8. Country lots and villages ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING - PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS

Audience de la commission des affaires municipale de l’ontario sur les terrains ruraux et les villages – Changements proposés au Plan offiCiel

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 76 as set out in Document 1.

RECOMMANDATION DU COMITÉ

Que le Conseil appuie les changements à la Modificiation n^o76 du Plan officiel tels que présentés dans le document 1.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager’s Report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 24 August 2011 (ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0185).

Report to/Rapport au :

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Comité de l'agriculture et des affaires rurales

and Council / et au Conseil

24 August 2011 / le 24 août 2011

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 : John L. Moser, General Manager/Directeur général, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424 x 28869, John.Moser@ottawa.ca

West Carleton-March (5), Cumberland (19), Osgoode (20), Rideau-Goulbourn (21)

Ref N°: ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0185

SUBJECT:	Country lots and villages ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING - PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS

OBJET :	Audience de la commission des affaires municipale de l’ontario sur les terrains ruraux et les villages – Changements proposés au Plan offiCiel

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council endorse the modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 76 as set out in Document 1.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales recommande au Conseil d’appuyer les changements à la Modificiation n^o76 du Plan officiel tels que présentés dans le document 1.

BACKGROUND

An information report was submitted to the meeting of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee held on January 27, 2011 to provide an update on the hearings concerning Official Plan Amendment No. 76 (OPA 76). As noted in the Information Report, a hearing has been scheduled for October 24, 2011 with respect to policies concerning Country Lot Subdivisions and Villages.

DISCUSSION

Staff have had discussions with the appellants for this phase of the OPA 76 hearings with a view to see if any of the issues for the upcoming hearing could be resolved. The outcome of these discussions is contained within Document 1, including the rationale for the proposed policy changes.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

This report relates to issues concerning development in the rural area.

CONSULTATION

Staff have met with all appellants to this phase of the hearing on OPA 76.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

As outlined in the report to Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee on January 27, 2011, the Planning Act provides that when new information is being submitted to a hearing, such should be submitted to Council.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The estimated cost of retaining Opus Management Inc. for this hearing is $35,000. Funds are available within existing resources.

TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS

The approach to rural growth being put forth in this hearing is consistent with the strategic direction of Council.

DISPOSTION

Legal Services will present the position of Council to the Ontario Municipal Board

DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Proposed Modifications and rationale by Staff

