6. Consolidation and Update of Village Plans:

· OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT – Volume 2C

· Community Design Plan Amendment – Carp

· Community Plan Amendment – constance Bay

· Community Design Plan Amendment – Greely

CoDIFICATION ET MISE À JOUR DES PLANS DE Village :

· MODIFICATION DU PLAN OFFICIEL – Volume 2C

· MODIFICATION DU Plan de conception communautaire – Carp

· MODIFICATION DU Plan communautaire – constance Bay

· MODIFICATION DU Plan de conception communautaire – Greely

Committee recommendationS as amended

That Council:

1. Approve and adopt Official Plan Amendment XX, an amendment to Volume 2C of the Official Plan of the City of Ottawa as detailed in Document 1;

2. Approve and adopt the Carp Community Design Plan as amended as detailed in Document 2;

3. Approve and adopt the Constance Bay Community Plan as amended as detailed in Document 3;

4. Approve and adopt the Greely Community Design Plan as amended as detailed in Document 4.

5. Replace the attached Schedule C – Village Road Network, which revises the location of the north-south collector found in the updated Greely Community Design Plan (Document 3).

6. Add the following text at the end of Section 2.2 Growth Management of the revised Constance Bay Community Plan (Document 4): “When a village boundary expansion is warranted at some future date, consideration could be given to the lands located south of Constance Bay Road and east of Dunrobin Road.”

7. substitute the word “should” for the word “shall” listed in Document 2, page 12, Policy 2.3.1 (4) of the Carp Village Community Design Plan; and renumber Section “2.3.1” in Document 2, page 13 as “2.3.2” and; renumber Section “2.3.2” in Document 2, page 14 as “2.3.3”.

RecommandationS MODIFIÉES DU Comité

Que le Conseil :

1. approuve et d'adopter la modification XX du Plan officiel, qui modifie le volume 2C du Plan officiel de la Ville d'Ottawa comme il est expliqué en détail dans le document 1

2. approuve et d'adopter le Plan de conception communautaire de Carp, dans sa forme modifié comme il est expliqué en détail dans le document 2;

3. approuve et d'adopter le Plan communautaire de Constance Bay, dans sa forme modifié comme il est expliqué en détail dans le document 3; et

4. approuve et d'adopter le Plan de conception communautaire de Greely, dans sa forme modifié comme il est expliqué en détail dans le document 4.

5. remplace l’annexe C ci-jointe – Réseau routier du village, qui révise l’emplacement de la route collectrice nord-sud, remplace l’annexe C figurant dans le Plan de conception communautaire de Greely mis à jour (document 3).

6. ajoute le texte suivant à la fin de l’article 2.2 Gestion de la croissance du Plan communautaire de Constance Bay révisé (document 4) : « Lorsque le prolongement des limites d’un village est justifié à une date future, les terrains situés au sud du chemin Constance Bay et à l’est du chemin Dunrobin peuvent être pris en compte. »

7. remplace le mot « devrait » par le mot « devra » au sous-alinéa 2.3.1(4) du Plan de conception communautaire pour le village de Carp, à la page 12 du Document 2; et renumérote l’alinéa « 2.3.1 », à la page 13 du Document 2, en tant qu’alinéa « 2.3.2. »; et; renumérote l’alinéa « 2.3.2 », à la page 14 du Document 2, en tant qu’alinéa « 2.3.3 ».

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager’s Report, Planning and Infrastructure Services dated 18 April 2012 (ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0027).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meeting of 10 May 2012.

Report to/Rapport au :

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Comité d'agriculture et des affaires rurales

and Council / et au Conseil

18 April 2012 / le 18 avril 2012

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/Élaboration de la politique et conception urbaine

Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

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

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

Ref N°: ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0027

SUBJECT:

Consolidation and Update of Village Plans:

· OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT – Volume 2C

· Community Design Plan Amendment – Carp

· Community Plan Amendment – constance Bay

· Community Design Plan Amendment – Greely

OBJET :

CoDIFICATION ET MISE À JOUR DES PLANS DE Village :

· MODIFICATION DU PLAN OFFICIEL – Volume 2C

· MODIFICATION DU Plan de conception communautaire – Carp

· MODIFICATION DU Plan communautaire – constance Bay

· MODIFICATION DU Plan de conception communautaire – Greely

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve and adopt Official Plan Amendment XX, an amendment to Volume 2C of the Official Plan of the City of Ottawa as detailed in Document 1;

2. Approve and adopt the Carp Community Design Plan as amended as detailed in Document 2;

3. Approve and adopt the Constance Bay Community Plan as amended as detailed in Document 3;

4. Approve and adopt the Greely Community Design Plan as amended as detailed in Document 4.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l'agriculture et des affaires rurales recommande au Conseil :

1. d'approuver et d'adopter la modification XX du Plan officiel, qui modifie le volume 2C du Plan officiel de la Ville d'Ottawa comme il est expliqué en détail dans le document 1

2. d'approuver et d'adopter le Plan de conception communautaire de Carp, dans sa forme modifié comme il est expliqué en détail dans le document 2;

3. d'approuver et d'adopter le Plan communautaire de Constance Bay, dans sa forme modifié comme il est expliqué en détail dans le document 3; et

4. d'approuver et d'adopter le Plan de conception communautaire de Greely, dans sa forme modifié comme il est expliqué en détail dans le document 4.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report recommends amendments to Volume 2C of the Official Plan and updates to the Community Design Plans (CDPs) affecting lands within the Village designations as shown on Schedule A of the Official Plan. These amendments will update all the village plans contained in Volume 2C, except those for the villages of Manotick, Richmond and North Gower. Updates are also recommended for the Village of Carp CDP, Constance Bay Community Plan (CP) and the Greely CDP. It is important to note that because the review of village plans did not constitute a comprehensive review of the Official Plan, expansion of village boundaries to accommodate future growth has not been considered.

