4. VILLAGE OF RICHMOND COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN, OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT, VILLAGE OF RICHMOND WATER AND SANITARY MASTER SERVICING STUDY AND CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PHASES 1, 2, 3 AND 4, VILLAGE OF RICHMOND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND VILLAGE OF RICHMOND TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN (FILE NO. [D03-01-08 RICH])

PLAN DE CONCEPTION COMMUNAUTAIRE DU VILLAGE DE RICHMOND, MODIFICATION DU PLAN OFFICIEL, MODIFICATION DU RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE, PLAN DIRECTEUR DE VIABILISATION ET ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE DE PORTÉE GÉNÉRALE PHASES 1, 2, 3 ET 4 DES SERVICES D’EAUX ET D’ÉGOUTS DU VILLAGE DE RICHMOND, PLAN DE GESTION ENVIRONNEMENTALE DU VILLAGE DE RICHMOND ET PLAN DIRECTEUR DES TRANSPORTS DU VILLAGE DE RICHMOND

Committee RecommendationS AS AMENDED

That Council :

1. Approve the Richmond Community Design Plan in Document 3, which has been submitted under separate cover;

2. Adopt Official Plan Amendment No. XX (Richmond Secondary Plan) to the City of Ottawa Official Plan, as detailed in Document 8;

3. Approve the zoning changes to implement the Richmond Community Design Plan as detailed in Document 9;

4. Endorse the recommended water and wastewater projects identified in Document 13 - Village of Richmond Water and Sanitary Master Servicing Study and Class Environmental Assessment Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4 Draft (May 2010);

5. Endorse the transportation recommendations identified in Document 15 entitled Village of Richmond Transportation Master Plan (June 2010);

6. Approve the Village of Richmond Environmental Management Plan (Document 11) that includes infrastructure and capital improvements to the Richmond Conservation Area, City-owned properties and parks; and

7. Direct staff to report back to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and City Council on the financial implications of the servicing recommendations;

8. That the following be added after Policy 6 in subsection 3.6 of the Secondary Plan for the Village of Richmond:

“7. Notwithstanding the requirement to complete a review by June 2014 of employment land needs and other issues, the City shall undertake a review of the Industrial lands in Richmond (long-term employment and land supply) in consultation with the land owners and shall report back to Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee within two years.”

9. That the Financial Plan:

a) Does not have adverse impact on any current Capital budgets and/or Development Charges revenues anticipated for the life of the current Official Plan;

b) Includes an estimate of the total cost of extending communal well services to the portion of the existing Village served by private wells;

c) Recommends funding options for the extension of water service as referred to in b) above, including possible creation of reserves from a new Richmond Development Charges By-Law.

10. That staff be directed to require the completion of an Environmental Assessment to assess the stormwater solution that would provide a review of the location of the stormwater pond, the collection system and foundation drainage.

RecommandationS MODIFIÉES DU Comité

Que le Conseil:

1. approuve le Plan de conception communautaire de Richmond (document 3), déposé sous pli distinct;

2. adopte la modification n^o XX (plan secondaire de Richmond) du Plan officiel de la Ville d’Ottawa présentée en détail dans le document 8;

3. approuve les changements du Règlement de zonage pour mettre en œuvre le Plan de conception communautaire de Richmond comme décrit dans le document 9;

4. appuye les projets recommandés en matière d’eaux et d’égouts identifiés dans le document 13 - Plan directeur de viabilisation et Évaluation environnementale de portée générale phases 1, 2, 3 et 4 préliminaires pour les travaux de raccordement du village de Richmond (mai 2010);

5. appuyé les recommandations en matière de transport formulées dans le document 15 et intitulé Plan directeur des transports du village de Richmond (juin 2010);

6. approuve le Plan de gestion environnementale du village de Richmond (document 11) qui comprend des améliorations aux infrastructures et immobilisations de la zone de conservation de Richmond et des propriétés et parcs appartenant à la Ville;

7. Mandate le personnel pour remettre un rapport au Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales et au Conseil municipal entourant les répercussions financières des recommandations de viabilisation des terrains.

8. Que le passage suivant soit ajouté après la politique 6 à la sous-section 3.6 du Plan secondaire pour le Village de Richmond :

« 7. Nonobstant l’obligation de procéder d’ici au mois de juin 2014 à un examen des besoins en zones d’emplois et d’autres questions, la Ville effectuera, de concert avec les propriétaires, un examen des terrains industriels de Richmond (offre d’emplois et de terrains à long terme) et fera rapport au Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales dans un délai de deux ans. »

9. Que le Plan financier :

a) N’ait pas d’impact négatif sur les budgets d’immobilisations actuels ni sur les recettes devant être tirées des redevances d’aménagement pendant la durée de l’actuel Plan officiel;

b) Comprenne une estimation du coût total de l’élargissement des services de puits communaux à la partie du village alimentée en eau au moyen de puits privés;

c) recommande différentes options pour le financement de l’élargissement du service d’alimentation en eau visé au paragraphe (b), y compris l’établissement éventuel de réserves au moyen d’un nouveau règlement sur les redevances d’aménagement pour le Village de Richmond.

10. Que le personnel reçoive instruction d’exiger une évaluation environnementale qui tiendrait compte de la solution fondée sur la gestion des eaux pluviales et qui donnerait lieu à un examen de l’emplacement du bassin d’eaux pluviales, du système de collecte et du drainage de fondation.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager’s Report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability dated 25 June 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0122).

2. Extract of Draft Minute, 8 July 2010 (more detailed Extract of Draft Minute may be issued separately prior to Council meeting of 14 July 2010).

Report to/Rapport au :

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Comité d'agriculture et des affaires rurales

and Council/et au Conseil

25 June 2010 / le 25 juin 2010

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, Services d'infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités

Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Manager/Gestionnaire, Policy Development and Urban Design Branch/ Unité de l’esthétique urbaine et de la conception communautaire, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424, 22379 Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca

Goulbourn-Rideau Ward (21)

Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0122

SUBJECT:	VILLAGE OF RICHMOND COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN, OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT, VILLAGE OF RICHMOND WATER AND SANITARY MASTER SERVICING STUDY AND CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PHASES 1, 2, 3 AND 4, vILLAGE OF rICHMOND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND VILLAGE OF RICHMOND TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN (FILE NO. [D03-01-08 RICH])

OBJET :	PLAN DE CONCEPTION COMMUNAUTAIRE DU VILLAGE DE RICHMOND, MODIFICATION DU PLAN OFFICIEL, MODIFICATION DU RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE, PLAN DIRECTEUR DE VIABILISATION ET ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE DE PORTÉE GÉNÉRALE PHASES 1, 2, 3 ET 4 DES SERVICES D’EAUX ET D’ÉGOUTS DU VILLAGE DE RICHMOND, PLAN DE GESTION ENVIRONNEMENTALE DU VILLAGE DE RICHMOND ET PLAN DIRECTEUR DES TRANSPORTS DU VILLAGE DE RICHMOND

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve the Richmond Community Design Plan in Document 3, which has been submitted under separate cover;

2. Adopt Official Plan Amendment No. XX (Richmond Secondary Plan) to the City of Ottawa Official Plan, as detailed in Document 8;

3. Approve the zoning changes to implement the Richmond Community Design Plan as detailed in Document 9;

5. Endorse the transportation recommendations identified in Document 15 entitled Village of Richmond Transportation Master Plan (June 2010);

7. Direct staff to report back to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and City Council on the financial implications of the servicing recommendations.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales recommande au conseil municipal :

1. D’approuver le Plan de conception communautaire de Richmond (document 3), déposé sous pli distinct;

2. D’adopter la modification n^o XX (plan secondaire de Richmond) du Plan officiel de la Ville d’Ottawa présentée en détail dans le document 8;

3. D’approuver les changements du Règlement de zonage pour mettre en œuvre le Plan de conception communautaire de Richmond comme décrit dans le document 9;

4. D’appuyer les projets recommandés en matière d’eaux et d’égouts identifiés dans le document 13 - Plan directeur de viabilisation et Évaluation environnementale de portée générale phases 1, 2, 3 et 4 préliminaires pour les travaux de raccordement du village de Richmond (mai 2010);

5. D’appuyer les recommandations en matière de transport formulées dans le document 15 et intitulé Plan directeur des transports du village de Richmond (juin 2010);

6. D’approuver le Plan de gestion environnementale du village de Richmond (document 11) qui comprend des améliorations aux infrastructures et immobilisations de la zone de conservation de Richmond et des propriétés et parcs appartenant à la Ville;

7. De mandater le personnel pour remettre un rapport au Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales et au Conseil municipal entourant les répercussions financières des recommandations de viabilisation des terrains.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis

A community design plan (CDP) for the Village of Richmond was prepared to guide village growth over the next 20 years. Staff worked with a Steering Committee representing residents, farmers, landowners, developers, and business people to develop a plan that would be a reflection of their aspirations for their community. Meetings were organized to obtain residents’ ideas which were then developed into a vision, which has served to guide development of the Richmond CDP.

The focus of Richmond will be a Village Core centered around the McBean/Perth intersection, which will be a pedestrian-oriented mixed-use area that will develop over time. Limited pockets of commercial development located outside this area will be permitted but are not intended to compete with the Village Core. The current industrial area will retain its current Industrial designation, which will serve to protect future employment opportunities as directed in the Provincial Policy Statement.

A green corridor, including a multi-use pathway system, linking the Richmond Conservation Area and the northerly end of the Marlborough Forest, is discussed in the Richmond Environmental Management Plan. A funding mechanism through a Rideau Valley Conservation Authority levy will ensure proper maintenance of this corridor in the future.

The majority of Richmond is designated Residential with policies and guidelines to provide direction on future development.

The Western Development Lands will have a variety of housing types and higher residential densities than is currently permitted in the Zoning By-law. Housing ranging from single detached dwellings to back-to-back townhouses are proposed. Residential densities will range from 17 dwelling units per hectare to a maximum of 99 dwelling units per hectare, depending on housing type.

Mattamy submitted an Official Plan Amendment application and various supporting studies, including a Master Servicing Study (MSS) following the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process and a village-wide transportation master plan (TMP). The Richmond CDP draws upon the results of these two studies.

The staff report recommends endorsement of two projects identified in the MSS: i) expansion of the existing wastewater system in Richmond, and ii) a public communal well system to serve the Western Development Lands. Sufficient time was not available to review and provide comments on the draft MSS report. Staff recommends that the comments that they will be providing be addressed and accommodated by Mattamy before they file their Notice of Completion. Similarly, more discussions between City staff and Mattamy needs to be held regarding the financial implications of the projects for the City.

Since the Village is approaching 1800 households, the maximum number that can be serviced by the existing wastewater system, future development applications will be required to show that there is capacity in the existing wastewater system.

Transportation infrastructure projects are identified that will be required as the Western Development Lands and the remainder of the Village develops.

Legal/Risk Management Implications:

If the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment were appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, it is anticipated that a hearing of approximately five days duration would result. The hearing could likely be conducted within staff resources.

If the Official Plan Amendment is refused, as it is a result of an application, reasons must be provided. The zoning has been initiated by the City and therefore reasons may but do not have to be provided should it be refused.

Technical Implications:

N/A

Financial Implications

Therefore, the appropriate funding arrangement will include area-specific charges that result in a more accurate distribution of costs and facilitate front-end financing arrangements for the designated services. Alternative infrastructure funding proposals may be considered as part of the village servicing plans.

Of the total $32,570,000 identified to implement transportation infrastructure projects identified in the Village of Richmond Transportation Master Plan, the City’s cost is anticipated to be $680,000.

The Environmental Management Plan identifies capital projects and estimates the cost to upgrade amenities in the public properties along the Jock River. Projects could be funded from a variety of sources including the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority levy, Cash In Lieu of Parkland Reserves and partnership agreements. On-going maintenance costs need to be addressed. The infrastructure and capital improvements to the Jock River corridor are estimated to be $121,700 over a three year period. The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority will request levies in 2011 to 2013 as part of City Council’s annual budget process.

Based on funds already collected via the former Township of Goulbourn Development Charges By-law Schedule C of Bylaw 8-99 for stormwater management solutions to improve water quality in Flowing Creek, a capital project should be established to fund the design and implementation of one or more of the potential stormwater management retrofit projects identified in the Environmental Management Plan.

Public consultation/Input:

Tremendous efforts were made by City staff to ensure a transparent and collaborative planning and consultation process, including the formation of a Steering Committee that generally met on a monthly basis for over two years, creation of sub-committees to involve interested residents in matters such as heritage, parks/pathways, a village-wide visioning exercise/survey that spanned several months, multi-day workshops, public meetings (Community Design Plan and Master Servicing Study), specific presentations by staff and others at Steering Committee meetings to better inform residents of the topics at hand, the creation of the Richmond web site on www.Ottawa.ca that was updated to apprise residents of upcoming events, and when required, Councillor-sponsored household flyers delivered to households in the community.

RÉSUMÉ

Hypothèses et analyse :

Un plan de conception communautaire (PCC) a été préparé pour le village de Richmond afin d’orienter sa croissance au cours des vingt prochaines années. Le personnel municipal a travaillé de concert avec un comité de direction représentant les résidents, les agriculteurs, les propriétaires, les promoteurs et les gens d’affaires du milieu dans le but de formuler un plan qui correspondrait à leurs aspirations pour leur collectivité. Des réunions se sont tenues pour recueillir les idées de la population locale, des idées qui ont été organisées sous forme de vision, laquelle a servi à orienter la préparation du PCC de Richmond.

Le point de mire dans le cas de Richmond sera un cœur de village (centre-ville) centré autour de l’intersection McBean et Perth. Il s’agira d’un secteur à usages multiples axé sur les piétons qui se développera au fil des ans. Des zones d’activités commerciales limitées seront permises à l’extérieur de ce secteur, mais elles ne viseront pas à faire compétition au cœur du village. La zone industrielle actuelle conservera sa désignation industrielle, ce qui permettra de protéger les perspectives d’emploi futures, comme stipulé dans l’Énoncé de politique provincial.

L’aménagement d’un corridor vert, y compris d’un réseau de sentiers multiusages reliant la zone de conservation Richmond et l’extrémité nord de la forêt Malborough, est à l’étude dans le Plan de gestion environnementale de Richmond. Un mécanisme de financement, sous forme d’une redevance de l’Office de la protection de la nature de la vallée Rideau, assura l’entretien approprié de ce corridor pour l’avenir.

Le territoire de Richmond est désigné résidentiel pour l’essentiel et assujetti à des politiques et lignes directrices qui orienteront son aménagement futur.

Il y aura dans le secteur Western Development Lands divers types d’habitation et une plus grande densité résidentielle que ne le permet actuellement le Règlement de zonage. On propose diverses catégories d’habitation depuis des logements individuels isolés à des maisons en rangée dos à dos. La densité résidentielle variera de dix-sept unités par hectare à un maximum de quatre-vingt-dix-neuf unités par hectare, dépendamment du type d’habitation.

La firme Mattamy a soumis une demande de modification du Plan officiel et diverses études en appui, notamment un Plan directeur de viabilisation (PDV) en aval du processus municipal d’évaluation environnementale de portée générale et un Plan directeur des transports (PDT) à l’échelle du village. Le PCC de Richmond s’appuie sur les résultats de ces deux études.

Le rapport du personnel recommande l’appui de deux projets identifiés dans le PDV : i) le prolongement du réseau d’assainissement des eaux de Richmond et ii) un système public de puits collectifs pour desservir le secteur Western Development Lands. Faute de temps, il n’a pas été possible d’examiner et de commenter le rapport préliminaire sur le PDV. Le personnel recommande que la firme Mattamy mette en place les mesures qu’appelleront les commentaires qui seront formulés plus tard avant que ne soit déposé l’Avis d’achèvement. Dans le même ordre d’idées, d’autres discussions doivent avoir lieu entre le personnel de la Ville et la firme Mattamy à propos de l’incidence financière des projets pour la Ville.

Comme le Village comptera bientôt 1 800 ménages, nombre maximum que peut desservir le réseau d’assainissement actuel, il faudra soumettre dans le futur les demandes d’aménagement permettant d’indiquer si le réseau d’assainissement actuel a une capacité suffisante.

Les projets d’infrastructure de transport qui seront requis à mesure que se développeront le Western Development Lands et le reste du village ont été déterminés.

Incidences juridiques / concernant la gestion des risques :

Si la modification au Plan officiel et la modification au Règlement sur le zonage ont fait l’objet d’appels auprès de la Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario, nous croyons que l’audience durera environ cinq jours. L’audience pourrait être menée par les ressources en personnel municipal.

Si la modification au Plan officiel est refusée, puisqu’elle découle d’une demande, les raisons de ce refus doivent être fournies. Le zonage a été initié par la Ville et donc, en cas de refus, les raisons peuvent mais ne sont pas obligées d’être fournies.

Incidences techniques :

s.o.

Répercussions financières :

Les recommandations issues du Plan directeur de viabilisation pour les services d’eau et d’égout du Village de Richmond ont donné lieu à un Plan par étapes des réseaux des puits collectifs – Ensemble des services d’eau de 14,3 millions de dollars et un Plan par étapes de l’ensemble des services d’eaux usées (d’égout) de 22,2 millions de dollars. D’autres discussions sont nécessaires afin d’établir le partage des coûts entre la Ville, la firme Mattamy et les autres intervenants. La contribution financière de la Ville aux travaux d’infrastructure dans Richmond s’inscrira dans sa stratégie de gestion de la croissance, dans ses pratiques antérieures en matière de viabilisation de terrains ruraux et dans l’approche globale utilisée dans le cadre de l’étude sur les redevances d’aménagement. La méthode de calcul pour le raccordement du village appariera les besoins d’immobilisations à la croissance que favoriseront les travaux anticipés. Par conséquent, le mécanisme de financement approprié devra comprendre des taxes propres au secteur pour une distribution plus exacte des coûts et pour faciliter l’octroi de subventions de premier établissement pour les services désignés. D’autres propositions de financement des infrastructures pourront être considérées dans le cadre des plans de viabilisation du village.

Sur le total des 32 570 000 M$ évalués pour mettre en œuvre les projets d’infrastructure de transport déterminés dans le Plan directeur des transports du village de Richmond, le coût pour la Ville devrait être de 680 000 $.

Le plan de gestion environnementale détermine les projets majeurs et établit la valeur approximative des coûts d’amélioration des services aux propriétés publiques le long de la rivière Jock. Les projets pourraient être financés de différentes sources, y compris des prélèvements de l’Office de protection de la nature de la vallée Rideau, les compensations tenant lieu de terrains à vocation de parc et les ententes de partenariat. Les coûts d’entretien continu doivent être examinés. Le coût des améliorations aux infrastructures et immobilisations du corridor de la rivière Jock est évalué à 121 700 $ sur trois ans. L’Office de protection de la nature de la vallée Rideau demandera des redevances de 2011 à 2013 dans le cadre du processus budgétaire annuel du conseil municipal.

Compte tenu des fonds déjà amassés à l’aide du Règlement sur les redevances d’aménagements de l’ancien Canton de Goulbourn, Annexe C du Règlement n^o 8-99 pour la gestion des eaux pluviale et l’amélioration de la qualité de l’eau du ruisseau Flowing, un projet d’immobilisations devrait être lancé pour financer la conception et la mise en œuvre d’un ou de plusieurs des projets de modernisation des systèmes de gestion d’eaux pluviales identifiés dans le Plan de gestion environnementale.

Consultation publique / commentaires :

Des efforts considérables ont été consentis par le personnel de la Ville pour garantir un processus de planification et de consultation transparent et fondé sur la collaboration, notamment la formation d’un comité de direction qui s’est réuni généralement chaque mois pendant deux ans, la création de sous-comités pour favoriser la participation des résidentes et des résidents intéressés à diverses questions: patrimoine, parcs et sentiers, exercice de visionnement/enquête à l’échelle du village qui a duré plusieurs mois, ateliers sur plusieurs journées, assemblées publiques (Plan de conception communautaire et Plan directeur de viabilisation), présentations spécifiques par des employés de la Ville et d’autres personnes aux réunions du comité de direction pour mieux informer la population locale sur les dossiers à l’étude, création d’un site web sur Richmond sur www.ottawa.ca, actualisé régulièrement pour tenir la population au courant des activités à venir, et au besoin, dépliants parrainés par le conseiller distribués dans les foyers de la collectivité.

BACKGROUND

At the end of 2007 staff initiated the Richmond Village Community Design Plan (CDP). This CDP is comprehensive in nature and implements the direction and policies of the Official Plan at the local level by providing guidance for future development. Over the past two and a half years, extensive efforts have been made to ensure a transparent and collaborative planning and consultation process, which is detailed later in this report.

The Village of Richmond is located in Ottawa’s rural southwest (see Document 1). It is generally bisected by the Jock River and a railway line that runs south of the Jock River. There are two significant environmental features: i) the Richmond Conservation Area, which also includes the City’s sewage lagoons with one operational cell; and ii) at the southwesterly corner of the village, the Marlborough Forest, a significant woodland feature connected to the Richmond Conservation Area by the Jock River corridor.

The predominant land use within the village boundary is residential. The 2007-2008 Rural Residential Land Survey estimates that there are about 200 ha of land remaining that permit residential development (including “Future Development” lands). There are two areas designated for Future Development, located at the western (Western Development Lands) and eastern edges (Northeast Development Lands) of Richmond. Other lands available for development include a largely undeveloped industrial area located south of the rail line and some other smaller parcels already zoned for development.

Richmond is serviced primarily by a gravity piped wastewater system that is connected by the Eagleson forcemain to the City’s central wastewater treatment system. However, there are still some properties on septic systems. All drinking water is drawn from groundwater sources, with most residents and businesses having private wells that draw from the area’s shallow aquifer; however, there are also some public and private communal wells.

The road network in Richmond consists of three arterial roads (Perth, McBean and Huntley) and a number of collector roads and local streets.

Planning Process

In early 2008 staff were informed by Mattamy Homes (Mattamy) that the company had acquired/optioned 132 hectares of land generally designated for future development (Western Development Lands).

While the community planning process made progress, including formation of a Steering Committee in the Spring of 2008, a visioning workshop and village-wide survey, and a four-day design workshop lead by Looney Ricks Kiss, consultant to Mattamy, focussed on the core of the village. There were also discussions about how Mattamy’s plans could be integrated into the City’s planning process. One significant issue was funding for the required village-wide studies (e.g. servicing and transportation) that would be required as supporting documents to the community design plan. Although efforts were made by staff and Councillor Brooks to identify potential funding, none could be found.