Proposed Modifications by Staff DOCUMENT 1

Existing policy in OPA76	Recommended Amended Policy	Reasons
	Add a new Policy to Section 3.1 Gas Pipelines 11. TransCanada PipeLines Limited operates high-pressure natural gas pipelines within rights-of-way that cross the City of Ottawa. Development adjacent to the pipeline and associated facilities, such as compressor stations, may have implications for the safety and integrity of the pipeline and adjacent development or may necessitate changes to TransCanada PipeLines’ infrastructure or operations. TransCanada PipeLines is regulated by the National Energy Board and both bodies have requirements regulating development and other activities such as excavation, blasting and any movement of heavy equipment in close proximity to the pipe line and compressor stations. The City will: a. identify the route of the TransCanada Pipeline in the Zoning By-law and establish minimum setbacks from the limits of the TransCanada Pipelines rights-of-way for all permanent structures and excavations. b. require proponents of any development that will be located within 200 metres of a TransCanada Pipeline right-of-way or within 750 metres of a TransCanada Pipeline compressor station to pre-consult with TransCanada Pipelines Limited and will advise and consult with TransCanada Pipelines when undertaking the technical review of any such development that requires approval under the Planning Act. c. not approve development within 750 metres of a TransCanada Pipeline compressor station unless it is demonstrated that provincial guidelines for noise and vibration can be achieved. TransCanada Pipeline will undertake a noise and vibration study to determine if the provincial guidelines can be achieved and may include recommendations or identify mitigation measures that the City will incorporate as conditions of development approval.”	Trans Canada Pipelines appealed OPA 76 because the City failed to recognise and set in place policies that regulate development adjacent to their gas pipelines in the city. The City currently identifies and regulates new buildings adjacent to TransCanada Pipelines facilities through zoning and building setbacks established in the Zoning By-law. However, there is a need to establish a process to ensure that future planning decisions as well as buildings take into consideration and avoid unnecessary disturbance to the pipeline infrastructure and do not locate uses, sensitive to noise and vibration adjacent to TransCanada pump stations. The new polices have been prepared in consultation with TransCanada Pipelines. These changes add policies to Section 3.1 of the Official Plan that deal with the preparation of planning documents and the review of applications. The policies require the City and the developer to consult with TransCanada Pipelines when development is proposed within 200 metres of a pipeline and within 750 metres of a pump station. Development near the pump station also initiates a vibration study that will be undertaken by TransCanada Pipeline.
Amend Section 3.1, Policy 11 by adding the words ‘Agricultural Resource Areas’ after the words ‘except in’ and deleting the words ‘South and East of the Canadian Shield’ in the first sentence;	Amend Section 3.1, Policy 11 by ~~adding the words ‘Agricultural Resource Areas’ after the words ‘except in’ and~~ deleting the words ‘South and East of the Canadian Shield’ in the first sentence and by inserting after the first sentence the following new sentence: “Wireless Communications Facilities proposed on land designated Agricultural Resource Area are to be located in areas demonstrated to have poorer soil quality.”	Section 3.1 policy 11 deals with Wireless Communication Facilities. This amendment originally prohibited these facilities in Agricultural Resource Areas. The proposed modification will permit the Wireless Communications Facilities on Agricultural Land but requires that they be located on pockets of poorer soils.
Amend Section 3.7.2 by 1. deleting Policies 6d and 6i.	Amend Section 3.7.2 by 1. deleting Policies 6d ~~and 6i~~.	OPA 76 proposes the deletion of two policies in Section 3.7.2 dealing with General Rural Area. The second policy, number 6i, provides a special exception for a subdivision in Cedarview where smaller lot sizes were permitted by the City through an earlier Official Plan Amendment. Revisions now proposed to that subdivision necessitate the retention of this policy. This change enables the policy to be retained.
Amend Section 3.8 by deleting Policies 5 through 7 inclusive and replacing them with a heading and polices as follows: 6. Proponents for any development that requires planning approval and is within the influence area of an operating or non-operating solid waste disposal site, will demonstrate, through a study that the solid waste disposal site will not have any adverse effects on the proposed development and will not pose any risks to human health and safety. Particular attention will be required for those proposals that will accommodate people or include animal husbandry or food production. Where an operating solid waste disposal site is involved the City must be satisfied that the development will not impact the continuing operation of a solid waste disposal site (e.g., a use that would have the potential of impacting the water table).	Amend Section 3.8 by deleting Policies 5 through 7 inclusive and replacing them with a heading and polices as follows: 6. Proponents for any development that requires planning approval on land ~~and is~~ within the influence area of an operating or non-operating solid waste disposal site will undertake a study, in consultation with the owner/operator of the disposal site, to demonstrate~~, through a study~~ that the solid waste disposal site will not have any unacceptable adverse effects on the proposed development and will not pose any risks to human health and safety. Particular attention will be required for those proposals that will accommodate people or include animal husbandry or food production. Where an operating solid waste disposal site is involved the City must be satisfied that the development will not impact the continuing operation of a solid waste disposal site (e.g., a use that would have the potential of impacting the water table).	Section 3.8 Solid Waste Disposal Sites deal with development of waste disposal sites and with development proposed in proximity to the operating and non-operating sites. The proposed new policy 6 requires proponents of development adjacent to these sites to undertake a study to demonstrate that the landfill operation will not result in an adverse impact on the development or result in risks to human health and safety. There is also a responsibility to demonstrate that the development will not restrict normal operation of the land fill site. Appellants were concerned that they may not have access critical information held by the Landfill operator and had no mechanism to evaluate the impact on the operation of the landfill operation. The modification to the policy requires the co-operation of the landfill owner/operator in the study process. In many cases the owner/operator will be the City.
Section 4.4.2.1 is amended by adding to the end a new policy as follows: “4. As a condition of approval of plan of subdivision the developer will be required to provide a dedicated monitoring well, at no cost to the City, and to which the City will have unlimited access to monitor groundwater conditions. Where the subdivision has a number of phases one monitoring well may be required for each phase of development.”	Section 4.4.2.1 is amended by adding to the end a new policy as follows: “4. As a condition of approval of plan of subdivision, the developer will be required to provide ~~a dedicated~~ and dedicate to the City a monitoring well, at no cost, to the City. ~~and to which~~ The City will have unlimited access to this well to monitor groundwater conditions. Where the subdivision has a number of phases one monitoring well may be required for each phase of development. The City, at its discretion, may determine to not require a monitoring well where there are sufficient wells already provided to satisfy the City monitoring program.”	This amendment to OP 76 requires applies to subdivision in the rural area and in villages where servicing is provide by private wells. The City requires the developer to dedicate a monitoring well to the City. This well is to to provide data on groundwater conditions and satisfies one of the recommendations of the City’s Groundwater Management Strategy. The policy was modified to be clear that the well is to be City owned. It is also modified to acknowledge that there may be circumstance where a well is not required.
Schedule A, Rural Policy Plan, is hereby amended as follows: 4. by changing the designation for the lands shown on Schedule R6 to this amendment: i) from ‘General Rural Area’ and ‘Rural Natural Features Area’ to‘Village’ where indicated on Schedule R6, and; ii) from ‘General Rural Area’ to ‘Village’ where indicated on Schedule R6,	Schedule A, Rural Policy Plan, is hereby amended as follows: 4. by changing the designation for the lands shown on Schedule R6 to this amendment: i) ~~from ‘General Rural Area’ and ‘Rural Natural Features Area’ to‘Village’ where indicated on Schedule R6, and;~~ ii) from ‘General Rural Area’ to ‘Village’ where indicated on Schedule R6,	At the time OP 76 was prepared in 2009 there were two small additions proposed to the Village of Greely. Since the adoption of OPA 76 one of these areas was added to the village by private amendment. This modification removes the reference to the land already added.