The amendments to Volume 2C of the Official Plan replace the existing plans affecting 20 villages, which consist of sections extracted from pre-amalgamation Township and City plans. The new plan contains a community based vision, goals and objectives for future development in each village, a newly prepared set of consolidated village planning policies, updated land use schedules, and an overlay of the natural heritage system. The recommendations include proposed policies and schedules that will strengthen and enhance the village cores, measures to broaden the scale of home-based businesses in parts of villages, and new policies to limit new or expanded residential care facilities.

The changes to the Carp, Constance Bay and Greely Plans provide necessary updates to the respective plans to: reflect changes in the villages since the plans were originally approved; address errata from the original plans; and provide necessary updates based on changes to the Official Plan. These updates also contain recommended action items such as additional studies arising from the current review and public consultation. Changes to the CPs do not form part of the Official Plan amendment, however they will require the approval of City Council to be implemented.

An information section of the report provides detail on necessary work to be undertaken to review the Village of Manotick Secondary Plan.

The report also provides detail on the very large scope of the public consultation on this policy initiative and provides description and discussion of public input that contributed to the final recommendations.

RÉSUMÉ

Le présent rapport décrit le processus de consultation et d'examen, recommande l'adoption des modifications qu'il est proposé d'apporter au volume 2C du Plan officiel aux plans de conception communautaire (PCC) touchant les terrains à l'intérieur de la désignation Village, tel que le fait voir l'annexe A du Plan officiel. Ces modifications auront pour effet de mettre à jour les plans de village contenus dans le volume 2C, exception faite des villages de Manotick, de Richmond et de North Gower. Des mises à jour sont également proposées pour le PCC du village de Carp, le Plan communautaire (PC) de Constance Bay et le PCC de Greely. Ii importe de signaler que, comme l'examen des plans de village ne constitue pas un examen détaillé du Plan officiel, l'élargissement des limites des villages en prévision de la croissance future n'a pas été envisagé.

Les modifications du volume 2C du Plan officiel remplacent le plan existant portant sur 20 villages, qui consiste en des sections extraites des plans des cantons et des villes d'avant la fusion municipale. Le plan contient une vision communautaire, des buts et des objectifs pour l'aménagement futur dans chaque village, un nouvel ensemble de politiques d'urbanisme codifiées pour les villages, des annexes mises à jour d'utilisation du sol et une désignation superposée pour le système du patrimoine naturel. Les recommandations comprennent des politiques et annexes proposées pour renforcer et mettre en valeur le cœur des villages, des mesures pour accroître la taille des entreprises à domicile dans des secteurs des villages et de nouvelles politiques pour limiter l'implantation ou l'expansion des établissements de soins pour bénéficiaires internes.

Les changements apportés aux plans de Carp, de Constance Bay et de Greely mettent à jour les plans respectifs afin de refléter les changements survenus dans les villages depuis l'approbation originelle des plans, de rectifier les erreurs dans les plans originels, d'apporter les mises à jour nécessaires basées sur les modifications du Plan officiel et de recommander des mesures de suivi, telles que des études supplémentaires, de l'examen et de la consultation publique. Les changements apportés aux CP ne font pas partie de la modification du Plan officiel; elles ont néanmoins besoin de l'approbation du Conseil municipal pour être mise en œuvre.

Une section d'information du rapport donne des détails sur les travaux à entreprendre pour l'examen du Plan secondaire du village de Manotick.

Le rapport donne des détails sur la consultation publique de très grande envergure à laquelle cette initiative d'orientation a donné lieu, ainsi qu'une description et une discussion des interventions du public qui ont influé sur les recommandations finales.

BACKGROUND

Land use policies and schedules for many of the villages in the rural area of Ottawa are found in Volume 2C of the Official Plan. The plans are mostly comprised of text and maps extracted from the local Official Plans that existed prior to amalgamation and have not changed in many years. The result is that the Volume 2C is out of date. The Official Plan provides for the review of these plans every five years prior to the next Official Plan review and that is the subject of this review.

The five year review also applies to CDPs for the villages of Carp and Greely and the CP of the Village of Constance Bay. CDPs or CPs are a form of district or neighbourhood plan unique to the City of Ottawa. These plans are like secondary plans because they guide the long-term growth and development of villages based on the vision for the village. CDPs also provide guidelines beyond those in a secondary plan for day-to-day decision-making on land use planning. They also set out the community's priorities for the future with regard to social, cultural and physical planning. Because the plans for Carp, Constance Bay and Greely are more than five years old, the review of these plans has been completed.

There are five purposes to this report.

1. To update and replace the former Township policies and schedules residing in Volume 2C of the Official Plan with a uniform policy framework, unique village derived visions, goals and objectives for future development and updated land use schedules. The Official Plan amendment will apply to and replace the plans for the following villages.

· Ashton

· Burritt’s Rapids

· Carlsbad Springs

· Cumberland

· Dunrobin

· Fallowfield

· Fitzroy Harbour

· Galetta

· Kars

· Kenmore

· Kinburn

· Marionville

· Metcalfe

· Munster

· Navan

· Notre Dame des Champs

· Osgoode

· Sarsfield

· Vars

· Vernon

2. To update the CDPs for the Villages of Carp, and Greely and the CP for the Village of Constance Bay.

3. To advise Committee and Council on the information relating to the ongoing update to the Manotick Secondary Plan in Volume 2C of the Official Plan.