In an information report to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee on January 22, 2009 (ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0024), staff informed the Committee that Mattamy had decided to fund the cost of a Master Servicing Study to determine how water and wastewater servicing should be provided for the entire village, including Mattamy’s lands, through an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) application. Other technical studies were also required to support Mattamy’s planning application including a neighbourhood concept plan, a transportation master plan, a natural environment impact assessment study, and a stormwater management plan, among others. This OPA application was received by the City on April 7, 2009 and was deemed complete on May 2, 2009.

During the community design process, City and Mattamy staff have worked to ensure co-ordination of their work and to ensure that the Steering Committee was informed and was involved in providing input and feedback on materials for the CDP, design workshops, draft proposals and updates on Mattamy’s studies and progress.

Since April 2009, public and technical notification and review procedures have been undertaken for Mattamy’s OPA. Staff was assigned to process the Mattamy OPA, and to identify and resolve issues identified by technical staff and agencies. Again, there were efforts to ensure that there was coordination with the Richmond CDP to make the process seamless for residents, other interested individuals and staff. In keeping with this approach, and to ensure clear understanding of the implications of the Richmond CDP and Mattamy’s Official Plan Amendment, it was decided that a single staff report would be prepared since the staff position on both was the same, and this would avoid an unnecessary duplication of effort.

Collaborative Consultation Process

A collaborative planning process was established from the outset. Staff worked to ensure that the planning process was transparent and open. Considerable efforts were made to keep residents informed of the planning project with regular meetings, e-mails, and website updates. A village-wide survey and multiple means of notifying people about upcoming consultations ensured on-going participation during the CDP. Regular monthly meetings were held, and City and agency specialists, together with consultants, were invited to make presentations to the Steering Committee.

DISCUSSION

Planning Context

The Provincial Policy Statement is focussed on the management of growth based on the efficient use of land, and efficient land use and development patterns. It further states that “settlement areas” such as Richmond should be the focus of development with development patterns, resources and infrastructure used efficiently, opportunities for intensification and redevelopment identified, and appropriate development standards applied.

Richmond is designated as a Village in Schedule A of the Official Plan. The Official Plan’s policies state that Villages are intended to permit a variety of land uses to provide for the daily needs of residents and that they remain rural in character and scale. A wide range of housing will be available to meet residents’ needs with additional permitted uses such as retail, offices, personal service businesses, institutional, industrial and open spaces.

Surrounded by agricultural land, most of the lands adjacent to the village are protected from development by an “Agricultural Resource Area” designation.

There is an existing village plan (Volume 2C of the Official Plan) that draws from the former Township of Goulbourn Official Plan. It provides further guidance in terms of development, clearly identifies the constraints of the piped wastewater system, and states that an upgrade to the Richmond forcemain and pumping station are required when the number of dwelling units reaches 1800 dwelling units. As of 2008, there were an estimated 1450 homes. It was clear that there would be a need to address the lack of wastewater capacity in the Community Design Plan to accommodate growth in Richmond.

RECOMMENDATION 1 - Approve Richmond Community Design Plan in Document 3.

Community Design Plan

The Richmond CDP is the culmination of community, staff and many others’ efforts over the last two and a half years. In order to guide their work and to better understand residents’ aspirations for their community, staff spent time at the outset of the planning process working with residents to establish a common vision for their village. Some of the unique attributes of this community include the fact that Richmond was established in 1818 as a military settlement, which preceded the founding of Ottawa (Bytown). Bisecting the community is the Jock River, Marlborough Creek and various drains, which continue to provide drainage to the agricultural lands within and abutting the village boundary. Most of the streets are organized in a grid pattern and many heritage-type buildings remain. Still located in the core is the Richmond Agricultural Society lands that continue to be used for the Richmond Fair and other events throughout the year. It was therefore important to create a plan that would acknowledge and protect its unique attributes, but would also help direct growth in the future. This was the role of the vision.

It is recognized in the current Richmond Village Plan, found in Vol. 2C of the Official Plan, that the Western Development Lands would be developed in the future. In purchasing and optioning the lands in much of the area, significant time and resources have been allocated by Mattamy to plan a new kind of residential neighbourhood that is not typically found in a rural village setting in Ottawa. A variety of housing types and higher densities will be provided in the form of singles and different types of attached dwellings such as back-to-back townhouses. Importance is placed on creating pedestrian-friendly sidewalks and front lawns to create a more neighbourly feel. Significant efforts were made to understand Richmond and to reflect the visioning principles in the development concepts found in the Demonstration Plan.

The Richmond Community Design Plan (Document 3) is based on visioning principles that were developed on the basis of community input and later supported by a majority of residents responding to a village-wide survey. These principles further guided staff’s work so that it would reflect, as much as possible, residents’ aspirations for their community. The visioning principles are summarized below; the full version is found in the Richmond CDP.

Create a liveable and sustainable community
Protect and enhance Richmond’s historic village character
Protect the natural environment and incorporate constraints into the plan
Expand and maintain transportation infrastructure
Create and protect open space, recreation and community services
Ensure sustainability of servicing (groundwater, wastewater and stormwater systems)

The Richmond CDP consists of the following five major components: I) Land Use Plan; II) Parks, Open Space, and Pathways Plan; III) Growth management; IV) Village design, heritage and core and V) Implementation.

I Land Use Plan

A full range of land uses are represented in the Richmond CDP’s Land Use Plan, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, open space and parks uses. These land uses reflect how specific parcels of land are intended to be used. A full description of each of these land uses is found in Document 3, however, only a few of these key descriptions are highlighted in this report. At the end of this section, is an overview of the Western Development Lands and some of the area specific features.

Village Core

The Village Core designation is intended to be the focus of Richmond’s main street commercial activities. It applies to the general area located at the Perth/McBean intersection and the length of McBean Street to the Jock River.

The intent of this designation is to permit a range of compatible low-scale commercial and/or residential uses to create a pedestrian-oriented area that will evolve over time. A mix of uses will be permitted, such as: retail, restaurants, personal service business, offices and churches. A minimum height limit of two storeys and maximum limit of four storeys is recommended.

Village Commercial 1(Northeast corner Perth and Shea)

The intent of this designation is to permit development of a commercial shopping centre, which is located approximately three blocks from the eastern edge of the Village Core designation at the corner of Perth Street and Shea Street. As a result of concerns that a large format development would be created that would not be in keeping with the village’s rural character, policies were developed that would address building design, site layout/special treatments and interface to both Shea and Perth Street to ensure that the site is pedestrian-friendly.

Permitted uses include retail uses, such as grocery store, drugstore and bank, with a total maximum gross floor area of 7000 square metres and additional restrictions on the gross floor area of a single building. .

Industrial Area

The Industrial Area designation provides an opportunity for businesses requiring large parcels of land that are incompatible with nearby residential uses. This designation will assist in providing opportunities for future businesses to establish in the area so that people can live and work in their community, and largely reflects the intent of the existing Richmond Village Plan currently found in the Official Plan. This designation also reflects the intent of the Provincial Policy Statement which states that planning authorities will promote economic development and competitiveness by “planning for, protecting and preserving employment areas for current and future uses”.

The range of permitted uses include: light industrial uses, office, printing plant, service and repair shop that can be developed with a maximum height limit. Development proposals will be evaluated against design guidelines and a demonstration plan found in the CDP. Servicing of these lands will be based on the Master Servicing Study to ensure a logical approach to development.

Residential – One and Two Unit

This designation applies to the majority of the existing neighbourhoods and undeveloped lands in Richmond. Permitted uses include: detached dwellings, semi-detached and duplex dwelling units. The density of development reflects what is currently permitted by the existing residential zoning in Richmond with a maximum height limit of three- and-a- half storeys.

Subject to specific locational criteria, multiple attached dwellings (not including apartments or stacked townhouses) may be considered through a zoning amendment. These criteria include being located on an arterial or collector road, next to a park or designated open space and at the edge of a neighbourhood.

Institutional

The intent of this designation is to accommodate a range of community and emergency uses in Richmond. Permitted uses include library, school, fire station, and arena. These uses should be located and buffered from abutting residential uses.

Fairground

The intent of this designation is to retain the presence of the Agricultural Society lands so that it can continue to reflect the area’s rural roots. The range of permitted uses include a fairground and, a recreation and athletic facility. Since it is located in proximity to the Village Core, future improvements should make its interface with the sidewalk even more pedestrian-friendly.

Park

Lands that are designated Parks are intended to be used for public purposes such as parks and public recreational areas. The minimum park sizes for district, community and neighbourhood parks are identified and the role of parkettes is discussed. Associated park policies indicate that the need to refer to the proposed multi-use pathway system found in the CDP.

Open Space

The lands affected by this designation include lands located along the shores of the Jock River, which are subject to the 1:100 year flood, making them undevelopable. At the same time, they potentially provide linkages for the nearby parks creating an open space network through the village for the enjoyment of residents.

In addition un-opened public road allowances that end at the Jock River have been designated as Open Space. This will mean that these unused pieces of land can be managed and actively contribute to the open space network, but will still be under City-ownership.

Richmond Conservation Area

The Richmond Conservation Area designation is found at the easterly edge of the village. It is a largely naturalized area surrounding a sewage lagoon with one operational cell. The intent of this designation is to accommodate a variety of outdoor leisure and environmental uses that allows it to be used by the local birding community and serve as part of the Rideau Trail and to also accommodate the lagoon’s function as a utility. The types of uses permitted in this designation include an environmental preserve and educational area, and utility installation.

The following section focuses on the Western Development Lands: its unique features, land uses.

Western Development Lands

The Western Development Lands were the subject of a three-day workshop held December 8-10, 2008. The community was invited to participate in a design workshop where suggestions were provided and ideas sparked, which were reviewed by technical experts and then incorporated into an overall design concept presented on the last day. This process eventually resulted in the Demonstration Plan shown in Document 4 and more fully described in the Richmond Neighbourhood Concept Plan prepared by Looney Ricks Kiss (Document 5).

The new community will be based on the features highlighted below:

strong design elements relating to the site and surrounding area e.g. incorporation of floodplain with a boardwalk that provides a pedestrian entry to the new community;
a range of detached and attached housing types catering to residents of different age groups and incomes with an emphasis on contributing to a pleasant pedestrian-oriented street;
physical connection to the existing village, providing a choice for residents to walk or cycle to local parks, schools, and businesses along Perth and McBean Streets;
a modified grid-type road pattern with some identified green streets; and
incorporation of landscape features having significance to residents (e.g. hedgerows that are reminders of farming activities on the subject lands and a woodlot that was a playground for kids growing up in the area).

The land uses shown in the Western Development Lands are illustrated in Mattamy’s final Neighbourhood Concept Plan, which reflects higher residential densities and illustrates how the various land uses can be laid out. Although it is anticipated that these lands will accommodate higher residential densities, the Provincial Policy Statement supports land use patterns in settlement areas that are based on efficient use of land and resources. Further, the Official Plan states that a wide range of housing forms will be permitted to meet the needs of the Village’s population.

All the land use designations that apply to the Western Development Lands are fully discussed in the Richmond CDP and only some highlights are discussed in this submission.

The Residential – One and Two Unit designation will be differentiated into those having i) large lots (maximum density of 17 dwelling units per hectare representing minimum two to seven per cent of development and ii) small lots (maximum density of 30 dwelling units per hectare representing maximum 58 to 78 per cent of development).

There are several Residential-Ground Oriented Attached designations fronting on Perth Street and abutting the new north-south collector in the Western Development Lands. A range of multi-unit housing is contemplated representing a minimum of 20 to 35 per cent of the development includes townhouses (maximum density of 45 dwelling units per hectare), townhouses with rear lanes (maximum density of 80 dwelling units per hectare) and back-to-back townhouses and apartments (maximum density of 99 dwelling units per hectare).

Four park sites are conceptually shown throughout the Western Development Lands. The intent of this designation is to show the approximate location of future neighbourhood parks rather than their precise size and location.

A public school site has been identified by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Staff has received locational criteria and the need for a location south of Perth Street.

Floodplain – Interim is shown in two areas: south of Ottawa Street and the north side of Perth Street. This designation recognizes that the extent of the floodplain is subject to change in the future.

On the north side of Perth Street, berms were constructed by landowners on either side of the Van Gaal municipal drain, the same area where floodplain mapping was being undertaken on behalf of the City to determine the extent of the floodplain for the CDP. On January 28, 2010 the Board of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) approved the floodplain mapping that existed before construction of the berms. Conditions were established that would allow modification of the Van Gaal channel as long as pre-berm water levels were maintained, subject to the review and approval by the City and RVCA. Once this is obtained, future changes to the Floodplain-Interim designation on the Schedule A – Land Use can be made.

II) Parks, Open Space and Pathway Plan – see Document 6

The Parks, Open Space and Pathways Plan brings together the different kinds of open spaces as a network of green features used for people’s enjoyment, around which a community can grow. Richmond is well served by the existing park system including a district park serving areas outside the village, and numerous community and lower-level neighbourhood parks. These may be active parks which offer programmed and structured activities, or passive parks which may include benches for users to enjoy the surroundings.

The Richmond CDP states that when funds become available, some existing parks be targeted for improvements. Major park improvements are proposed for Royal York Park and Lions Park, while more minor park improvements be undertaken at Arbuckle Park, Jock River Park and Channonhouse Park. The park system and improvements are shown in Document 6.

New parks will also be added to the existing inventory through the construction of residential subdivisions and other development review processes whereby land will be given to the City as part of a parkland dedication process. Four conceptual locations are shown on the Western Development Lands and it is anticipated that a fifth park location will be located in the Northeast Development Lands, and possibly others elsewhere.

Pathways

Part of the residents’ vision for Richmond is to have a multi-use pathway system running adjacent to the Jock River and throughout the community. A multi-use pathway system is shown on Document 6 which will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and cross-country skiers. The system includes existing off-road pathways, existing sidewalks, quiet local streets, potential future pathways across public lands, and missing pathway connections where the route crosses private lands.

Expansion of the pathway system will be implemented through the subdivision process and the willingness of property owners to allow public access to their lands through agreement with the City. Criteria are outlined to help decide which pathways are priorities for implementation. Richmond’s village character should be reflected in design of the system including markers, directional signage, and litter containers.

III) Growth

A number of factors control growth in Richmond and these include servicing, stormwater management and drainage, natural environment and transportation.

Master Servicing Study

One of the major factors controlling development in Richmond is servicing. Results of the Village of Richmond Water and Sanitary Master Servicing Study and Environmental Assessment Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4, recommends that i) the Mattamy lands be served by a public communal well system that could be sized to accommodate the entire Village should residents need to abandon their private wells and ii) the existing wastewater collection gravity system will be expanded to accommodate future growth in the village and the Western Development Lands.

Excessive inflows to the wastewater collection system are caused by home foundation drains and sump pumps that connect directly to the system. Disconnecting these sump pumps and foundation drains would help to reduce inflows and likely reduce discharges into the Richmond Lagoon.

Further discussions and approvals are required and this is further discussed under Recommendations 4 and 7.

Stormwater Management and Drainage - Western Development Lands

A draft Stormwater and Drainage Plan (March 2010) has been submitted by Mattamy and is currently under review. The objectives of this Plan are to provide a drainage and stormwater management servicing strategy that will ensure safe and efficient drainage of these lands upon development, and that will mitigate the impacts of urbanization on the receiving Jock River and Van Gaal/Arbuckle Drains.

Lands within the Village are relatively flat. To limit the depth of fill required above existing grade, the development proponent has proposed the use of sump pumps. The City’s sewer design guidelines for new development:

Require that all basements drain by gravity to a storm sewer, and are located 0.3 metres above the 100-year hydraulic grade line; and
Provide for the consideration of exceptions such as the use of sump pumps subject to the proponent demonstrating justification in terms of implementation feasibility and economics as well as engineering, environmental, operational, reliability, risk and maintenance issues.

Accordingly, the final Stormwater Management and Drainage Plan will be required to provide this analysis to the satisfaction of the City prior to the endorsement of sump pumps as an acceptable drainage servicing strategy for the Western Development Lands. Staff review and support will be required before further planning approvals are recommended for the Western Development Lands.

Natural Environment

In support of Mattamy’s application for an Official Plan Amendment, a Natural Environment and Impact Assessment Study was also submitted for staff review. Although there have been numerous discussions, the final Natural Environment and Impact Assessment Study will be required and prepared to the satisfaction of the City before further planning approvals are recommended for the Western Development Lands.

Implications of development on the natural environment must be considered in development applications and be guided by three types of policies: Development applications will be guided by i) Official Plan policies, ii) enhancement of the greenspace system and iii) improvement of water quality and achieving naturalization of the Jock River corridor and its tributaries. These are described below and are further detailed in Document 11.

i) Development applications will be guided by Official Plan policies which are summarized in Section 3.3 Natural Environment Polices in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP).

ii) The greenspace system in Richmond will be enhanced by the City through:

· Maintenance of public ownership of parks and expansion of public ownership of land along the Jock River through mechanisms such as donation and conveyance.

· Protection of lands that form part of the Marlborough Forest and adjacent forested lands, such as permitting uses that do not adversely affect the characteristics of the area and designating lands that are part of the natural heritage system within the Western Development Lands as Open Space

· The development review process, land acquisition and working with landowners to provide a continuous pathway system along the Jock River.

iii) Improvement of water quality and naturalization of the Jock River corridor and tributaries will be achieved through the following City actions:

· Undertaking works on City-owned land to provide stormwater retrofit opportunities such as improvements to ditch drainage systems and the use of permeable pavement in public works projects.

· Encouraging the funding and reviewing of stewardship programs that provide information on improving stormwater management on private property and promote vegetated buffers and stream stabilization.

Transportation

Road improvements are required to accommodate future growth in Richmond. A Transportation Master Plan was undertaken for the Village to determine the transportation impacts of various growth scenarios. Transportation conditions for all modes of travel were included: roads, transit, walking and cycling.

A regional screenline capacity analysis indicates that no additional road capacity is needed for travel into and out of the Village at the highest growth scenario. However, within the Village, additional capacity will be required for future east-west travel, which can be accommodated if:

Perth Street is widened to four lanes at the eastern and western ends of Perth Street;
A two-lane north-south connection will be required from Ottawa Street to Perth Street through the Western Development Lands to accommodate development;
A two-lane east-west collector road is also identified for the Industrial Lands;
A pedestrian pathway network, including a multi-use pathway along the Jock River was also identified.

New collector right-of-ways will be a minimum of 22.0 metres wide. For new local streets, a 16.5-metre right-of-way may be considered if a sidewalk can be provided on one side of the street, street trees can be planted on both sides of the street in accordance with City guidelines, snow can be stored, and utilities can be accommodated.

IV) Village Design

Village design guidelines have been developed for use in designing or reviewing new development in Richmond. These guidelines are intended to assist in shaping new buildings/development so that they are in keeping with the character of the Richmond’s built form.

Guidelines have also been created that relate to building/site design. Views, gateways and focal points throughout Richmond are also identified as areas that require specific design attention during the development review process. In addition, examples of architectural detail such as roof shapes, front elevation details, and colours from the Eastern Ontario area are included so as to provide examples of design that would contribute to Richmond’s built form. Landscape elements are also illustrated which show how fences, walkways, and porches relate to the public sidewalk area and building elevations.

To assist in the design of future residential subdivisions, guidelines are provided that highlight important planning and design considerations that reflect the intent of the Richmond CDP, such as: maintaining a grid street pattern, incorporating constraint lands, retaining natural features that provide a sense of place and a link to the past, and ensuring that there are pathway links to the village’s multi-use pathway network.

Several demonstration plans have been included in the CDP, including the Western Development Lands, the Northeast Development Lands and the industrial lands located south of the rail line that runs through Richmond. The demonstration plan for the Western Development Lands has been subject to public and technical review and has been further described in a previous section of this report. The other two plans are less developed and show concepts as to how the road network can be laid out.

Listed in the CDP is a list of buildings of heritage interest that should be added to the City’s Heritage Reference List. In the future, residents may pursue separate heritage designations for individual buildings.

Physical improvements to the Village Core within the public right of way and on private property along McBean Street and Perth Street are described as ways that the mainstreet area can be enhanced. Also identified are improvements that can be made to the McBean Street bridge, which has been identified for rehabilitation so that there can be connections to the village-wide pathway system focussed on the Jock River.

V). Implementation

Implementation of the CDP establishes the conditions as to when an amendment will be needed. Unless otherwise indicated in the CDP, any significant land use change will require an Official Plan Amendment. For all other significant changes, a modification to the CDP will be required through approval of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.

Parks

With regards to parks, innovative strategies will be explored to advance construction of municipal facilities. Park development will follow phasing identified in the Richmond CDP with the greatest priority placed on community and neighbourhood parks, followed by pathways and parkettes. With regard to the construction of new parks, all associated costs will be drawn from the parks portion of development charges collected.

Affordable housing targets

In accordance with the Official Plan, affordable housing will be required for a minimum of approximately 25 per cent of all housing provided, which will be assessed at the time of subdivision approval.

Necessary transportation improvements

The timing and pace of development will be influenced by the availability of roads to support growth. Anticipated are two phases of development between 2011 to 2020 and 2021 to 2031.

Water and wastewater

The timing and pace of development will also be influenced by the availability of funds (private sector contributions and municipal contributions) to support growth. It is estimated that full build-out of the village could occur within the next 20 to 25 years. It is estimated that i) new approximately 3.0-kilometre, 600-millimetre diameter forcemain, ii) repair of the existing forcemain, iii) upgrading and expansion of the existing pump station, and iv) upgrading of the gravity sewers, will all be required in the first stage of development.

Starting in year five, i) construction of an approximately 10.5-kilometre, 600-millimetre forcemain and upgrading of the gravity sanitary sewers will be needed to accommodate full Village development.

Environmental Management Plan

Following Council approval of this report, the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority staff will prepare their annual report to City Council covering levy requirements, which will include a request for funds for the Jock River and adjacent lands within Richmond.

RECOMMENDATION 2 (Adopt Official Plan Amendment – Secondary Plan) – Document 8

The Official Plan Amendment will incorporate the Richmond CDP into the Official Plan as a secondary plan, meaning that the land use plan and associated policies will be extracted from the CDP and will become part of the Official Plan. Thus any changes to the secondary plan will require an amendment. Through this Official Plan Amendment, all references to the existing Richmond Village Plan will be removed from Volume 2C of the Official Plan and a new section will be added entitled Richmond Village Secondary Plan.

