of trees in this new OPA area and ensure that a portion are butternut trees, an endangered species in the Province of Ontario and a tree common to this area.

7.   Secure City Council approval now on a tree conservation by-law that places strict controls on the cutting of trees within one kilometre of the urban boundary area. This will assist in preventing the Kanata and Cumberland tree clear-cutting experiences from happening in the future.  It will also demonstrate the City of Ottawa’s environmental stewardship and leadership.

8.   Obtain written agreement from Tamarack for the transfer of 60 acres of valuable wood lots, in close proximity to Cardinal Creek and the Ottawa River, to the City of Ottawa for one dollar.

9.   Obtain Tamarack written approval to make the results of all of their OPA Area 11 soil tests public to ensure no future development is going to take place on unstable soils.

10. Secure City Council approval for a special protection zone (e.g. no construction of any kind) on lands surrounding the Cardinal Creek Karst, the eigth longest karst in Ontario and soon to be recognized as a provincially significant earth sciences ANSI.

11. Secure Tamarack written concurrence to a stone dust pathway connection to Watters Road East and Petrie Island as part of its proposed pathway system.

12. Secure Tamarack written consent for special measures to maintain and protect the wildlife, aquatic life and natural environmental area of Cardinal Creek.

13. Secure a funding commitment by Tamarack to contribute a minimum of $250,000 for the construction of a new sports complex in the vicinity of Cardinal Village to reduce the obesity concerns of a growing and young community, similar to the approach initiated by Mattamy Homes Ltd.

14. Ensure some provision for adequate public transit is built into the requirements of OPA Area 11 to demonstrate Tamarack’s commitment to environmental stewardship.

15. Secure Tamarack written concurrence to quarterly on-going public consultations on all key planning and development matters related to OPA Area 11 over the next five years.

 

Councillor Monette congratulated the Community Association for its work and leadership.  In response to questions from Councillor Monette, Mr. Crossan indicated that he did raise the pre-conditions with Tamarack, which they seemed generally supportive.  He remarked that the CCCA is a reasonable association that looks for compromises where possible, and in this situation they feel that it is not in the best interest of members of our community going to the OMB and receive a decision that is totally in favour of the developer. They are looking for something that will serve as a middle ground that will benefit everyone in the community.

 

Councillor Holmes recalled that Council has refused to pass a tree conservation by-law in the past.  Mr. Crossan felt that the Kanata and Cumberland tree-cutting disasters might allow for action to occur.

 

Councillor Doucet agreed that a tree by-law should be brought in, as it is essential to a healthy City.

 

The Joint Committee recessed until Thursday, 12 May 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

 

Michael Goldberg and Chris Gordon, Mattamy Homes represented Mattamy Homes, which has filed an OPA to include two parcels within the urban boundary (a 40-hecatre parcel adjacent to Mer Bleue Road and 61-hecatre parcel adjacent to Trim Road in the City east end).  The put forth the following elements for consideration:

·        Mattamy has been providing a considerable amount of technical to staff, including planning and public transportation, municipal servicing, stormwater management, agricultural impact assessment, natural heritage overview, growth management of residential land needs.

·        Mattamy has retained the IBI Group, in relation to growth management and the need for more urban land.  ICI Group agrees with the homebuilders that staff has underestimated the amount of urban land that is required.

·        A portion of the Mattamy lands are being recommended by staff for inclusion, while the land zoned agricultural resource area was not recommended.  Mattamy recommends that the entirety of the land be added.

·        Staff has taken the position that agricultural lands should not be considered relying on a strict reading of the PPS.  They countered that staff have not even put on the table as candidate area some of these agricultural resource areas, because they have relied on quantity, in terms of general rural areas, relying solely on LEAR scores in their evaluation. They suggested that there are reasonable alternatives to be properly considered and staff did not give appropriate weight simply by virtue of not considering some of these candidate areas, in terms of public transit expenditures, efficiencies for servicing, road infrastructures, and complete communities.

·        The best solution in terms of an urban expansion, as opposed to going south, between Mer Bleue Road and Tenth Line Road, is a more linear east-west expansion hugging the existing urban area, which brings the urban area at the east end closer to public transit.

·        With regard to the potential transit benefits of the lands, the TMP shows that the east end will be well served with future roadways, particularly the Blackburn Hamlet Bypass, Mer Bleue Road, Trim Road and Frank Kenny Road.  In phase 1of the TMP, the Cumberland Transitway will become reality with a planned $49 million dollar expansion in increment 1 and $72 million to get the Cumberland Transitway all the way out to the Millennium Sports Park in increment 3.  The land to the east is located within 400 metres of the transit expansion and would make a much more efficient use of the considerable transit expenditure.

 

Chris Szpak, Greenspace Alliance, focussed his comments on country lot subdivisions and expansion of the urban boundary, noting the following:

·        Staff in the drafting of the 2003 OP recommended a ban on country lot subdivisions.  The Greenspace Alliance appealed Council’s decision to continue allowing country lot subdivisions to the OMB.

·        The Greenspace Alliance opposes country lot estates as they have proven to be a form of uncontrolled and wasteful development that undermines the intention of the PPS, and goes against the strategic policies of the OP for smart growth.

·        Many other municipalities in Ontario have prohibited this kind of development. It appears that short-term political considerations have taken precedence over good planning practice.

·        If Council is not willing to overturn its previous decision, he asked that consideration be given to a more measured approach, such as prohibiting development on lands designated as rural natural feature (RNF) in order to bolster the natural heritage system, protect natural habitat, and help to retain the rural character that many rural residents desire.

·        Current lands designated as RNF have yet to be properly assessed for their ecological value, and to have their actual boundaries determined.  A more intermediary step would be to place a moratorium on development or site alteration in RNFs, until the assessments are completed, and the boundary set. Those RNF lands, identified as ecologically valuable and deserving of protection from development or site alteration, could then be re-designated with the more protective natural environment area designation.

·        In the end, if no limits are at all placed on country lot subdivision development, the natural resources that make up the rural area will be gradually degraded, and will eventually disappear.  Such wasteful development will quickly diminish the land supply.

·        The Greenspace Alliance is in principal against the urban boundary expansion.  A great deal depends on the interpretation of data, on household population projections, and other assumptions.  The City’s OP objectives of arresting urban sprawl in promoting intensification within the urban area need to be supported by consistent policies in the OP, and not undermined by other policies and contradictory ones, such as, expanding the urban boundary, or allowing country lot subdivisions to continue.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Brooks, Mr. Szpak indicated that proponents should pay for studies.  With regard to providing housing and lifestyle choice, he noted that the immediate concern is protecting environmentally sensitive areas, ensuring sufficient greenspace for the population for quality of life and liveable communities.  He suggested development must be rational and not ad-hoc.  He noted that those who choose country lot subdivisions do not pay the true cost of that choice, which is being subsidized by others to a certain extent.  Regarding rural development around clusters or nodes, Mr. Szpak indicated Greenspace Alliance’s position is to develop what is already there, in terms of settled areas, where facilities and village amenities exist.  The problem with country lot subdivisions is that they are scattered throughout the rural area and can encroach on the agricultural lands.

 

Councillor Thompson noted that country lot estates could be respectful of the environment noting the large quantity of preserved trees in subdivisions such as Rideau Forest in Osgoode ward. 

 

Mr. Szpak replied that there are costs involved to others, involving infrastructure and roads.  Country lot estates are car-centric and threaten natural habitats of potential species-at-risk.  Councillor Thompson countered that the whole city is car-centric noting the urban and suburban areas do not achieve the 30 per cent transit modal split.

 

Michael Polowin, Gowlings, appeared as solicitor for 4840 Bank Street Ltd, purchaser of certain lands in Leitrim (Area 8a), presently owned by Epcon Enterprises Ltd.  He was accompanied by Steve Cunliffe of the Regional Group.  Mr. Polowin put forth the following arguments:

·        These lands are immediately adjacent to the existing urban boundary and were left out of the CDP, only because the landowner at the time, not this client, chose not to participate in the CDP process.

·        He touched on the process, noting that it took five years to review the OP, and then three sets of completely different rankings in 91 days. 

·        There has been some public discussion and media coverage of legal advice given that Council would avoid an appeal simply by refusing to add any lands to the urban envelope.  He disagrees, stating that the mere request for this report, and its consideration has laid the groundwork for an appeal by any dissatisfied landowner. There is a foundation for an appeal, regardless of the actions of Council.

·        The report rewards 10 points for transit in one area of the City, Kanata North, even though the transit has been planned and is not yet in existence.  In other areas of the City, lands were awarded points for depth of bedrock, but no consideration was given to the fact that large tracks of them are highly sloped and often filled with lands with poor soil stability, much of it non-developable.

·        The study overstates the amount of land available for development in certain areas of the City and for those that are capable, it ignores soil stability, which is a building code issue, not a developer issue, and therefore it is a City issue.

·        This Plan considers addition to the urban envelope of lands, which go well beyond the mandate that the report was to cover, which was minor extensions or infill, easily serviced by extending City services. It was not to make strategic decisions leading to a change in the direction of growth of the City.

·        With regard to Leitrim, the report ignores two important City documents, the CDP and the TMP, adopted by Council in November 2008.  The aims of those two documents cannot be fulfilled without the inclusion of Area 8a into the urban envelope.

·        In terms of water, staff have made a grievous error of lumping in these lands with others.  The area was also underscored on rapid transit, mainstreets, distance to a major recreation facility, distance to emergency services, connectivity, depth to bedrock, and urban land supply.

·        The CDP took note of the existence of the Canadian Forces Station Leitrim, an important signals intelligence base of the Canadian Forces, to have an electronic quiet zone around it.  This was not taken into account at all, in consideration of Leitrim by this report.  The CDP also ignores the TMP, the aims of which cannot be carried out, without inclusion of Area 8a.

·        He suggested that Council should be considering the addition of only those lands that are immediately adjacent to the urban envelope.  In doing so, the City will reduce the cost, and indeed reduce the overall addition of lands to 543 hectares instead of the 850 hectares called for by staff.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Desroches, Mr. Polowin explained that his client did not own the land at the time of the undertaking of the CDP.  He opined that the extension of Earl Armstrong Road to Bank Road, which is called for in the TMP in 2023-2031, cannot occur until such time the lands are added to the urban envelope.

 

Councillor Desroches indicated that the community is not anxious to see the extension occur and asked Mr. Polowin to comment on the CFB Quiet Zone.  Mr. Polowin said that a representative of DND raised it at the first CDP workshop. 

 

Daniel Mullaly spoke in opposition to urban expansion at this time.  He feared that the approval of the 850 hectares would be a distraction from the actions necessary to effectively deal with other serious and pressing strategic planning issues.  He spoke of intensification and how it will be achieved and impact neighbourhoods.  He would like to see the process include an open and participatory consultation component with the preparation of urban development plans for each of the areas likely to be subject to the most intensive impacts of the intensification strategy.  He would like to see the fog cleared from the planning haze, involving a clear strategy set out to put the plan into effect.  At that point, assessment of the impacts of the fragmented and subject-specific planning exercises could be undertaken.  He stated that he would like to see a planning document for his community that integrates all the talk about infrastructure, transportation, design standards and guidelines, heritage character, streetscapes, pedestrian and cycling access, education and cultural recreational park facilities.  He recommended the following:

1.      That Council adopt the position that the City’s housing requirements can be met within the context of the planning document Ottawa 20/20, and to comply with provincial requirements for plan approval, there is no need for an additional 850 hectares at this time. 

2.      That Council endorse a plan submission to the MMAH that features other measures, such as intensification, that will limit urban sprawl, and be supportive of the City’s overall strategic vision.

3.      During the next five-year planning cycle, that City staff be given direction to assign priority attention to the formulation of urban design plans for those areas of the City that are likely to be most heavily impacted by the intensification policy.

4.      That the myriad of incomplete planning studies, including density incentive guidelines, the pedestrian plan, parking strategy, at least nine CDPs, among others be brought to completion within defined time limits and that they be incorporated into the urban design plan.

5.      That the cost of public consultation and the information within the City of Ottawa be identified as a priority area for reform and modernization.

6.      That Council takes a leadership role for the approval and implication of the contingency plan and that there be an accountability framework to ensure the acceptance of the planning implementation. 

 

William Davidson, owner of Davidson Homestead, made the following points regarding the inclusion of his land within the urban boundary:

·        He supports the proposed Schedule 44, which includes areas 6a (his property), 6b and 6c.

·    His lands are closely affiliated with the Fernbank CDP; however they were not included because they were not before the OMB.

·    With respect to the urban expansion point scoring system, the score his lands have received are almost identical to those that are being considered for the future urban area.

·    His property is dependant on the infrastructure of the Fernbank CDP; furthermore if his property is not designated as urban, when the Fernbank CDP is complete and works are being planned, they will not be planned for in the sizing of pipes. 

·    With respect to stormwater facilities, he indicated that a stormwater flow is located close to his property. If his lands were designated urban, he could contribute in providing an extension from the water pond to the Faulkner drain.

 

In response to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Ms. Paterson indicated the land has been recommended for inclusion into the developing communing urban expansion area. The Fernbank CDP area has a very specific boundary around it and those lands have all been planned.  There is a connection between these lands but we they cannot expand the boundary of the Fernbank CDP at this point.

 

Mr. Davidson reiterated his lands have a large affiliation to the Fernbank CDP and requested minimally that they be scoped out for infrastructure purposes.  He felt the need to submit his request now because the ability to provide infrastructure will be much more costly in five to 10 years.