Existing policy in OPA76

Recommended Amended Policy

Reasons

Add a new Policy to Section 3.1

Gas Pipelines

11. TransCanada PipeLines Limited operates high-pressure natural gas pipelines within rights-of-way that cross the City of Ottawa. Development adjacent to the pipeline and associated facilities, such as compressor stations, may have implications for the safety and integrity of the pipeline and adjacent development or may necessitate changes to TransCanada PipeLines’ infrastructure or operations. TransCanada PipeLines is regulated by the National Energy Board and both bodies have requirements regulating development and other activities such as excavation, blasting and any movement of heavy equipment in close proximity to the pipe line and compressor stations. The City will:

a. identify the route of the TransCanada Pipeline in the Zoning By-law and establish minimum setbacks from the limits of the TransCanada Pipelines rights-of-way for all permanent structures and excavations.

b. require proponents of any development that will be located within 200 metres of a TransCanada Pipeline right-of-way or within 750 metres of a TransCanada Pipeline compressor station to pre-consult with TransCanada Pipelines Limited and will advise and consult with TransCanada Pipelines when undertaking the technical review of any such development that requires approval under the Planning Act.

c. not approve development within 750 metres of a TransCanada Pipeline compressor station unless it is demonstrated that provincial guidelines for noise and vibration can be achieved. TransCanada Pipeline will undertake a noise and vibration study to determine if the provincial guidelines can be achieved and may include recommendations or identify mitigation measures that the City will incorporate as conditions of development approval.”

Trans Canada Pipelines appealed OPA 76 because the City failed to recognise and set in place policies that regulate development adjacent to their gas pipelines in the city.

The City currently identifies and regulates new buildings adjacent to TransCanada Pipelines facilities through zoning and building setbacks established in the Zoning By-law. However, there is a need to establish a process to ensure that future planning decisions as well as buildings take into consideration and avoid unnecessary disturbance to the pipeline infrastructure and do not locate uses, sensitive to noise and vibration adjacent to TransCanada pump stations.

The new polices have been prepared in consultation with TransCanada Pipelines. These changes add policies to Section 3.1 of the Official Plan that deal with the preparation of planning documents and the review of applications. The policies require the City and the developer to consult with TransCanada Pipelines when development is proposed within 200 metres of a pipeline and within 750 metres of a pump station. Development near the pump station also initiates a vibration study that will be undertaken by TransCanada Pipeline.

Amend Section 3.1, Policy 11 by adding the words ‘Agricultural Resource Areas’ after the words ‘except in’ and deleting the words ‘South and East of the Canadian Shield’ in the first sentence;

Amend Section 3.1, Policy 11 by ~~adding the words ‘Agricultural Resource Areas’ after the words ‘except in’ and~~ deleting the words ‘South and East of the Canadian Shield’ in the first sentence and by inserting after the first sentence the following new sentence:

“Wireless Communications Facilities proposed on land designated Agricultural Resource Area are to be located in areas demonstrated to have poorer soil quality.”

Section 3.1 policy 11 deals with Wireless Communication Facilities. This amendment originally prohibited these facilities in Agricultural Resource Areas. The proposed modification will permit the Wireless Communications Facilities on Agricultural Land but requires that they be located on pockets of poorer soils.

Amend Section 3.7.2 by

1. deleting Policies 6d and 6i.