The Richmond Secondary Plan will provide planning guidance with policies on managing growth, which includes discussion about land use and how lands will be serviced. Additional changes to other City documents will be required. One of the changes requiring direction from City Council include: a schedule change to the Infrastructure Master Plan so that Richmond will be included as a “public service area” for the provision of public water.

RECOMMENDATION 3 (Approve Zoning By-law Amendments) – Document 9

The zoning changes, which are recommended to implement the land uses, are found in Document 9. It should be noted that zoning changes will not be proposed for the Western Development Lands or for most of the area bound by Shea, Perth and Eagleson. It will be the responsibility of proponents to submit an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment so that there can be public and technical review of all the specific changes requested.

Holding zones are recommended for vacant development areas within the village. The purpose of the holding zone is to only allow future development of these lands if there is a servicing plan in place to accommodate development.

While the majority of the zoning changes implement the CDP’s land use schedule, some recommendations were proposed to address anomalies and other issues identified by staff. See Document 10 for the rationale associated with all the zoning changes.

RECOMMENDATION 4 (Endorse recommended projects identified in MMS) – Document 13

Class Environmental Assessment Master Servicing Study (MSS)

Stantec Consulting Engineers and Golder & Associates were retained by Mattamy to prepare the Master Servicing Study for the Village of Richmond. The purpose of the MSS is to provide recommendations for servicing to enable development of the lands in the future, including the Mattamy lands. The MSS followed the Municipal Engineers Association Schedule “C” Class Environmental Assessment process to determine the water and wastewater servicing solutions for Richmond.

The purpose of the MSS was to provide recommendations for the long-term servicing requirements for the Village and for the Western Development Lands. The planning process for the MSS followed a four-phase process. During Phases 1 and 2, an inventory of existing conditions and an evaluation of a range of alternative servicing solutions was undertaken and preferred servicing solutions were selected.

During Phase 3, there was an evaluation of alternative design concepts for both water and wastewater preferred servicing. Phase 4, which involves finalizing the Class EA report and placing a “Notice of Completion” for a 30-day public review period, will be completed after Council endorsement of the recommended servicing solutions.

Although Mattamy was the Proponent for the MSS, City staff was briefed, attended consultations, and provided input and comments during the Class EA. Ultimately servicing recommendations will become the City’s responsibility and thus City support was needed.

As evidenced in Document 14, a report that records public consultation related to the Richmond MSS, considerable time was devoted to ensuring that Steering Committee members and Village residents were notified and consulted as the Class EA project progressed. In addition to creation of a technical advisory committee (TAC) and the required consultations stipulated by the Municipal Class EA process, there were many additional meetings/discussions/briefings held, including: Servicing Sub-committee meetings focussed on servicing (water and wastewater); briefings at Steering Committee meetings by Mattamy; presentations by alternative technology providers to the Steering Committee and residents; and Joint TAC-Steering Committee meetings to discuss servicing issues.

At the end of May 2010 staff received for review the draft Village of Richmond Water & Sanitary Master Servicing Study and Class Environmental Assessment Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the accompanying public consultation volume. Although staff supports the identified water and wastewater projects described below, sufficient time is required to provide thoughtful comments on the details contained in the draft MSS report. After approval of this report, staff will provide Mattamy with their detailed comments and expect that the City’s comments will be adequately addressed before Mattamy finalizes their documents and files their Notice of Completion. Once this is undertaken, the reports will be submitted by Mattamy to the Ministry of the Environment for approval.

Proposed Water Solution

The alternative solutions that were examined to provide water to the Village include i) connections to the City’s piped central water supply, ii) private wells and iii) a local communal well system. Assessment of alternatives resulted in a new public communal well system being recommended, where water is pumped from a deep aquifer to provide servicing for potential growth areas in the western part of the village, including Mattamy’s lands and possibly to supply households in the entire village should there be a need to abandon private wells.

The draft MSS identified the aquifer source, depth of wells, total number of wells, location and construction of a reservoir, treatment system, pumping systems and the distribution system.

The phasing for the construction of the recommended water infrastructure will be based on actual water demands as more and more connections are made to the system, including connecting existing homes and infill development. The number of connections to the communal well system will be based on growth and development rates in new areas, which can only be estimated. Estimating the timing of connection of existing households is less certain and probably not needed in the short to medium term.

Water Servicing - Communal Well Systems Phasing Plan
Year 0	· In-ground storage (2 cells at 1.55ML each) · Pump Station (4 pumps including fire pumps, backup power, water treatment) · Wells (1273-2600 L/min capacity each) · Local distribution piping
Year 5-15	· Add wells as required to meet demand · Local distribution piping
Year 15 plus	· Add 3rd storage cell at 1.55ML · Add wells as required to meet demand · Replace pumps as required to meet demand · Expand distribution piping system
Total Costs*	$14,330,250 (includes 57.5%- capital cost allowance)

Note: * Does not include cost of distribution piping.

Capital cost allocation includes costs related to engineering, construction supervision, contingency and City project management costs.

Proposed Wastewater Solution

There were a variety of solutions examined including i) individual on-site sewage systems, ii) communal treatment for the entire village, iii) communal treatment for growth, and iv) expansion of the existing central collection system. The recommended solution is expanding the current wastewater collection system and to continue to pump wastewater to the City’s central wastewater treatment facility.

The preferred design concept for the wastewater services includes pipe size and length improvements for the gravity collection system along specific road segments, as well as pump station and forcemain improvements and expansion.

Upgrades to the wastewater collection system and pump station are estimated to cost $23M. The MSS estimates that it would take about 20 to 25 years to reach full development potential based on 150 dwelling units built per year.

The Village of Richmond Master Servicing Study has provided a phasing plan for the preferred wastewater and water design option. Sanitary flows were projected assuming a growth rate of 150 units per year and initial and ultimate peak wet weather flow (WWF) of 160 L/s and 360 L/s. Based on these assumptions, the following phasing plan is anticipated:

Wastewater (Sanitary) Servicing Phasing Plan
Year 0	· Construct +/- 3.0km of new 600 mm dia. Forcemain · Replace section of existing 500 mm Forcemain (+/- 250m) · Expand and upgrade the Richmond Pump Station · Upgrade gravity sanitary sewers
Year 5 plus	· Construct remaining +/- 10.5 km of new 600 mm Forcemain · Upgrade Gravity Sanitary Sewers
Total Costs	$22,151,459 (includes 57.5% capital cost allowance)

Note: Capital cost allocation includes costs related to engineering, construction supervision, contingency and City project management costs.

Demonstrate Capacity

Since the limit of the existing wastewater system is 1800 dwelling units, all development applications, under the Ontario Planning Act which increase sanitary flow to the Richmond Pump Station, shall demonstrate sanitary sewer capacity at the Richmond Pump Station prior to issuance of approvals and or building permits.

Tertiary Treatment

Several individuals participating in the servicing discussions and continue to be interested in pursuing use of a stand-alone treatment system where wastewater would be treated at a facility in Richmond with effluent being discharged into the Jock River. Many questions verbal and written have been submitted to Mattamy and responses have been provided (Document 14). As Proponent, it is Mattamy’s responsibility to address and to respond to any comments received during the Class EA process. For those who are not in agreement with the process or the results, there is an appeal process available.

Stantec evaluated the range of options, including on-site treatment, and these were presented at an open house focussing on Mattamy’s Official Plan Amendment. In a letter dated October 5, 2009, Mattamy confirmed that Phase 2 of the Class EA process concluded that the preferred servicing solutions for water and wastewater (expansion of the existing central system consisting of gravity sewers, pump station and forcemain). This information was circulated to the Technical Advisory Committee and Richmond Steering Committee. Staff concur with this recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION 5 (Endorse transportation recommendations in Village of Richmond Transportation Master Plan) – Document 15

A Village of Richmond Transportation Master Plan (VRTMP) was prepared by Genivar. The VRTMP reviews the existing road network for the Village and surrounding area, assesses the ability of the existing transportation network to accommodate estimated growth in the Village, and identifies improvements within the Village and surrounding network that are necessary and/or appropriate.

The VRTMP will accommodate the existing community along with anticipated growth in the Village. Further design details such as future roadway cross-sections and intersection configurations, transit routes and frequencies; and detailed transportation infrastructure costs, will be determined through future Transportation Impact Studies associated with new development applications and future Environmental Assessment requirements.

To serve both the needs of the existing community and to accommodate potential future growth, a future transportation network concept was developed which included a new North-South Village Collector, an extension of the four-lane Perth Street cross-section, and a multi-use pathway network. In general, the concept facilitates better connectivity and service levels through the Village and provides a greater selection of alternative trip routes for motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and transit alike.

Identified in the table below are the improvements required, timing, costs and triggers that will initiate the improvements. The range of triggers include traffic warrants, decisions made to develop, and Development Charge funding decisions.

Richmond Transportation Infrastructure Projects
Stage	No.	Improvement	Costs (mill)	Trigger
Stage 1 – 2011 to 2020	1	Village Road Collector – North of Perth Street	$3.61	Mattamy Homes Development
	2	Village Road Collector – Perth Street to Burke Street	$4.36	Mattamy Homes Development
	3	Perth Street Reconstruction with Roundabout (western limit of Village)	$3.26	Traffic Warrants
	4	Martin Street Pathway Extension	$0.41	Mattamy Homes Development
	5	Perth Street Widening (4-lane Shea to Eagleson)	$4.04	Traffic Warrants
	6	Multi-use Pathway – Jock River Crossing at McBean	$0.68	Implement as part of the McBean bridge structure rehabilitation
	7	Huntley Road Sidewalk Extension	$0.05	Inclusion and Funding Timing through the DC Bylaw
Stage 2 – 2021 to 2031	8	Village Road Collector (Burke to Ottawa Street)	$2.18	Mattamy Homes Development
	9	Ottawa Street (urbanization through Mattamy development)	$3.18	Mattamy Homes Development
	10	East-West Industrial Collector (McBean Street to Eagleson Road)	$6.23	Industrial Development – Traffic Warrants
	11	Kings Grant Link	$0.81	Development approvals and construction
	12	Rochelle Connection	$2.49	Development approvals and construction
	13	Multi-Use Pathway via Shea Road (Perth St to East-West Northern Collector)	$0.62	Development approvals and construction
	Total Costs		$32,570,000	Including 30% capital cost allowance (includes engineering fees and contingency)

The implementation schedule for the transportation projects is related to the timing of development. In order to assess traffic conditions and timing of required works, Transportation Impact Studies will accompany future development applications. The timing of transportation projects has been organized into Stage 1 (2011 to 2020) and Stage 2 (2021 to 2031).

RECOMMENDATION 6 (Approve Environmental Management Plan) - Document 11

Within the village limits, there are 65 hectares of public property located along the Jock River. These lands include the Richmond Conservation Area, parks and properties owned by the City and properties owned by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (see Document 7). The Environmental Management Plan (EMP), prepared as a supporting document to the Richmond Community Design Plan, identifies capital projects and maintenance and estimates the costs to upgrade amenities in the public properties along the river. The EMP specifically proposes signage, new pathways, and pathway/property maintenance that recognizes these public lands as a system having both environmental and recreation benefits.

Through the subdivision approval process for the Western Development Lands, floodplain lands along the Jock River will be dedicated to the City. This land will be designated as “open space” and will become part of the system of public land along the River. Through the subdivision approval process, pathways and signage will be built. These improvements should be consistent with the improvements proposed in the Environmental Management Plan.

In 2005, a group of residents formed a committee to participate in a study funded by the City and managed by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority to create a management plan for the public lands along the Jock River in Richmond. The management plan produced was not approved but provided many good ideas. These ideas were incorporated into the Environmental Management Plan and comments received as part of the public and steering committee meetings since September 2008 were reviewed.

By investing in the public properties along the Jock River, Council will ensure that residents have a high quality recreational area that protects the natural heritage features of this section of the river.

Projects will be funded from a variety of sources:

Projects on City properties that are not parks will be implemented between 2011 and 2014 through the special levy with the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. The special levy will be presented to Council for approval in February 2011.
Projects in City parks can be implemented over time through the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department priority lists and budget process. There may also be opportunities through the Cash-in-Lieu of parkland ward balance.

Community projects for tree planting, wildlife habitat, clean up, education and invasive species can be implemented through partnerships between the City, Rideau Valley Conservation Authority and community groups such as the Richmond Village Association, Rideau Trail Association, and Friends of the Jock. City and Conservation Authority Grant Programs include the Community TREE Planting Grant, Ottawa Rural Clean Water Program, Green Acres, Shoreline Stabilization Program and City Stream Watch.
Partnering with the Rideau Trail and Ottawa Public Health Department to create a brochure describing the pathway network and environmental features.

The policies in the EMP and Richmond CDP will also be implemented through planning tools such as zoning by-laws, subdivision and site plan control. The policies in the plans will enhance the greenspace system in the following ways:

Use the development review process, land acquisition and working with private property owners and the community over time to provide a continuous pathway system along the Jock River. In the interim, proposed pathways identified on Schedule C of the Community Design Plan do not imply public access or any infringement of private property owners’ rights.
In staff review of development applications, multi-use pathways will be incorporated near the Jock River or other watercourses.

The estimated costs are based on information provided by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department, the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority and the Infrastructure and Capital Improvement Plan for the Morris Island Conservation Area. They are more fully described in Document 12.

Following approval of this report, the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority will prepare a detailed Infrastructure and Capital Improvement Plan for 2011-2013 that will accompany the special levy request to be presented to Council in February 2011.

Once the three-year infrastructure and capital improvements agreement expires, options for maintenance will need to be addressed. For other City properties, such as David Bartlett Park in Manotick, the City enters into agreements to provide maintenance with the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority or private contractors. Hazard trees will continue to be the responsibility of the City’s Forestry Services Branch.

It has been confirmed that a legacy fund was established to collect money that would be used to identify and implement stormwater management solutions within the Flowing Creek watershed. It has been confirmed that $185,000 was collected within the village of Richmond. The EMP reviewed the potential for stormwater management retrofit in the existing village. This involved assessing the potential to provide stormwater management at existing storm outfalls and/or on publicly-owned properties within the Village. These will serve as a valuable demonstration of the benefits of stormwater management retrofit. Consultation with members of the community and City branches responsible for the operation of prospective retrofit locations will be required to confirm the ultimate demonstration project location(s).

RECOMMENDATION 7 (Staff to report back on financial implications of servicing recommendations)

Although this report recommends endorsement of i) a public communal well and ii) an expanded wastewater system to service future growth in Richmond, the costs to the City, Mattamy and other stakeholders has not yet been established. Further discussions will be needed in accordance with the approach set out in the Financial Implications section of this report.

The financial discussions will be consistent with the following: the City’s growth management strategy, past rural servicing practices and the overall approach employed in the Development Charge Background Study. The village servicing calculation employed will match the capital needs to the growth that benefits from the forecasted works. Therefore, the appropriate funding arrangement will include area-specific charges resulting in a more accurate distribution of costs and facilitate front-end financing arrangements for the designated services. Alternative infrastructure funding proposals may be considered as part of the village servicing plans.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

The Jock River, and the parks and forested areas along the river's edge form a green corridor that meanders through the centre of Richmond. Although there are individual natural areas that are accessible to residents’ enjoyment, the Parks, Open Space and Pathway Plan shows how the natural areas along the Jock River from the Richmond Conservation Area to the northerly tip of the Marlborough Forest located can be linked.

Improving facilities and encouraging public enjoyment of the natural features and public properties in Richmond in an environmentally sustainable manner will foster public appreciation of the value of preserving natural spaces within Ottawa. The planned interpretative signage will assist in the City’s objectives to enhance public knowledge of natural heritage system stewardship initiatives. In addition, the environmental management plan contributes to the City’s commitment to establish management plans for natural features.

The Environmental Management Plan identifies areas that will require further study through the development approvals process, as well as projects that can be done by the community and the City to enhance the environment.

The Environmental Management Plan also makes recommendations to obtain funding through the special levy to the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority to make improvements to the public properties along the Jock River.

There are grants available from the City, the Conservation Authority and others to undertake environmental projects such as tree planting, shoreline stewardship, school yard greening projects, installing bat houses, wood duck boxes, nesting boxes for tree swallows, bluebirds and purple martin houses, well decommissioning, and well and septic systems upgrades.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

The Community Design Plan provides a framework for development within the village boundaries over the next 20 years. Over time, residential development will naturally attract new businesses so that Richmond will become a more complete community with services and businesses serving residents’ day-to-day needs.

Implementation of the improvements will enhance the Richmond Conservation Area and public properties along the Jock River, which are used by local residents as well as by other Ottawa residents.

CONSULTATION

As previously mentioned, there was a considerable public consultation effort associated with the preparation of this CDP. The input received included those received during the course of: 1) Community Design Plan 2) the Master Servicing Study, and 3) Environmental Management Plan. Detailed responses are provided in Document 16.

1) Community Design Plan

Tremendous efforts were made by City staff to ensure a transparent and collaborative planning and consultation process, including the formation of a Steering Committee that generally met on a monthly basis for over two years, the creation of sub-committees to involve interested residents in matters such as heritage, parks/pathways, a village-wide visioning exercise/survey that spanned several months, multi-day workshops, public meetings (CDP and Master Servicing Study), specific presentations by City staff and others at Steering Committee meetings to better inform residents of the topics at hand. The creation of the Richmond web site on www.Ottawa.ca that was updated to apprise residents of upcoming events, and when required, Councillor-sponsored household flyers delivered to households in the community.

Staff worked with the Steering Committee, which consisted of residents, property owners, business people, developers and farmers. The Steering Committee’s role was to provide feedback and input to materials and information provided by staff. Meetings were held on an almost monthly basis resulting in a total of about 24 meetings. These meetings were structured so as to permit questions from members of the audience at the beginning and towards the end of each Steering Committee meeting. Further, as a result of resident interest in park and pathway planning, servicing (wastewater and water infrastructure plans) and heritage, sub-committees were established to ensure local input into the process.

On Saturday, April 19, 2008 a workshop was organized by staff that focussed on gathering residents’ input to a 20-year vision for Richmond. Based on this input, draft visioning principles and statements were developed by staff, followed by paper copies circulated to all households in Richmond. Over 70 per cent of respondents agreed with the vision, which served as the basis for staff’s work.

Two workshops have been held to visualize how the visioning principles could be implemented into physical form. First, a four-day workshop, held in September 2008, focused on how the visioning principles could be translated into physical design for the village core. Several months afterwards, a three-day workshop, held in December 2008, focussed on the Mattamy lands, whereby residents were asked for their input. Mattamy’s development concept for their lands was based on this input.

With regard to the CDP, there were initial public meetings/open houses held in March and April 2008. A draft CDP, draft Official Plan Amendment, zoning changes, Transportation Master Plan and Master Servicing Study results were presented to residents on two occasions: an evening meeting on April 8, 2010, and a Saturday morning meeting on April 10, 2010 to provide people with opportunities to attend on different days. At the same time, Mattamy scheduled their required public meeting for Phase 3 of the Class EA process and were available to answer questions on their recommendations. Staff and others took notes of comments, provided responses to questions and later prepared written notes on the questions asked and the responses given on the Richmond CDP website so that all residents could read about all the discussions that took place over those two days.

Summary of comments re: CDP

Highlights of the comments raised through the public consultation process include the following:

You’ve done a nice job. The document is easy to follow and well laid out.
Multi-use pathways should not be asphalted.
Mattamy has hijacked the process and should not be involved in the community design plan process. Only residents should be involved.
On-site tertiary treatment was not adequately considered during the Master Servicing Study.
There was concern about the traffic impact of Mattamy’s development on the road network in the village.
The proposed Mattamy development is not compatible with the existing “village character”. How does 105 units per hectare maintain village character? The maximum density should be limited to 35 to 40 units per hectare.
There is no need for big box stores in Richmond. They are enough of these within 10 minutes of Richmond.
Do not add more commuter buses during peak hours, and bring back the Stittsville shuttle.

Public comments received as a result of the public and technical circulation of the draft CDP, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, Village of Richmond Transportation Master Plan are documented with responses in Document 16. Servicing-related comments and responses are included in Document 14, Appendix A, Public Consultation Documentation, since Mattamy is the Proponent of the Master Servicing Study and they will be seeking approval from the Province’s Ministry of Environment for the servicing projects.

2) Master Servicing Study (MSS) Meetings

Public meetings were held at specified times with regard to Mattamy’s Official Plan Amendment application and the Master Servicing Study as required by the Class Environmental Assessment process.

A public meeting was held on September 12, 2009 to present Mattamy’s development application to residents (see Document 16). In accordance with the Class EA process, the following mandatory meetings were held under the Class EA process: Phase 1 meeting, December 8-10. 2008; Phase 2 meeting, February 12, 2009 and Phase 3 meeting, April 8 and 10, 2010.

After the Committee and Council meetings, Mattamy will continue with Phase 4 and be required to file a public Notice of Completion to agencies and the public.

Summary of comments re: Master Servicing Study

Comments received with regard to the MSS are found in the Document 13 - Village of Richmond Water and Sanitary Master Servicing Study and Class Environmental Assessment Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4; and Document 14 - Appendix A, Public Consultation Documentation.

The comments and responses are shown in a table totalling over 60 pages. Highlights of public comments received during the Master Servicing Study consultations include:

· I do not believe Stantec used present day figures to calculate the costs both capital and operate for alternative solutions for wastewater (June 2009)

· I do not concur with conclusions reached regarding wastewater management. The City is already looking for ways to time shift the arrival of sewage at ROPEC to reduce the amount of untreated effluent being dumped into the Ottawa (R)iver, and even when it is treated, it is only to a secondary level. Why would you select an option that proposes to present even more sewage to ROPEC for treatment, that depends upon the troubled Richmond Pumping Station…. (June 2009)

· Pipeline vs. Tertiary: When one considers the technological advances made since 31 B.C.–14 A.D. (the reign of Roman Emperor Augustus) one cannot help but be amazed that pipeline technology for the removal of sewage has remained essentially the same… (June 30)

· Several preferred options were presented regarding potable water and wastewater options. Based on our Munster Forcemain experience, the presentation of preferred options at a public meeting involving the City means this is what Richmondites are going to get, so suck it up. (February 2009)

· …. It is also my understanding that the Open Houses conducted by Mattamy will constitute portions of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process for Mattamy’s development in Richmond. Such an undertaking is totally inappropriate… an EA should be conducted as a separate meeting not as an undisclosed component of an Open House (May10, 2009)

· The question of who will pay (and not be compensated) was brushed aside at last night’s meeting so I raise it again in more detail…. Is there capacity in the “trunk” sewer system on Perth St.? or Martin? And what about the trunk capacity crossing the Jock River and on Cockburn St.? If not, as should be the case, since Cedarstone and Hyde Park were forced to pay for and construct infrastructure of their own then hand it over to the city…. Who will pay for the needed enhancements/improvements both to the collector system and the proposed changes to the R.P.S. (Richmond Pumping Station)? (May 26, 2010)

· As you are aware, Mattamy Homes… submitted a Master Servicing Study (MSS) that failed to consider on-site tertiary treatment options despite the fact that the …. Sub committee of the Richmond CDP Steering Committee had asked for these options to be included. (March 17, 2010)

3) Environmental Management Plan Meetings

Staff met with the village Steering Committee in September 2009 and February 2010. Site visits were made with representatives from the Friends of the Jock and Rideau Trail Association.