 

With regard to stormwater management, Mr. Mahon explained that the Fernbank process has been integrated including the CDP, Land Use Plan, Master Servicing Study, Environmental Management Plan and the TMP.  He reiterated that the boundary is Fernbank Road and Mr. Davidson’s property has not been included in any of the studies that have been done for the Fernbank CDP.  He advised that there is a possible drainage outlet that would go through Mr. Davidson’s property.  He felt that if the lands do become urban, a concept plan would have to be initiated to determine how the serving would work for the areas and how they would be integrated to the existing urban fabric.

 

Mr. Davidson added that he felt that by designating areas now with a forecast of 22 years, this would provide staff with a larger horizon in understanding how infrastructure issues such as sewer, water, traffic etc. are going to unfold.

 

David Jeanes, Transport 2000, recalled that during the TMP review in May 2008, Council changed the staff transit network proposals to show major transit corridors to town centres outside the Greenbelt, indicating its intention to implement LRT over time.  On the map for Schedule D these have now reverted to bus rapid transit (BRT)-only within the plan period.  The TMP Update in November 2008 read as follows: “The Official Plan update is proposing that the minimum threshold required to support higher-order transit including LRT as 120 people and jobs per gross hectare.  In all cases, it is anticipated that the amount of development in the town centres during the projection period of the Official Plan will not allow the three town centres to reach the minimum threshold density. Intensification will remain an ongoing planning goal post-2031 at these locations.  Until this threshold is reached, rapid transit service to Barrhaven, Orléans and Kanata would continue to be bus based.” 

 

He noted that the OPA in Section 2.2.2, policy 6d reads as follows: “town centres, where intensification is required to eventually support the extension of light rail. It is not anticipated that these targets will be reached by 2031.” 

 

He advised that the IBI report on which this position is based does not distinguish between BRT and LRT when it refers to “higher-order transit” so it should not be used as the basis of approving major BRT investment over LRT.  He suggested this policy is not being applied consistently.  For example, Riverside South was explicitly exempted from the criterion in the TMP review.  Bayshore has been excluded from evaluation under this criterion only because it has not been designated as a mixed-use centre for future development. Yet policy 6c includes mixed-use centres where a large amount of development exists today.  When a suburban rapid transit station is designed with a large park and ride, it should qualify as meeting the density threshold, based on 1.2 person per parked car.  An even more important criterion is the number of riders that can be delivered to a major transit hub by feeder bus routes.  Calgary, for example, assumes that 50 per cent of LRT traffic comes from feeder buses, versus 20 per cent from park and ride.  Mr. Jeanes stated that the minimum target density criterion in this plan ignores corridor ridership volume, though this should be the real determining factor in deciding when to convert from BRT to LRT in order to increase capacity, reduce operating cost, and shorten travel times.  Population, employment, and other census data do not provide the appropriate criteria for transit planning decisions.

 

Mr. Jeanes drew attention to the removal of rail corridors shown in explanatory Map 2 to Schedule D.  He said that the technical paper justifying this was based largely on the apprehended difficulty of working with Transport Canada, VIA Rail, and the freight railways.  Since then, senior staff at the City and VIA has met.  VIA have again indicated their willingness to co-operate with the city.  He pointed out they have invested heavily in improvements east of Ottawa to eliminate bottlenecks and this week started major rail construction west of Ottawa.  The freight line being deleted from the map has now lost most of its traffic with the CN takeover of the locally based Ottawa Central Railway.  He concluded there are therefore fewer problems now in implementing commuter rail that would benefit communities such as Kanata, Nepean, Barrhaven, and Riverside South, as well as cross-river congestion to Gatineau.  He added that other cities are making aggressive use of their surface rail networks to complement rapid transit projects.  Montréal has multiple plans and has just announced a plan to progressively electrify the entire network.  The federal and provincial governments are spending billions on Toronto’s surface rail network to expand commuter rail, which is as important to Toronto as urban rapid transit.

 

Councillor Jellett indicated that he shared some of the concerns raised by the delegations, especially limiting rapid transit to Orléans to BRT.  He asked staff to review the submission.

 

Nicole Parent, Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee (OFGAC), provided comments on four main areas:

1.   The overall target of 30 per cent forest cover for the entire city

2.   The proposed expansion of the urban boundary

3.   The development application process, and

4.   The Principle of Design with Nature.

 

In addition to detailed recommendations made on the four issues, she emphasized that greenspace and a green infrastructure of trees are critical to a green, sustainable, and environmentally sensitive city; furthermore, the health and well-being of the citizens of Ottawa is positively impacted by trees in many important ways.  In addition, climate change will impose difficult challenges for the survival of existing trees.  Trees are one of the first lines of defence in mitigating the effects of climate change, and a relatively inexpensive tool, as well.  She pointed out that a substantial green infrastructure is already in place, and for the most part just needs to be maintained.  Even adding to it is inexpensive related to much more cost intensive mitigation measures.  The City should not be squandering this valuable asset but making wise and forward-thinking decisions that will best serve this city and its citizens.  If for no other reason than this, the welfare of our trees should be a primary consideration in all decisions made about development and changes to the OP.  OFGAC urged councillors to endorse the OP amendments that enforce policies, which promote the principles of Design with Nature, especially when looking at development proposal applications.  Ms. Parent also strongly urged councillors to refuse expanding the urban boundary at this time.

 

Councillor Desroches pointed out Monarch’s earlier submission with regard to single-detached density targets and the possible impact on trees.  Ms. Parent suggested suburban densities should be different, noting people chose to live there for a variety of reasons. She did point out that trees and natural features must be identified at the CDP phase.  She noted developers must truly be committed to preserving trees and there are many constraints at the final phase that must be addressed.

 

In response to further questions from Councillor Holmes, on limiting the number of singles to preserve more land, Ms. Parent said she supports a mix of housing types and designs in the suburban area.  She said that she moved from a larger lot and home in Alta Vista to a smaller home in Barrhaven as she approached retirement.  As a member of the baby boomer generation, she stated that many others are in the same position.  She also categorically expressed support for bringing forward the urban tree conservation by-law.

 

Tim Chadder spoke on behalf of R.W. Tomlinson, who owns a property on the southeast corner of Bank Street and Rideau Road.  It is an industrial area and the site of a former brick factory, adjacent to the Gloucester South water service area.  He explained that these lands would better served in industrial development with the extension of water services.  He requested that Section 2.3.2 of the OP be amended to include this land to allow industrial development on partial services.  He suggested that the proposed development would support the goals of the Economic Development Strategy, the 20/20 Plan, and the Employment Lands Strategy.

 

In response to comments from Councillor Thompson, Mr. Chadder responded there is about 130 acres of land, 85 percent of which is currently vacant.  He suggested employment could be doubled on the site, resulting in 1000 new jobs.  In addition, Rideau Road is a major truck route with access to Hawthorne Road.  He noted that similar areas do exist on water services, such as Lancaster and Power Road.

 

Councillor Thompson indicated that he would be moving a motion on this matter at the appropriate time.

 

Councillor Desroches agreed that employment nodes should be diversified throughout the City, noting it would be difficult to put in heavy industrial uses in a suburban community.  Mr. Chadder explained that there are no plans to service the area by transit, but a feeder bus service might be appropriate down the road.  It would bring jobs to the south end, thus cutting down on commuting.

 

Gary Marshall, Marshall Planning Consultants, indicated that he is opposed to any attempt to prohibit country estate lot development in the rural area.  He requested that an erroneous new watercourse shown on the proposed Natural Heritage System Schedule be removed for his farm property located in Concession 6, front half of lots 2,3,4, former geographic Township of Huntley, part of the former Township of West Carleton.  He recalled that the 2003 OP was amended on 9 June 2004 with the adoption of the Carp Road Corridor CDP.  The net effect was to create an employment area on rural services with a study to be completed within five years.  Changes were brought forward as part of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law, which were subsequently appealed with regard to zone boundary adjustments and the removal of the mineral extraction designation on 2485 Carp Road, but not on the adjoining property at 2437 Carp Road.  He said that MNR’s comments on the draft OP do not improve the situation regarding Section 3.7.4 of the OP.

 

Murray Chown, on behalf of landowners, spoke to lands north of Kanata being recommended by staff for designation as urban expansion study areas.  They support the recommendation from staff, and in particular, the approach to designate the land for further study, addressing a number of concerns that have been raised by other parties.  It will allow a series of questions to be addressed in the future, including buffering from existing estate lot developments, the protection of groundwater and existing private wells, as well as transportation planning.  He suggested it constitutes good planning and good process.  Generally, in terms of urban expansion, Mr. Chown commented that Ottawa is a very attractive community to live, work and play in. He touched on the requirement for ground-oriented development for young families.  He also spoke to resistance to intensification in existing neighbourhood.  He suggested staff is proposing a balance of intensification and new growth, which he deemed as very appropriate, suggesting that shutting the door or refusing to deal with the question of urban expansion today is going to cause problems tomorrow.

 

In response to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Chown reiterated his opinion that urban expansion is required at this time to fulfill the requirements of the PPS.  He stated staff’s recommendation to add 850 hectares provides some flexibility in the event that the staff assumptions on demand and densities are wrong, projected to be achieved in development over the next 20 years.  He reiterated that he believes that adding no lands whatsoever is not an option, nor simply including the Fernbank lands.  He agreed that artificial constraints could drive more growth to adjacent municipalities.

 

Richard Everleigh spoke against urban expansion, suggesting a minimum building height of eight storeys for all new buildings.  He also spoke of green roofs and innovative water treatment solutions.  He called for a 500-year planning horizon.

 

Greg Winters, on behalf of Al-Car Developments Ltd. and Marc Steenbakkers, elaborated on current and proposed policies affecting country estate lot development, specifically with regard to the general rural area, private and wastewater servicing, and archaeological resources.  He also commented on environmental policies contained in the Plan.  He advised that his client does not support a prohibition on country estate lot development.  He suggested it would not be consistent with the PPS, which supports and even promotes development that is compatible with the rural landscape, and that can be sustained by rural service levels.  Country lot subdivisions are already controlled through existing and proposed new policies in the OP. There is no legitimate justification to prohibit them completely.  The Rural Settlement Strategy concluded that not all rural growth must be directed to villages, but rather supports the continued development of both villages and outside villages in country estate lot subdivisions.  He raised a second concern related to the 40-lot limitation for country lot subdivisions.  The 1997 Regional Municipal OP did not limit these country lot estate subdivisions to 40 lots, through registration, but rather limited the registration of the subdivisions to distinct phases of a maximum of 40 lots at one time, but only if the studies showed that existing wells and septic systems in the previous phases were satisfactory.  The 2003 OP policies and the proposed policies in the new OP do not permit phasing of subdivisions in the general rural area.  He suggested there is no need to maintain an additional policy that arbitrarily caps country lot subdivisions to 40 lots.  This forces subdivisions into smaller fragments and restricts the ability to plan for impacts of country estate lot subdivisions adjacent to, or within proximity to each other.  A policy that limits registration to a series of phases to evaluate the impact is good planning.

 

With respect to archaeological policies, Mr. Winters expressed with the overly broad application of the mapping from the 1999 archaeological resource potential mapping study, which is flawed.  For instance, distance to water is a criteria used to identify archaeological sites, but there is no examination of what types of watercourses or features were used in the mapping.  The study noted that the mapping was supposed to be verified through a study database to confirm accuracy.  This requirement was then entrenched into Section 2.55 of the OP, which states that mapping is supposed to be updated every five years, but has not been reviewed since 1999.  Finally, he stated that his client objects to the introduction of new policies that prohibit development within 120 metres of undefined natural features.  The policy is not consistent with the PPS that defines natural heritage features and areas as meaning “features and areas including significant wetlands, coastal wetlands, woodlots, valley lands, habitat and endangered species.”  The City of Ottawa’s proposed policies in these sections extend the protection beyond significant heritage features into a much broader list of features.  The current policies place the onus on applicants to produce mapping and studies to define these potential natural features.  No other situation exists where the City has left the identification of natural features to the applicant.  He recommended that these policies better reflect the PPS, and to limit protection to only natural features in areas and systems that are significant, and to those that have been mapped properly.

 

In response to Councillor Brooks on the issue of phasing country lot development, he confirmed that a separate plan of subdivision application would need to be filed for any lots above the first 40.  Being able to plan for more than 40 lots at one time would lead to better community planning, while still allowing actual construction to occur in phases.

 

Ted Phillips, Taggart Investments, was accompanied by Richard Harrison from McManus Engineering and Ian Taggart, who is a principal with the Taggart Group.  Mr. Phillips made the following submissions:

·        He thanked City staff for their commitment to the process and Ms. Paterson for her work for the City of Ottawa.

·         Area 11 represents less than one per cent of the rural area of former Cumberland. It represents a nine per cent addition to the adjoining urban area. 

·        With regard to the servicing plan, he indicated there is a manhole located on the corner of Trim Road and Highway 174, which has been installed by the City many years ago for growth in this area.  It is the only urban area being considered that has anticipated sewage flows from these lands in excess of 20 years.

·        A watermain located at the corner of Old Montréal Road and Trim Road would provide adequate service to supply the development of these lands.  In no way is there any shortfall from a servicing perspective.

·        All studies have been completed for an OPA and meetings have occurred with staff.  A concept plan identifies potential road access and the location of parks and schools.

·        A recreation plan for this area gifts to the City of Ottawa for stewardship approximately 60 acres of woodlots and ravines of an estimated value of $30 million.

·        While Taggart Group and the Ottawa-Carleton Homebuilders do not necessarily agree with all of the numbers, they believe the staff report represents a fair and reasonable approach to growth.