4. To advise Committee and Council on the implementation of certain planning recommendations originating in the Vars Village Neighbourhood Planning Initiative that is executed through amendments to Volume 2C of the Official Plan.

5. To advise Committee and Council on the implementation of certain planning recommendations originating in the Cumberland Village Visioning Report that is executed through amendments to Volume 2C of the Official Plan.

This is a report with amendments and updates to consolidate various older plans into a cohesive policy structure for all villages in Volume 2C of the Official Plan. This report does not change any policy or schedule in Volume 1 of the Official Plan. The amendments to Volume 2C in this plan are not based on an analysis of village land supply and do not provide for growth or expansion of village boundaries to define additional areas for development. It is important to understand that the amendments recommended in this report do not constitute a comprehensive review of the Official Plan as defined in the Planning Act.

DISCUSSION

The Rural Review

The Rural Review is an umbrella term that Committee has applied for a number of policy planning projects currently underway that encompass five separate planning policy projects:

1. Review of Village Plan policies;

2. Review of Country Estate Lot policies;

3. Review of LEAR (Land Evaluation and Agricultural Review);

4. Review of mineral resources policies and schedules;

5. Review of severance policies relating to lots greater than 10 acres.

The rural review is being undertaken in order to fulfill obligations arising from OPA 76 – the Official Plan update in 2009 that included a commitment to review village plans on a regular basis.

There are 26 villages designated on Schedule A of the Official Plan. Development in each village is guided by Volume 1 of the Official Plan as well as Volume 2C and/or a CDP. The most contemporary of the village plans are in North Gower (2008) and Richmond (2010). Because these two plans are less than five years old it was been determined that they would not be re-evaluated in this study.

The village study has been further divided into two parallel sections – the review of village secondary plans and the review of village CDPs or CPs. The following subsections of this report address the review of village secondary plans for 20 villages, the secondary plan for the village of Manotick and the CDPs for Carp and Greely and the Constance Bay CP.

Village Policies in Volume 2C of the Official Plan

The village Secondary Plans are found in Volume 2C of the Official Plan. These secondary plans are comprised of text extracted from the local Official Plans that existed in the township prior to amalgamation. The result is that the City’s Official Plan has parts of six former municipal plans in Schedule 2C (see to the table below).

Table 1: Villages and Former Municipalities Incorporated into Schedule 2C
Cumberland	Nepean	Goulbourn	Osgoode	Rideau	West Carleton
· Carlsbad Springs3 · Cumberland¹ · Navan · Notre Dame des Champs · Sarsfield · Vars²	· Fallowfield · Manotick (Nepean portion)	· Ashton⁴ · Manotick · Munster	· Kenmore · Marionville⁴ · Metcalfe · Osgoode · Vernon	· Burritt’s Rapids⁴ · Kars	· Dunrobin · Fitzroy Harbour · Galetta · Kinburn
Notes [1] The City has completed the Cumberland Village Visioning Report that informs this review. 2 Vars has recently completed a neighbourhood planning initiative that informs this review. 3 Carlsbad Springs (located in former Cumberland) was designated as a village after amalgamation and therefore this village does not have secondary plan policies in Volume 2C of the Official Plan. ⁴Part of this village or community area is located in another municipality outside the City of Ottawa.

The review of the existing plans contained the following components:

· an analysis of changes in the previous five years;

· a review of any existing secondary plan or Community Plan for the village;

· at least one public meeting to consider needs and challenges; and

· a report to Council on the Village and any required policy initiatives.

Analysis of Changes in the Previous Five Years

An analysis of changes in the previous five years was completed first. The study consisted of a profile for each village and analysis of the changes that have occurred over the last 10 years.

The village profile included the following information:

· Population and dwelling units – changes over the last 10 years

· Development rates and development potential

· Land use map – from the 2010 Land Use Survey

· Employment – from the 2006 Employment Survey, and

· Village characterization – details of what makes the village special.

The analysis for each village was posted on the village review website for the public to review and was used to formulate the scope of public consultation and the review of the secondary plan policies.

Review of the Existing Plan and Public Meetings

Review of the existing plans began with a series of public meetings in the spring of 2011. Staff held 14 different public meetings with village residents to share their ideas on the future of their village. City planners acted as facilitators through a three-part discussion with residents. The facilitation began with residents giving their thoughts on what should be the long-term vision for their community. The facilitation continued with a SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threats) strategic analysis of the village done by villagers using an air photo. After the SWOT residents were asked to review the land use map for the village and to answer a question or two about the village. Over 500 people attended the series of spring workshops and the consultation was considered to be very successful.

The discussion in villages demonstrated some similar themes and those that were quite different. For example, staff noted that within the discussion for most villages the facilitators reported that:

· Residents consider their village to be unique in character and history and their vision for the future is therefore also very unique.

· Villages are a form of community distinct from urban, suburban, exurban or broader rural area and should stay that way.

· Most villages aspired to be a complete community with various businesses, schools, recreation areas and services available.

· Planning and development in the villages should be more simple to reflect the smaller context of a village.

Growth was mentioned at a number of village meetings with different perspectives. Some village discussions for instance suggested that growth with new residences and businesses was very important and to be encouraged. Residents in other villages suggested they did not want any growth.