Amend Section 3.7.2 by

1. deleting Policies 6d ~~and 6i~~.

OPA 76 proposes the deletion of two policies in Section 3.7.2 dealing with General Rural Area. The second policy, number 6i, provides a special exception for a subdivision in Cedarview where smaller lot sizes were permitted by the City through an earlier Official Plan Amendment. Revisions now proposed to that subdivision necessitate the retention of this policy. This change enables the policy to be retained.

Amend Section 3.8 by deleting Policies 5 through 7 inclusive and replacing them with a heading and polices as follows:

6. Proponents for any development that requires planning approval and is within the influence area of an operating or non-operating solid waste disposal site, will demonstrate, through a study that the solid waste disposal site will not have any adverse effects on the proposed development and will not pose any risks to human health and safety. Particular attention will be required for those proposals that will accommodate people or include animal husbandry or food production. Where an operating solid waste disposal site is involved the City must be satisfied that the development will not impact the continuing operation of a solid waste disposal site (e.g., a use that would have the potential of impacting the water table).

Amend Section 3.8 by deleting Policies 5 through 7 inclusive and replacing them with a heading and polices as follows:

6. Proponents for any development that requires planning approval on land ~~and is~~ within the influence area of an operating or non-operating solid waste disposal site will undertake a study, in consultation with the owner/operator of the disposal site, to demonstrate~~, through a study~~ that the solid waste disposal site will not have any unacceptable adverse effects on the proposed development and will not pose any risks to human health and safety. Particular attention will be required for those proposals that will accommodate people or include animal husbandry or food production. Where an operating solid waste disposal site is involved the City must be satisfied that the development will not impact the continuing operation of a solid waste disposal site (e.g., a use that would have the potential of impacting the water table).

Section 3.8 Solid Waste Disposal Sites deal with development of waste disposal sites and with development proposed in proximity to the operating and non-operating sites. The proposed new policy 6 requires proponents of development adjacent to these sites to undertake a study to demonstrate that the landfill operation will not result in an adverse impact on the development or result in risks to human health and safety. There is also a responsibility to demonstrate that the development will not restrict normal operation of the land fill site. Appellants were concerned that they may not have access critical information held by the Landfill operator and had no mechanism to evaluate the impact on the operation of the landfill operation. The modification to the policy requires the co-operation of the landfill owner/operator in the study process. In many cases the owner/operator will be the City.

Section 4.4.2.1 is amended by adding to the end a new policy as follows:

“4. As a condition of approval of plan of subdivision the developer will be required to provide a dedicated monitoring well, at no cost to the City, and to which the City will have unlimited access to monitor groundwater conditions. Where the subdivision has a number of phases one monitoring well may be required for each phase of development.”

Section 4.4.2.1 is amended by adding to the end a new policy as follows:

“4. As a condition of approval of plan of subdivision, the developer will be required to provide ~~a dedicated~~ and dedicate to the City a monitoring well, at no cost, to the City. ~~and to which~~ The City will have unlimited access to this well to monitor groundwater conditions. Where the subdivision has a number of phases one monitoring well may be required for each phase of development. The City, at its discretion, may determine to not require a monitoring well where there are sufficient wells already provided to satisfy the City monitoring program.”

This amendment to OP 76 requires applies to subdivision in the rural area and in villages where servicing is provide by private wells. The City requires the developer to dedicate a monitoring well to the City. This well is to to provide data on groundwater conditions and satisfies one of the recommendations of the City’s Groundwater Management Strategy. The policy was modified to be clear that the well is to be City owned. It is also modified to acknowledge that there may be circumstance where a well is not required.

Schedule A, Rural Policy Plan, is hereby amended as follows:

4. by changing the designation for the lands shown on Schedule R6 to this amendment:

i) from ‘General Rural Area’ and ‘Rural Natural Features Area’ to‘Village’ where indicated on Schedule R6, and;

ii) from ‘General Rural Area’ to ‘Village’ where indicated on Schedule R6,

Schedule A, Rural Policy Plan, is hereby amended as follows:

4. by changing the designation for the lands shown on Schedule R6 to this amendment:

i) ~~from ‘General Rural Area’ and ‘Rural Natural Features Area’ to‘Village’ where indicated on Schedule R6, and;~~

ii) from ‘General Rural Area’ to ‘Village’ where indicated on Schedule R6,

At the time OP 76 was prepared in 2009 there were two small additions proposed to the Village of Greely. Since the adoption of OPA 76 one of these areas was added to the village by private amendment. This modification removes the reference to the land already added.