 

In response to a series of questions, Mr. Phillips stated that they have agreed in writing to the 16 conditions put forward by the Community Association and have discussed these with Councillors Jellett.  He noted that the community has expressed that the land to the east of Area 11, not owned by Taggart, should be retained as rural to provide a buffer, an error in the schedule, which included the land was to be removed. 

 

In terms of land supply and the PPS, Mr. Harrison stated that coordination must exist between the TMP, IMP and OP.  The development industry has stated that more than 850 hectares is required for urban expansion.

 

Mr. Taggart spoke of the affordability of land, noting that his company supports intensification.  He noted that land in the core costs $450 per square foot, while the price is approximately $150 per square foot in the suburban area.  He stated that a balance of supply must be provided to allow the average family to own a home. 

 

Don Stewart, Federation of Citizens’ Associations (FCA), stated that the association is supportive of intensification and he participated in the Westboro/Richmond Road CDP, which provides for 75 per cent more residential opportunities within the area.  In addition, they are not opposed to infill housing, providing that it is in the scale of the neighbourhood.  Referring to his written submission, he stated that a significant amount of time is spent by City staff, Council and the people of Ottawa in developing the OP and associated zoning by-laws, secondary plans and CDPs.  If these are not used to manage the development of the City, then the effort is wasted.  He addressed the importance of good planning and suggested changes to the development review process.  He also made recommendations with regard to the OMB.  In summation, he stated that, by requiring the development and support of solid policies and by-laws, predictability could be provided to both developers and the public.  This should minimize OMB appeals, saving significant time and money for all concerned.  It means the huge effort to build the OP and zoning bylaws will not be wasted.

 

Nancy Booth explained that she is a co-owner of a small farm property at the corner of Trim Road and Wall Road in Orléans.  She noted that two developers, Mattamy on one side and Minto on the other, border this property.  She requested their property be considered when Council bring the abutting lands into the urban boundary.

 

Chair Jellett wanted to clarify that the parcel of land in question is presently zoned agricultural resource, as well are the Mattamy lands.

 

Michael Erland was not in attendance.

 

 

The Joint Committee recessed and returned for debate and motions on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 at 11:15 a.m. with Councillor Peter Hume in the Chair.

 

Mr. Moser briefly explained that there are five recommendations dealing with how to move forward with the OP.  With respect to Recommendation 2, staff has provided a new Document 15, which adds to the proposed changes related to the OP.

 

Mr. Marc provided an opinion with respect to the legal matters surrounding urban boundary expansion and the particular issues related to the Fernbank lands.  He pointed out that as part of the Bill 51 amendments, the following provision was added to the Planning Act:

“For greater certainties subsection 50 does not give the Municipal Board power to approve or modify any part of the plan that

a)   Is in effect

b)   Was not dealt with in the decision of council to which the notice of appeal relates.”

 

Mr. Marc said that it has been argued during the public submissions that the OMB would have jurisdiction on any parcels raised in a staff recommendation or if they were raised in the public submissions, even if Council does not add those parcels.  In his opinion this is incorrect and contrary to subsection 50.1.  He emphasized that the board’s jurisdiction is determined by the actions of Council not those of staff or the public.  He reiterated that subsection 50.1 was inserted into the Planning Act to empower Council, not to provide additional rights to staff or the public.  In sum, it is his opinion that if Council does not designate lands for urban purposes and does not otherwise re-designate those lands, the OMB does not have the power to designate those lands.  The same would apply to village expansions.

 

With regard to the Fernbank lands, identified as Area 5a, these parcels were not before the OMB during the Dell Brookfield/West Park decision, for whatever reason, the landowner at the time choose not to appeal the 2003 OP.  In dealing with these lands the OMB stated in 2005 that:

 

“The Board is cognisant of and agrees with the evidence of Mr. Jacob’s that if the board determines that the Dell Brookfield and West Park lands should be included within the urban area designation, that the entire area between Stittsville and Kanata, down to Fernbank Road should be included in further planning studies. While the area of Lot 29, Concession 11 (area 5a), the former Township of Goulbourn is not before the Board, if the municipality so desires the Board would approve including this area within the general urban designation amended be directed for 1997 Regional Official Plan.”

 

He further explained that the board member did not have the jurisdiction to do anything with those lands because they were not before him, but the board member was clear based on Mr. Jacob’s evidence, that every planning principle calls for Area 5a to be added to the urban boundary, as it is completely surrounded by the urban area. 

 

Mr. Marc opined that if Council decides to add Area 5a to the urban area and if someone were to appeal such a decision, his advice would be to bring forward a motion to dismiss such an appeal and he is confident that such a motion would be successful.  He emphasized that there is no planning merit to leave Area 5a outside the urban area.

 

Speaking to Area 5b, which is in south/west area, is surrounded on three sides by urban area, but it is not as clear-cut as Area 5a.  If 5b were appealed, he felt that he may not be as successful in bringing forward a motion to have it dismissed, but on appeal to the board after a hearing he is confident that the decision would be to include 5b as urban area.  He stated that in order for Fernbank to be a complete community, 5a and 5b need to be included within the urban area.  He does not believe that such a decision in any way increases the ability of anyone to appeal to have other lands added within the urban area.

 

If motions to include only the Fernbank lands in the urban boundary are successful, there should be modifications to the OP to state that only an 18-year supply of housing would be provided, as opposed to more than 20 years.  In addition, since the policy can be appealed to the OMB, in order to strengthen the City’s case, it would be helpful to have within the OP a policy that commits Council to commencing the next OP review in 2013 with a conclusion to be reached in 2014.  Appropriate funding for this study would be required in the 2013 budget.

 

In response to questions from members, Mr. Marc reiterated the meaning and applicability of subsection 50.1.  Furthermore, he noted that the Province took away in 2003 the right to appeal a refusal to change lands to urban areas in an application for an amendment. The Province has reinforced the importance of the urban boundary and has empowered Council to be the final arbitrator as to what that is.  He opined that at the end of the day the way that Council speaks to the urban boundary is through an OPA, which defines the OMB jurisdiction pursuant to subsection 50.1.  It is the elected officials voting as a majority that determine what Council decides, not what the staff or public said in the course of the process.  The Minister stated that the OMB would act as true appeal body, not a substitution decision maker or primary decision body. The OMB would adjudicate whether or not a Council decision was made in accordance with the PPS and the municipality’s OP.  Other appeals on matters in the Official Plan would be considered if oral or written submissions were provided prior to the adoption of the Amendment pursuant to the Planning Act.

 

Mr. Marc explained that the City of Ottawa is required by Section 26 of the Planning Act to do a review of its OP every five years. The Province’s interest is expressed through the PPS, which requires that Council have at all times a 10-year supply of suitable urban land for housing.  Staff’s advice is that presently there is an 18-yearsupply; furthermore, if no lands are added to the urban boundary, in five years the supply will be 13 years still meeting the Province’s requirement.  For the lands recommended by staff for inclusion, should they not be added, they would not have an urban designation and policies prohibiting the development of lands within one kilometre of the urban boundary would apply.  He suggested the argument that someone has invested money in lands and therefore should have a right to recover that investment is not one that would succeed at the Board.  He reminded that the test for adding lands to the urban area are set forth in the PPS and do not include such items.  If Council were to approve the staff recommendation, everyone else that made submissions could challenge the included parcels but could not seek to have their parcels added.

 

Councillor Feltmate wanted to confirm the boundaries of the Fernbank Community Design Plan, that the property south of Fernbank Road was excluded. Mr. Mahon confirmed this, explaining that Fernbank is the southern boundary in the Terms of Reference in 2006.

 

With regard to long-term planning regarding land supply, Ms. Paterson replied that staff has committed to review the LEAR scores to determine which ones should be classified as agricultural resource areas, which will commence this summer.  The Province has asked for a review of the mineral aggregate resource area designations, which date back to 1995, in time for the next five-year review.  Ms. Paterson further added that staff has initiated the Choosing Our Future program with the NCC and the City of Gatineau.  It is a much longer timeframe looking at sustainability as the primary objective.  In addition, staff has committed to undertake a review of all village plans.

 

Chair Hume indicated that he has a motion regarding Choosing Our Future, which will assist in the next OP review and strengthen the City’s position with regard to future urban boundary expansion and land supply.

 

 

Motion 1 – Holmes – No Expansion of the Urban Boundary

 

Councillor Holmes introduced her motion, touching on the need to preserve farmland and stop urban sprawl to ensure sustainability.  

 

In response to questions from Councillor Deans, Ms. Paterson explained that they began by determining the total number of lands to be added to the urban boundary and evaluated land within the general rural designation in proximity to the boundary.  Mr. Marc responded that land ownership should definitely not be taken into account when considering which parcels to add to the urban boundary; however the relative importance given to the location of these parcels continues to be disputed.

 

Councillor Jellett stated that he was in support of this motion, as the City meets the requirement under the Planning Act.  He said an 18-year land supply was sufficient and the boundary does not need to be expanded.

 

Councillor Wilkinson argued against the motion, stating that a longer planning period is best.  She said it was not a matter of urban sprawl but of planning communities, recalling that three town centres were created outside the Greenbelt for this purpose.  She commented that having no expansion is not beneficial to the City, as expansion enables long term planning to occur.

 

Councillor Cullen supported the motion, as the City would meet its requirement under the PPS for land supply.  He added that the urban boundary expansion should not be driven by the development industry.  In providing services, the City must look at the needs of the community holistically, adding that 40 per cent of the population live in rental housing and many cannot afford a single-detached home.  This speaks to the need for density to support the type of housing that people can afford.  Energy consumption patterns and the costs to deliver various services should be properly considered.  Councillor Cullen pointed out that growth does not pay for growth, as development charges do not pay for the cost of providing municipal services to new communities.  It is in the interest of current taxpayers to make sure an efficient system is in place so that tax dollars are getting the biggest bang for their buck.  In closing, he stated that the City cannot continue to support low-density urban sprawl, and cannot afford it any longer.

 

Councillor Monette opposed the motion, suggesting smart planning involves planning for the future.  He advanced the argument that new Canadians want to own single-detached homes, noting many seniors will want to remain in their homes or move to smaller singles, such as bungalows.

 

Councillor Desroches commented that accepting this motion would require an aggressive density target inside and outside the Greenbelt.  He touched on community concerns with infill projects that come forward within the Greenbelt in terms of fit.  Councillor Desroches also touched on the growth occurring outside the city’s boundaries, for which the City does not receive development charges or property taxes.  He noted the suburbs have densified when comparing older and newer communities.  He felt that Council has an obligation to provide an affordable City, especially for first time homebuyers who are very concerned that their first home will be out of reach.

 

Mr. Cross responded that there are two types of densification, intensification within the built up area, which staff is recommending a target of 36 per cent up until 2011.  It appears that presently they are 1-2 per cent below this, therefore there is no doubt that achieving the intensification targets represents a challenge but it is appropriate that the target be set at a somewhat challenging level.  The other aspect of densification is the densification within the greenfield suburban areas.  Densities in the suburbs have been increasing in the last few years but it is primarily because there is a higher proportion of townhouses and stacked townhouses, while the density of singles has changed relatively little.  With regard to growth in abutting municipalities, he agreed with the councillor that a large proportion of those people come to Ottawa to work.  There is some benefit to the extent that their places of employment do pay property taxes and development charges. Historically Ottawa is maintaining its share of the greater Ottawa area in terms of population.

 

Councillor Harder expressed that she is not pleased with the results of the review and Council should have given better direction to staff to include for instance agricultural lands where it makes sense to do so.  She also expressed her concern for forcing cookie-cutter types of developments, when people continue to want to live in the suburbs.  She suggested urban boundary expansion has turned into a sort of lottery and a comprehensive study must be undertaken prior to the next review. 

 

Councillor Feltmate began by commenting that many people believe that everyone has the right to own a home, but the reality is that not everybody has a home in this community with 2000 people living on the streets of Ottawa, and 1400 chronically homeless.  One of the reasons that there are no homes for these citizens is because the City and the Province do not have enough money to provide the kind of support services. She argued that the City must take a serious look at how it budgets, pointing out that the Hemson report speaks to the type of operating pressures involved with expanding the urban boundary and building in the rural area.  The City agonizes yearly on whether property taxes can be increased while maintaining existing services residents demand.  She noted the TMP is about getting light-rail with appropriate density in those corridors to support it.  From her perspective, maintaining the urban boundary for the next five years will enable Council to grapple with these issues and use this transition period to decide where the next growth area should be, informed by the various studies that will occur regarding agricultural and aggregate lands.  She indicated she is sympathetic to the motion, but believed the Fernbank lands should be included, as they have formed part of the CDP and planning for the area.

 

Councillor El-Chantiry urged his colleagues to look beyond their wards, expressing frustration with the discussion on subsidizing rural and suburban development.   He noted that these residents also pay for infrastructure in the urban area.  He noted that a report states that over 10,000 people commute to Ottawa each day from the Pontiac and Renfrew County.  He suggested not expanding the urban boundary could lead to more growth in abutting municipalities, which do not contribute to the infrastructure costs of the City.

 

Councillor Cullen received confirmation from staff that at the end of 2006, the 18-year supply of semis and singles would represent approximately 59,000 units.  He stated that the Plan would allow growth, even though 40 per cent of the population will never be able to afford a single-detached home.  He reiterated that a review of the OP will occur again in five years, at which time demographics of our community, land consumption and housing production will once again be analysed.  He also spoke of the contribution of buildings and sprawl to smog.