Following the spring meeting a summary of the village consultations was compiled and this information was placed on the City website. The summary was called “As We Heard It”.

Staff prepared a consolidation of village policies and schedules after the spring meeting. Staff met extensively with the Ward Councillors, village Community Associations and Rural Affairs Office during the preparation of this consolidated document. With the help of the Rural Affairs Office planners also checked and confirmed each of the village plan designations in each of the villages. The consolidated village policies are a result of the public meetings observations and discussions with Councillors and staff and an analysis of the policy structure in Volume 1 and 2C of the Official Plan.

In the fall of 2011 a second series of 12 meetings were held in the villages to introduce the public to the consolidated policies, land use schedules and natural heritage system overlays proposed to replace the existing plan in Volume 2C. The response to the proposed amendments was generally very positive.

At the conclusion of the fall public meetings staff proceeded to prepare the technical circulation and conducted additional consultation with Councillors, Community Associations and agencies.

For details on the communications plan for this study please see Document 5- Consultation Detail and Response to Comments.

Proposed Amendments to Volume 2C of the Plan

The consolidation of the policies in Volume 2C strongly reflects the individual nature of each village. Each of the villages in the plan has a unique village vision for the future as well as goals and objectives for future development so that the village vision can be achieved in the long-term. The plans for each village also reflect changes that have occurred over the years since the plans were first adopted by the former Townships. The resulting plan modernizes the planning for future village development under a consistent set of policies and up-to-date schedules.

The proposed amendment to Volume 2C in Document 2 of this report is a complete replacement of the existing policies for the 20 villages in the plan. Although the plan has undergone a complete rewrite there are relatively very few changes to current land use permissions. The following table describes many of the key improvements in the new plan.

Table 2: Key Changes Proposed to Volume 2C of the Official Plan

Key Policy Direction	Notes
Consolidation of policies from the previous Township plans	· The plan recognizes that uses were permitted in similar designations in the former Township plans and has brought together all the former plans into a single set of village policies. · The consolidation simplifies development and redevelopment in the villages under uniform policies and reduces the potential for any inconsistency with Volume 1 of the Official Plan.
Village vision, goals and objectives	· The plan (re)establishes a unique vision for each village within the broader context of the City of Ottawa. · The Vision describes succinctly the long-term aspirations for each village through the development and redevelopment process. · The Goals describe specific desired outcomes to achieve the vision. · The Objectives provide specific direction to achieve the goals and thus the overall vision for each village.
General policies for all villages in the plan	· The plan provides for policies that will apply to all villages in the plan. The policies seek to define the parameters within which villages will be treated as a distinct form of community under the Official Plan.
Land use designations	· Land use designations have been prepared that are unique to a village context. The intent has been to be consistent with previous plans and supportive of compatible growth in the future.
Expanded home based business provisions	· It was understood that a great deal of economic activity exists in villages within residential areas. A special residential designation has been prepared (Village Residential – Enterprise) to allow for broadened home based businesses in the villages. The designation recognizes that the context of residential land use in villages is more consistent with that of the rural area than the urban or suburban context of the city.
Rules for residential care facilities	· Criteria for new or expanded residential care facilities have been included in the plan to ensure that facilities will meet the needs of their residents and the community.
Emphasis on the village core as the centre of village activity	· Greater recognition of the importance of the village core has been identified. All villages now have a village core defined in the plan and the core is intended to be a pedestrian oriented, multi use district in each village. · Where possible, places of worship, libraries, community centres and other institutional uses such as schools that are community focal points have been placed in the village core designation on the village schedules
Rules for retirement homes	· New retirement homes will be directed towards the village core area or main streets to ensure that these facilities are part of the central life of a village and so that older residents can access goods and services within the core by walking.
Rules for institutional uses	· Institutional uses are encouraged to locate in or near to the village core · New institutional uses have been directed to main streets or collector streets
Revised land use plan	· Land use schedules have been updated based on Schedule A of the Official Plan. · Changes have been made to recognize past approvals, existing uses and recommendations based on consultation and site visits. · The location of conceptual roads as defined in the previous township plans have been carried forward but no additional conceptual roads have been added.
Limits to heavy industry	· The plan limits industrial activity to light industry in villages.
Detail on natural heritage system and natural heritage system overlay	· A natural heritage system overlay has been prepared for each village that identifies areas of potential environmental significance. These areas were inconsistently identified in the former plans. · Development within the overlay area will, consistent with the Official Plan, require an Environmental Impact Statement.
Housekeeping amendments to the village plans	· In some villages, the boundary was adjusted to include existing homes and businesses that were adjacent to and also consistent with the village context. These adjustments are considered housekeeping amendments to the village boundary because: they are consistent with a fine-tuning of the village boundaries as displayed in Schedule A of the Official Plan; they recognize decisions since the village plan was last approved by the local municipality; do not change municipal servicing requirements; and do not add any further developable land to the villages.

Implementing the Vars Neighbourhood Planning Initiative

This study resolves a number of action items and recommendations in the 2010 Vars Neighbourhood Planning Initiative.

In February 2010, City Council approved the Neighbourhood Planning Initiative (NPI) Pilots Report (ACS2010-ICS-CSS-0002) which included the Vars NPI pilot project. Council also directed staff to report back with implementation strategies for each Neighbourhood Plan and an assessment of how the NPI could be integrated into the City’s overall Community Planning processes.

In June 2011, the Environment Committee was provided an update on the implementation strategies in the Neighbourhood Plan (see report ACS2011-ICS-CSS-0012). As part of the Vars implementation strategy, staff prepared amendments to Volume 2C. The following table describes the how recommendations contained in the Vars Neighbourhood Plan will be resolved through amendments to Volume 2C.