The proposed improvements were presented at the public open houses in Richmond on April 8 and 10, 2010. They include:

Consistent signage on properties including signage identifying properties, the pathway network and interpretive signs.
Improve maintenance and recognize the recreational value of City properties along the river that are not City parks. Change the designation of unopened road allowances along the river to open space designations.
Redevelopment plan for property on Royal York Street owned by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.
Development of the Richmond Conservation Area including new paths, maintaining existing paths, parking lot, bird viewing platform, encourage bird habitat in lagoons.
Mowing to allow more natural vegetation along the river to protect water quality.
Introducing amenities such as benches, boat launches, garbage receptacles where appropriate.
Recognize and designate the forested and floodplain lands along the Jock River in the western development lands as open space.
Community projects for tree planting, wildlife habitat, clean up, education and invasive species removal.

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR

The Councillor is aware of this report.

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

This report implements the City’s Strategic Plan’s objectives for:

Transportation

Objective 1: Improve the City’s transportation network to afford ease of mobility, keep pace with growth, (reduce congestion and work towards modal split targets)

Sustainable, Healthy and Active City

Objective 6: Require walking, transit and cycling oriented communities (and employment centres)

Planning and Growth Management

Objective 1: Manage growth and create sustainable communities by:

- Becoming leading edge in community and urban design

- Ensuring that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities

Objective 4: Preserve Ottawa’s rural villages

Sustainable Finances

Objective 3: Make growth pay for itself

TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Recommendations as a result of the Village of Richmond Water and Sanitary Master Servicing Study result in a Total Water Servicing - Communal Well Systems Phasing Plan of $14.3 Million and a Total Wastewater (Sanitary) Servicing Phasing Plan of $22.2 Million. Further discussions are required to establish costs splits between the City, Mattamy and other stakeholders. The City’s financial contributions to infrastructure works in Richmond will be consistent with its growth management strategy, past rural servicing practices and the overall approach employed in the Development Charge Background Study. The village servicing calculation employed will match the capital needs to the growth that benefits from the forecasted works. Therefore, the appropriate funding arrangement will include area-specific charges that result in a more accurate distribution of costs and facilitate front-end financing arrangements for the designated services. Alternative infrastructure funding proposals may be considered as part of the village servicing plans.

Transportation Projects

Improvements to Jock River Corridor

Stormwater Management – Retrofit projects

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Please note: for the documents below highlighted in red, please click on the link immediately below to view; doing so will redirect you to the Richmond Community Design Plan web page on Ottawa.ca; these documents proved too large to link within this report. A limited number of CD ROM disks will be available, upon request.

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/richmond/index_en.html

Document 1 Location Map

Document 2 Land Use Plan – Richmond CDP

Document 3 Village of Richmond Community Design Plan (On file with City Clerk and distributed under separate cover)

Document 4 Demonstration Plan Mattamy’s Neighbourhood Concept Plan – Western Development Lands, Looney Ricks Kiss, 2010

Document 5 Richmond Neighbourhood Concept Plan, 2010 (On file with City Clerk)

Document 6 Parks, Open space and Pathway Plan

Document 7 Environmental Constraints Map

Document 8 Official Plan Amendment XX (Richmond Secondary Plan)

Document 9 Zoning Details

Document 10 Zoning Rationale

Document 11 Village of Richmond Environmental Management Plan (On file with City Clerk and distributed under separate cover)

Document 12 List of Environmental Management Plan projects

Document 13 Village of Richmond Water and Sanitary Master Servicing Study and Class Environmental Assessment Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4, Stantec, May 2010 (On file with City Clerk)

Document 14 Village of Richmond Water and Sanitary Master Servicing Study and Class Environmental Assessment Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4 – Appendix A Public Consultation Documentation, Stantec, May 2010 (On file with City Clerk)

Document 15 Village of Richmond Transportation Master Plan, Genivar (On file with City Clerk)

Document 16 - Consultation Details

DISPOSITION

City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code: 26-76) of City Council’s decision.

Planning and Growth Management to prepare the implementing by-laws, forward to Legal Services and undertake the statutory notification.

Legal Services to forward the implementing by-laws to City Council

Planning and Growth Management to amend the Official Plan’s Annex 7 - Rural, Village Plans to show that a community design plan and secondary plan have been prepared for Richmond Village

Planning and Growth Management to revise Schedule K in the Official Plan to reflect RVCA’s revised 1:100 floodplain lines for the area north of Perth Street on the Mattamy lands after City and Rideau Valley Conservation Authority approval has been received

Planning and Growth Management to prepare and circulate an Official Plan Amendment to reflect the transportation infrastructure projects identified in the Village of Richmond Transportation Master Plan

Planning and Growth Management to amend the Infrastructure Master Plan Figure 1 – Existing Water Distribution System: Schematic to include the Village of Richmond as a Public Service Area reflecting the recommended public communal well identified in the Master Servicing Study

Planning and Growth Management to amend the City’s Cycling Plan by adding the shared cycling routes identified in the Richmond Community Design Plan following City Council approval of the CDP

Planning and Growth Management to forward the Council decision on this report to the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority to prepare a detailed Infrastructure and Capital Improvement Plan for 2011-2013 that will accompany a special levy request to be presented to Council in February 2011

LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT 1

Richmond_Village_CDP_Location_MapA

LAND USE (RICHMOND CDP) DOCUMENT 2

Schedule A Cropped
DEMONSTRATION PLAN –

MATTAMY’S NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN DOCUMENT 4

PGM0122-4

PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND PATHWAY PLAN DOCUMENT 6

Schedule B Cropped
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS DOCUMENT 7

Schedule D.tif
PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT DOCUMENT 8

Ottawa bw

Amendment to the

Official Plan of the City of Ottawa

INDEX

THE STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS

PART A – THE PREAMBLE

Purpose

Location

Basis

PART B – THE AMENDMENT

Introduction

Details of the Amendment

PART C – IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation and Interpretation

APPENDIX A

Richmond Secondary Plan

PART A – THE PREAMBLE

Purpose

The purpose of this amendment is to establish a Secondary Plan for the Village of Richmond replacing the existing Richmond provisions in Volume 2C of the Official Plan. It provides a comprehensive planning framework for the village based on a Community Design Plan that was prepared between 2008 and 2010. A village-wide Master Servicing Study, an Environmental Management Plan, a Transportation Master Plan and a Water Quality Assessment Study were also prepared as background to the Community Design Plan and the Secondary Plan. These studies are based on a 20-year plan for the village.

Location

This amendment applies to the lands presently included in the existing Village boundary of Richmond. The village of Richmond is located in the southwestern end of rural Ottawa, south of Kanata in Rideau-Goulbourn Ward. Richmond straddles the Jock River and is the second largest village in the City of Ottawa having 4,335 residents (2008 estimate).

Location Map

Basis

The Community Design Plan and the Secondary Plan were initiated partially in response to the growing interest among residents and landowners about how the village should develop. Further, the policies contained in the Ashton, Munster and Richmond Secondary Plan 2003, stated that a servicing study was required when the village population reached 4,500 people which it was close to achieving at the time this Plan was adopted. The Plan is also required to prepare for growth in the Western and Northeast Development Lands, which were referred to as the Future Development Lands in the previous Plan.

The planning process was a collaborative and open one, involving community representatives, landowners/developers, City representatives and the public at large. Community involvement was led by a Steering Committee consisting mainly of local residents. The process was divided into three stages: 1) visioning, 2) detailed analysis and 3) the final steps to approval. In phase 1, a community vision was established based on six principles, which became the cornerstone for the Community Design Plan and this Secondary Plan.

· Principle 1: Create A Livable And Sustainable Community

· Principle 2: Protect And Enhance Richmond’s Historic Village Character

· Principle 3: Protect The Natural Environment And Incorporate Constraints Into The Plan

· Principle 4: Expand And Maintain Transportation Infrastructure

· Principle 5: Create And Protect Open Space, Recreation And Community Services

· Principle 6: Ensure Sustainability Of Servicing (Groundwater, Wastewater and Stormwater Systems)

In stage two, the studies mentioned in the purpose above were undertaken to ensure that enough information was available to make the Plan. In addition, a detailed floodplain analysis was undertaken in the Western Development Lands and an Environmental Assessment process was followed for the servicing and transportation components of the project.

In stage 3, various issues were brought to the Steering Committee for discussion and all the plans and studies were prepared in draft form for public circulation.

The public was consulted at various points along the way including two Saturday morning educational sessions and a four-day design workshop which were working sessions that involved the public in selecting preferences and options. As well there were a number of formal meetings that served to update the public (March 2008, September 2008 and April, 2010). In addition, the 24 Steering Committee meetings held during the process were open to the public and covered by the local media.

This Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Official Plan. A second, area-specific Official Plan Amendment, independent of this Amendment, was submitted by Mattamy Homes for the Western Development Lands. It is intended that the two amendments will be dealt with concurrently.

PART B – THE AMENDMENT

1. Introduction

All of this part of this document entitled Part B – The Amendment consisting of the following text and the attached Schedule A constitute Amendment No. __ to the City of Ottawa Official Plan.

2. Details

a) The following changes are hereby made to the City of Ottawa Official Plan:

i. Remove reference to “Richmond” within the header of the document and tab of the “Ashton, Munster, Richmond” contained in Volume 2C – Village Plans;

ii. Section 3.2.3, Section 3.3, Section 3.3.1, Section 3.3.2 and Table 3.3 and note are hereby deleted in their entirety;

iii. Remove the following reference “…Richmond,…” from Section 5.2.1 a) and Section 5.2.1 d);

iv. Section 5.2.1 f) is hereby amended by removing “…sanitary and storm sewer and private/communal wells in Richmond;…”;

v. Section 5.2.1 h) is hereby amended to delete the words “and the main streets of Richmond” and replace them with words “and Village main streets”. The subsequent points are renumbered accordingly;

vi. Section 5.2.1 k) is hereby amended by removing “Mixed use development will be particularly encouraged on the main streets of Richmond. Where appropriate, permitted residential uses with frontage along the main streets in Richmond shall orient the front of the units to McBean Street in Richmond.”;

vii. Section 5.2.2 (b) ii) is hereby amended by removing “…; and to locations on the main streets of Richmond;…”;

viii. Section 5.2.2 (b) iv) is hereby deleted in its entirety and subsequent points are renumbered;

ix. Section 5.2.2 (b) vii) is hereby amended by removing “…, but will not exceed 15 metres in Richmond.”;

x. Section 5.2.3 is deleted in its entirety;

xi. Section 5.4.3 is deleted in its entirety;

xii. In Section 6.2.1.3 a) remove the sentence “Such clusters are permitted in Richmond.”;

xiii. Section 6.2.1.3 a) iii. is hereby deleted in its entirety and subsequent points are renumbered;

xiv. Section 6.2.3, Section 6.3.3 and 10.4.3 are hereby deleted in their entirety;

xv. Remove all references to “Schedule A2 and” from Sections 10.4 and 10.4.2;

xvi. Section 10.4 a) is hereby deleted in its entirety and subsequent points are renumbered;

xvii. Remove the Township of Goulbourn Official Plan Schedule A2;

b) The City Official Plan – Volume 2C is hereby further amended by:

i. adding to the table of contents the Secondary Plan for Richmond, the following title:

“Richmond Secondary Plan”

ii. Adding as a new section next after the last approved Secondary Plan in Volume 2C of the City’s Official Plan the “Richmond Secondary Plan” attached at Appendix A to this amendment.

PART C – IMPLEMENTATION

The relevant policies of Section 5 - Implementation of the City’s Official Plan apply to this amendment and the attached Richmond Secondary Plan.

APPENDIX A - Richmond Secondary Plan

1.0 Introduction

Richmond was founded in 1818 and is the oldest community in the former Township of Goulbourn. Historically, growth in Richmond has been modest with a population that now approaches 4,500 people. Former plans included 210 hectares of land set aside for future growth. This Plan provides guidance for the development of these lands and the redevelopment of older areas of the village over time in a manner consistent with the community vision. The Village of Richmond Secondary Plan (hereafter referred to as ‘the Plan’ or the “Secondary Plan”) should be read in conjunction with Volume 1 of the Official Plan and the Village of Richmond Community Design Plan (hereafter referred to as ‘the Community Design Plan’).

2.0 Managing Growth

This Plan is based on a twenty-year planning period, from 2010 to 2030. The Master Servicing Study indicated that, at the time this Plan was adopted, the village had reached its development capacity based on the limitations of existing sanitary services. With the upgrades to these services as proposed in the Master Servicing Study, the residential capacity of the village is planned to increase from approximately 1,550 dwelling units to between 4,400 to 5,500 units (including existing units). In the Western Development Lands the expected range is between 1,800 to 2,300 dwelling units at build-out based on stages described in Section 8 of the Community Design Plan. In most of the village, water services will continue to be provided, as they are now: a combination of private and communal wells. In the Western Development Lands water will be piped from communal wells that will be owned and managed by the City. The communal well system will be sized to provide water to the entire village as a contingency for the future. To ensure that new development does not occur before the required services are available, holding provisions in the zoning by-law may be applied to vacant land.

Policies

Water

1. Development in the Western Development Lands shall be on the basis of public communal well services. Development in the Northeast Development Lands, the Industrial Lands and the remainder of the village shall be based on private or communal wells unless it is deemed necessary to convert the village to a communal well system.

Wastewater

2. All development in Richmond shall be connected to the central wastewater collection system. No development shall be permitted until the wastewater system can provide the capacity in accordance with the Master Servicing Study. Notwithstanding the above, until piped services are extended south of the railroad tracks, private services may be permitted in the Industrial Lands to the satisfaction of the City.

3. Existing wastewater infrastructure services shall be upgraded over time to provide the required capacity for the full development of the Village of Richmond. Upon submission of a development proposal, the proponent shall be required to demonstrate that capacity exists to service the development.

Transportation

4. Upon submission of a development proposal, the City will evaluate the transportation design against the Community Design Plan and the Transportation Master Plan.

5. While no additional road capacity is required to serve growth over the planning period, specific road improvement projects and the addition of new collector roads and pathways are required in the village as identified on Schedule C to the Community Design Plan.

3.0 Land Use

The land use policies in the Plan guide future development in the village of Richmond through the following land use designations with guidance from the Community Design Plan.

Policies

1. The land use designations are shown on Schedule A – Land Use, which forms part of this plan.

2. Upon submission of a development proposal, the proponent will be required to demonstrate that:

a) It is in accordance with the Servicing Policies of this Plan and the Official Plan.

b) Through the appropriate design analysis, development addresses the provisions of the Village Design Guidelines and Demonstration Plans as contained in the Community Design Plan.

3. The City will evaluate a proposal to change the designation of land from one category to another against its ability to meet the provisions in the following sections of the Community Design Plan:

a) Section 1.4 Visionary Principles

b) Section 1.5 Liveable Community Initiatives

c) Section 4 Land Use

4. In keeping with Richmond’s village character, the proponent of development shall provide a minimum of one tree in the road right-of-way of every new proposed ground-oriented dwelling and on both sides of all arterial and collector roads. If it has been determined that the soils cannot accommodate street trees in the arrangement proposed, then the road right-of-way or the building setbacks shall be increased so that trees can be provided.

3.1 The Village Core

The Village Core is the heart of Richmond. It reflects the village’s history, rural roots, small-town character and architectural heritage. In earlier times, McBean Street was once the main commercial street for the village and the Richmond Agricultural Fairgrounds on Perth Street was on the outskirts of the Village. These areas are to become the central place for the Village. The Village Core is envisioned to be a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented commercial area, comprised of smaller-scale buildings, which are readily accessible to residents, by a variety of means besides motor vehicles. The largest retail site, the “Richmond Plaza” at the western end of the Village Core, is an area that needs revitalization to complement the mixed-use vision for the Village Core.

Policies

1. Permitted uses on lands designated Village Core include: retail, service commercial, office uses, parks and small institutional uses including a primary school.

2. Residential uses are also permitted on lands designated Village Core and include: existing dwellings, apartments, residential in combination with a permitted non-residential use, multiple dwellings and retirement homes.

3. Vehicle-oriented uses such as vehicle sales, rental and service uses and drive-through facilities that legally existed on the date of the adoption of the Plan may continue however no new uses of this kind shall be permitted.

4. A maximum four-storey and a minimum two-storey height limit shall be required to define the edge of the street and to help create a village-style streetscape.

5. The City will evaluate development proposals in the Village Core against their ability to meet City Design Guidelines and the Community Design Plan. It is envisioned that the Village Core will evolve into a mixed-use street with a variety of village-style buildings, storefronts, signage and pedestrian amenities.

6. Reduced parking requirements shall be established to encourage businesses to locate in existing buildings and to help revitalize the Core.

7. On-site parking shall be located to the side of or behind buildings. If it is located at the side, the parking should be no closer to the street than the front of the building and landscaping should be used to help buffer parking areas from the sidewalk and abutting properties.

3.2 Village Commercial

Lands designated as Village Commercial provide places outside the Village Core for retail and service commercial uses. This designation is limited in area in order to focus commercial uses in the Village Core. Development in Village Commercial areas shall balance the needs of pedestrians and cyclists with the needs of automobiles and other vehicles. Any development in this designation shall have regard for all relevant City approved Urban Design Guidelines including those identified for Rural Villages.

Policies

1. Uses permitted on lands designated Village Commercial include: retail and service commercial uses, institutional uses, car-oriented uses and facilities that serve residents, visitors and the surrounding rural community.

2. The City will evaluate development proposals in the Village Commercial designation against their ability to meet City Design Guidelines and the Community Design Plan. High quality design is expected for all properties in this designation and building and landscape design shall be reflective of the village-style character.

3. Within the Village Commercial designation, the maximum building height limit should be three-storeys.

4. In order to reinforce a pedestrian environment, development proposals should not locate parking directly adjacent to Perth Street. Where it is determined by the City that parking is appropriate, it may be permitted and shall be done in the following arrangement (from the building to the sidewalk): a wide pedestrian space that is frequently connected to the sidewalk, a vehicular passageway, one-tier of parking and a landscaped space designed to screen the lower portion of the vehicles from the sidewalk.

3.2.1 Village Commercial 1

Lands designated as Village Commercial 1 provide a location for large-lot retail and service commercial uses not readily available elsewhere in the village. The Market Evaluation (February 2010) prepared by Malone Given Parsons in support of a development proposal for these lands establishes that the village currently has sufficient demand for this type of use. The Evaluation also concludes that the commercial development of the designated site can successfully coexist with the development of the Village Core. There will also be positive benefits for the village given that more residents who shop outside the village will shop locally. The reason this Village Commercial site is treated separately from other Village Commercial designations is to limit the size of the stores and to add specific policy direction for this large site.

Policies

In addition to the policies contained in the Village Commercial designation, the following shall apply:

1. The total maximum gross floor area permitted on the site shall not exceed 7,000m², and no single individual occupancy shall exceed 2,790m².

2. The City will evaluate any development containing a proposed drive-through facility against its ability to meet City Design Guidelines for Drive-Through Facilities and the Community Design Plan. Drive through lanes shall not be permitted in front of street oriented buildings along Perth Street.

3. Buildings located near Perth Street shall functionally front the street. Building elevations facing Perth Street are to be aesthetically pleasing and contain entrance doors and windows (clear glazing) with a minimum window target of 50% along the length of the façade.

4. Street-oriented buildings shall be encouraged along the Perth Street frontage with a target of 50% built form along the developable frontage at build-out.

1. Upon submission of a development application in the Village Commercial 1 designation, the proponent will demonstrate how they meet the objectives of this Plan and the Community Design Plan through the submission of a design brief.

2. Servicing of these lands will be on the basis of the recommendations contained in the Master Servicing Study for the Village of Richmond.

3.3 Residential

Residential areas are envisioned to be village-style neighbourhoods that fit well with older parts of the community. These areas will provide a variety of housing styles and a wide range of community services so that residents can age in place in the same community if they so choose. Affordable housing is also needed so that the village offers housing options for people of all ages and incomes.

Policies

1. Uses permitted on all lands designated Residential include: secondary dwelling units, group homes, rooming houses, shelter accommodation, retirement homes, care facilities, garden suites, home-based businesses, public utilities, open space and parks. Vacant residential lands that are currently being used for agricultural purposes may continue to be used for this purpose.

2. The following uses may also be permitted on all lands designated Residential subject to a zoning amendment.

a) Garden suites based on the ability of the site to accommodate the use

b) Small institutional uses such as a church and daycare located on an arterial or collector road based on a review to confirm there will be no significant surrounding impacts

c) Primary schools based on the following:

· The site is a suitable size (2-3 ha) and configuration (generally rectangular)

· It is located on two street frontages (collector/local road or collector/collector)

· As many children as possible are within walking distance

· Those walking do not have to cross what is perceived to be an unsafe or hazardous crossing

d) One or two small convenience commercial uses (e.g. coffee shop, corner store) that serve the day-to-day needs of the surrounding neighbourhood as shown at the general location(s) identified on Schedule A.

3.3.1 Residential – One and Two-Units

The Residential – One and Two-Unit designation is the predominant residential designation in the village. It provides for a range of ground-oriented, low-density residential and associated uses including detached and semi-detached dwellings.

Policies

1. Uses permitted on lands designated Residential – One and Two-Units include: detached and semi-detached dwellings, duplexes, bed and breakfast, home-based businesses, and retirement homes - converted.