 

Councillor Legendre commented that the City in the past was planning sprawl.  He said that development charges do not pay for growth and the way the city has been growing is a recipe for a financial disaster and an environmental catastrophe.  He stated that large number of single-detached homes are being built now; however the boomer generation is aging and many are going to be downsizing for retirement.  He advanced that the supply of resale housing is going to be enormous, just because of the quantity that is now built.  He disagreed with the assertion that the ability to pursue the Canadian dream would be shut down if the urban boundary is not expanded.  He called for leadership in order for the City not to simply react to the market demand, but instead focus on the future by planning better.

 

Councillor Monette questioned if 60,000 units of singles and semis is enough for the next 18 years.  He also reiterated earlier comments regarding home ownership and growth outside the Greenbelt.

 

Councillor Thompson indicated that he would not support the motion, stating that it is shortsighted and possibly mean-spirited.  At the request of the Chair, he later apologized for the statement, which indirectly could have been interpreted as impugning the mover of the motion.  He also touched on continued demand for suburban housing.

 

Councillor Hume suggested that prominent urban planners would not support urban expansion, as it does not contribute to great urban communities or constitute solid urban planning.  He agreed with Councillor Harder that this urban expansion is more of a lottery, because it is not planning for the future.  He stated that the Walton Group submission was one of the only ones that actually looked to the big picture, planning for the next growth centre in the longer term, as opposed to cherry-picking or trying to nibble around the edges, which seems on the face of it to not have led to good planning.  He referenced an unfortunate situation involving one area, which made the front page of the Ottawa Citizen.  He suggested it would not be good planning to exclude the Fernbank lands, as they form part of the CDP to be discussed at Planning and Environment Committee on June 9, 2009.  He also spoke of the importance of longer term planning through the Choosing Our Future initiative.

 

Moved by D. Holmes:

 

That the urban boundary not be expanded.

 

                                                                                                LOST

 

YEAS (2):        D. Holmes, R. Jellett

NAYS (9):       G. Brooks, S. Desroches, E. El-Chantiry, P. Feltmate, J. Harder, P. Hume, G. Hunter, B. Monette, D. Thompson

 

Motion 2 – Hume – Urban Boundary Expansion Limited to Fernbank Lands

 

Moved by P. Hume:

 

WHEREAS staff have produced a draft Official Plan amendment extending to the year 2031 which, while calling for more intensification and higher densities in suburban areas, also requires the expansion of the urban area by approximately 850 hectares;

 

AND WHEREAS the Province requires that municipalities provide for at least a 10-year supply of urban residential land at all times between five year reviews of the Official Plan, which is interpreted to mean at least a 15-year supply of urban residential land is required at the time of each comprehensive review of the Plan;

 

AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa has sufficient land within the current urban boundary to provide for:

·        an 18-year supply of single detached and semi-detached housing;

·        a 25-year supply of townhouses;

·        opportunities for apartments for well beyond 25 years;

 

AND WHEREAS the Province allows municipalities to designate land for up to 20 years but does not require that the maximum 20 years be planned for;

 

AND WHEREAS the consequences of not expanding the boundary are that the supply of land for lower density housing forms would be slightly less than 20 years while the supply for higher density dwellings would be more than 20 years;

 

AND WHEREAS Council seeks to plan for a more sustainable future for the City of Ottawa through the Choosing Our Future initiative and by supporting appropriate intensification at locations that support transit and higher densities in suburban areas;

 

AND WHEREAS lands within the Fernbank Community Design Plan area that are not currently designated as Future Urban Area are an integral part of the Fernbank CDP and should therefore be included in the Urban Area notwithstanding;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council retain the existing urban boundary as part of this comprehensive review of the Official Plan. Be it further resolved that notwithstanding this, that lands within the Fernbank CDP area that are not in the Future Urban Area should be redesignated as Future Urban Area on Schedules A and B.

 

Be it further resolved that Council reinforce its commitment to intensification through:

·        Support for proactive, multi-faceted marketing and incentive programs to promote appropriate intensification;

·        Support of intensification in the target areas in the Plan, with emphasis on rapid transit stations;

·        Support for staff reviewing zoning by-laws and secondary plans in intensification target areas to ensure that targets can be met within established zoning and by respecting heritage designations and conservation areas;

·        Support for the proposed intensification working group and its objective to coordinate all City practices, by-laws and administration to support intensification and lead discussions with all external stakeholders such as school boards and utilities to improve the success of the residential land strategy;

·        Support for design review to ensure high quality development in target areas; and,

·        Support for the Capacity Management Strategy to provide infrastructure capacity in intensification areas.

 

                                                                                                LOST

 

YEAS (4):        P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, P. Hume, R. Jellett

NAYS (7):       G. Brooks, S. Desroches, E. El-Chantiry, J. Harder, G. Hunter, B. Monette, D. Thompson

 

 

Motion 3 – Jellett – Exclusion of Urban Expansion Study Areas

 

Ms. Paterson explained where the UESAs to be excluded for urban expansion are situated.  They include the areas north of Kanata (Area 1), in Barrhaven (Area 7), south of Orléans (Area 10, excluding the small amount of land owned by Minto that can be completed by plan of subdivision), as well as all of Area 11 east of Orléans. 

 

Councillor Holmes questioned if this motion would trigger appeals to the OMB.  Mr. Marc responded, in his opinion, that it would not allow appeals on lands not added to the urban boundary, based on his interpretation of Section 17 (50.1) of the PPS.   He explained that the Fernbank lands, which would be added based on this motion along with the smaller areas, would fit the “complete community” test.

 

Ms. Paterson confirmed that the UESAs have not been the subject of a CDP; however, the Fernbank parcels form part of that community’s CDP.

 

Councillor Jellett explained that this motion would bring approximately 300 hectares of land into the urban boundary.  He reaffirmed his position that no lands should be added to the urban boundary but brought forward this motion since other attempts to limit expansion have failed.  He opined that 300 hectares is a lot of land and brings the City to a 20-year land supply for semis and singles, which is the maximum called for in the PPS.  He commented that it is a good compromise, while not bringing in all of the staff recommended 842 hectares.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Harder, Ms. Paterson explained that the Amendment hays out the items that must be addressed before development can occur.   In some instances, a detailed CDP may be required, while others might not.  Councillor Harder suggested that the lands in Area 7 would not require a detailed CDP as they form part of Barrhaven South, which has been extensively planned for.

 

At the request of some councillors and with confirmation from senior legal counsel, Chair Hume indicated he would divide the motion for voting purposes with a further division of the second component to allow councillors to vote separately on the exclusion of specific study areas.

 

Councillor Wilkinson spoke in opposition to the exclusion of Area 1 from urban expansion, noting it is walking distance to the Kanata North Business Park, where many jobs are located.  The area is also to be served by the Transitway according to the TMP. She suggested it also meets the expressed goal of having people live near where they are working.  She noted services are located nearby, suggesting it would be one of the cheapest places for urban expansion to occur.

 

Councillor Jellett spoke in support of the exclusion of Schedule R37 (Area 11) from the proposed urban boundary expansion.  He pointed out that many Cumberland residents came before the Joint Committee to express this same view.  He said that he has a letter from the Mayor of Clarence-Rockland, whose Council opposes the development of this land for transportation reasons.  He touched on the traffic impact on highway 174 with the addition of the 4500 housing units planned for Area 11, resulting in 8000 cars traveling down Trim Road to highway 174 every morning. He stated that the highway is already overcrowded.  Councillor Jellett also touched on the media coverage related to tree cutting within Area 11 and asked his colleagues not to reward the proponent by adding this land to the urban boundary.  He stated that residents of Cumberland rightfully feel that they had very little time to react to this proposal and deferring the exclusion of this area would allow for proper consultation and study occur before the next OP review.  The delay will also permit the City to catch up on already needed infrastructure.

 

Moved by R. Jellett:

 

WHEREAS staff have produced a draft Official Plan amendment extending to the year 2031 which, while calling for more intensification and higher densities in suburban areas, also requires the expansion of the urban area by approximately 850 hectares to accommodate a 22-year supply of land;

 

AND WHEREAS the Province requires that municipalities provide for at least a 10-year supply of urban residential land at all times between five year reviews of the Official Plan, which is interpreted to mean at least a 15-year supply of urban residential land is required at the time of each comprehensive review of the Plan;

 

AND WHEREAS the Province allows municipalities to designate land for up to 20 years but does not require that the maximum 20 years be planned for;

AND WHEREAS a limited expansion of approximately 300 hectares would provide sufficient urban land for approximately 20 years from 2009 and still be consistent with provincial policy;

 

AND WHEREAS Council seeks to plan for a more sustainable future for the City of Ottawa through the Choosing Our Future initiative and by supporting appropriate intensification at locations that support transit and higher densities in suburban areas;

 

AND WHEREAS lands within the Fernbank Community Design Plan area that are not currently designated as Future Urban Area are an integral part of the Fernbank CDP and should therefore be included in the 300-hectare expansion of the Urban Area;

 

AND WHEREAS lands in the proposed “Developing Community (Expansion Area)” designation are relatively small and are less complex to plan and should therefore also be included in the 300-hectare expansion of the Urban Area;

 

AND WHEREAS these two land additions to the urban area provide sufficient capacity to address the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement without the addition of the larger areas proposed by staff to be designated as “Urban Expansion Study Area”;

 

1.         THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that lands proposed in the staff report to be designated as “Future Urban Area” and “Developing Community (Expansion Area)” on schedules R35, R38, R44 and R45 be so designated;

 

2.         BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that lands proposed in the staff report to be designated as “Urban Expansion Study Area” on schedules R34, R36, R37 and R38 should not be redesignated at this time;

 

3.         BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council reinforce its commitment to intensification through:

·        Support for proactive, multi-faceted marketing and incentive programs to promote appropriate intensification;

·        Support of intensification in the target areas in the Plan, with emphasis on rapid transit stations;

·        Support for staff reviewing zoning by-laws and secondary plans in intensification target areas to ensure that targets can be met within established zoning;

·        Support for the proposed intensification working group and its objective to coordinate all City practices, by-laws and administration to support intensification and lead discussions with all external stakeholders such as school boards and utilities to improve the success of the residential land strategy;

·        Support for design review to ensure high quality development in target areas; and

·        Support for the Capacity Management Strategy to provide infrastructure capacity in intensification areas.

 

Recommendation 1 CARRIED with D. Holmes dissenting.

Recommendation 3 CARRIED

Recommendation 2 LOST on the following recorded votes:

 

Schedule R34:

 

YEAS (4):        P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, P. Hume, R. Jellett

NAYS (7):       G. Brooks, S. Desroches, E. El-Chantiry, J. Harder, G. Hunter, B. Monette, D. Thompson

 

Schedule R36

 

YEAS (5):        G. Brooks, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, P. Hume, R. Jellett

NAYS (6):       S. Desroches, E. El-Chantiry, J. Harder, G. Hunter, B. Monette, D. Thompson

 

Schedule R37

 

YEAS (5):        G. Brooks, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, P. Hume, R. Jellett

NAYS (6):       S. Desroches, E. El-Chantiry, J. Harder, G. Hunter, B. Monette, D. Thompson

 

Schedule R38

 

YEAS (5):        G. Brooks, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, P. Hume, R. Jellett

NAYS (6):       S. Desroches, E. El-Chantiry, J. Harder, G. Hunter, B. Monette, D. Thompson

 

 

Motion 4 (Out of Order) – Jellett – Exclusion of Area 11

 

The following motion presented by Councillor Jellett was ruled out of order with the preceding vote on R37:

 

WHEREAS staff have produced a draft Official Plan amendment extending to the year 2031 which, while calling for more intensification and higher densities in suburban areas, also requires the expansion of the urban area by approximately 850 hectares to accommodate a 22-year supply of land;

 

AND WHEREAS the Province requires that municipalities provide for at least a 10-year supply of urban residential land at all times between five year reviews of the Official Plan, which is interpreted to mean at least a 15-year supply of urban residential land is required at the time of each comprehensive review of the Plan;

 

AND WHEREAS the Province allows municipalities to designate land for up to 20 years but does not require that the maximum 20 years be planned for;

 

AND WHEREAS a limited expansion of approximately 300 hectares would provide sufficient urban land for approximately 20 years from 2009 and still be consistent with provincial policy;

 

AND WHEREAS Cardinal Creek provides a natural boundary to the urban area;

 

AND WHEREAS the inclusion of urban residential land in Area 11 will further exacerbate the poor jobs/housing balance in Orleans, especially in combination with additional urban land in Area 10;

 

AND WHEREAS the topography of Area 11 makes it difficult to provide good connectivity and a grid pattern of streets desired in urban areas;

 

AND WHEREAS the proposed additional lands in Area 11 are immediately adjacent to existing country lots who may experience impacts on their wells during the construction process;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that lands identified in Area 11 on Schedule R37 not be identified for urban expansion at this time.

 

 

Motion 5 – Wilkinson/El-Chantiry – Inclusion of Lands in Area 2

                                   

Councillor Wilkinson spoke in favour of including the lands in Area 2 east of the Carp River and west of the Terry Fox Drive extension within the urban boundary, suggesting development could occur in the longer term.  She advised that the Terry Fox Drive extension was identified by the City as a priority project under the federal Infrastructure Plan.  As part of that work, the developers in the area will be putting in the sewer pipe to service all of the lands going to be built off of Terry Fox Drive.  She said it makes sense to have the piped infrastructure large enough to incorporate this area now rather than later.  This area, which she characterized as a remnant parcel, is a ridge between a natural environment area owned by the City and the Carp River floodplain.  The inclusion of this area would also provide immediate access to the land for the Terry Fox Drive extension to avoid any hassles.

 

In response to questions, Ms. Paterson indicated that this area is currently designated General Rural and was evaluated by staff.  It did not score high enough for inclusion and was about seven positions below the cut off.  It is a small area in terms of developable land, totalling 47.2 hectares. 