Table 3: Resolution of Recommendations in the Vars Neighbourhood Planning Initiative

#	Items in the Vars Neighbourhood Plan (ACS2010-ICS-CSS-0002)	Resolution in the Proposed Amendment to Volume 2C of the Official Plan
9	That developers be encouraged to build a seniors' residence in the village centre.	Volume 2C will limit development of new seniors residences to the village core or near the village core.
16	That the City support the limiting of new residential care facilities. The portion of land use for residential facilities is very high. Vars welcomes and supports current facilities, it is of the opinion that there is a limit to the number of such facilities one small village can support. The village is in need of seniors housing, and any new future residential facilities be exclusively for housing of seniors.	Proposed amendments to Volume 2C of the Official Plan will have new limits to new or expanded residential care facilities.
17	To ensure the diversity of land uses in Vars, and the ability for all residents to age in place, the village requests the approval of a moratorium on new residential care facilities unless specifically identified to serve persons over the age of 65.	Proposed amendments to Volume 2C include specific policies addressing new or expanded residential care facilities.
24	It is recommended that the growth of new homes be limited to no more than 150 dwellings over the next 10 years and that the building be done on a gradual basis and that the preservations of wetlands and agricultural land be taken into consideration.	Proposed amendments to Volume 2C: · do not propose additional development area within the village; · Include a natural heritage system and policies to protect wetlands and other natural areas; · Do not propose development on current agricultural lands.
35	Ensure new development is permeable and provides multiple connections for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.	Proposed amendments to Volume 2C include goals and objectives to enhance non-motorist connectivity through the village.
36	Ensure pedestrian network is continuous and connects to village destinations.	As noted above the plan has goals and objectives to enhance non-motorist connectivity through the village.
37	Connect and integrate natural areas such as creeks and wetlands into pedestrian network.	As noted above the plan has goals and objectives to enhance non-motorist connectivity through the village.
44	Rezoning occur along Rockdale Rd. to promote its vision of small local businesses, while maintaining to the fullest degree the agricultural land in Vars.	Proposed amendments to Volume 2C will establish a village core along Rockdale Road. No agricultural lands are identified on Rockdale Road in the village.
45	Consultative process be undertaken to review lands in and around Vars in order to develop a plan for the village and determine potential areas for growth.	The proposed amendments to Volume 2C represent a consultative review of lands within the village. Development outside the village and determination for further growth are not addressed by the village plan review but rather through a comprehensive review of the Official Plan.
50	That Rockdale Road. be defined as the new Main St. of Vars. Upgrade and install additional lighting on Rockdale using the same or similar theme that currently exists on Buckland Rd	Proposed amendments to Volume 2C will establish a village core along Rockdale Road.

Implementing Aspects of the Cumberland Village Visioning Project

The Cumberland Village Visioning Project was initiated by the Cumberland Community Association (CCA) and facilitated by staff to identify key issues and opportunities relating to an appropriate long- term vision for Cumberland Village. Although the report from this process is intended to be primarily a community resource there are certain recommendations within the document that are appropriate for inclusion in a review of the village plan. The following table describes a number of items noted in the village visioning report and how they are resolved through the current review of the village plans.

Table 4: Resolution of Recommendations in the Vars Neighbourhood Planning Initiative
Excerpt from the Cumberland Village Visioning Report	Resolution in this Amendment
Any new infill development within the core should be compatible with Cumberland’s heritage character. Corporate chain and big box developments that reproduce generic buildings without regard for the surrounding context would be discouraged from locating within the historic village core Conversions of existing homes to businesses along Old Montreal Road through the village core would continue to be supported as an effective way of preserving village character while building a more continuous and cohesive streetscape.	The village policies do not allow for large scale retailers in the core. Properties within the core and in the adjacent Village Residential – Enterprise designation will support economic activity within and adjacent to the core and will help to preserve village character. Goals and objectives of the plan seek to ensure that infill development maintains the character of the village core.
Residential zones on old Montreal Rd. through the village core should be rezoned to allow for the potential of commercial or mixed use conversions.	This plan will re-designate some lands to form a cohesive village core. In addition residential lands will be redesignated to allow for expanded home based businesses.
To move closer toward the envisioned level of business and service along Old Montreal Rd, residents of Cumberland should embrace opportunities for residential conversions within the core, residents should also encourage residential infill and be open to comprehensive proposals to expand the Village boundary.	Redesignation of land to form a clear village core will allow for residential conversions into a variety of businesses. This plan does not address expansion of the village boundary; however it contains a Goal that encourages viable proposals to increase the population of the Village in support of the Community’s vision for an increased variety of business and service within the Village Core.
Any future development proposals within the historic village core should be reviewed against the City of Ottawa Village Design Guidelines 2008, as well as relevant content from older documents such as the Queen Street Design Guidelines, and Development Guidelines for Historic Cumberland Village (1994) to ensure that new developments are respectful of the Historic character of Cumberland Village.	The secondary plan provides for site plan review with the village design guidelines and other City design guidelines. A goal of the plan is to highlight and build upon existing village character.
Any future residential development should encourage a healthier mix of housing types that can accommodate people of varied ages, income levels and stages of life i.e. apartments above commercial, seniors housing, varied lot and unit types to accommodate young families, artists, agricultural and service workers.	An objective of the plan is to encourage a greater mix of housing choices that will allow residents to stay within the Village through all phases of their lives.
As a highest priority, community efforts should focus on advancing a detailed a community connectivity plan.	The secondary plan includes a community connectivity plan for the village to achieve greater connections between neighbourhoods.
Due to the current design of OR174 several neighbourhoods and key public amenity areas are inaccessible to pedestrians, cyclists, and other forms of active transportation.	A goal has been added to the secondary plan that seeks improved connectivity and community access to the riverfront and the amenity spaces along it through any future study or works related to Ottawa Road 174.