2. A limited number of multiple attached dwellings not including apartments or stacked townhouses may be permitted by zoning amendment at the following locations, as long as the immediate area is surrounded by a significant band of detached and semi-detached dwellings.

a) On an arterial or collector road

b) Abutting a park or designated open space

c) At the edge of a neighbourhood

3. The maximum building height shall be approximately three and a half storeys.

4. Upon submission of a development application in the Residential – One and Two-Unit designation, the proponent will demonstrate conformance to Schedule B – Parks, Open Space and Pathways Plan in the Community Design Plan.

5. The City will evaluate a development proposal in the Residential – One and Two-Unit designation against its ability to meet City Design Guidelines and the Community Design Plan.

6. New plans of subdivision will use the historical grid pattern for streets and will ensure equitable access to parks and other open spaces as required by the Official Plan.

3.3.2 Residential – Ground-Oriented Attached

The Residential Ground-Oriented Attached designation provides for a range of ground-oriented, higher density housing forms to provide a greater diversity of accommodation that will serve a variety of age groups and income levels close to uses and services that meet their needs.

Policies

1. Uses permitted on lands designated Residential – Ground Oriented Attached include: triplexes and ground-oriented attached dwellings containing 6 units or less. A limited number of detached, duplex, and semi-detached dwellings may be permitted as long as 50% of the area of the designation remains for attached dwellings as defined above.

2. The maximum building height should be three and a half storeys.

3. The City will evaluate a development proposal in the Residential – Ground-Oriented Attached designation against its ability to meet City Design Guidelines and Community Design Plan.

4. With the exception of private driveways, on-site parking should be located to the side or behind a building so that the front elevation can be close to the street. If it is located at the side, the parking area should be visually screened from the sidewalk and from abutting neighbours.

3.3.3 Residential – Apartments

The Residential - Apartments designation provides for more intensive, non-ground-oriented residential uses such as stacked townhouses and apartments.

Policies

1. Uses permitted on lands designated Residential – Apartments include: stacked townhouses and apartments.

2. The City will evaluate a development proposal in the Residential – Apartment designation against its ability to meet City Design Guidelines and Community Design Plan.

1. The maximum building height should be four storeys.

2. A zoning amendment and an amendment to the Community Design Plan will be required to create new residential apartment or stacked townhouse sites. An amendment to the Official Plan is not required unless the height of the proposed building is significantly greater than the maximum permitted. The following criteria shall be used to assess these applications:

a) Located on arterial roads or

b) Located near a park

c) Compatible with the surrounding community which may be achieved through building transitions and compliance with a maximum density of approximately 99 units/ha

d) Of high-quality design based on the Design Guidelines in the Plan

3.3.4 Western Development Lands

The policies in this section deal with lands in the west of the village that were identified for future development. The Demonstration Plan for these lands, as shown in this Plan, defines the boundary of the Western Development Lands and will be considered in the development of these lands. This Demonstration Plan was derived from a three-day design workshop hosted by Mattamy Homes in December 2008 that focused on how best to develop these lands. The workshop was a collaborative effort between LRK, Mattamy, the City and the community. Development will primarily consist of detached dwellings, townhouses, parks, open spaces, a school and a pathway system.

Principles of Development

In addition to the policies contained in the Residential and other designations of this Plan, the following shall apply to the Western Development Lands:

1. The Western Development Lands shall comply with the density and unit mix provisions contained in the chart below:

Dwelling Type	Max Density Units/Net Ha	Unit Mix (% of Total)
One & Two Units Large Lots	17	2–7% Minimum
One and Two Units Small Lots	30	58–78% Maximum
Townhouses	45	20–35% Minimum
Townhouses with Rear Lanes	80
Back-to-Back Townhouses	99

2. Development phasing shall be in accordance with the Infrastructure Phasing Plan as contained in Section 8 of the Community Design Plan.

3. The City will evaluate a development proposal in the Western Development Lands against its ability to meet the Demonstration Plan as displayed in the Community Design Plan.

Watercourse setbacks

4. Setbacks for the Jock River and the permanent flowing sections of the Moore Branch (Sections 1, 2 and 3 lower) and the VanGaal/Arbuckle Drain shall be in accordance with watercourse setback policy in the Official Plan. In addition, the Jock River setback will also be based on the requirements of an EIS to be submitted with the plan of subdivision. The setbacks will be confirmed to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with the RVCA given the proposal to locate the stormwater pond within the floodplain. The pond must be located a minimum of 30 m from top of bank.

5. The following watercourse setbacks shall apply to the Moore Tributary. The setbacks for sections 3-5 are contingent on the outcome of the Arbuckle and Moore municipal drain petition processes.

Moore Tributary	Setback
Section 3 (Upper)	30m from top of bank
Section 4	30m from top of bank
Sections 5-8	15m from top of bank

6. The interim floodplain area north of Perth Street shown on Schedule A dictates that prior to development being permitted behind the 30 m berm from the Van Gaal Drain, the proponent will have to undertake sufficient works to demonstrate that:

· Existing flood elevations are matched

· There will be no increases in flood levels on adjacent properties and

· A 30 m setback is maintained due to the watercourse remaining a direct fishery.

3.3.5 Northeast Development Lands

The policies in this section deal with lands in the northeast of the village. The Demonstration Plan for these lands, as shown in this Plan, defines the boundary of the Northeast Development Lands and will be considered in the development of these lands.

Principles of Development

In addition to the policies contained in the Residential designations of this Plan, the following shall apply to the Northeast Development Lands:

1. The maximum density for one and two unit - large lot residential as shown on the table in section 3.3.4 shall apply to all plans of subdivision on these lands. If greater densities or a wider range of unit mix are desired, the proponent shall be required to submit a concurrent CDP/Zoning amendment to determine which parts of the table shall apply to the satisfaction of the City.

3.3.6 The Floodplain

The floodplain is a limitation on the underlying land use designation in that no new development is permitted. Vacant land in the floodplain has generally been designated as Open Space and developed land has generally been designated to match the existing use(s).

Principles of Development

1. The policies in section 4.8.1 of the City’s Official Plan shall apply to all land identified as floodplain as shown on Schedule A of this Plan.

2. The floodplain is subject to change by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. Any changes approved by the RVCA will not require an amendment to this Plan.

3. Four floodplain areas are designated as Interim Floodplain on Schedule A. This indicates that the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority has either a) approved a change in principle or b) received an application to modify the floodplain in these areas. The reference to interim on Schedule A means that if and when the RVCA changes their floodplain mapping for these lands, then development can proceed based on the underlying land use designations and in accordance with the Demonstration Plans without amending the floodplain as shown on Schedule A to the Community Design Plan or the Secondary Plan.

3.4 Institutional

The Institutional land use designation accommodates a range of community and emergency uses that serve the needs of Richmond area residents and visitors. This designation applies to the larger institutional uses in the village. Other smaller scale institutional uses including a primary school may be located in other designations such as the Village Core or the Residential designations.

Policies

1. Uses permitted on lands designated institutional include: a range of public uses such as a library, school, fire station, arena, community facilities used by the public, cemetery, church, community garden, museum, retirement/residential care facility and other associated uses.

2. New institutional uses should be located in such a way as to provide adequate buffering to any nearby residential uses. Large institutional uses such as a high school will require an amendment to the Secondary Plan and the Community Design Plan.

3.5 The Richmond Fairgrounds

The Richmond Agricultural Society runs the Richmond Fairgrounds located at the northwest corner of Perth Street and Huntley Road. These lands are home to the annual Richmond Fair, which is a major annual attraction held in the third weekend of September. The Fair is an event that has put the village on the map throughout Eastern Ontario, being one of the largest fairs of its kind in the area. It is also one of the oldest; the first Richmond Fair being held in 1844. The Fair provides “an opportunity for families to enjoy viewing the best of their neighbour's kitchens, crops, livestock and machinery. It also plays an important role in exposing the general public to agricultural practices. As people move away from the farm, the Fair is a way to remind them about where their food comes from.” (Agricultural Society website) These lands contain the Richmond Curling Club, the Dining Hall, two large agricultural buildings and other smaller accessory buildings. The Richmond Fairgrounds designation is intended to reflect the roots of the local farming community and to provide only those uses needed to ensure the long-term viability of the Richmond Fair.

Policies

1. Uses permitted on lands designated Richmond fairgrounds include: a fairground, a recreation and athletic facility and other ancillary uses to a fairground, a community centre and a recreational facility.

2. Future changes to the Richmond Agricultural Society lands should consider the following:

a) Improvements to the pedestrian environment along Perth Street

b) Greater pedestrian access between Perth Street and the sports facilities to the north

3.6 Industrial Lands

The Industrial Lands provide an opportunity for industrial and employment-generating uses that require large parcels of land and that are not always compatible with residential uses.

Policies

1. Uses permitted on lands designated Industrial Lands include: light industrial uses, office, printing plant, service and repair shop, small batch brewery, warehouse and heavy equipment and vehicle sales, rental and servicing, research, technology, nurseries, greenhouses, catering, places of assembly, broadcasting and training.

2. The maximum building height should be equivalent to four storeys.

3. The City will evaluate a development proposal in the Industrial Lands designation against its ability to meet the Design Guidelines and the Community Design Plan with particular attention to the Demonstration Plan. As these lands develop, there may be adjustments made, but the intent of the Demonstration Plan should be maintained.

4. The Industrial Lands shall be serviced based on the Master Servicing Study to ensure that there is a logical and coordinated approach to development.

5. For buildings that abut McBean Street and Eagleson Road, front and side building elevations are to be aesthetically pleasing and have primary doors and real windows (with a target of 50% window coverage) oriented towards the street.

6. Adequate buffering including landscaping and screening will be provided between uses in the Industrial Area to ensure that storage areas and parking areas are screened from adjacent properties and from McBean Street.

3.7 Parks

Lands that are designated Parks are intended to be used for park and recreational purposes and normally provide a range of publicly accessible facilities for residents and visitors. Aside from existing municipal parks and those planned for the future, there are a number of unopened road right-of-ways that end at the Jock River. By designating these lands as “Park”, greater public access can be provided along the length of the Jock River as envisioned by residents in the vision for Richmond.

Policies

1. Uses permitted on lands designated parks include: a park, recreational and athletic facility, environmental preserve and an education area.

2. Parks will be developed in consultation with local residents and parks planning staff and should be based on the following:

· Pedestrian connections should be provided to sidewalks and pathways

· The park should be exposed to local streets with a minimum of two street frontages

· Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) should be considered in the design of the park

· The park should not be located immediately adjacent to school properties but may be associated with other community facilities or infrastructure

· The park will not be used as part of, or associated with, the function of the stormwater management system.

3. The Parks, Open Space and Pathways Plan, as shown on Schedule B of the Community Design Plan, should be consulted to ensure a high degree of connectivity between parks and the rest of the village.

4. New parks will be required in the Western and Northeast Development Lands and in the Industrial lands as shown on Schedule A. Their specific locations will be determined through the development review process.

3.8 Open Space

The Open Space designation applies to natural lands not used for park purposes or that are constrained by floodplains. Lands in this designation link the parks and the shores of the Jock River together into an open space network that contributes to the quality of life for residents of the village.

Policies

1. Uses permitted on lands designated Open Space include: passive recreation, community garden, environmental preserve and education area. Agricultural use limited to the growing of crops shall be permitted but not within 30 m of the Jock River.

2. The boundaries of the Open Space designation are based on current mapping information. The precise boundary of open space will be defined by the zoning by-law. As a result, when more information is obtained, minor adjustments may be made to the boundary by zoning amendment only. Major changes or the removal of open space will require an amendment to the Secondary Plan.

3. For land in private ownership that is designated Open Space, access to these lands is not permitted without the consent of the property owner.

4. Multi-use pathways will be incorporated near the Jock River or other waterways through the development review process.

3.9 The Richmond Conservation Area

The Richmond Conservation Area designation accommodates a variety of outdoor leisure and environmental uses that allow the area to continue to be used as one of the two major environmental features within the village (the other being the Jock River). The Area will be used by the local birding community and serve as part of the Rideau Trail, which is a part of the Trans-Canada Trail. In 2006, the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority initiated a discussion with the community about management strategies for the Area. Although many good ideas were developed, a management plan for the area was never finalized. As part of the preparation of this Plan (2010), the management plan was revisited and included site visits to confirm the existing conditions recorded in the 2006 management plan and meetings with conservation authority staff on the likelihood of implementing the draft recommendations. As part of the Community Design Plan process, City staff received public comments on the Jock River and the Conservation Area, which have been incorporated into this Plan.

Policies

1. Uses permitted on lands designated Richmond Conservation Area include: passive recreation, community gardens, environmental preserves, education areas, parks, outdoor recreation facilities and utilities such as a wastewater lagoon facility.

2. The City will explore options for capital improvements and infrastructure funding for the Richmond Conservation Area and public lands along the Jock River.

4.0 Natural Heritage Systems and Heritage Resources

The City has prepared an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the village of Richmond to support this Community Design Plan. The EMP identifies natural features such as the Jock River, Marlborough Creek and their tributaries and terrestrial resources such as the Marlborough Forest and Richmond Conservation Area, local woodlots and hedgerows. Through the identification and evaluation of these features, new development can be directed away from areas that are significant or sensitive to impacts. The environmental features map is shown on Schedule D of the Community Design Plan.

Buildings of heritage interest and the layout of the community are important components from the past that should be part of the future. Therefore development shall not only be compatible with what remains but shall enhance it.

Policies

1. In relation to the protection of natural heritage systems, the provisions contained in the Community Design Plan and the Environmental Management Plan shall guide development.

2. When considering a development application, Council will be guided by the following Official Plan policies and considerations:

a) Development is not permitted within the Marlborough Forest. Any other proposed development within 120m of the significant woodland identified on Annex 14 of the Official Plan would require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Section 4.7.8 of the Official Plan describes the EIS and its scope.

b) Watercourse setbacks will be based on section 4.7.3 of the Official Plan. The minimum setback shall be determined based on technical studies completed to support all development applications.

3. The buildings of heritage interest, as identified in Appendix 3 of the Community Design Plan, shall be added to the City of Ottawa’s Heritage Reference List and Registry to ensure that demolitions and building alterations are monitored. The City may add more buildings over time.

4. To help conserve buildings of heritage interest, the Heritage Resources policies (Section 5) and the Design Guidelines (Section 7) of the Community Design Plan shall guide development.

5.0 Implementation

Implementation and interpretation of this Amendment shall be in accordance with the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan policies and the implementation policies as contained in the Community Design Plan.

1. The Community Design Plan shall be adopted by City Council as the policy direction for the village. A portion of Section 3.0 (Managing Growth), most of Section 4.0 (Land Use) and Schedule A of the Community Design Plan will be adopted as a Secondary Plan.

2. Unless otherwise specified, an amendment to the Secondary Plan (OPA) shall be required for any substantive change including a change to the water and wastewater policies, a change from one major land use category to another including the addition of a new Residential Apartment designation involving a building that is significantly higher than the permitted building height and the elimination of a park designation. In these instances the provisions in the Community Design Plan will automatically be changed with the OPA.

3. An amendment to the Community Design Plan (as a concurrent application to a zoning or subdivision application) shall be required for any substantive change to a policy or Schedule contained in the Community Design Plan that is not contained in the Secondary Plan as well as the addition of a new Residential – Ground Oriented Attached designation or a new Residential – Apartment designation where the proposed building is not significantly higher than the permitted height or the substantive re-location of a park.

4. Minor, non-substantive changes to the CDP or interpretations to the village design guidelines and demonstration plans shall be made at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals. In these cases, subdivision, site plan and zoning approval by the City constitute approval of the change or interpretation of the provisions of the CDP.

SCHEDULE A - LAND USE

Schedule A

ZONING DETAILS DOCUMENT 9

Zoning_Map_A_rezone

Zoning_Map_B_rezone

Zoning_Map_C_rezone

Zoning_Map_D_rezone

Zoning_Map_E_rezone

Zoning_Map_F_rezone

Richmond Village Community Design Plan TABLE 1 - Existing Zoning
Zoning	Description
DR1 (Village Development Reserve)	*Permitted uses* Include agricultural use, community garden, environmental preserve and education area and one detached dwelling *Regulations* No min. lot area or min. lot width requirements. Max. height: 11 m.
EP (Environmental Protection)	*Permitted uses* Only environmental preserve and education area, forestry operation *Regulations* No min. lot width, no min. lot area, max. height: 11 m.
EP1 (Environmental Protection) subzone	See EP description. Permitted uses EP1 also permits utility installation.
O1 (Parks and Open Space)	*Permitted uses* Community garden, environmental preserve and education area, park *Regulations* No min. lot width, no min. lot area, max. height: 11 m.
O1A (Parks and Open Space) subzone	*Permitted uses* Community garden, environmental preserve and education area, park and golf course *Regulations* No min. lot width, no min. lot area, max. height: 11 m.
O1Q (Parks and Open Space) subzone	*Permitted uses* The only permitted use is park limited to open space only. No buildings are permitted and only structures (signage, standpipe or other similar structure are permitted)
O1R (Parks and Open Space) subzone	*Permitted uses* Only permitted uses: environmental preserve and education area, forestry operation *Regulations* No min. lot area, no min. lot width, max. height: 11 m.
RC (Rural Commercial)	*Permitted uses* Include amusement centre, amusement park, animal care establishment and restaurant Regulations Min. lot area 4000 sq.m., min. lot width 30 m., max. height 11 m.
RC2 (Rural Commercial) subzone	*Permitted uses* Include all uses permitted in the RC parent zone such as amusement centre, amusement park, animal care establishment and restaurant Regulations Min. lot area 2000 sq.m., min. lot width 30 m. max. height 11 m.
RC3 (Rural Commercial) subzone	*Permitted uses* Include all uses permitted in the RC parent zone such as centre, amusement park, animal care establishment and restaurant Regulations Min. lot area 8000 m.sq., min. lot width 60 m., max. height: 11 m.
RC11 (Rural Commercial) subzone	*Permitted uses* Include amusement centre, automobile dealership, convenience store, funeral home, heavy equipment and vehicle sales, rental and servicing *Regulations* Min. lot area 1350 m. sq., min. lot width 20 m., max. height 11 m.
RG3 [151r] (Rural General Industrial)	Permitted uses Include animal hospital, automobile body shop, heavy equipment and vehicle sales, rental and servicing, retail store, warehouse, waste processing and transfer facility and some conditional permitted uses. Regulations Min. lot area: 2000 sq.m., min. lot width: 30 m. Exception Exception 151r also permits office and recreational and athletic facility, allows min. front yard 15 m., min. rear yard not abutting railroad right-of-way of 8 m., max. lot coverage 35%, no max. height limit
RG3 [151r]-h (Rural General Industrial)	See RG3[151r] description above The holding symbol (-h) may only be removed once the City has approved an overall plan for servicing and street layout and any necessary subdivision plans are submitted and approved.
RI2 (Rural Institutional) subzone	*Permitted uses* Include retail food store limited to a farmers’ market, cemetery, community health and resource centre, library, place of worship, retail food store, retirement home, school *Regulations* Min. lot area 4000 m. sq., min. lot width 60 m. max. principal building height 12 m.
V1B (Village Residential First Density Zone)	Permitted uses Include bed and breakfast, community garden, detached dwelling, home-based business Regulations Min. lot area is 8000 m.sq. with a min. lot width of 50 m.
V1C (Village Residential First Density Zone)	*Permitted uses* Include bed and breakfast, community garden, detached dwelling, home-based business *Regulations* Min. lot area 600 m. sq., min. lot width 45 m.
VM4 (Village Mixed-Use Zone)	*Permitted uses* Include amusement centre, automobile rental establishment, retail store, retail food store, convenience store, dwelling unit, marine facility, parking lot, shopping centre, personal service business and retirement home. Regulations Min. lot size 600 m.sq,. min. lot width 18 m.

Richmond Village Community Design Plan TABLE 2 DRAFT Proposed Zoning Categories
O1 Parks and Open Space Zone	The purpose of the zone is to permit parks, open space and related compatible uses. The following uses are permitted: - community garden and - park
O1 [310r]	In addition to the uses permitted in the O1 zone, agricultural use is also permitted.
O1Q Waterfront Access Point Subzone	The following use is only permitted: - park No buildings are permitted and only structures such as boat launch, dock, walkway, stairs, fence, retaining wall, information signage, standpipe or other similar structure providing for local access and service are permitted.
O1R exception	In addition to the uses permitted in the O1R subzone, a park is also permitted.
RC11 exception 1 (Seabrooke Heating and Air Conditioning, Lynn & Bob’s)	The only permitted uses are: - detached dwelling - office - personal service business - medical facility - service and repair shop
RC11 exception 2 (MacEwan Gas and Drummonds)	The only permitted uses are: - amusement centre - artist studio - automobile rental establishment - automobile service station - bed and breakfast establishment - catering establishment - convenience store - drive-through facility - heavy equipment and vehicle sales, rental and servicing (tractors/farm equipment) - gas bar - medical facility - office - personal service business - restaurant - fast food
RC2 exception 3 (John Deere - East of Shea and located in floodplain)	The only permitted uses are: - automobile rental establishment - automobile dealership - automobile service station - heavy equipment and vehicle sales, rental and servicing - retail store limited to the sale of agricultural, construction, gardening or landscaping-related products, equipment or supplies
RC exception 4	The only permitted uses are: - agricultural use - garden centre - retail store limited to the sale of agricultural, construction, garden or landscaping-related products, equipment or supplies
RC3 exception 3 Home Hardware and lot to the east	Only the following uses are permitted: - retail store limited to sale of agricultural, construction, gardening or landscaping-related products, equipment or supplies - animal care establishment - animal hospital - detached dwelling
RG3 [151r]-h and RG3 [151r], exception 1	The following uses are also permitted in addition to the uses allowed in the RG3 [151r]-h subzone: - research and development centre - technology industry - agricultural use limited to a nursery, greenhouse or market garden - broadcasting station - catering establishment - place of assembly - production studio - training centre The following uses are prohibited: - convenience store - drive-through facility - restaurant The following phrase “…and street layout…” shall be removed from the holding provision.
VM subzone x	The following shall apply to the new subzone: · Prohibited uses shall include a cemetery and an automobile rental establishment · Prohibited uses shall also include a gas bar and an automobile service station except those existing on the date of the passing of this By-law · 50% of the lot width, within 3 metres of the front lot line, must be occupied by building walls · Parking shall not be required for the first 100 m² of gross floor area.