 

Councillor Feltmate understood Councillor Wilkinson’s desire to plan for the future, but she suggested including it at this stage would be confusing for the public.  She suggested it would be appropriate to wait until the next review.

 

Councillor Hunter noted that this land probably floods every several years when the culvert under Huntmar Drive cannot handle flow.  He pointed out that previous Ops took the position the alignment of Terry Fox Drive would serve as the western boundary for urban development in Kanata, from Campeau Drive north and around to the community of Kanata North.  He said that he has not seen any studies that would justify a change in this regard. 

 

Councillor Wilkinson reiterated the location of this area on a ridge, which would not flood and be very nice for housing.  She countered that the urban boundary does go considerably north of Campeau Drive at the present time west of Terry Fox Drive with the boundary half way up to the Richardson Side Road.  She noted it could be included as a study area to allow servicing to be addressed.

 

Moved by E. El-Chantiry:

 

WHEREAS the Richcraft lands are immediately west of the alignment of the future Terry Fox Drive extension;

 

AND WHEREAS the City is currently acquiring land for the imminent construction of the Terry Fox Drive extension;

 

AND WHEREAS the services for the Richcraft lands will be installed in the Terry Fox Drive road allowance and can be readily constructed at the time of the construction of the Terry Fox Drive extension;

 

AND WHEREAS delaying the approval of the inclusion of the Richcraft lands in the Urban Area will result in having ot rebuild the Terry Fox Drive extension which will add unnecessary cost as well as inconvenience to the community;

 

AND WHEREAS incorporating the lands into the General Urban Area at this time will result in the ability of the City to acquire the necessary land for the Terry Fox Road extension;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the lands in area 2 east of the Carp River and west of the Terry Fox Drive extension be redesignated from General Rural Area to General Urban Area/Expansion Area.

 

                                                                                                LOST

 

YEAS (3):        E. El-Chantiry, J. Harder, B. Monette

NAYS (8):       G. Brooks, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, P. Hume, S. Desroches, G. Hunter, R. Jellett, D. Thompson

 

 

Motion 6 – El-Chantiry – Inclusion of Maxwell Lands

 

Ms. Paterson explained that the Maxwell lands from part of the southern section of Area 1f, between the railway line and the Greenbelt.  She noted staff concur with comments provided by DND, which objected to a residential designation, due to explosives activity in the Greenbelt.  She conceded that the lands might make an appropriate location for employment lands but staff did not evaluate lands for this purpose as it is believed there is sufficient supply.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Hunter, Ms. Paterson advised that staff believe any buffer should be accommodated on DND land.  Regarding servicing and a slope downward toward March Valley Road, she indicated that this area was removed from the evaluation and was not subject to detailed criteria.  She emphasized that it would not be considered a good candidate for urban expansion compared to all other areas.

 

Councillor Wilkinson stated that all the lands from the railway track to March Valley Road are currently zoned industrial and a similar zoning would be appropriate for these lands.  She noted DND did not object to such a designation.  She noted that it is a remnant parcel of a former farm and fits well with the nearby Kanata North Business Park.  She added that the servicing is nearby and the family is wanting to move off the farm area itself.

 

Councillor El-Chantiry questioned if staff would be more supportive of the motion if the area would be added as enterprise area.  A friendly amendment was proposed by the Chair and was accepted by both Councillors Wilkinson and El-Chantiry.

 

Mr. Moser reiterated the staff position that this parcel should not be included at this time.

 

Moved by E. El-Chantiry:

 

WHEREAS the Maxwell land at 1255 March valley road is a small parcel tucked between the Greenbelt and land in the Urban Area currently being developed for residential subdivisions;

 

AND WHEREAS the small acreage has no viable land use if it remains in the Rural Area;

 

AND WHEREAS the lands can be readily serviced and should be developed at the same time as the adjacent residential lands;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Maxwell land at 1255 March Valley Road be redesignated from General Rural Area to Urban Area on Schedule A of the Ottawa Official Plan with the express purpose of expanding the Enterprise Area.

 

                                                                                                LOST

 

YEAS (6):        G. Brooks, E. El-Chantiry, J. Harder, G. Hunter, B. Monette, D. Thompson

NAYS (6):       S. Desroches, C. Doucet, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, P. Hume, R. Jellett

 

 

Motion 7 – El-Chantiry – Boundary Adjustment Area 1C

 

Ms. Paterson confirmed staff support this boundary adjustment.

 

Councillor El-Chantiry inquired if the boundary could be moved to include 1b.  Chair Hume ruled that an additional motion would be required to do so.

 

Moved by E. El-Chantiry:

 

WHEREAS Schedule R34 in Document 3 identifies the proposed boundaries of the land north of Urban Kanata to be designated “Urban Expansion Study Area” on Schedule B;

 

AND WHEREAS the proposed boundary for Area 1C will partition the existing house in two, with the bathroom rural and the kitchen urban;

 

AND WHEREAS the proposed boundary ignores the natural contours of the land;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the boundary be shifted eastward to coincide with the boundary of the escarpment.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

The Joint Committee recessed until 2:30 p.m.

 

 

Motion 8 – Jellett – Conditions for the Inclusion of Area 11

 

Moved by R. Jellett:

 

WHEREAS staff have produced a draft Official Plan amendment extending to the year 2031 which, while calling for more intensification and higher densities in suburban areas, also requires the expansion of the urban area by approximately 850 hectares;

 

AND WHEREAS the residents in the vicinity of Area 11 have expressed many concerns with respect to the proposed urban expansion east of Cardinal Creek including but not limited to environmental impacts of development and the capacity of existing roads;

 

AND WHEREAS the Cardinal Creek Subwatershed Study and the associated Environmental Management Plan need to be completed to address the environmental impacts of the development of Area 11;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that in addition to the staff recommended conditions applying to the urban expansion lands, that the following additional conditions apply to the lands east of Cardinal Creek described in the staff report as Area 11:

 

1)      The City will complete the Cardinal Creek Sub-watershed Plan before Council commences the preparation of an Environmental Management Plan and community design plan for the area. The sub-watershed plan and the Environmental Management Plan will identify the Natural Heritage System, as defined in the proposed Official Plan policies and further identified through on-site investigation, and will recommend means to protect this system in the context of this land being part of the urban area. The EMP will identify the natural features remaining on the land and measures to maintain or restore their ecological function.

 

2)      Prior to the redesignation of Area 11 as part of the Urban Area by the City the landowner(s) will:

a)      Transfer the lands identified by the Sub-watershed Plan and the Environmental Management Plan as the natural heritage system to the City as public land for the sum of $1;

b)      Provide a written undertaking to plant a minimum of $250,000 value of trees as part of the development of this area and ensure that a portion are butternut trees, an endangered species in the Province of Ontario and a tree common to this area

c)      Provide a written undertaking to construct a pathway connection to Watters Road East and Petrie Island as part of the City’s pathway system.

d)      Provide a written undertaking to contribute a minimum of $250,000 for the construction of a new sports complex in the vicinity of Cardinal Village.

e)      Undertake to hold quarterly on-going public consultations with the community on all key planning and development matters related to this community over the next five years.

 

3)      In order to accommodate the increased traffic demand from Area 11 the traffic studies that support the community design plan will identify:

a)      The timing and need for widening of Ottawa Road 174 and the early provision of traffic control measures to ensure a safe and secure access to this busy road.

b)      The timing and need for widening of Old Montreal Road through the study area to Trim Road.

c)      The need for widening and the need to advance the construction of the Trim Road realignment from Ottawa Road 174 to Innes Road.

d)      The provision for adequate public transit to this new community.

 

4)      That landowner(s) provide a buffer for the land adjacent to Frank Kenny Road, similar to the buffer adjacent to Ted Kelly Lane.

 

5)   That when Council considers the proposed urban tree conservation by-law, that that it also consider extending the by-law to include additional lands, such as lands within approximately one kilometre of the urban boundary or land approved by Council for urban expansion. This will assist in preventing the Kanata and Cumberland tree clear-cutting experiences from happening in the future. It will also demonstrate the City of Ottawa's leadership in environmental stewardship.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

Motion  9 – El-Chantiry – Document 15

 

Moved by E. El-Chantiry:

 

WHEREAS additional public submissions have been made on the Comprehensive Five-Year Review of the Official Plan;

 

AND WHEREAS staff are recommending some additional changes to the Official Plan arising from a review of these submissions;

 

AND WHEREAS some errors have been identified in the documents provided with the report dated May 11 on the Comprehensive Five-Year Review of the Official Plan;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Joint Meeting of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1.   Receive for information the updated list of submissions attached as Part 1 of Document 15;

2.   Receive for information some corrections to documents previously provided and attached as Part 2 of Document 15;

3.   Adopt the additional proposed changes to the Official Plan attached as Part 3 of Document 15 and more specifically numbered as items 4, 6, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 26, 29, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 57, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70,71, 72, 73, 74, and 75.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

 

Motion 10 – Hume – Choosing Our Future

 

At the request of Councillor Hume, Mr. Marc confirmed that this motion would further strengthen the City’s position with regard to urban expansion.

 

Moved by P. Hume:

 

WHEREAS the Choosing Our Future initiative has been launched by the City of Ottawa and its partners as a means to make our City and the National Capital Region more sustainable and resilient in the long term;

 

AND WHEREAS Choosing Our Future is a broad-based initiative that will be developed with widespread community engagement;

 

AND WHEREAS one of the outcomes of Choosing Our Future is the creation of a set of sustainability principles that will help ensure that the decisions we make in the short- and medium-term are aligned with our long-term interests;

 

AND WHEREAS the Choosing Our Future initiative is intended to update our Ottawa 20/20 vision;

 

AND WHEREAS the current Official Plan update is a refresh, while the next update of the Official Plan in 2013 is intended to be more comprehensive and will be fully informed by the Choosing Our Future initiative;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the long-term urban land needs of the City be examined as part of the Choosing our Future public engagement process and the results used to inform the next Official Plan update.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

DIRECTION TO STAFF

 

Staff will provide revised wording for the approved motion to incorporate other related staff reviews and the Harder motion, which was withdrawn:

 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT a new Policy 8 be inserted in section 2.2.1:

 

Prior to the commencement of the study identified in Policy 7, the City shall conduct a review of the LEAR process in order to determine if any changes to the criteria or weightings are appropriate.  The resulting evaluation tool shall be utilized to assess all rural lands on Schedule "A".

 

 

Motion 11 – Jellett – Rural Severances

 

Ms. Paterson stated that staff continues to oppose such a proposal as the City’s policies are aimed at phasing out severances. Staff also feel there is a large opportunity for small lot development on existing lots of record in the rural area.

 

Councillor Jellett clarified he drafted this motion after hearing a presentation from Ralph Robinson, who had purchased 10 acres of land, as two parcels, on Beckett’s Creek Road in Cumberland 20 years ago.  The land is surrounded by houses, and the road is paved and serviced.  He bought the land with the understanding he would be able to sever it in the future, according to the policies in place at the time.  In 2003, the City eliminated that opportunity with the adoption of its OP, and he was not aware of that change until he came forward last year to apply for the severance, in planning for his retirement.  He pointed out that while Mr. Robinson no longer has the option to apply for a severance, there is a country lot subdivision that has been approved just across the street from him where 20 homes will be built.  There is no issue with water or the use of his land that would prevent its severance for two houses.  He noted that City staff has told him that he could get it approved if he submits a plan of subdivision, which costs about $100,000.  He said that for two lots it is not economically viable, and although plan of subdivision works for large developments in the rural area, it does not for this kind of in-fill development. 

 

Councillor Hunter inquired whether the amendment being sought is specific to this particular lot or citywide.  Ms. Paterson understood the motion to have citywide implication.  Councillor Hunter suggested it could open up the possibility of strip development along every rural arterial road.  She explained that the City permitted another lot of similar size as long as it did not extend it in length or breadth within hamlets or clusters of development that are on smaller lots.  In the rural area, prior to 2003, the City permitted two-acre severances.  In the 2003 OP, the City determined it would permit a two-acre severance but only if there was a 10-hectare retained parcel, which meant the only people who could get a two-acre severance were people with 10.8 hectares.  She suggested the councillor’s motion would be a return to the previous policy, although he seemed to be suggesting it should only apply to in-fill situations.

 

Councillor Hunter stated that although he is sympathetic to infill situations, he does not approve opening up every rural lot in a General Rural Area to severance.  He did not see how a councillor could be opposed to urban boundary expansion and permit this type of rural sprawl.

 

Ms. Paterson suggested this section of the Plan could be amended to allow for two-acre severances in in-fill situations. 

 

Councillor Jellett explained it is not his intent to allow the potential for strip development throughout the rural area, but rather his motion is to address situations concerning in-fill.  He offered to withdraw the motion for the time-being so that he could work with staff on revised wording.

 

Councillor El-Chantiry asked whether this motion would open the gate for another situation like Carp Road, where building closer to the road has been permitted.  He noted the City has been criticized in the past for allowing this to happen on collector roads.  Ms. Paterson clarified that staff would need a little time to look at the potential impact of the motion and would then report back on their findings. 