Review of the Carp Community Design Plan

Staff began review of the Carp CDP with an analysis of changes since the inception of the CDP. The analysis was posted on the City’s website and was used as background to the overall review. The analysis determined that many of the actions outlined in the CDP had been undertaken and several developments, though not yet complete, were underway. The analysis also determined that the CDP was meeting its objectives should only require updates at this time.

A public workshop was held in spring of 2011 to discuss planning and development in the village. The workshop was well attended and productive. Residents contributed their thoughts on many issues in the village such as planning, the environment, and transportation. After the meeting staff compiled an “As We Heard It” summary of the meeting and posted this on the website. The results can be summarized simply to say that residents are satisfied with the CDP direction, are optimistic of the future of the village and continue to share the same long-term vision for the village’s future. Based on the public consultation staff confirmed the original assessment of the CDP and continued with a scoped review of the CDP.

The CDP was reviewed in four stages.

1. Public comments were reviewed to determine whether the existing CDP addressed them.

2. A review of the CDP was completed for errata (small mistakes such as misspellings) and housekeeping amendments – items that need to be updated based on past decisions or changes to the Official Plan.

3. Necessary additions to the plan were identified based on new policies.

4. A draft plan was prepared and brought forward to a public meeting and for a technical circulation. Following this second public meeting and the technical circulation to agencies final changes were prepared to the plan to bring to committee and council.

The review has resulted in a revised CDP that carries forward the original vision and many of the policies of the CDP with necessary updates and amendments. The following table describes some of the key updates or additions that are proposed for the CDP through this review.

Table 5: Key Updates to the Carp CDP
Sections in the CDP	Key Updates or Additions
Creating a relationship to the Carp Road Corridor CDP	· The proposed CDP contains a section defining the relationship between the village and the Carp Road Corridor. Specifically, employment lands will be located in the corridor and residential, commercial and retail will be best located in the village.
Future Growth and Servicing	· This section includes an update demonstrating that there may be a servicing shortfall in the village and that the city should address this shortfall in the next 10 years.
Environmental Protection	· The proposed CDP contains updates referencing the Carp Environmental Management Plan, as well as the City’s Natural Heritage System. · A new Schedule F illustrates the boundaries of the natural heritage system. · Additions have been made to the proposed CDP to include reference to Source Water Protection planning. · Additions include a new Schedule E illustrating the Carp Well Head Protection Area from the Mississippi Rideau Assessment Report
Potential Fairground Expansion	· Lands for an expansion to the fairgrounds were protected in the original CDP. The proposed CDP moves the dates forward to allow more time to secure these lands.
Design Cues for the Village Core	· Additions have been made to the CDP to reference Village Design Guidelines.
Summary of Future Priorities and Responsibilities	· Many of the accomplishments of the original CDP have been updated. · The CDP identifies a number of new actions be undertaken as follows: o Provide for greater coordination between the Carp Village CDP and the Carp Corridor CDP; o Undertake a Brownfield Study of the village to promote redevelopment of contaminated and potentially contaminated lands in the village; o Further amend the CDP and Zoning Bylaw based on the approved Source Water Protection Plan (expected 2012) and raise awareness of drinking water protection; o Undertake a parking study for the Carp village core.
All Schedules	· Revise the village boundary in the CDP to match Schedule A in the approved Official Plan. · Updated the road and parcel fabric.
Schedule A - Land Use	· Remove the floodplain as a land use category and add the Conservation Authority regulation limit. · Change lands on Rivington Street designated ‘Village Core’ to ‘Residential – Ground Oriented Multi-Unit’ to implement a Council decision from July 14, 2004. · Minor adjustments to the ‘Open Space’ land use category for pathway network north of Langstaff Drive to reflect development which has occurred since 2004. · Land use categories have been amended to match a recent decision on the Karson Haulage Lands.
Schedule B: Road Network	· Change Langstaff Drive between Cavanaugh Drive and Inniskillin Drive from Proposed Collector to Existing Collector because it has been built.
Schedule C – Pedestrian Connectivity Plan	· Connections (both existing and proposed) have been mapped to show both sides of the street rather than just one. · Trail behind medical centre was removed (not enough space). · Trails of the Carp River restoration project have been added. · Addition of future sidewalk all the way to multi-unit housing. · Addition of pathway from Langstaff Drive to the village core. · Future pathways now described as ‘approximate’. · Refined pathway on west end away from the floodplain at the Carp River and onto a proposed sidewalk of Donald B Munro.

Review of the Constance Bay Community Plan

The Constance Bay CP (Document 3) is intended to replace the current Council-approved village plan which was completed in May 2006.

During the process involved to update the Constance Bay CP, staff consulted twice with Constance Bay residents on March 26 and November 26, 2011. At the March meeting approximately 60 residents participated in a workshop format and had opportunities to share their comments, issues/concerns with staff. Based on this feedback in March, staff prepared:

i) Written responses to issues/concerns;

ii) Identified revisions needed to re-fresh the CP; and

iii) Specified future work program items.