Richmond Village Community Design Plan

TABLE 2

DRAFT Proposed Zoning Categories

Zoning

Description

Parks and Open Space Zone

The purpose of the zone is to permit parks, open space and related compatible uses. The following uses are permitted:

- community garden and

- park

O1 [310r]

In addition to the uses permitted in the O1 zone, agricultural use is also permitted.

O1Q

Waterfront Access Point Subzone

The following use is only permitted:

- park

No buildings are permitted and only structures such as boat launch, dock, walkway, stairs, fence, retaining wall, information signage, standpipe or other similar structure providing for local access and service are permitted.

O1R exception

In addition to the uses permitted in the O1R subzone, a park is also permitted.

RC11 exception 1

(Seabrooke Heating and Air Conditioning, Lynn & Bob’s)

The only permitted uses are:

- detached dwelling

- office

- personal service business

- medical facility

- service and repair shop

RC11 exception 2

(MacEwan Gas and Drummonds)

The only permitted uses are:

- amusement centre

- artist studio

- automobile rental establishment

- automobile service station

- bed and breakfast establishment

- catering establishment

- convenience store

- drive-through facility

- heavy equipment and vehicle sales, rental and servicing (tractors/farm equipment)

- gas bar

- medical facility

- office

- personal service business

- restaurant - fast food

RC2 exception 3

(John Deere - East of Shea and located in floodplain)

The only permitted uses are:

- automobile rental establishment

- automobile dealership

- automobile service station

- heavy equipment and vehicle sales, rental and servicing

- retail store limited to the sale of agricultural, construction, gardening or landscaping-related products, equipment or supplies

RC exception 4

The only permitted uses are:

- agricultural use

- garden centre

- retail store limited to the sale of agricultural, construction, garden or landscaping-related products, equipment or supplies

RC3 exception 3

Home Hardware and lot to the east

Only the following uses are permitted:

- retail store limited to sale of agricultural, construction, gardening or landscaping-related products, equipment or supplies

- animal care establishment

- animal hospital

- detached dwelling

RG3 [151r]-h and

RG3 [151r], exception 1

The following uses are also permitted in addition to the uses allowed in the RG3 [151r]-h subzone:

- research and development centre

- technology industry

- agricultural use limited to a nursery, greenhouse or

market garden

- broadcasting station

- catering establishment

- place of assembly

- production studio

- training centre

The following uses are prohibited:

- convenience store

- drive-through facility

- restaurant

The following phrase “…and street layout…” shall be removed from the holding provision.

VM subzone x

The following shall apply to the new subzone:

· Prohibited uses shall include a cemetery and an automobile rental establishment

· Prohibited uses shall also include a gas bar and an automobile service station except those existing on the date of the passing of this By-law

· 50% of the lot width, within 3 metres of the front lot line, must be occupied by building walls

· Parking shall not be required for the first 100 m² of gross floor area.

TABLE 3 DRAFT Zoning Recommendations
Ref.	Existing Zoning	Recommendation
MAP A
1.	13 Grovewood Lane Grovewoods Park V1C	O1 zone
2.	5945, 5947, 5953, 5957, 5961, unaddressed Perth Street properties, RC11	V1C
3.	5967 Perth Street (Seabrooke Heating & Air Conditioning), 5971 Perth Street (computer sales) RC11 and V1C	RC11 exception 1
4.	5925 Perth Street (McEwan Gas) and 2790 Eagleson Road (Drummond Gas) RC11 and RC	RC11 exception 2
5.	5831 Perth Street (John Deere) RC2	RC2 exception 3
MAP B
1.	3440 Eagleson Road (Richmond Nursery) DR1	RC exception 4
2.	5882 Perth Street DR1	V1C
3.	5906 Perth Street RI2	V1C
4.	5940 Perth Street (City of Ottawa) EP	O1
5.	5928 Perth Street (Bob & Lynn’s garage), 5940 Perth Street RC11	RC11 exception 1
6.	King Street right-of-way north of Jock River O1, O1A	O1Q
7.	5944, 5954, 5960 Perth Street RC11	V1C
MAP C
1.	Unaddressed fronting on McBean Street RC	RG3 [151r] exception 1
2.	RVCA park lands, O1R	O1
3.	5901, 5935, 5949, unaddressed properties, Ottawa Street, 6048 Ottawa Street and 6038 Ottawa Street (portion north of Marlborough Creek) RG3[151r]	RG3 [151r] exception1
4.	6020, 6038 Ottawa Street (south of Marlborough Creek) and unaddressed properties RG3 [151r]-h	RG3 [151r]-h exception 1
5.	6020 Ottawa Street (north of Marlborough Creek) RG3 [151r]	V1C
MAP D
1.	Unaddressed property V1C	O1
2.	Unaddressed fronting McBean Street RC	V1B
3.	V1C	O1
4.	V1C	Add the following holding provision: The holding symbol (-h) may only be removed once the City has approved an overall plan of servicing and any necessary subdivision plans are submitted and approved.
MAP E
1.	Perth Street and McBean Street RC11, VM4, RI, RI2, V3E, V1C	VM subzone x
2.	6264, 6270, 6274 Perth Street VM3	6264 Perth Street – V1C 6270 Perth Street – RC subzone1 6274 Perth Street – V1C
3.	O1A and O1	O1Q
4.	6284 Perth Street (strip behind fire hall) V1C	O1
5.	V1C	O1Q
MAP F
1.	6363 Perth Street (portion abutting Perth Street) and the Home Hardware property RC3, DR1	RC3 exception3

ZONING RATIONALE DOCUMENT 10

MAP A – Northeast

Rec.	Site(s)	Zoning	Rationale
1	Grovewoods Park 13 Grovewood Lane	From: V1C To: O1	Rezone from Residential to Open Space zone to accurately reflect use as a park
2	5945, 5947, 5957 and 5961, unaddressed Perth Street property	From: RC11 To: V1C	Rezone from a Rural Commercial subzone to a Village Residential First Density zone to properly reflect residential use of property
3	5967 Perth Street (Seabrooke Heating & Air Conditioning), 5971 Perth Street (computer sales)	From: RC11 and V1C To: a new RC exception zone	Rezone from Rural Commercial subzone and Residential to a new Rural Commercial exception zone to allow a limited range of uses for uses that are located outside of the core area, reflecting its Village Commercial land use designation.
4	5925 Perth Street (McEwan Gas) and 2790 Eagleson Road (Drummond Gas)	From: RC11 and RC To: RC11 exception 2	Rezone from Rural Commercial zone and subzone to a new Rural Commercial exception subzone to limit the range of permitted uses reflecting its Village Commercial land use designation, while recognizing its current uses.
5	5831 Perth Street (John Deere)	From: RC2 To: RC2 exception 3	Rezone from a Rural Commercial subzone to a new Rural Commercial exception zone by limiting the range of permitted uses recognizing the current use and location of the site in a floodplain.

MAP B – South of Perth Street at Eagleson Road

Rec.	Site(s)	Zoning	Rationale
1	3440 Eagleson Road (Richmond Nursery)	From: DR1 To: RC exception 4	Rezone from Development Reserve subzone, which recognizes lands intended for future development in the Village, to a new Rural Commercial exception zone to reflect its Village Commercial land use designation.
2	5882 Perth Street	From: DR1 To : V1C	Rezone from Development Reserve subzone, which recognizes lands intended for future development in the Village, to a Village Residential First Density subzone to reflect the current residential use.
3	5906 Perth Street	From : RI2 To : V1C	Rezone from a Rural Institutional subzone to a Village Residential First Density subzone to reflect the residential use of the property.
4	5940 Perth Street (City of Ottawa)	From: EP To: O1	Rezone from an Environmental Protection zone to a Parks and Open Space zone to reflect its contribution to the open space network along the Jock River.
5	5928 Perth Street (Bob & Lynn’s garage), 5940 Perth Street	From: RC11 To: RC11 exception 1	Rezone from a Rural Commercial subzone to a new Rural Commercial exception zone to recognize its current commercial use and to allow for a limited range of uses that would be compatible adjacent to a residential area.
6	King Street right-of-way north of Jock River	From: O1 and O1A To: O1Q	Rezone from Open Space subzones to another Open Space subzone to permit the right of way to be used as open space creating more public access to the Jock River.
7	5944, 5954, 5960 Perth Street	From : RC11 To : V1C	Rezone from a Rural Commercial subzone to a Village Residential First Density subzone to reflect the residential uses on the properties.

MAP C – South of Jock River between McBean and Eagleson

Rec.	Site(s)	Zoning	Rationale
1	Unaddressed fronting on McBean Street	From: RC To: RG3[151r] exception 1	Rezone a Rural Commercial zone to a new Rural General Industrial zone exception zone to reflect an Industrial land use designation and to permit a wider range of uses such as technology industry, broadcasting station, production studio and training centre. Prohibited uses include convenience store, drive-through facility and restaurant.
2	RVCA lands on Royal York	From : O1R To : O1	Rezone from a Parks and Open Space subzone that only permits an environmental preserve and education area and Forestry operation to a Parks and Open Space zone that also permits a park and community garden to reflect the important role of this particular public green space in the Jock River corridor.
3	5901, 5935, 5949, unaddressed properties, Ottawa Street, 6048 Ottawa Street and 6038 Ottawa Street (portion north of Marlborough Creek)	From: RG3[151r] To: RG3[151r] exception 1	Rezone from a Rural General Industrial exception zone to a new exception zone that permits research and development centre, technology industry, broadcasting station, training centre. Prohibited uses include convenience store, drive-through facility and restaurant.
4	6020, 6038 Ottawa Street (south of Marlborough Creek) and unaddressed properties	From: RG3 [151r]-h To: RG3[151r]-h exception 1	Same as Recommendation 3, but also the phrase: “… and street layout…” shall be removed from the holding provision.
5	6020 Ottawa Street (north of Marlborough Creek)	From: RG3 [151r] To: V1C	Rezone from Rural General Industrial zone to accommodate a residential use.

MAP D

Rec.	Site(s)	Zoning	Rationale
1	Unaddressed property	From: V1C To: O1	Rezone from Village Residential First Density zone to a Parks and Open Space zone to recognize that the lands are not developable due to its location in the floodplain and to reflect the surrounding O1 zone surrounding the property.
2	Unaddressed property fronting McBean Street	From: RC To: V1B	Rezone from a Rural Commercial zone to a Village Residential First Density zone to better reflect the enclave a residential uses on the west side of McBean Street.
3	Unaddressed property south of the Jock River and north of the rail line	From: V1C To: O1	Rezone from Village Residential First Density zone to a Parks and Open Space zone to reflect the fact that these lands are all covered by the Jock River floodplain.
4	Lands located south of Ottawa Street and north of the rail line	From: V1C To: V1C - h	A holding provision is added to the current zoning and can only be removed after the City has approved an overall plan of servicing and any necessary subdivision plans are submitted and approved.

MAP E

Rec.	Site(s)	Zoning	Rationale
1	Perth Street and McBean Street	From: RC11, VM4, RI, RI2, V3E, V1C To: VM subzoneX	Rezoning to reflect the Village Core land use designation.
2	6264, 6270, 6274 Perth Street	From: VM3 To: V1C (6264 & 6274 Perth Street), RC subzone 1 (6270 Perth Street	Rezoning from Village Mixed-Use zone to Village Residential First Density subzone and Rural Commercial subzone to recognize the current land use mix located outside of the Core.
3	O1A and O1	From O1A and O1 To O1Q	Rezoning to a new Parks and Open Space subzone to provide access to the Jock River.
4	6284 Perth Street (strip behind fire hall)	From: V1C To: O1	Rezoning to Parks and Open Space zone to accommodate use of lands for a pathway.
5	Cockburn Street - road right of way	From V1C To: O1Q	Rezoning to a new Parks and Open Space subzone to provide access to the Jock River.

MAP F

Rec.

Site(s)

Zoning

Rationale

6363 Perth Street and Home Hardware site

From: RC3, DR1

To: RC3 exception 3

Rezoning from a Rural Commercial subzone and a Development Reserve zone to a Rural Commercial exception zone only permitting a retail store limited to the sale of agricultural, construction, gardening or landscaping-related products, animal care establishment, animal hospital to permit a limited range of commercial uses recognizing their location on the edge of the Village and current use on the Home Hardware site.

LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECTS DOCUMENT 12

Type of Property	Description	Projects	Cost Estimate	Implementation and Funding
Richmond Conservation Area Size:	City owned conservation area, includes the lagoons	improve pathway maintenance introduce new pathways introduce consistent signage identifying properties at entrances introduce directional signage for path network build bird viewing platform parking lot improvements A study to encourage bird habitat in the lagoons add 4-6 interpretive signs on conservation topics	maintenance (3 years, May to Oct. Once a week, half a day, winter, monthly inspection) $20,000 new pathways (mowed) $2,000 signage $1,500 bird viewing platform $20,000 agreement with Rideau Trail Association for Rideau Trail Portion of pathway $5,000 parking lot improvements $7,200 Total: $38,500	Special levy to introduce new pathways, maintenance (garbage, trail markers, mowing), signage, bird viewing platform, study on bird habitat in lagoons pathway maintenance agreement (3 times a year) with Rideau Trail Association for Rideau Trail Portion of pathway
City parks along the Jock River Size:	Jock River Park, Bob Slack Park, Parkland Lennox Street	introduce consistent signage identifying properties introduce directional signage for path network introduce new pathways in Bob Slack Park, Parkland Lennox Street introduce amenities such as benches, boat launches and waste receptacles	signage $3,000 new pathways (gravel) $10,000 *amenities $10,000 Total: $23,000	*Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department priority lists and budget process.
City properties not designated as parks Size:	A number of City properties are not maintained for recreational purposes, including, Strachan and King, Colonel Murray, Ottawa St. West Open Space	introduce consistent signage identifying properties introduce directional signage for path network introduce new pathways introduce amenities such as benches and waste receptacles *maintenance	signage $1,000 maintenance (3 years) $3,000 new pathways (gravel) $5,000 amenities $5,000 Total: $11,000	*Special levy for new pathways, maintenance, signage and amenities such as benches and waste receptacles
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority properties	Richmond Conservation Area on Royal York Street, Brown Property	*Create park redevelopment plan (picnic area, access to the River)	*park redevelopment plan $5,000	*Special levy to create park development plan
Road Allowances	At King Street, Colonel Murray Street and next to Royal York Park	Change zoning to open space and incorporate as recreation space Improve maintenance *Alter mowing to allow more natural vegetation along the river while incorporating access points	*maintenance (3 years) $6,000	*Special levy for maintenance
Open space in the western development lands	Designate the hazard land along the Jock River in the western development lands as open space	Incorporate the open space designation in the Community Design Plan Pathways introduced through the Plan of Subdivision approval process.	*maintenance (3 years) $6,000	*Special levy for maintenance
Total Cost			$121,700

CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 16

Consultations:

1. Written comments re: draft CDP, OPA, Zoning Amendment, Environmental Management Plan, Transportation Master Plan

2. Public Comments – Village of Richmond Master Servicing Study and Class Environmental Assessment Phases 1, 2, 3 & 4 – See comments and responses in Document 14