 

The motion was tabled for further review with staff:

 

WHEREAS the City’s Official Plan regulates the development of land in the rural area and in particular generally limits the creation of new residential lots, by severance and subdivision, to lands designated General Rural Area and Rural Natural Features; 

 

AND WHEREAS severed lots encourage a greater choice of housing in the rural area by providing the opportunity for more affordable development than that provided by country lot subdivisions;

 

AND WHEREAS severed lots provide a choice in where to live other than villages and country lot subdivision;

 

AND WHEREAS severed lots are located on existing roads making use of existing city infrastructure;

 

AND WHEREAS the community-based Rural Working Group recommended accommodating additional residential growth in the General Rural Areas by reducing lot size;

 

AND WHEREAS the Official Plan only permits the creation of one residential lot by severance where there is a retained parcel of 10 hectares or larger;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council consider the Official Plan Amendment, which is Attachment 1 to this motion:

 

Attachment 1 – Proposed Official Plan Amendment

 

This is drafted with reference to the current official plan and the amendment that is on circulation. The effect is to allow two residential severances per lot in the General Rural area by amending the policy which limits severances to 1 per lot and amending the policy which requires a 10 hectare retained parcel to allow a 0.8 hectare retained parcel.

 

Section 3.7.2 General Rural Area

 

Amend policy 8 a) of Section 3.7.2 in respect of infill development by deleting the requirement that “Only one lot will be created from any parcel in existence at the date of adoption of this Plan” and inserting in its place “Only two lots will be created from any parcel in existence at the date of adoption of the 2003 Official Plan”.

 

Amend policy 8 b) of Section 3.7.2 by deleting the minimum area of “10 hectares” and inserting in its place the area of “0.8 hectares”.  

 

 

Motion 12 (Withdrawn) – Harder – Villages and New Public Service Areas

 

Ms. Paterson confirmed that the intent of the motion is already included in the Amendment.  Accordingly, Councillor Harder withdrew her motion.

 

WHEREAS The City of Ottawa is reviewing its Official Plan, the central guiding document that presents a unified vision on how Ottawa will develop;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City staff be directed to revise Section 3.7.1- Villages, policy 5 to clarify that the creation of new Public Service Areas will be considered in the context of a new or updated community design plan. The policy change is as follows:

 

“Because of the impact they have on the community, proposals to change a Village boundary or to introduce or extend public water and or wastewater services for the creation of new Public Service Areas will be considered in the context of a new or updated community design plan that is consistent with the village boundary policies in Section 2.2.1, and the policies in Section 2.5.6 of this Plan.

 

 

Motion 13 – Holmes – Housing Type Distribution

 

Councillor Holmes noted the proposed plan reduces the proportion of singles from 45 to 40 per cent, which she viewed as a move in the right direction.  She suggested it will take 50 years to get down to a more dense configuration of housing, by which time, she said, there would not be any land left in the city.  With respect to previous comments that everyone in North America wants to own a single home on a single lot, she said that thinking has led to a consumption pattern that is unsustainable.  She added that home assessments are rising dramatically and affordable housing is being lost because the land is becoming so expensive.  Looking at the new growth areas, she suggested the city needs more variety in order to house people who do not have the kind of money required to buy a single-detached home. 

 

Mr. Cross pointed out that the projected housing requirement is based on staff’s detailed analysis of the probable future housing market.  He said there is nothing to prevent people from purchasing a townhouse or a semi rather than a single, and he added that neither staff, nor councillors, determine that choice.  He noted the proposed motion significantly reduces the future share of single-detached homes, which saves land, but it also reduces the share of apartments, which means more land is required for semis and townhouses.  His analysis showed this would result in a situation where, instead of not having enough land for singles, there would not be enough land for semis and townhouses, which would trigger an even larger urban expansion, unless one makes the assumption that some of the surplus land would no longer be needed for singles.  Total land requirements would only be reduced by approximately 12 per cent.

 

Chair Hume noted the Province has indicated that staff’s proposed housing targets are surprisingly aggressive.  Mr. Cross confirmed, noting that in 2007, the City had Hemson Consulting conduct a peer review of the housing projections, at which time staff were speculating about two possible scenarios for single-detached homes – one with 47 per cent and one with 30 per cent.  The consultant had suggested the latter target was too aggressive.

 

The Chair pointed out that a decision had already been made to expand the urban boundary, based on housing types, so he was confused about the operative effect of this motion.  Mr. Cross responded that he could not defend adopting a projection with only 55 per cent for single-detached, much less 25 per cent, particularly without a very rigorous analysis to back it up.

 

Staff also confirmed that this motion, if adopted, would impact the next motion on single-detached densities as proposed by Councillor Harder.

 

Moved by D. Holmes:

 

WHEREAS the Official Plan supports a preferred development scenario by housing type of 40% Single; 5% Semi, 27% Row and 28% Apartment;

 

AND WHEREAS meeting density targets by the excessive building of apartments, usually in high-rise development, will not create liveable, walkable, healthy cities;

 

AND WHEREAS growth management should not be driven by consumer-choice alone;

 

AND WHEREAS a lower target for Singles and higher targets for Semi and Row units would result in a more compact form of urban development that would:

 

·        Promote greater environmental conservation, air and water protection,

·        Lower infrastructure delivery costs; and

·        Reduce annual operating and servicing costs;

 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT The Official Plan’s development scenario by housing type be amended to:  25% Single; 15% Semi; 40% Row; 20% Apartment.

 

                                                                                                            LOST

 

YEAS (2):        C. Doucet, D. Holmes

NAYS (9):       S. Desroches, E. El-Chantiry, P. Feltmate, J. Harder, P. Hume, G. Hunter, R. Jellett, B. Monette, D. Thompson

 

 

Motion 14 – Harder – Single-Detached Density

 

Councillor Harder commented on ensuring new communities are liveable, noting she worked with staff and the development community in drafting the motion.

 

Ms. Paterson said that when staff does housing projections, they project for a certain mix of singles, semis, apartments and so on.  In new communities, in order to achieve the target density set, more row units have been built instead of building up to the perceived demand for singles.  What that means is that each time staff looks at the need for additional urban land, more land is required because the projections say the singles demand is not being met.  Staff had therefore proposed a policy that would not only have an overall density requirement for a mix of units, but would also have a density requirement for singles.  In response to the concerns that were raised, staff considered whether it would be satisfactory to at least get the share of singles required in each development to meet the overall demand, so the density requirement could be removed for singles and a share requirement could be put in instead that matches the projected share of new units.  The big difference, she explained, is that it tries to move the population in a certain direction but not as aggressively as the previous motion suggested. She also clarified that the 45-55 per cent requirement for single-detached would only apply to newly developing areas, starting with the Fernbank lands.  She explained that in doing the projections, every age group of the population has to be considered in terms of what could happen over time.  The proposed Plan has pushed as far as possible in terms of the shift away from singles, and staff has been trying  to create a reasonable move towards multiples and apartments.

 

Moved by J. Harder:

 

WHEREAS the City seeks to achieve higher residential densities in new greenfield community design plans and in urban expansion areas;

 

AND WHEREAS the City also seeks to allow for flexibility in how builders meet minimum density targets while at the same time ensuring that the supply of land for single detached houses is maintained;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the policies related to the minimum density of single detached dwellings be revised to allow for an overall minimum density which addresses all housing types, not singles specifically. Policy 19 in Section 2.2.2 be deleted and replaced with the following:

 

For those lands outside of the Greenbelt that are included in a community design plan approved by Council after June 10, 2009, the following housing mix and density provisions apply:

 

The mix and density of residential dwellings will constitute the following:

i)    At least 45% single detached but not more than 55% single detached, at least 10 per cent apartment dwellings and the remainder multiple dwellings, other than apartments.

ii)   Overall residential development will meet a minimum average density target of 34 units per net hectare.  Net residential density is based on the area of land in exclusively residential use, including lanes and parking areas internal to developments but excluding public streets, rights-of-way and all non-residential uses.

 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the draft urban expansion amendment be revised as follows:

 

In Section 3.12, replace policy 4e with the following:

 

4 e) Establish the mix and location of residential dwellings which, as a minimum, will   constitute the following:

i)    At least 45% single detached but not more than 55% single detached, at least 10 per cent apartment dwellings and the remainder multiple dwellings, other than apartments.

ii)   In Urban Expansion Study Area designations, overall residential development will meet a minimum average density target of 34 units per net hectare.  Net residential density is based on the area of land in exclusively residential use, including lanes and parking areas internal to developments but excluding public streets, rights-of-way and all non-residential uses.

 

Renumber policy 4f to 4g, and introduce a new policy 4f to read:

4 f) Show how the plan will achieve other policies of this Official Plan including, but not limited to, affordable housing and design.

 

In Section 3.13, replace policy 3d with the following:

d.   Establish the mix and location of residential dwelling which, as a minimum, will constitute the following:

iii)  At least 45% single detached but not more than 55% single detached, at least 10 per cent apartment dwellings and the remainder multiple dwellings, other than apartments.

iv)  In Developing Community (Expansion Area) designations, overall residential development will meet a minimum average density target of 34 units per net hectare.  Net residential density is based on the area of land in exclusively residential use, including lanes and parking areas internal to developments but excluding public streets, rights-of-way and all non-residential uses.

 

Renumber policy 3e to 3f, and introduce a new policy 3e to read:

3 e) Show how the plan will achieve other policies of this Official Plan including, but not limited to, affordable housing and design.

 

In Section 3.6.4 replace policy 4a with the following:

4a) Establish the mix and location of residential dwellings which, as a minimum, will constitute the following:

i)    At least 45% single detached nut not more than 55% single detached, at least 10 per cent apartment dwellings and the remainder multiple dwellings other than apartments,

ii)   In Developing Communities outside the Greenbelt, overall residential development will meet a minimum average density target of 34 units per net hectare.  Net residential density is based on the area of land in exclusively residential use, including lanes and parking areas internal to developments but excluding public streets, rights-of-way and all non-residential uses.

 

CARRIED with C. Doucet and D. Holmes dissenting.

 

 

Motion 15 – Holmes – Implementation of Intensification and Density Targets

 

Councillor Hunter pointed out that ten or more years ago it was suggested that 70,000 new units could be built on vacant land inside the Greenbelt, which was supported by a study done by FoTenn.  He commented that none of the sites that redeveloped came close to meeting the intensification numbers that were theoretically put on those particular sites.  He pointed out that several hundred units were supposed to be built next to the Queensway Carleton Hospital.

 

Ms. Paterson clarified that staff will review the zoning to ensure there is sufficient zoning in place to accommodate the minimum intensification targets.  She interpreted the motion to say that if the zoning is sufficient, the intensification target could not be used as the sole justification for approving additional height or density in excess of the current zoning.

 

Councillor Hunter noted that many single-detached homes exist along roadways where four and five storey buildings would be permitted along the zoning.  He questioned if this motion would impact redevelopment of suitable sites.

 

Having received reassurances from the Chair and staff that this motion would not hinder redevelopment of suitable sites, Councillor Hunter stated he would not oppose the motion, conceding that it is a “belt and suspenders” motion.

 

Moved by D. Holmes:

 

THAT Document 1 – Land Use - Section 2 – Strategic Directions – Clause 11 ‘Implementation of Intensification and Density Targets’, subclause (a) be amended by adding:

 

Where the existing zoning provisions are sufficient to meet the intensification and density targets in the time frame defined by this Official Plan, these targets shall not be used as a planning rationale for approving additional height or density in excess of the current zoning

 

AND THAT Document 1 – Land Use - Section 2 – Strategic Directions – Clause 11 ‘Implementation of Intensification and Density Targets’, subclause (b) be amended by adding:

 

Where community design plans and secondary plans contain sufficient development potential to meet intensification and density targets in the time frame defined by this Official Plan, these plans shall not be altered for the purpose of achieving intensification.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

 

Motion 16 (Tabled) – Holmes – High-Rise Buildings on Mainstreets

 

Councillor Holmes stated that her motion addresses conflicting statements in the Plan.  Ms. Paterson advised that the new policy outlines criteria and situations where tall buildings can be considered.  She suggested that if there are concerns with the criteria for permitting high-rise buildings on mainstreets, the criteria should be dealt with rather than eliminating any possibility for increased height.

 

It was agreed to table the motion to allow further review of the criteria regarding high-rise buildings:

 

WHEREAS the Official Plan supports medium-rise building heights of 6 storeys in Traditional Mainstreets and 9 storeys in Arterial Mainstreeets;

 

AND WHEREAS Section 4.11.10 also permits high-rise buildings to be considered in these areas, and there is no upper limit on the number of floors in high-rise building as defined in Section 4.11.8;

 

AND WHEREAS the compatibility sections contained within Section 2.5 are very broad and open to interpretation, and have not proven to be an effective control on height;

 

AND WHEREAS consideration of high-rise buildings on mainstreets because of their proximity to rapid transit, a strategic corner or gateway, or the precedent of other high-rise buildings in the area is an insufficient rationale, and because the existing medium-rise height limits are more compatible and meet or exceed the Plan’s intensification goals;

 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Section 4.11.9 d, and 4.11.10, and Section 4.11.11, and 3.6.3.8 b (high-rise buildings considered in mainstreets) be eliminated.

 

 

Motion 17 – Jellett – Village of Sarsfield

 

Moved by R. Jellett:

 

WHEREAS the Sarsfield Community purchased the closed elementary school property within the Village of Sarsfield and has converted the property for use as a Multi-Service Centre for the community;

 

AND WHEREAS the property, containing the former elementary school, is designated ‘Village-Residential’ and abuts land designated ‘Village-Mixed-Use’ in the Village Plan contained in Volume 2C of the City’s Official Plan;

 

AND WHEREAS the ‘Village-Residential’ designation does not permit the range of uses that the Sarsfield community would like to encourage within the Multi-Service Centre;

 

AND WHEREAS the community has been canvassed and supports the re-designation of the land to ‘Village-Mixed-Use’;

 

THEREFORE BE RESOLVED THAT Council consider the Official Plan Amendment, which is Attachment 1 to this motion:

 

Attachment 1 – Proposed Official Plan Amendment

 

Village of Sarsfield - Volume 2C - Village Plans

 

1.   The Village of Sarsfield Plan in Volume 2C of the City Official Plan is hereby amended by:

a.   Redesignating the land shown by heavy outline and a note on the attached Schedule A, from ‘Village-Residential’ to ‘Village-Mixed-Use’; and

b.   Amending the designation shown on Schedule E , Volume 2C - Village Plans  (Cumberland, Navan , Notre Dame des Champs, Sarsfield, Vars) accordingly.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

 

Motion 18 (Tabled) – Legendre/Hume – Montréal Road

 

Chair Hume noted Councillor Legendre would like to return to the parameter adopted in 1997.