3. Public Comments (written) – Public meeting – Mattamy’s Official Plan Amendment, September 12, 2009

Written Public Comments Village of Richmond Community Design Plan, Official Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Environmental Management Plan and Transportation Master Plan *July 8, 2010 - All individual names have been removed*
Comment		Response
Community Design Plan (General Comments)
1	‘Richmond is in the country, and we live here for a reason…’	Comment noted.
2	On behalf of Mattamy Homes, we would like to thank the City for conducting a thorough and comprehensive Community Design Plan (CDP) process. The time and effort invested in the process is appreciated.	Comments noted.
3	After my first childish thought of keeping the village the same forever and ever, I concluded that I had to decide between growth or ghost. Therefore my ideal was to have limited growth (200 to 250 homes per year). And since each developer seems to have its distinctive architecture, my hope was to have these infills developed by different companies, each with a different approach to the design of its homes. This would mean, as I walked through the village, I would encounter along the way eye-catching, different views.	While the City has limited control over the number of homes built per year, Mattamy has proposed to phase the development over many years with an expected rate of 100-150 units per year. They have also said that they will develop a new portfolio of village-style housing designs tailored to the village of Richmond.
4	The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) has completed a review of the draft CDP. Generally we find the plan to be very comprehensive in the manner that it addresses the broad range of planning and land use issues within the village. The CDP appropriately recognizes the natural and aesthetic value of the Jock River and how it influenced village character and historical patterns of land use.	Comments noted.
5	I am writing to protest the Mattamy Development in Richmond. We have lived in Richmond for some 50 years and raised four children. We drove two vehicles and never required bus service. We are quite happy. Everything necessary is available – grocery store, drug store, banks, liquor store, churches, hair dressers, restaurants, consignment stores, schools, bakery, veterinarian, doctors, plumbers, carpenters, other handymen and many others.	It is recognized that some residents are happy with the village as it is now and only want gradual change. Unfortunately the normal rate of change is no longer an option. The existing sanitary sewer system is nearing capacity. Significant infrastructure improvements are needed in order to ensure even limited growth into the future. The draft CDP will ensure that these infrastructure improvements are put in place and that new development will fit within the existing village context as determined by the community through six visionary principles and two design workshops.
6	You’ve done a very nice job. The document is easy to follow and well laid out.	Comment noted.
7	Numerous drawings and plans throughout the CDP were produced by Looney Ricks Kiss; it is recommended that these drawings and plans be sourced accordingly.	Rather than give LRK credit for every photo or illustration, it is suggested that a note be added to the inside cover that would recognize their contribution.
8	Redo CDP with resident input only – no developers. The CDP process has been hijacked by Mattamy Homes. I attended both of the Information Sessions at the Richmond Community Centre on April 8th and 10th. Mattamy Homes’ advertisement in The Ottawa Citizen billed these meetings as an Information Session concerned with their proposed amendment to the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan. The City of Ottawa’s advertisement in The Stittsville News billed these meetings as an Information Session about Richmond’s Community Development Plan (CDP). In short, Mattamy Homes has been the elephant in the room when it comes to the Richmond CDP. A group of attendees at the monthly CDP meetings believe that the CDP process has been hijacked by Mattamy Homes and joint Informational Meetings like the meetings on the 8th and 10th support said contention. It should be noted that several members of the Richmond Village Association met with Councillor Brooks, at his request, prior to the start of the CDP process where he indicated that “all landowners in Richmond” should be involved in the CDP process. While grave reservations were expressed about Mattamy’s involvement in the CDP process, the Councillor was adamant and proceeded to appoint a Steering Committee for the CDP process which did not represent Richmond’s demographics.	The draft CDP reflects significant input by Richmond residents. Some of this input was via public workshops and questionnaires sent to each household and some was provided by a Steering Committee. Only three of the 20 Steering Committee members were considered developers. The three developers were restricted to non-voting member status.
9	Development is supposed to be able to demonstrate improvements for the area in which development is to take place. I see nothing of the sort rather I see a city clamouring for development fees willing to prostitute another village!	The Plan would allow the Future Development Lands and the Industrial Lands to develop based on significant public input and two design workshops held in the community. Among other things, it includes: · New parks and parkettes · The retention of natural features including the creation of a large open space area in the southwest corner of the village · The retention of floodplain lands · New roads, street trees and sidewalks · New conceptual footbridges including one linking the Western Development Lands with Martin Street · A new school · A widened Perth Street at two locations including a new roundabout · Increased sewer capacity that would allow new development to occur and improve the functioning of the existing village-wide system · A strategy to improve the village core · New stores in the village · The beginnings of a back-up, village-wide water system should the shallow aquifer fail · Pathways and other improvements in the Richmond Conservation Area
10	Hydro Ottawa – does not object to the plans but is providing implementation comments. Hydro Ottawa’s standard construction is underground within new residential subdivisions and overhead in all other areas that is overhead on arterial and collector roads and within commercial areas. Upgraded work may be required on Garvin, Perth and Ottawa Streets including extending the overhead distribution and re-working the existing poles. Construction on other streets may also be required to connect line, depending on the final design. There is currently no local substation capacity to supply development of this scope. Hydro Ottawa will be considering installing an additional substation transformer in 2 of its existing substations. Installing additional substation transformers is a significant project and may require in excess of 2 years for design, equipment procurement and construction.	Comments noted.
Community Design Plan (Introductory Sections 1-3)
11	In the third sentence on page 1, change “adopted” to “initiated”.	This change will be made.
12	It is noted in Section 1.1 – Community Consultation that the Master Servicing Study was, “prepared by Stantec on behalf of Mattamy Homes…” Although the study was financed by Mattamy, it has been our understanding that the work was being done on behalf of the City for the entire area within the Village of Richmond boundary.	Comment noted. The text will be modified.
13	Section 1.1 – Community Consultation: In the last sentence of the first paragraph, it is recommended that “residents” be added to the list of persons notified (“…web site was used to post information and flyers, notifying residents and property owners…”). After the “Steering Committee” paragraph, it is recommended that a second paragraph be added providing details regarding Committee structure and representation. The following text is suggested: “Through the Ward Councillor, a Steering Committee made up of representatives from the Village was established to facilitate a community-based approach to guide and develop the Community Design Plan for the Village of Richmond. The Steering Committee is comprised of residents, farmers, the Richmond Village Association, business people, and individuals/companies with a development interest. The Steering Committee created an opportunity for community members to provide a direct contribution to the Village Plan.	These changes will be made
14	Section 1.2 – Planning Process: It is recommended that dates for the Educational and Visioning sessions be included in the text. It is also recommended that it be specified that these sessions were led by the City of Ottawa.	These changes will be made
15	Section 1.3 – The Four Day Workshop: In the second sentence of the first paragraph, it is recommended that LRK be described as an “American Architectural and Community Design Firm”. This section should emphasize the focus on the Village Core.	These changes will be made
16	RVCA -In Principles 4 and 5 it is important to acknowledge that further investigations will have to be undertaken to determine the best routing for a pathway to avoid impacts on natural features and the floodplain.	Comment noted. A policy will be added to Section 6.1 dealing with this matter.
17	The inclusion in Principle 5 of the statement “Richmond residents value the open spaces, agricultural lands, and vacant areas (even if it is privately owned) as important aspects of the community” is offensive and potentially a disadvantage to owners of large tracts of vacant land.	Comment noted. The principles were developed by the community to guide the Plan and should not be changed.
18	The tone of the discussion of “new development” in Principle 6 is disconcerting. Extensive work has been completed by Golder Associates and Stantec demonstrating the quantity, quality and security of the groundwater supply for existing and future development in Richmond. It is sufficient to state that new development will pay for upgrades/expansion to the wastewater treatment capacity.	Comment noted. The principles were developed by the community to guide the Plan and should not be changed.
19	Principle 6 is contradictory in that it states that municipal sewer and water should be utilized and that a local, self-sufficient water supply and wastewater treatment facility should be explored.	The six principles were prepared to reflect the input of Richmond residents. As a result, we are not at liberty to change them. However it should be pointed out that there may not be a contradiction and that both of these statements actually reflect quite well the dynamics of the discussion that has taken place over the past two years around these issues.
20	Under the heading Open Space Networks in Section 1.5 the phrase “that are compatible with the constraints” should be added. Also wastewater servicing should be added to the table.	This open space phrase will be added but servicing will not. It is expected that the process to confirm the wastewater servicing system will extend beyond the date this Plan is adopted.
21	Add a reference to the Planning Act in Section 2.1 as it is the legislative trigger for the Provincial Policy Statement.	A reference will be added.
22	Comments on Section 2.3 - The RVCA does not support a generalization that floodplains provide opportunities for stormwater management. The third paragraph needs to be reworded with respect to the requirements of the PPS.	This reference shall be removed. This paragraph will be reworded.
23	The Village of Richmond is not currently a “Public Service Area” for water as indicated in the Infrastructure Master Plan. Although Section 3.1 of the CDP presents information related to servicing, we are concerned that the level of detail is not adequate to address the requirements of Section 2.3.2, Policy 4. It is recommended that the Infrastructure Master Plan and Section 3.1 be updated to: · Reference to Official Plan requirement · Define the “Public Service Area” · Illustrate the Area on a map.	The requirements will be reviewed however this may be premature as the final disposition of the Master Servicing Study may extend beyond the adoption of the CDP.
24	What is the foundation for Policy 2 in Section 3.1 – Master Servicing Study (Water) that suggests that “water infrastructure services shall be upgraded to provide for the gradual conversion of existing development from private wells to a village-wide communal system if deemed necessary”? We are not aware of any risk being identified for existing private and/or communal wells in the Village.	This is a failsafe provision to provide the village with some security should the groundwater aquifer that provides water to individual wells becomes contaminated. In the event this happens, then the proposed piped water system could be extended to the entire village. Since this event may never happen, then no levies or fees are anticipated at this time.
25	Clarification of Policy 3 in Section 3.1 – Master Servicing Study (Wastewater) stating “no new development shall be permitted until the wastewater system can provide the capacity in accordance with the Master Servicing Study” is required.	This provision has been included as a red flag to development, indicating that the existing system is nearing capacity and needs to be upgraded before development can occur.
26	Section 3.1 – Master Servicing Study In the first sentence, it is recommended that additional details regarding the preparation of the Master Servicing Study be included as follows: “As a background to the Plan, a Master Servicing Study (2010) for the Village of Richmond was prepared by Stantec Consulting with Golder and Associates. The purpose of the Master Servicing Study is to provide recommendations for the long term servicing of existing and future development within the Village boundary. The Study followed the Municipal Engineers Association Class Environmental Assessment Process. That recommends water and wastewater systems be developed to accommodate future growth.”	These changes will be made
27	In Section 3.1, it is recommended that the first sentence in the “Wastewater” paragraph be revised to indicate that the Pumping Station be expanded and upgraded in order to service all future development (not just development on the Western and Industrial lands). Also, it is recommended that part c) be updated to specify “…the expansion/upgrade…”	These changes will be made
28	In Section 3.1, it is recommended that the last sentence of Policy 4 be revised as follows: “… to eliminate the sources of extraneous flow that directly connect to the sanitary system from the Richmond wastewater collection system.”	This change will be made
29	Rideau Valley Conservation Authority comments on Section 3.2 - Historical development in the village has always recognized the risk associated with flooding from the Jock River long before we had floodplain mapping. This context should be recognized in this section. Reference should be made to the Lower Rideau River Watershed Strategy (2005) The statement that starts with “Although efficient at draining…” is too general and needs a more accurate description of what the City and the RVCA do. Describe the Marlborough Forest and the Richmond Conservation Area as being part of the natural heritage system. In policies 1 b), c), f), h) and i) change “should” to “shall”. In policy 1 j) v), broaden the “stewardship by village residents” reference. Policy 2 a) should include the mechanisms to implement public ownership. Change the introduction in 2 b) to “Designate those lands that are part of the natural heritage system within the Western Development Lands as Village Natural Feature.” Policy 3 insert the word “corridor” between “River” and “and” Policy 3 a) – it is difficult to measure effectiveness of stewardship practices at the village level. Rephrase policy 4 b)	This context will be added to the section. This reference will be added. This change will be made. This change will be made. This change will be made. This change will be made. This change will be made. This change will be made. This change will be made. Comment noted. This section will be removed as it is not policy
30	Section 3.3 – Transportation: In the second paragraph on page 23, it is recommended that the following revision be made to reflect the wording in the Transportation Master Plan: “…before when the new growth areas are 70 per cent built-out.” On page 24, Policies 11 and 15 reference Section 8.6 of the CDP regarding guidelines for road development. Section 8.6 and the guidelines for road development are not included in the document. We would like to review the guidelines for road development should they be included in the CDP.	These changes will be made. The reference to road guidelines should read 7.5 not 8.6.
31	Bell Canada – In policy 3.3 (16) add a fourth condition which would read “ Utilities can be provided”	This condition will be added.
32	It is unfortunate that the draft CDP includes the statement in Section 3.4 Economic Strategy (Economic Directions) that “big box stores and large single use shopping plazas are considered to be more suburban in nature and not appropriate for the Village at this time. It is not at all clear what is meant by “big box stores” or “large single use shopping plazas”.	To clarify what is meant by big box stores, it is suggested that “in excess of 3,000 m2’ be added. This is consistent with other policies contained in the Plan.
Community Design Plan (Commercial)
33	There is no need for large box stores. There are enough of these within ten minutes of Richmond.	In the Village Commercial 1 designation, a limit of 2,790 m2 (30,000 ft2) was established to preclude big box stores like Walmart or Canadian Tire, which are normally around 11,000 m2 (120,000 ft2) in size.
34	“Buildings located near Perth ….minimum window target of 50% along the length of the street.” Does this mean the 1^st storey only? In 4.2.1, Policy 4, the reference to “street” at the end of the paragraph should be “building”	This applies to the entire elevation of the building facing the street. To be more accurate, the last reference to “street” in the policy will be changed to “building”
35	Pg 31: 5. “Street –oriented buildings shall…along the developable frontage for buildings at build-out.” What does that mean??	This means that, as a target, 50% of the frontage along Perth Street should be occupied by buildings rather than parking lots.
Community Design Plan (Residential)
36	Mattamy has always been coy about how many homes might be included in their proposed development.	Comment noted. The targeted maximum number of homes for the Western Development Lands is 2,300.
37	No matter how one cuts it, a developer builds homes according to the corporate ideal. All developers’ homes are essentially the same; all Mattamy’s homes essentially look the same. Street after street after street. No refreshment for the eye there.	Comment noted. This issue was addressed by the Steering Committee and the results of that discussion are reflected in the Plan. In January 2010 a group of Steering Committee members and members of the public visited a number of west end developments. Most of the comments on the Mattamy Fairwinds community in Kanata were positive and included: · Variety of styles interesting · Back-to-back with front yards all around has lots of curb appeal · Lanes in back had nice family feel · Single homes had recessed garages, very nice, homey · Nice to mix towns with singles However this public comment remains a valid concern and is a matter of design. One suggestion that we know works is to have different architects/designers take on different areas. Bombardier used this approach for the Bois Francs community in Montreal. For example, Mattamy could take a different design approach to each of the four stages while following the design guidelines.
38	Maintain large lot sizes. High density is undesirable and is not in line with the village character. How does 105 u/ha maintain village character? The 2,300 homes proposed by Mattamy is out of the question for Richmond.	Response Provided at Meeting Broadly speaking, with regard to density and lot sizes, the Province has mandated that municipalities encourage development that is economical, i.e. the cost of infrastructure should not put pressure on the municipal or provincial tax base. Currently, the developer pays to install the infrastructure and the municipality pays to maintain the infrastructure. The Province has been assisting municipalities with the maintenance / upgrading costs but wants to get away from this. One of the ways to do this is to increase density so that a larger tax base is available for the same area of infrastructure. That is why lot sizes tend to depend on the type of servicing provided. For land serviced privately (septic tanks and wells) lots tend to be large. For land that is fully serviced, lots tend to be small. Follow-up Response In their review of this issue, the Richmond Steering Committee supported low densities for Richmond but they also recognized the following: · That neighbourhood character, design and streetscapes were also important · That the public supported the style of development by Mattamy as prepared in consultation with the community at the December 2008 Design Workshop · That the existing Secondary Plan permits densities greater than existing densities · That the visionary principles support a mix of uses and housing types The Plan generally accepts the layout for the Western Development Lands, as per the Design Workshop and that these lands will be fully serviced. However in keeping with the desire to promote village-style development, the Plan establishes: · That development be regulated in accordance with the discussions at the design workshop based on: a) A Demonstration Plan b) Two land use designations – a designation for one and two units; and another for ground-oriented attached c) New density and new unit mix restrictions · That Mattamy be required to build at densities lower than they have built in recent suburban subdivisions. In Fairwinds (Kanata) for example, small singles are 40 units/ha (versus 30), townhouses are 56 units/ha (versus 45) and back-to-back units are 135 units/ha (versus 99). · The maximum number of units per townhouse block has been reduced as compared to the suburbs (5/6 versus 8) · The unit mix provisions contain a higher proportion of low density housing as compared to the suburbs (85% versus 60%) · Front and side yard building setbacks are greater than the suburbs · A minimum proportion of large-sized lots (at 12-17 units/ha) will be provided at strategic locations (equivalent to 0.6 kilometres of frontage) · In addition, other village-wide provisions also apply including: a) Design guidelines based on the best examples from Eastern Ontario b) The requirement to amend the CDP for apartments on residentially-designated land c) The requirement for street trees in front of all ground-oriented residential units
39	Mattamy’s concept plan does not show uses other than singles. Some higher density development is desirable.	This is not correct. Schedule A and the Demonstration Plan identify the locations where higher density development is permitted. For these lands, densities and unit mix are controlled by the chart in Section 4.3.4 in the CDP.
40	Stacked townhouses are undesirable and the maximum density should be limited to 35-40 u/ha.	Stacked townhouses are part of an Apartment Residential designation contained in the CDP and the Official Plan Amendment. The only sites so designated on Schedule A are existing apartments and stacked townhouses. There are no new sites so designated and an amendment to the CDP is required to re-designate, so there is ample control for any future uses such as this. Regarding density, please refer to the response #38.
41	Townhouses facing Perth Street should be moved one block in, with green space facing Perth.	At the Design Workshop, it was concluded that the layout should include townhouses along Perth because it made it more likely that buildings would face the street. Noise fences would therefore not be required. That being said, a greater setback from the street could be applied to these buildings.
42	Pg 32: 3. “Approximately 25% of all new housing within the Village…..at the time of subdivision approval.” What is considered an affordable range at present and how does Richmond fair regarding percentage and price?	It is proposed that a paragraph entitled Achieving Affordable Housing Targets be added to the implementation section of the CDP. This paragraph should explain what affordable means.
43	Pg 33: 2. “A limited number of multiple attached dwellings…” 2^nd point “Abutting a park or designated open space” Unless I’m reading this incorrectly, I don’t see why townhouses are not permitted along a park. I would think this would be a great location to have some, not predominately but some.	Townhouses would be permitted abutting a park.
44	Pg 34: 1. “…as 80% of the site-specific designation remains for attached dwellings as defined above” I looked at the drawings and I thought villagers stated they preferred “mixed housing” and not a designated “poorer housing” area.	The areas designated on Schedule A for ground-oriented attached dwellings are the same areas as presented at the design workshop for attached dwellings. The reason this designation has been included is to provide the community with some control as to where this type of housing will be located. Otherwise, small blocks of attached units would be allowed in the One and Two Unit Residential Area (in yellow on Schedule A) as is suggested in the comment.
45	Pg 34: 4. “Street trees…every ground-oriented dwelling” I think a tree in front of every townhouse may be a bit much, no??? Also how does this work with a point that was raised during the very cold neighbourhood tour in January about some houses/foundations having trouble with front lots that were small and trouble with tree roots??	Point noted. This will be made more flexible
46	Pg 37: 4.3.6 “…This Plan designates these lands as Residential—One and Two Unit.” Why is this that they must be 1 or 2 unit buildings only and not townhouses or small apt for example?	The One and Two Unit designation permits singles, duplexes, semi-detached dwellings and a limited number of traditional townhouses. Since the village preferred ground-oriented units, apartments and stacked townhouses are proposed to require an amendment to the CDP.
47	Section 4.3.4 – Western Development Lands: The following revisions to the introductory paragraph are recommended: “This Demonstration Plan was derived from a three-day design workshop held hosted by Mattamy Homes in December 2008 that focused on how best to develop these lands. The workshop was a collaborative effort between LRK, Mattamy, the City and the community.” It is recommended that Policy 3 be updated to include the Stormwater Management and Drainage Plan (DSEL, 2010). The Master Servicing Study identifies phasing however the Planning Rationale prepared by FoTenn Consultants Inc. includes a specific phasing plan for the Western Lands. It is recommended that in Policy 4, the Planning Rationale be referenced instead.	These changes will be made
48	Pg 41: c) “…rear lotting will not be permitted.” I’m not clear about what this means as I was under the impression that it wasn’t rear lotting people had a problem with but that there was clear visibility so as parks not to appear “private property”.	By discouraging rear lotting, houses will face parks and streets thereby providing clear visibility of parks.
Community Design Plan (Industrial Lands)
49	I feel that the Steering Committee has not treated the zoning of the industrial Lands fairly and have not given any thought to the near future. There is no need for this amount of land to be designated for industrial purposes in the village of Richmond. No interest has been shown in the last few years for this area to be developed as zoned and I see no reason for it to continue being zoned under this category.	City staff and the Steering Committee concluded that these lands should remain as industrial for the duration of the planning period. It was felt that the community already had plenty of land designated residential and needed places for people to work so that Richmond would be more than just a bedroom community. A number of proposed changes have been included which, it was hoped, would make these lands more likely to be developed within the planning period: · A proposal for servicing · A refinement to the boundary of the Industrial Lands · An expansion to the list of permitted uses · A demonstration plan
50	The whole property has frontage on both Ottawa Street and Eagleson Road and would be ideal for residential or small offices and home offices which will allow more than one on-site non-resident employee, allows more than one client or customer attended or served on-site, allows parking for employees customers and any company trucks. Home-based business can sell not only those items that are made on the premises, but retail other wholesale purchased items. These uses are over and above what is allowed in the residential zone. Traffic would not interfere with cars travelling through town as all traffic could flow onto Eagleson and then commence to Highway 16 or Highway 417. The frontage that butts on to Ottawa Street would be ideal for commercial zoning. As there is a shortage of adult lifestyle homes and also homes with large lots, I think the 47 acres would also be ideal for this area. The existing Plan does not state the size of lots that would be accepted.	It is not recommended that this be done. Home offices are already permitted as home occupations in residential zones. Projects like this appear and function as residential subdivisions.
51	I also feel that the sewage situation has not been adequately provided for in the Industrial Lands.	The sewer capacity is based on these lands remaining for industrial purposes.
52	I understand that there is only one access road for this area. If this is the situation the remainder of the landowners behind the property concerned would be landlocked and would have no access to their properties. This is not a suitable situation for them.	The Demonstration Plan was reviewed by City transportation planning staff and the same consultants who prepared the Transportation Master Plan. According to them, there is sufficient road access proposed at this location.
Community Design Plan (Design Guidelines and Demonstration Plans)
53	How are guidelines in Section 7.3 – Village Wide Building Design going to be implemented, and by whom?	These will be interpreted and implemented by the Planners in the Development Review Rural West unit.
54	The approach to “Gateways and Focal Points” needs to be reconsidered. A total of seven gateways and ten focal points have been identified in Section 7.1 of the CDP. It is unreasonable to have the same expectations for all 17 gateways and focal points. We would suggest that “gateways” be developed as per City approved guidelines, and consist principally of landscape features with permanent identification signage. Focal points should be located within the Village Core, consistent with the intent of “focussing” attention on the Village Core. The intersection of Perth and McBean should be the focal point for this community. Section 7.1 should be rewritten accordingly. References to “Focal Points” and “Gateways” in Section 4.2 – Village Commercial, Section 4.2.1 – Village Commercial 1, Section 4.3.1 – Residential One and Two Unit, Section 4.3.2 – Residential Ground-Oriented Attached, Section 4.3.3 – Residential Apartments and Section 4.6 - Industrial Lands should be reconsidered. In particular, the “view” to the north from our client’s lands and the “focal point on Shea Road at the Village limit need to be reconsidered. Section 7.1 – Views, Gateways and Focal Points: The target of 50 % frontage abutting each view is rigid and difficult to implement. Instead, it is recommended that Policy 1 be re-worded as follows: “As a target for the overall subdivision, an average of 50% of the frontages abutting a view should contain the above features”.	The approach to Gateways and Focal Points will be reviewed for the next draft. Perhaps the minimum 2-storey requirement and the number of focal points are too restrictive. The purpose of the views identified is to avoid back-lotting and continuous fencing abutting these locations. While the comment is noted, it is suggested that the identified views remain and the detailed approach to how these will be addressed be part of the site plan and subdivision review process.
55	The park location shown on the “Demonstration Plan – Northeast Development Lands”, Schedule A: Land Use, Schedule B: Parks and Schedule C: Pathways is unacceptable to our client.	A park is required to serve the Northeast Development Lands. In all cases the location is conceptual and can be moved in consultation with planning staff.
56	7.4 – Subdivision Design for Residential Development: It is recommended that Policy 3 be re-worded as follows: “As a target for the overall subdivision, an average of 50% of the frontages abutting the feature should be treated in this manner”. It is recommended that Policy 5 be re-worded as follows: “Sustainability measures, such as solar orientation, energy conservation and the greening of the village should be built encouraged and supported in the design of subdivisions.”	These changes will be made.
Community Design Plan (Parks, Open Space and Floodplains)
57	The RVCA fully supports Principle 3-Protect the Natural Environment however it is difficult to understand how this principle is being achieved when a stormwater management facility is being proposed in the floodplain in the Western Development Lands.	While this storm pond functions as infrastructure, it will add to the open space network and will appear like other natural areas in that it will contain grass, shrubs, trees, water and pathways.
58	What is the meaning of the “Floodplain – removal” and Floodplain – interim” designations on Schedule A – Land Use?	These categories have been simplified and will now refer all floodplains that may be subject to RVCA change as ‘Floodplain-interim’.
59	The suggested “Potential Future Pathway” east of Shea Road on Schedule C – Pathways is impractical.	Upon review, there are a number of pathways shown on Schedules B through E which will be consolidated.
60	The CDP needs to include a general comment that acknowledges that the areas shown as “floodplain” throughout the document may change, subject to review and approval by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA). Any changes to the floodplain approved by the RVCA will not require amendment(s) to the CDP. This general comment could be incorporated into Policy 4 in Section 4.0 Land Use.	The following reference will be added to Policy 4 in Section 4.0 Land Use: “The floodplain as illustrated in Schedule A is subject to change by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.”
61	Section 4.7 – Parks: It is observed that parkettes have been recognized as playing a role in the hierarchy of the park network. Will parkettes be allowed to contribute to the parkland dedication requirement?	No. Parkettes will not be considered as part of the park dedication.
62	Section 4.7 – Add “where appropriate” after “access” in the first into paragraph. It should be pointed out that site alterations for some uses such as recreational and athletic facilities might be too extensive for the floodplain. Add “in consultation with the RVCA at the end of policy 7.	As a pedestrian link is needed, ‘where appropriate’ will not be added. Comment noted. This will be added.
63	Re-title Section 6.0 to “Park and Open Space Plan”.	This section will be called Parks, Open Space and Pathways Plan.
64	Section 6.1 Multi-use pathways located in river or stream corridors should not be asphalt.	A reference shall be added
65	Pg 46: 6.1 Multi-use Pathway System—I’m not sure about including “roller-bladders”, not that I have a problem with roller-bladders but I would think this would greatly reduce the possibilities for pathway materials. This also goes with the last paragraph which describes the standard multi-use off-road pathway of one that is paved with a yellow stripe. I’m wondering about being too restrictive in our description or if we should add something else to give more leeway. This type of path doesn’t really go with the outdoorsy, village, country character and I think we should expand the options.	The reference to roller bladers shall be removed.
Community Design Plan (Schools)
66	St. Philip Catholic Elementary School is not properly identified as Institutional on Schedule A.	This school will be designated Institutional.
67	The Board has no objection to primary schools being permitted in the Village Core and subject to appropriate zoning in all other Residential designations.	Comment noted.
68	Even though the projected number of dwelling units is anticipated to increase from approximately 1,500 units to 4,500 and 5,000 dwelling units, the Board does not anticipate the need to designate an additional school site at this time. It would be our preference to construct an addition at our existing St. Philip school. However it should be noted that the construction of an addition at this facility will likely result in the loss of the existing baseball diamond.	Comment noted.
69	The proposed location of the OCDSB Elementary School site situated within the Western development Lands is not satisfactory to the Board. In considering a subject elementary site, the Board requires a site that is centrally located, of a square/rectangular shape, has frontage on two streets (one a collector Min 18 m wide), contains a minimum area of seven acres and be environmentally suitable. A location adjacent to a park is preferred. The proposed location as shown as under review in the Demonstration Plan, is unsuitable due to its proximity away from the majority of residential development. Perth Street as an arterial roadway could be a potential hazard as an elementary crossing, reducing accessibility to the school and increasing the requirement for bussing. We also note that the site is situated adjacent to a hydro corridor, providing further safety concerns. Additionally, the Board notes on Schedule A, the area abutting or possibly incorporating the proposed school site is marked as Floodplain – Removal and is subject to the RVCA approved 1A:100 year flood mapping. We are aware of the Provincial Policy Statement restricting development within a floodplain area. If this designation were not removed it would likely have further impact on the development of the school site. The Board is therefore requesting an elementary school site located south of Perth Street.	Comment noted. The location of the new school will be re-located based on these comments. The final location will be shown on the Demonstration Plan for the Western Development Lands.
70	Pg 21: 2. a) “…expand the public ownership of land along the Jock River”, do we have a plan as to how this will be done?	While this may be an objective of the Plan, details on how and which lands are to be targeted have not been worked out.
Community Design Plan (Other Miscellaneous Items)
	Hydro Ottawa – Building close to the street where there are overhead wires may be problematic. Regarding the planting of trees, regard has to be given to the installation and maintenance of hydro infrastructure.	Reference to Hydro Ottawa’s restricted zones for overhead wires shall be added to Sections 3.3, 4.1 and 7.2.1. In Section 4.0, item 5, the following shall be added. “The location and species of trees shall take into account the horizontal off-sets and clearance requirements for hydro and other infrastructure.”
71	Section 4.3.5 - Rename the Special Policy Area because it coincides with the Special Policy Areas in the Provincial Policy Statement. Reword the introduction Revise the text to number 3.	This area will be removed and reference will be made only to interim floodplain areas.
72	Section 4.2, Policy 7 in CDP singles out properties and places additional usage restrictions.	Section 4.2 in the CDP and the comment apply to the properties at 5831 Perth Street and 3440 Eagleson Road. Upon reflection, this policy is probably not necessary as the floodplain approach is already established in the Official Plan and is implemented through the proposed zoning changes. Therefore it is proposed that it be removed.
73	Typo’s · Pg 19: typo--“hat” in second paragraph of The Jock River should read “that” · Pg 22: type—3. a) in the 5^th line I think the word “in” may need to be added “pavement should be included “in” public” · Pg 44: Typo on line 2--The village shall not loss…should that be “lose” Section 1.5, page 11 (second column), “initiates” should read “initiatives”; · Section 3.2, page 19, second paragraph – “hat” should read “that”; · Section 3.2, page 19 – reference to a map that is not included in the document; · Section 3.3, page 23 – “included”; and · Schedule E – numbering is not sequential.	These changes will be made.
74	Perhaps the west property line for 6020 Ottawa Street can be used as the division line between the Industrial and Residential lands.	In the draft documents, the portion of the property at 6020 Ottawa Street that is north of the creek was designated residential and zoned Industrial. This was an error. Upon review, it is suggested that these lands be residential and that the zoning be changed accordingly. As a result, the property line at 6020 Ottawa street will be the division line as suggested.
75	Pg 24: 8. “…replaced with cash-in-lieu of parking as a way to promote the re-use of old buildings.” I’m not sure what this means.	This means that owners of older buildings in the village core can pay the City money in place of providing new parking spaces. This is helpful to the re-use of older buildings since on-site parking is hard to provide on properties that contain older buildings.
76	Pg 27: 6. “The owners of properties….shall construct sanitary sewer laterals to the front property line of these properties at no cost to the City when this land is serviced with sewers.” Why is this? When sewers first came to Richmond, is this what happened? Did all property owners have to connect to the sewers at their expense and if so how was it done (I would assume over time with tax charge)? What is the plan in this case? I’m just thinking of people’s personal financial circumstances—maybe it could be when ownership is changed, or when septic needs replacing by the current owner, or the same arrangement that was done with original sewer change?	This policy is no longer necessary and will be removed.
77	Section 7.7 Demonstration Plan - The proposed floodplain is not shown accurately.	This change will be made.
78	In the fourth row of the chart in Section 8.0, the reference to “Authority” should be changed to “Area”. In the last row, a reference to “in consultation with the RVCA” should be added.	This change will be made. This reference will be added.
79	The residential lands in the Western Development Area south of the Jock River are inaccessible and should therefore be open space or natural.	These lands will be re-designated as Open Space.
80	Schedule A – The area designated for Floodplain – removal should be renamed Floodplain – interim as not all of the area will be removed. The floodplain should also be shown as interim on the lands bounded by Cockburn, Hamilton and King streets and the rear of the lots which front on Perth Street. The floodplain on the Northeast Development Lands should also be shown as interim as a cut and fill application has been approved on these lands by the RVCA.	This change will be made This change will be made. This change will be made.
81	Schedules B and C - Please change the reference from RCVA to RVCA.	This change will be made
82	Bell Canada - In accordance with the OP, the policy should be consistent regarding public utilities. Specific reference to include public utilities in specific designations should be eliminated.	The following will be added to Section 4.0 “In accordance with the Official Plan, telecommunication facilities, public utilities and infrastructure are permitted in all land use designations.” Specific references to utilities or public utilities will be removed (4.3 and 4.9).
Official Plan Amendment
83	Section 2.0 – Managing Growth: It is recommended that in the fourth sentence, reference to “50 – 150 dwelling units built per year” be removed (In the Western Development Lands the expected range is between 1,800 to 2,300 dwelling units at build-out with between 50 and 150 units built per year, based on stages described in the Master Servicing Study). It is our experience that providing specific numerical limitations in the Secondary Plan can reduce flexibility and result in the need for frequent amendments. It is recommended that this unit range be included in the text of the CDP instead.	Comment noted. This change will be made.
84	Section 3.3 – Residential: It is recommended that policy 3, regarding affordable housing targets, be removed. Policy direction regarding affordable housing is included in the Official Plan under Section 2.5.2, policy 2 and therefore does not need to be repeated in the Secondary Plan. If the City deems it appropriate to include in the Secondary Plan, the wording should come directly from the Official Plan.	Comment noted. This policy will be re-phrased and relocated to the implementation section as has been done in other CDP’s
85	Managing Growth – Policy 3; See comment on policy 3, Section 3.1 above, dealing with the wastewater system.	This provision has been included as a red flag to development, indicating that the existing system is nearing capacity and needs to be upgraded before development can occur.
86	Managing Growth – Policy 4; Is the phrase “unless it is deemed necessary to connect the village to a communal well system” found in the CDP? What is the basis for this policy?	This is a failsafe provision to provide the village with some security should the groundwater aquifer that provides water to individual wells becomes contaminated. In the event this happens, then the proposed piped water system could be extended to the entire village. Since this event may never happen, then no levies or fees are anticipated at this time.
87	Land Use – Policy 4; See general comment on floodplains above.	The following reference will be added to Policy 4 in Section 4.0 Land Use: “The floodplain as illustrated in Schedule A is subject to change by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.”
88	Village Commercial; The introductory paragraph is not consistent with the language of the CDP.	The introductory paragraph in the CDP and OPA will be made the same in the next draft.
89	Village Commercial 1 – Policy 4; See comment on policy 4, Section 4.2.1 above, suggesting a change in wording.	The last word in Policy 4 shall be changed from street to building and shall also be changed in the CDP.
90	Section 3.3.4 – Western Development Lands: It is recommended that the fourth sentence be deleted (The workshop was a collaborative effort between LRK, the City and the community). This statement is included in the CDP (a more descriptive document) and is not necessary as part of the OPA.	Comment noted. This change will be made.
91	Section 3.3.5 – Special Policy Area: It is our understanding that if the conditions of Section 3.3.5 are met, development can proceed in accordance with the underlying Secondary Plan designations. However, we are concerned that this intent could be misinterpreted as a result of Section 3.0, Policy 4 in the Secondary Plan and Section 4.8.1 of the Official Plan (which will apply if and when Schedule K of the Official Plan is updated to reflect the January 28, 2010 mapping). To clarify the intent of the Special Policy Area, the following wording is recommended for Section 3.3.5: “On January 28, 2010 the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) approved 1:100 year floodplain mapping for the Special Policy Area and have agreed that development may proceed subject to certain conditions being fulfilled. Once these conditions have been fulfilled, the lands can be developed in accordance with the Demonstration Plan and the underlying land use designations identified on Schedule A, without amendment to this Plan. […]”	Comment noted. This change will be made.
92	Schedule C Pathways; See comment on Schedule C above, regarding the future pathway east of Shea Road.	Upon review, there are a number of pathways shown on Schedules B through E which need consolidation.
93	Schedule E - Transportation: The segment of the future East-West Collector Road between Huntley Road and Eagleson Road is missing on the map. It is recommended that the Schedule be updated accordingly.	It has been determined that this conceptual collector is not needed until after the planning period so it has been removed.
94	OPA Section 3.2 Policy 7 is not required since the zoning is limiting. Section 3.2, Policy 7 in OPA single out properties and place additional usage restrictions.	Section 3.2 in the OPA and the comment apply to the properties at 5831 Perth Street and 3440 Eagleson Road. Upon reflection, this policy is probably not necessary as the floodplain approach is already established in the Official Plan and is implemented through the proposed zoning changes. Therefore it is proposed that it be removed.
Zoning Amendment
95	I practiced veterinary medicine at 6019 Perth Street from 1953 to 1077. Others used this residence as a funeral home from 1895 to the late 1940’s. Despite Section 217 (1), a funeral home would be permitted and a medical facility also. I am sure that you do not intend to discriminate. Is my concern reasonable? I hope this was an oversight of the zoning personnel.	Comment noted. The existing RC11 zoning will remain in-place.
96	Clarify the status of the two ‘holding’ zones located just south of Ottawa Street.	The purpose of the holding provision on these vacant residential lands is to ensure that there is available sewer capacity before these lands are developed.
97	The existing zoning chart for the V1C zone should reflect the minimum lot area and size for ‘serviced’ lands. On private services- min. lot area 4000 m², min. lot width 45 m. On full services- min. area 600 m², min. lot width 20 m.	The purpose of Tables 2 and 3 in the proposed list of zoning changes is to identify only those things that are proposed to be change in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. It is not necessary to include existing zoning provisions that will not change.
98	Map C RG3 Exception 1 – should be residential to match with the land use Schedule A.	This reference is to the land north of the creek known as 6020 Ottawa Street. The Owner would prefer the lands to be designated and zoned residential. It is suggested that the lands in question be designated and zoned residential.
99	RC11 Subzone permits a funeral home and a medical facility as per Section 217(1). Is this an oversight?	The inclusion of these two uses is not an oversight. The RC11 Subzone permits a slightly wider range of uses than its parent, the RC Zone. That is one of the main differences between the zone and the subzone.
100	Rural Commercial may not be the correct zoning for the Richmond Nursery, as its practices are of an agricultural nature.	After reviewing this with City zoning staff and the owner of the land, it has been concluded that the proposed zoning is the best zoning for this site.
101	The proposal to change the zoning of the floodplain on Map A from “Development Reserve” (DR1) to “Open Space” (O1[310]) needs to be discussed. The proposal to change the zoning of the floodplain on Map A from “Development Reserve” (DR1) to “Open Space” (O1[310]) places an unnecessary, further restriction on the use of the subject land. The current DR zone combined with the “Floodplain Overlay” in by-law 2008-250 restricts any development on the subject lands without a zoning by-law amendment.	Comment noted. This change will be made.
102	Maintain current zoning and designation for 5840 Perth Street.	The land is entirely within the floodplain and is currently being used to grow (and sell?) plants and vegetables. There are no buildings on the site except for the ruins of a barn. The current designation is Highway Commercial and the current zoning is DR1-Development Reserve. The proposed designation is residential and the proposed zoning is V1C-Village Residential. It is proposed that the land be re-designated Village Commercial and that the DR1 zoning remain, as suggested in the comment.
Transportation Master Plan
103	Do not add more commuter buses during peak hours and bring back the Stittsville Shuttle.	Your comment is noted and will be passed on to OC Transpo. At the present time, OC Transpo has reserved the right to increase peak hour service based on demand.
104	Schedule E – Transportation: It is recommended that Schedule E be updated to include the following: Multi-use Pathway Alignment as referenced on page 24; and the segment of the East-West Collector Road between Huntley Road and Eagleson Road.	Schedule E will include the cycling routes. The East-West Collector is going to be removed from the Plan as it is most likely not required until after the planning period.
Environmental Management Plan
105	Is the City every spring pumping Jock River water into two of the former lagoon cells to aid in creating a bird sanctuary there? This was part of their commitment in order to be able to use the third cell for emergency sewage by-pass only.	The City’s wastewater drainage department have an informal understanding with the Conservation Authority. If the Conservation Authority asks the department to add water to the lagoon cells B and C, they will pump water into those cells.
106	The Board agrees that there is limited potential for stormwater retrofits for drainage with respect to existing school buildings. The Board would consider investing in other practices (e.g. tree planting) as long as the costs were not prohibitive.	The Environmental Management Plan will be updated to reflect this comment. The City looks forward to entering in partnerships for tree planting and other appropriate projects on school properties.
Comments about the Process
107	Why does the City find it necessary to buttress their positions based upon Steering Committee minutes?	From the beginning of the Project, the City intended to establish and work closely with a local Steering Committee and to record the proceedings of the Steering Committee through minutes. Staff believes it to be a good thing that community representatives were involved in the process.
108	The Steering Committee for the CDP process did not represent Richmond’s demographics.	Comment noted.
109	At the two April 2010 public meetings, when questions and concerns were raised, responses were not provided.	Staff has included written comments and responses herein based on the comments submitted to date.
110	At the two April 2010 public meetings, only 7 of the 20 members of Steering Committee were present.	Comment noted.
111	At the two April 2010 public meetings, the City, Mattamy Homes, and consultants do not provide clear responses and often move the ‘goal posts’.	From the City’s perspective, we have always strived to provide responses that the public can understand. This was a topic of discussion at one of the Steering Committee meetings; that we should strive to make the information more understandable to the public. We agreed to try and do this however it was pointed out that sometimes the information need to be expressed in technical terms.
112	At the two April 2010 public meetings, verbal summaries of issues were grossly abbreviated, misstated and inadequate in addressing concerns.	It is true that the verbal summaries provided at the end of the two public meetings were brief. However, the written summaries provided by the table leaders and note takers that are included herein provide a good and more detailed summary of the discussions.
113	At the two April 2010 public meetings, attendees did not have an opportunity to visit all of the tables and very few questions were made public.	Attendees were free to choose which tables to attend and they had two evenings to do so. This was stated at the first meeting. All of the questions raised were provided to us in writing by the table leaders and the note takers after the meetings are included in this table of comments.
114	At the two April 2010 public meetings, staff was asked if the Q & A’s would be included with the EA submission- the response was obfuscation and bafflegab.	Comment noted.
115	At the two April 2010 public meetings, the note-taker was instructed to record only the questions. It would seem that the answers were not of sufficient importance to be included during the wrap-up.	All of the questions raised and the nature of the discussions were provided to us in writing by the table leaders and the note takers after the meetings. In most cases, the responses provided at the meeting were either included as responses or were summarized in the nature of the discussion. All of these comments and responses are included in this table.