 

Steven Boyle, Senior Project Manager, Transportation Planning, recalled that the issue of the protected Right of Way (ROW) dates back to 1988 and 1997 Regional OP.   The current OP shows a ROW of 23 meters through Vanier with this particular portion showing 26 metres between rue de l’Église and St. Laurent Boulevard, opposite the Notre-Dame Cemetery.  As one moves east of St. Laurent Boulevard, a 37.5-metre ROW exists because of the wider roadway.  Staff in this Amendment is recommending a reduction to 23 metres.  The existing ROW for the subject area is 18 metres, increasing 25 metres closer to the intersection and turn lane.  Two cross sections of the Regional Road Corridor Guidelines were provided that attempted to address some shortcomings to better accommodate pedestrians/cyclists and greenspace on road corridors.  The 23-metre recommended protected ROW is in keeping with this vision.  In conclusion, staff is proposing a slight reduction from 26 to 23 metres, but do not support the proposed reduction to 20 metres.

 

The motion was tabled and staff were directed to work with Councillor Legendre in reviewing the motion:

 

Whereas Notre Dame Cemetery and Notre Dame de Lourdes Church is located on the north side of Montreal Road and that the Convent of  “Les Filles de la Sagesse” is located on the south side at this location;

 

AND Whereas the RMOC’s Official Plan adopted in 1997, recognized that situation be removing the provision for UNEQUAL WIDENINGS on Montreal Road between Church Street (rue de l’Église) and St. Laurent Boulevard;

 

FURTHER Be It Resolved That Annex 1, Table 1 be amended to provide that for Montreal Road between Rue De L’Église and St. Laurent Boulevard the ROW to be protected be set at 20 metres.

 

 

Motion 19 – Thompson – South Gloucester Water Public Service Area

 

Ms. Paterson advised that staff cannot support the motion as it contravenes the OP and PPS, which do not permit development on partial services in the rural area.  She noted other similar requests were also denied on Carp Road and in Carlsbad Springs.  She observed that some councillors argue that some industrial uses are more appropriate in the rural area; however, she suggested a more fulsome review would be required to substantiate this.  She added that proposed service development should be in the urban area where transit service can be provided to support jobs.  She noted that the permission of the Province would be required to proceed with partial services in the rural area.

 

Mr. Marc advised that should the motion be adopted, the MMAH would likely remove it from the Plan and the City would be required to appeal to the OMB to have it reinstated, despite the fact that it contravenes the PPS.

 

Councillor Thompson outlined his arguments for the approval of the motion, specifically the proximity of the water line along Bank Street and Rideau Road servicing the land part of the South Gloucester Business Park.  He recalled that former Regional government extended the water supply because of a spill at one of the plants.  The land in question was the former site of the Canada Brick plant and is now owned by the Tomlinson group, which seeks to develop industrial park on the land.  He understood that higher development charges would be collected, as only one service would be provided.  He suggested it is not an expansion of urban boundary, but merely congregating industrial uses at an appropriate location in the rural area.  He added that the business park could potentially employ 1000 people, which will reduce commuting into downtown.

 

In response to a query by Councillor Hunter, Mr. Marc could not confirm Councillor Thompson’s assertion regarding development charges.

 

Councillor Hunter reflected on the merits of the motion, stating the PPS must also be considered.  He noted that one of the strengths is that the water line is situated nearby; conversely, the proposal would be more appropriately considered through a stand-alone OPA with the proponent paying the appropriate fees for a full consideration of all the issues rather then having it lumped it in the review of the OP.

 

Councillor Desroches indicated he is sympathetic to the motion, noting that the industrial uses are probably most appropriate at this location. 

 

Ms. Paterson reiterated staff’s position that uses requiring pipe services should be situated in the urban area where other transit and community services exist.  The watermain was put in to solve a potable water problem, not to generate economic activity.  The third point is that it is contrary to the PPS, as the septic systems are not designed to handle the water.  Even though the zoning could deal with the use, staff is concerned with industrial sewage and how it will be managed onsite.  The fourth point is that this is not unique and other similar applications were denied throughout the rural area.  She suggested an update of the rural industrial subdivisions could be in order.

 

Councillor Thompson reported that limited bus service is currently provided down Bank Street.  He reiterated that industrial uses would be appropriate at this location.  He asked for support of his motion on its merits, adding that the proponent is willing to work with the City on the process. 

 

Moved by D. Thompson:

 

WHEREAS the Official Plan’s Guiding Principles make it clear that the City must undertake sustainable development which integrates economic growth, social equity, effective and efficient use of infrastructure, and the development of a strong rural economy;

 

AND WHEREAS the Strategic Directions of the City’s Official Plan recognizes the growth in employment in the rural area, and the Official Plan has recognized circumstances where partial public services have been extended;

 

AND WHEREAS these lands have long been recognized as a part of the South Gloucester Industrial Park and can provide a unique area for heavy industrial uses that will support other existing employment areas such as Riverside South and Barrhaven, and will implement the Economic Strategy, the 2009 Employment Lands Strategy and the other supporting 20/20 reports;

 

AND WHEREAS it makes common sense to maximize the use of the existing water system known as the South Gloucester Water Service Area, which has sufficient capacity for additional uses, and the Infrastructure Master Plan is focused upon the integration and maximization of opportunities to improve the value and sustainability of infrastructure services and to achieve this through the balancing of all possible solutions to ensure that these best opportunities are identified;

 

AND WHEREAS the Provincial Policy Statement is to be read in its entirety to understand the inter-relationships between the policies, and to arrive at an integrated, long-term approach to planning, focusing on the building of strong communities that make efficient use of land, which provide employment areas, makes wise use of infrastructure and ensures long-term prosperity;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to amend the Official Plan Amendment to include an additional clause in Section 2.3.2, Policy 10b which reads as follows:

 

c.   To support economic development in this unique circumstance, the South Gloucester Industrial Park, in the rural area, where development of the existing industrial subdivisions have proceeded on partial services, and where these long recognized employment lands have been serviced with the municipal water system, the:

i.    creation of an Industrial Park on the Hanson and O’Leary lands in Part of Lots 26 and 27, Concession 5, Rideau Front, in the former City of Gloucester will proceed using the existing South Gloucester Water Service to supply water to serve the industrial development, and

ii.   the balance of the already industrial zoned parcel be considered as a part of the existing South Gloucester Water Public Service Area.

 

                                                                                                LOST

 

YEAS (6):        G. Brooks, S. Desroches, E. El-Chantiry, B. Monette, R. Jellett, D. Thompson

NAYS (6):       C. Doucet, P. Feltmate, J. Harder, D. Holmes, P. Hume, G. Hunter

 

 

Motion 20 (Out of Order) – Doucet – Urban Expansion and TMP

 

Chair Hume ruled the Doucet motion out of order:

 

Whereas the City of Ottawa wishes to manage growth by directing growth to the urban area where services already exist or where they can be provided efficiently and where growth can be served with quality transit;

 

AND Whereas the City of Ottawa plans significant capital investment over the next twenty years to support Ottawa’s Transportation Master Plan 2009-2031;

 

AND Whereas the City of Ottawa’s next Official Plan should recognize that transit is the first priority in establishing criteria to identify urban growth and therefore it is at transit nodes that growth should be directed;

 

AND Whereas the urban expansion portion of the Official Plan and the Ottawa Transportation Master Plan have been developed in two separate exercises and they not complimentary;

 

THEREFORE Be it resolved that the staff be directed to revisit the urban expansion proposals of the Official Plan and recommend areas for urban growth that accommodate and facilitate the implementation of the Ottawa Transportation Master Plan applying accessibility to existing or planned transit as its chief criteria and accessibility to existing or planned road capacity a lower priority.

 

 

Motion 21 – Wilkinson/Hume – Social Cohesion

 

Councillor Wilkinson introduced her motion, which seeks to ensure large developments are planned with social cohesion in mind to avoid that it be solely geared exclusively to a particular group.  She noted the Morgan’s Grant Briarbrook Community Association was particularly concerned with this issue.  She added that this motion speaks to the pre-consultation process.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Marc responded that there are prohibited grounds of discrimination within the Ontario Human Rights Code.  The City cannot prohibit someone from living in one area because of one of those grounds.  By the same token, if there are two to three dozen individuals who have in common one of the characteristics and they wish to buy up all of the houses on a particular street or work together and establish a plan of a subdivision, the City could not prohibit them from doing so under the Ontario Human Rights Code.  He opined that it would be inappropriate to add such a provision to the OP.

 

Based on this advice, Councillor Cullen voiced his opposition to the motion, expressing concerns with its applicability and appropriateness.

 

Councillor Harder also spoke in opposition, stating that developing communities should not be restricted in this way.  She pointed out that the existence of the South Nepean Muslim Corporation and 5000 Muslims live in South Nepean.

 

Moved by P. Hume, on behalf of M. Wilkinson:

 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Official Plan be amended by adding “social cohesion” to the list of planning factors to be considered in the pre-application consultation process for development projects.

 

                                                                                                LOST

 

YEAS (0):

NAYS (11):     S. Desroches, C. Doucet, E. El-Chantiry, P. Feltmate, J. Harder, D. Holmes, P. Hume, G. Hunter, R. Jellett, B. Monette, D. Thompson

 

 

Motion 22 – Feltmate – Country Lot Estates

 

Councillor Feltmate explained there are currently more than 2000 vacant lots in rural Ottawa, and on average, about 300 per year are developed.  She commented that a five-year moratorium would not affect growth or create problems, but it would give the City the opportunity to look at the idea of clustering and at how rural land should be used.  It would be informed by staff reviews dealing with  agricultural and aggregate areas, and provide an opportunity for more consultation with the rural community. 

 

Councillor Jellett agreed with the intent of reviewing country estate lot subdivision development and rural development as a whole, but he wondered how it differs from the Rural Settlement Strategy that was developed in 2008.  Mr. Finlay responded that the strategy did look at all of this, noting that when it was discussed, the group often talked about creating clusters and more planned development in the rural area.  The problem is that the Plan says if cluster development occurs in one area, it cannot be permitted elsewhere.  That either/or situation gave rise to concerns for the community and there was not a consensus on it.  Mr. Finlay explained that the freeze would apply to new applications for subdivisions in the rural area, not existing lots of record. 

 

Councillor Jellett requested that information be provided on the number of applications currently in the system and in which parts of the rural area.  He also asked that staff include a response with respect to the impact of a freeze on rural villages, which have lacked growth that lead to the closure of schools and businesses in recent years.  He questioned if freezing development in the rural area might exacerbate the problem.

 

Ms. Paterson advised that the Plan includes a grand-parenting policy, which states the relationship between the stages of an application already underway and whether or not it can be impacted by any new policy.  With respect to country lot subdivisions, it states that if substantial progress has been made in terms of associated studies, they would be considered to be underway.

 

Councillor Brooks questioned what was meant by the term ‘substantial progress’.  Mr. Marc referred to the grand-fathering policy, which was found as Document 11 in the material distributed to councillors for the joint committee meeting of 31 March 2009, noting there are two instances in which it would apply.  The first instance is where a complete application (with supporting studies) has been filed by 10 June 2009 (the expected adoption date of the Amendment); the second involves a situation where the applicant has participated in a meaningful pre-consultation with staff within the past six months and files an application no later than 10 October 2009.

 

Councillor Brooks commented on the significant undertaking that is required to bring forth a plan of subdivision, and questioned whether there is any opportunity to extend the October 10th deadline for submission by two months.  Mr. Marc responded that would be a decision of Council.

 

Councillor Brooks remarked that he supports clustering over the current approach, but he is concerned for people who have made significant progress but cannot complete the undertaking within that October 10th time frame. 

 

Chair Hume suggested Councillor Brooks work with Mr. Marc and Ms. Paterson prior to Council on wording with respect to such an amendment to the timeframes associated with the grand-parenting policy.

 

Councillor Cullen supported the motion, commenting that the City should be more aware of the impact of country lot subdivisions on aquifers.  As a member of the Source Protection Committee for the Mississippi Valley and Rideau Valley Conservation Authorities, he suggested that this form of rural sprawl is overloading system capacity.  In addition, these spread-out developments are also difficult to service with transit and other municipal services.  He suggested it is a very inefficient form of land development and that the City must look at better ways of accommodating the demand for housing.  He reminded members there was an effort under the Regional OP to eliminate this entirely but property developers argued it aggressively.

 

Councillor Thompson expressed some concern with the motion and supported the extension of the grand-parenting policy timeframe.  He commented that country estate subdivisions have a place in the community, arguing that people choose them for a particular lifestyle that does not include transit, corner stores, and so on.  He debated some councillors’ concerns that one area of the city is being unjustly taxed to support development in the rural areas.  He noted there are very stringent requirements for developers to go through to ensure there is adequate water and land to build septic systems.  With respect to the issue of transit, he commented that until the urban area is at 80 per cent usage the City should not be concerned about what the rural or country estate lots might desire in that regard.  He asked Mr. Moser to report back with a list of people who are in the early stages of country estate development, and to indicate whether that group has been advised or consulted about this possible moratorium.

 

In responses to further questions from Councillor Thompson, Mr. Moser indicated there had not been any discussion to date with applicants on a possible moratorium.  If this motion and the grand-parenting timeframe amendment were approved, staff would undertake to make those notifications as appropriate.  With regard to pre-applicants and those who might submit an application in the future, he said that staff enters any inquiries into its MAP system, but beyond that they would have no information.

 

Moved by P. Feltmate:

 

WHEREAS the City of Ottawa seeks to demonstrate its commitment to sustainability in the Official Plan;

 

AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa is committed to having growth occur in a way that keeps both capital and operating costs under control;

 

AND WHEREAS the number of Country Lot Subdivisions has led to clusters forming that are for all intents and purposes suburban developments outside of the urban boundary;

 

AND WHEREAS the majority of Country Lot Subdivisions residents in the workforce commute into the urban area;

 

AND WHEREAS allowing low-density suburban developments outside the urban boundary where people are required to drive to access all services undermines the work being done to encourage intensification and ensure greenfield development within the urban boundary is sustainable;

 

AND WHEREAS the findings in Comparative Municipal Fiscal Impact Analysis by Hemson Consulting showing a much higher net cost per unit for new development in the rural part of the City of Ottawa means that permitting additional Country Lot subdivisions is significantly more expensive for taxpayers than development within the urban boundary;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the appropriate wording be brought forward for Council’s consideration of the comprehensive official plan amendment that will provide:

 

1.   A moratorium be placed on the creation of new Country Lot Estate subdivisions and Conservation Lot Subdivisions which moratorium shall end at the earlier of five years from the adoption of the amendment or the coming into force of an official plan amendment that addresses the matters in Recommendation 2 of this motion;

 

2.   That during the moratorium staff be instructed to study issues around Country Lot Estate subdivisions, particularly “cluster” developments, including:

a)   Whether the clustering of Country Lot Subdivisions has the potential to cause problems with groundwater that are not picked up in the studies for a single subdivision

b)   How much growth will be encouraged in the long term in these areas and whether in fact the presence of these settlement areas will encourage country lot development where it may otherwise not have been contemplated

c)   The implications of such development on the need for communal services and the feasibility of providing such

d)   The relationship between these clusters, as complete communities, and existing villages 

e)   How the presence of clusters of Country Lot Estate subdivisions on the edge of the urban boundary will affect any expansion of the urban boundary, particularly efforts to avoid building over prime agricultural land and rural natural features

f)    Costs to the taxpayer of providing services

g)   Impact on the Official Plan objective of sustainability

h)   Impact on character of Rural Ottawa.

 

3.   That prior to reporting back to Council have staff consult with the community and in particular:

a)   Consult with the rural working groups who contributed to the Rural Settlement Strategy

b)   If there is support for cluster development, seek to achieve consensus on where and how big these clusters should be since this approach will remove development rights from properties outside of these areas

c)   Assess how willing the rural community is to accept more intense development around them, especially residents already within these clusters

d)   Recognizing the impact of country lot estate development on residents of the urban area, include residents of communities inside the urban boundary most affected by traffic and pressure on city services like recreation from country lot estates and groups concerned about the cost of growth.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

YEAS (6):        G. Brooks, S. Desroches, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, P. Hume, G. Hunter

NAYS (5):       E. El-Chantiry, J. Harder, B. Monette, R. Jellett, D. Thompson

 

The Joint Committee then considered the staff recommendations as amended.

 

That the Joint Meeting of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

 

1.         That further to the Jellett motion regarding Schedules R35, R38, R44 and R45, adopt the City of Ottawa Official Plan Amendment on Urban Expansion Areas as shown in Document 4, subject to the following:

 

a.   That the boundary for Area 1C (Schedule R34) be shifted eastward to coincide with the boundary of the escarpment.

 

b.   That in addition to the staff recommended conditions applying to the urban expansion lands, that the following additional conditions apply to the lands east of Cardinal Creek described in the staff report as Area 11:

i.    The City will complete the Cardinal Creek Sub-watershed Plan before Council commences the preparation of an Environmental Management Plan and community design plan for the area. The sub-watershed plan and the Environmental Management Plan will identify the Natural Heritage System, as defined in the proposed Official Plan policies and further identified through on-site investigation, and will recommend means to protect this system in the context of this land being part of the urban area. The EMP will identify the natural features remaining on the land and measures to maintain or restore their ecological function.

ii.   Prior to the redesignation of Area 11 as part of the Urban Area by the City the landowner(s) will:

·        Transfer the lands identified by the Sub-watershed Plan and the Environmental Management Plan as the natural heritage system to the City as public land for the sum of $1;

·        Provide a written undertaking to plant a minimum of $250,000 value of trees as part of the development of this area and ensure that a portion are butternut trees, an endangered species in the Province of Ontario and a tree common to this area

·        Provide a written undertaking to construct a pathway connection to Watters Road East and Petrie Island as part of the City’s pathway system.

·        Provide a written undertaking to contribute a minimum of $250,000 for the construction of a new sports complex in the vicinity of Cardinal Village.

·        Undertake to hold quarterly on-going public consultations with the community on all key planning and development matters related to this community over the next five years.

iii.  In order to accommodate the increased traffic demand from Area 11 the traffic studies that support the community design plan will identify:

·        The timing and need for widening of Ottawa Road 174 and the early provision of traffic control measures to ensure a safe and secure access to this busy road.

·        The timing and need for widening of Old Montreal Road through the study area to Trim Road.

·        The need for widening and the need to advance the construction of the Trim Road realignment from Ottawa Road 174 to Innes Road.

·        The provision for adequate public transit to this new community.

iv.  That landowner(s) provide a buffer for the land adjacent to Frank Kenny Road, similar to the buffer adjacent to Ted Kelly Lane.

v.   That when Council considers the proposed Urban Tree Conservation By-law, that that it also consider extending the by-law to include additional lands, such as lands within approximately one kilometre of the urban boundary or land approved by Council for urban expansion. This will assist in preventing the Kanata and Cumberland tree clear-cutting experiences from happening in the future. It will also demonstrate the City of Ottawa's leadership in environmental stewardship.

 

2.         Adopt the City of Ottawa Comprehensive Official Plan Amendment dated May 2009 as detailed in Document 13, subject to the following:

 

a.   That Council reinforce its commitment to intensification through:

·        Support for proactive, multi-faceted marketing and incentive programs to promote appropriate intensification;

·        Support of intensification in the target areas in the Plan, with emphasis on rapid transit stations;

·        Support for staff reviewing zoning by-laws and secondary plans in intensification target areas to ensure that targets can be met within established zoning;

·        Support for the proposed intensification working group and its objective to coordinate all City practices, by-laws and administration to support intensification and lead discussions with all external stakeholders such as school boards and utilities to improve the success of the residential land strategy;

·        Support for design review to ensure high quality development in target areas; and

·        Support for the Capacity Management Strategy to provide infrastructure capacity in intensification areas.

 

b.   That the appropriate wording be brought forward for Council’s consideration of the comprehensive Official Plan Amendment that will provide:

i.    A moratorium be placed on the creation of new Country Lot Estate Subdivisions and Conservation Lot Subdivisions which moratorium shall end at the earlier of five years from the adoption of the Amendment or the coming into force of an Official Plan Amendment that addresses the matters in Recommendation 2 of this motion;

ii.   That during the moratorium staff be instructed to study issues around Country Lot Estate subdivisions, particularly “cluster” developments, including:

·        Whether the clustering of Country Lot Subdivisions has the potential to cause problems with groundwater that are not picked up in the studies for a single subdivision

·        How much growth will be encouraged in the long term in these areas and whether in fact the presence of these settlement areas will encourage country lot development where it may otherwise not have been contemplated

·        The implications of such development on the need for communal services and the feasibility of providing such

·        The relationship between these clusters, as complete communities, and existing villages 

·        How the presence of clusters of Country Lot Estate subdivisions on the edge of the urban boundary will affect any expansion of the urban boundary, particularly efforts to avoid building over prime agricultural land and rural natural features

·        Costs to the taxpayer of providing services

·        Impact on the Official Plan objective of sustainability

·        Impact on character of Rural Ottawa.

iii.  That prior to reporting back to Council, have staff consult with the community and in particular consult with the rural working groups who contributed to the Rural Settlement Strategy:

·        If there is support for cluster development, seek to achieve consensus on where and how big these clusters should be since this approach will remove development rights from properties outside of these areas

·        Assess how willing the rural community is to accept more intense development around them, especially residents already within these clusters

·        Recognizing the impact of country lot estate development on residents of the urban area, include residents of communities inside the urban boundary most affected by traffic and pressure on city services like recreation from country lot estates and groups concerned about the cost of growth.

 

c.   The Village of Sarsfield Plan in Volume 2C of the City Official Plan is hereby amended by:

i.    re-designating the land shown by heavy outline and a note on the attached Schedule A, from ‘Village-Residential’ to ‘Village-Mixed-Use’; and 

ii.   amending the designation shown on Schedule E , Volume 2C - Village Plans  (Cumberland, Navan , Notre Dame des Champs, Sarsfield, Vars) accordingly.

 

d.   That the long-term urban land needs of the City be examined as part of the Choosing our Future public engagement process and the results used to inform the next Official Plan update.

 

e.   That the policies related to the minimum density of single detached dwellings be revised to allow for an overall minimum density which addresses all housing types, not singles specifically. Policy 19 in Section 2.2.2 be deleted and replaced with the following:

 

For those lands outside of the Greenbelt that are included in a community design plan approved by Council after June 10, 2009, the following housing mix and density provisions apply to the mix and density of residential dwellings will constitute the following:

·        At least 45% single detached but not more than 55% single detached, at least 10 per cent apartment dwellings and the remainder multiple dwellings, other than apartments.

·        Overall residential development will meet a minimum average density target of 34 units per net hectare.  Net residential density is based on the area of land in exclusively residential use, including lanes and parking areas internal to developments but excluding public streets, rights-of-way and all non-residential uses.

 

That the draft urban expansion amendment be revised as follows:

 

In Section 3.12, replace policy 4e with the following:

4 e) Establish the mix and location of residential dwellings which, as a minimum, will   constitute the following:

i)        At least 45% single detached but not more than 55% single detached, at least 10 per cent apartment dwellings and the remainder multiple dwellings, other than apartments.

ii)   In Urban Expansion Study Area designations, overall residential development will meet a minimum average density target of 34 units per net hectare.  Net residential density is based on the area of land in exclusively residential use, including lanes and parking areas internal to developments but excluding public streets, rights-of-way and all non-residential uses.

 

Renumber policy 4f to 4g, and introduce a new policy 4f to read:

4 f) Show how the plan will achieve other policies of this Official Plan including, but not limited to, affordable housing and design.

 

In Section 3.13, replace policy 3d with the following:

d.      Establish the mix and location of residential dwelling which, as a minimum, will constitute the following:

iii)    At least 45% single detached but not more than 55% single detached, at least 10 per cent apartment dwellings and the remainder multiple dwellings, other than apartments.

iv)  In Developing Community (Expansion Area) designations, overall residential development will meet a minimum average density target of 34 units per net hectare.  Net residential density is based on the area of land in exclusively residential use, including lanes and parking areas internal to developments but excluding public streets, rights-of-way and all non-residential uses.

 

Renumber policy 3e to 3f, and introduce a new policy 3e to read:

 

3 e) Show how the plan will achieve other policies of this Official Plan including, but not limited to, affordable housing and design.

 

In Section 3.6.4 replace policy 4a with the following:

 

4a) Establish the mix and location of residential dwellings which, as a minimum, will constitute the following:

i)        At least 45% single detached but not more than 55% single detached, at least 10 per cent apartment dwellings and the remainder multiple dwellings other than apartments,

ii)   In Developing Communities outside the Greenbelt, overall residential development will meet a minimum average density target of 34 units per net hectare.  Net residential density is based on the area of land in exclusively residential use, including lanes and parking areas internal to developments but excluding public streets, rights-of-way and all non-residential uses.

 

f.    That Document 1 – Land Use - Section 2 – Strategic Directions – Clause 11 ‘Implementation of Intensification and Density Targets’, subclause (a) be amended by adding:

 

Where the existing zoning provisions are sufficient to meet the intensification and density targets in the time frame defined by this Official Plan, these targets shall not be used as a planning rationale for approving additional height or density in excess of the current zoning.

 

And that Document 1 – Land Use - Section 2 – Strategic Directions – Clause 11 ‘Implementation of Intensification and Density Targets’, subclause (b) be amended by adding:

 

Where community design plans and secondary plans contain sufficient development potential to meet intensification and density targets in the time frame defined by this Official Plan, these plans shall not be altered for the purpose of achieving intensification.

 

3.         Direct staff to prepare the amendment in the standard format to replace the tracked changes version and to ensure that all policy numbering and cross-references are correct, prior to being adopted by by-law.

 

4.         Forward the Official Plan Amendment as adopted, along with the “Record” as required under the Planning Act, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for final approval.

 

5.         Approve the 2009 Infrastructure Master Plan.

 

6.         Receive for information the updated list of submissions attached as Part 1 of Document 15;

 

7.         Receive for information some corrections to documents previously provided and attached as Part 2 of Document 15;

 

8.         Adopt the additional proposed changes to the Official Plan attached as Part 3 of Document 15 and more specifically numbered as items 4, 6, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 26, 29, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 57, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70,71, 72, 73, 74, and 75.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED as amended