Public Comments – Mattamy’s Official Plan Amendment public meeting – September 12, 2009

SUMMARY OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2009 PUBLIC MEETING

MATTAMY OPA / CDP

6095 Perth Street – Richmond Memorial Community Centre

108 public members attending

Floodplain

There are currently flooding issues here. Speaking about floodplain mapping the following remark was made by the RVCA’s Director of Watershed Science. “…there’s lots of uncertainty involved.” What are your thoughts on this?
If the floodplain expands from existing plan to new proposed plan how is Richmond visioning impacted?
The floodplain mapping has not been completed. What impact will this have upon the future scheduling of the Community Development Plan and or Mattamy’s Master Servicing Study?
Mattamy has been found guilty for erecting a 10 foot berm on the Jock River. Therefore it would seem that Mattamy will be using a lot of fill on their property. What guarantee that Mattamy’s fill will not adversely impact Richmond residents and or residents down stream?
Now that the floodplain mapping has been done for the Mattamy lands, how will Mattamy ensure that their development will not cause flooding problems in the existing village? Will Mattamy be using berms or other means to protect their lands from flooding? Will the development raise flood water levels elsewhere?
Is it intended that the height of the land in some areas be increased? Note – this is already in progress! If this is the case – why is it necessary? If possible flooding is the reason where do you expect that floodwater to go?
Are floodplain lands going to remain floodplain lands, within the same restrictions?
If the land is designated floodplain, what then will happen to the land beside and behind my home (6305 Perth Street)? Will it just be left to go fallow, or can a park/greenspace be built?

Master Servicing

Can the current infrastructure (i.e. sewers) sustain more development? If so, how much more? Will the sewer system be expanded before there is any development? Who will pay?
The Ministry of the Environment has recommended to Mattamy that their sewage collection system be voluntarily elevated from the proposed Schedule B activities to Schedule C activities. Yes or No – will Mattamy elevate from the proposed Schedule B to Schedule C?
What is the plan for water and waste management? Who gets what?
How much will our taxes increase to cover expanded sewers for village as a whole? (ie.future water requirements, hydro…)
How can we resolve the difference of opinion regarding wastewater treatment? (i.e. proposed pipe vs. preferred local treatment)
Has an on-site waste treatment facility been thoroughly examined? If yes by whom? If so, why is it being proposed to put yet another wastewater pipe across the Jock River?
All of Stantec’s proposals for Mattamy’s wastewater solution include enlarging the pumping station. The odours from the pumping station has impacted residents for 4 years. Stantec is the City’s consultant for the odours why should we have any confidence that Stantec’s proposals for enlarging the pumping station will not result in a greater impact upon residents?

Miscellaneous

Has the zone change already been verbally approved – and if not, why is Mattamy Homes already at work spending several thousand dollars working on the site on the south side of Ottawa Street (next to the Legion Hall).
I have heard nothing about Hydro for the village.

Communal Wells (ground water)

What do “communal wells” do to the current private wells?
With all the ground disturbance with new construction. Will that not affect existing homes on well water quality? I’m concerned that well water quality during construction will be affected?

Transportation

How will Richmond Road (the coast road) handle daily traffic into Ottawa?
600 vehicles an hour during peak hours occurs at the junction of Eagleson/Perth cause some congestion. What is being done to avoid congestion at the intersection (and elsewhere) when 8 times that number will be using the roads?
Nice buildings, interesting places, shops, cafes, and four lanes of traffic right through Richmond do not go hand in hand. For shops etc to do well people need to notice them not race past them.
Will there be studies and necessary amendments made to compensate for noise increases from the proposed road running down the length of my property? What could be done? Noise walls? Who would decide what amendments are necessary? Who pays for any amendments to protect my home? (in relationship to a proposed north-south collector adjacent an existing parcel of land along 6305 Perth Street).
I have heard nothing about Transportation.

Development Growth

How do we control development growth – what are the limits?
Most of what is being proposed sounds liveable. However, the main and most troubling issue to me and everyone else I speak with is the sheer volume of new people/families moving in. If Mattamy is building 1800-2300 dwellings, we are talking about a bare minimum of 4000 people. This would obviously bounce us out of the village status (even though we’re technically part of the city already). New schools, new everything. The biggest turnoff is simply the sheer volume of the buildings. Can we not talk about that, or is it now completely out of our control?
Around 2 years ago the citizens of Manotick opposed a proposed development by MINTO Homes. Mattamy Homes plans to build roughly 1000 more homes in Richmond than were slated in Manotick. Are these rational planning principles?

Design

Mattamy Homes is proposing an 1800-2000 unit development, adding approximately 6000 inhabitants to our current population. Will this have a positive or negative impact on our quality of life?
The LRK gentlemen mentioned that the planners in Carleton Place threw away the code books. This explains why there are housing developments in swamps and why there are numerous buildings in the downtown core that are vacant – has anyone noticed that the ‘beware of alligator’ sign across from the Shoppers Pharmacy has been removed and there is a housing development underway!

The pictures presented by LRK are beautiful, comfortable and cozy feeling. However, the reality of bringing this to fruition could very well be another picture. For example, the picture of the bakery with the patio out front could you explain the impact of making this a reality? If there was a patio there now, we’d be sitting on the road and that road is already 4 lanes – is the plan to widen it even more?
How many dwelling units does Mattamy propose to build?
In keeping with the concept of maintaining ‘village character’ it is important that new houses have the same ‘set back’ from the street as is common in the rest of the village. Similarly, most new residences should be no higher than 2 stories.
We recently moved to Richmond this summer along with our young grandchildren and can’t help but notice how there is so little to do here for them. We need better parks and picnic areas, trails for biking for families to enjoy. The river is so neglected and should have better access to invite everyone to utilize and appreciate.
Very disappointed in the presentation to sell the Mattamy Homes development. It is based solely on < 5% of the population (125 email responses) which is invalid and statistically invalid. Especially disappointed in the effort to use this data to redesign the existing sector of the village. I am now more concerned then before in that I see Mattamy wants to remake the existing village as well as the 325 acre development. The presentation insulted my intelligence. Where is the discussion for concern on flooding, traffic, water, crime and all the issues this development will bring. Put me down as a 0% supporter of the Mattamy plan.

Natural Systems

Are environmentally protected lands going to change their designation?

Note: This summary reflects all the written comments submitted and read at the meeting. These do not reflect the verbal questions from the audience.

RÉSUMÉ

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS

Planning and Growth Management to prepare the implementing by-laws, forward to Legal Services and undertake the statutory notification.

LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT 1

Amendment to the

Official Plan of the City of Ottawa

INDEX

THE STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS

PART A – THE PREAMBLE

PART B – THE AMENDMENT

PART A – THE PREAMBLE

Purpose

Policies

Wastewater

Permitted uses

Regulations

Permitted uses

Regulations

EP1 (Environmental Protection) subzone

Permitted uses

Permitted uses

Regulations

Permitted uses

Regulations

Permitted uses

Permitted uses

Regulations

Permitted uses

Regulations

Permitted uses

Regulations

Permitted uses

Regulations

Permitted uses

Regulations

RG3 [151r] (Rural General Industrial)

Permitted uses

Regulations

Exception

Permitted uses

Regulations

V1B (Village Residential First Density Zone)

Permitted uses

Regulations

Permitted uses

Regulations

Permitted uses

Regulations

MAP A

13 Grovewood Lane

5925 Perth Street (McEwan Gas) and 2790 Eagleson Road (Drummond Gas)

5831 Perth Street (John Deere)

MAP B

3440 Eagleson Road (Richmond Nursery)

DR1

5882 Perth Street

DR1

5906 Perth Street

RI2

5940 Perth Street (City of Ottawa)

EP

5928 Perth Street (Bob & Lynn’s garage), 5940 Perth Street

RC11

5944, 5954, 5960 Perth Street

MAP C

RVCA park lands,

6020, 6038 Ottawa Street (south of Marlborough Creek) and unaddressed properties

RG3 [151r]-h

6020 Ottawa Street (north of Marlborough Creek)

MAP D

Unaddressed property

Unaddressed fronting McBean Street

6284 Perth Street (strip behind fire hall)

V1C

Comments about the Process

Floodplain

Master Servicing