All this material was presented at the November meeting where residents were able to ask questions and provide comments to staff. Following a public and technical circulation of the Plan, staff revised the Constance Bay CP. Staff provided written responds to all residents’ concerns that were received during the consultations (Document 5).

Throughout the consultation process, information such as summary of public feedback, notification of upcoming meetings, and a draft version of the Plan were all posted on the City’s web site for residents’ review.

Changes to Constance Bay CP

A number of revisions and updates have been made to the Constance Bay CP including:

· Update of and deletion of completed projects from the plan and implementation of recommendations where required;

o Environmental Management Plan has been prepared and approved for the New Residential Area;

o Boundary between Community Park and Torbolton Forest is now clearly identified in the Zoning By-law;

o Need for update of Torbolton Forest Management Plan by Forestry Services to respond to community input;

o Progress on establishing public accesses to the water and those found inland; and

o Parking studies and associated improvements undertaken including a widening of a portion of Ritchie to accommodate parking for cars and trailers;

· Update of facts and figures e.g. population, land supply and geodetic elevation that delineates floodway and flood fringe and other minor revisions suggested by Mississippi Valley Conservation; and

· Edits and corrections.

Community Concerns

The following table reflects the range of public comments received during the public consultations and Departmental responses (a complete table of public comments and the Department’s responses can be found in Document 5 and at Ottawa.ca/ruralreview):

Table 6: Public Comments and Responses – Constance Bay
Public Comment	Departmental Responses
Desire to have increased recreational activities in the Torbolton Forest and concern about different vehicles using the Forest.	· This will be addressed when the current Management Plan for the Torbolton Forest is revised. The Forestry staff who will be involved in the new plan have been involved in the consultations in Constance Bay and understand the concerns.
Residents are keen to see not only public accesses to the water identified, but also those located inland.	· Work to properly identify and clear the public accesses will continue.
Request for intersection improvements at Dunrobin Road and the provision of cycle lanes	· Traffic signals are not warranted but other improvements such as road shoulders will paved when road resurfacing is undertaken to accommodate cyclists.
Concerns about speeding in the community.	· Residents are able to contact the City by calling 3-1-1 and are able to work with City staff to request a speed display board through a new City program in an effort to address speeding concerns.
Request for staff to consider an alternative to the secondary access road shown in the Council-approved Community Plan.	· The suggested road alignment is linked to a desire to expand the village boundary which is not warranted by growth in the village. As a consequence the City would be required to acquire the land and construct the road without any justifiable need to do so.

Future work program item

The existing lot size and lot coverage provisions along with inconsistencies between the CPs land uses and zoning need to be reviewed.

Review of the Greely Community Design Plan

The Greely CDP (Document 4) is intended to replace the current Council-approved village plan which was completed in February 2005. The review process for the Greely CDP followed a similar process to the one for the Constance Bay CP.

Staff met with residents on March 30 and December 15, 2011 to identify community issues/concerns and to provide responses, recommended changes to the Greely CDP and future work program items. Materials were available on the City’s web site for residents to review including summary of workshop results, notification of upcoming meetings and draft plan changes for comment. Community comments and the Department’s responses are found on the City’s web site at - http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/rural_review/villages/greely_en.html

Updates Required to Greely CDP

Update village boundaries (lot fabric and roads) on all the schedules to reflect Ontario Municipal Board approvals and to identify appropriate land use categories e.g. lands in the vicinity of the Shopping Centre Commercial designation east of Bank Street will be designated Residential, Open Space and Village Core to reflect their approved uses.
Update existing and future road network schedule
Update and incorporate existing and future public linkages (e.g. pathways, sidewalks) and conceptual location of new parks. The Department has and will continue to work with the Greely Community Association on planning and implementing the greenspace network system.
Identify on Schedule A – the land uses for properties that were brought into the “Village” designation through Ontario Municipal Board decisions.
Re-organization of the CDP so that sections that are no longer relevant are deleted.

Recommended Future Work Program Item

Undertake a transportation study to assess the range of needs in the Village of Greely. An overall transportation review is needed for the Village in order to develop a comprehensive approach rather than piecemeal fashion, which is now the case. Needs that should be assessed include transportation facilities of pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, trucks, recreational pathways. The expected outcome: is to identify future requirements and improvements that need to be in place to meet the travel needs of residents and to support the growth patterns in the Village.

Community Concerns Addressed

The concerns raised by residents focussed primarily on transportation issues, which will be reviewed as part of the transportation work recommended above. Some of these issues are:

Lack of connectivity between neighbourhoods – need for public linkages (e.g. pathways, sidewalks, cycling facilities) between neighbourhoods, public facilities, commercial areas, and to area-wide and region-wide recreational networks;
Substandard condition of all main roads (e.g. Albion Road, Parkway Road, Old Prescott Road). A fire truck and car cannot pass same section of Parkway Road at same time. Cars often speed or pull into driveways to avoid the fire trucks;
Vehicles speeding along Stagecoach and Old Prescott Roads at 80-90 km/h;
Truck traffic on Old Prescott Road travelling at 80 km/h – need for a truck ban;
Too much traffic at Bank Street/Parkway Drive, at Parkway Drive/Stagecoach Road, and Stagecoach Road;
Need for eastbound right turn lane off Mitch Owens Road onto Stagecoach Road and another onto Old Prescott Road; and

Residents also identified a range of other concerns including the following:

Table 7: Public Comments and Responses – Greely
Public Comment	Departmental Responses
The shopping centre location at Bank Street/Parkway Drive is located too far east.	· The Ontario Municipal Board directed that the village boundary be expanded east of Bank Street to accommodate a shopping centre and additional commercial uses. The concern cannot be addressed through the Greely CDP.
Residents would like more park amenities such as soccer fields, baseball diamonds, and a hockey arena.	· These comments have been forwarded to park planning staff in the Department.
Request for village expansion in the Cedar Lakes subdivision area.	· The review of 24 village plans is meant to be a re-fresh and any consideration of village boundary expansion will be undertaken at the time of a comprehensive review. The current land supply exceeds a 10-year supply as required by the Official Plan.
Since the majority of Greely is privately serviced, there were concerns about the impact of development on the quality and quantity of groundwater supply.	· Through the development application process, developers must demonstrate that: o There is sufficient quantity of ground water; o A well can be constructed without being impacted by identified potential sources of groundwater contamination; o The quality of groundwater meets or exceeds the Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines; and o Operation of on-site wastewater systems will not adversely impact a well to be constructed on the proposed lot and on well of adjacent properties.

Information on the Manotick Secondary Plan Review

The Manotick Secondary Plan forms part of the Official Plan and changes require an Official Plan Amendment, which will be undertaken at a future date. Similar to Constance Bay and Greely, staff consulted with Manotick residents in the spring of 2011 and a wide range of issues were identified by residents. On December 6, 2011 staff presented their recommendations, responses to residents’ concerns and next steps. They were also informed that the results of staff’s work and next steps would be brought to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee as an information item in the spring of 2012. Some of the issues identified by residents include the following:

Highlights of community concerns

Village Core:

- Concern about the future of the Mill Quarter and desire to retain its character.

- Lack of continuous sidewalks and the lack of pedestrian crossings to cross Manotick Main Street.

- Need for the Village Core to be linked through pathways and cycling routes to the rest of the Village, Rideau River and regional recreational networks.

- Vehicle speed through the core.

- A need for truck traffic restrictions through the core.

- Trucks making turns onto Bridge Street sometimes jumping the sidewalk putting pedestrians at risk.

- Concerns about big box development and Trinity’s Ontario Municipal Board appeal to expand the village boundary to accommodate large format retail development which they believe would negatively impact businesses in the Village Core.

- Concerns that the existing zoning does not implement the land use plan.

- Concern about the impact of central services on mainstreet development.

Area transportation issues:

- Address existing traffic concerns on First Line Road, Bridge Street, and Bankfield Road.

- Truck traffic travelling through the Core.

- Concern about traffic impacts of Mahogany development.

- Parking supply in the core.

- Concern about ensuring that there are pathway connections created throughout the Village and also between the Mahogany development and the rest of Manotick.

· Greenspace network

- Need for a parks master plan in Manotick.

- Need for pathways throughout the Village.

- Retention of off-leash dog park.

- Need to preserve Mahogany Forest and inclusion of pathways.

- Concern about numerous visioning and strategic planning documents that have been prepared and their possible conflicts. This includes documents prepared by five separate groups including the Manotick Village and Community Association, Rideau Township Historical Society, Watson’s Mill, Manotick Culture Parks and Recreation Association, and the City.

During public consultations the Department received a request by Trinity development to consider expansion of the village boundary to lands located at Mitch Owens and River Road. Earlier Trinity had requested that the Ontario Municipal Board postpone its appeal with respect to Official Plan Amendment 76 so that it could participate in the re-fresh of the Manotick Secondary Plan. Since village boundary expansion accommodating development is not being considered as part of the village plan review the Manotick Secondary Plan specifically refers to the core as “the Village’s “heart”, its social centre and the focus of its economic activity” (Section 3.7.2.4), the Department is not recommending a boundary expansion to accommodate commercial development that could negatively impact it. Further the Department recognizes that the City has dedicated significant financial and staff resources in the Mill area that is expected to enhance its historic character and contribute to vitality of the Village Core. Any boundary expansion to accommodate large format commercial development would not be supportive of current plans and direction for Manotick.

Additional work required

Review of the Manotick Secondary Plan revealed a number of additional initiatives that need to be undertaken to refresh the existing planning document. Time required to do this was much more than the time allocated during this re-fresh of the village plans. These include: policy review, mapping updates and further study. It is anticipated that the Department will bring forth a single staff report that will encompass all required amendments described below to the Secondary Plan. The following is a list of work items that still need to be addressed:

· Review of employment policies

· Review and update of servicing policies

· Undertake a Village Core and connectivity study to plan the Core’s future growth and to plan links from the mainstreet area to the rest of Manotick to

o improve connections to neighbourhoods, greenspace network, Rideau River and regional recreational networks;

o address pedestrian safety;

o review need to expand Village Core in light of planned growth; and

o review impact of the provision of central services on development of property in the mainstreet area.

· Review Schedule A – land use to ensure consistency with zoning

· Revise Schedule A to re-designate lands north of Bankfield Road to reflect existing development

· Re-designate Special Design Area to reflect existing development

· Show park location in Special Design Area

· Create separate map for Village Core Character Areas for improved legibility

· Rectify anomalies

· Revise references from “family” since the City plans for land uses and not families

· Update facts and other editorial changes

· Assess visioning documents of various community groups

The fallout work recommended for the Village of Manotick will be added to the Departmental workload pressures and will be reviewed during the 2013 review of the Term of Council Work program. Should other projects take priority at that time, it will be included in the next term of Council Work Plan.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

All sections of this report deal with matters pertaining to rural villages.

Review of the village plans have provided an opportunity for the City to hear from rural residents about specific planning concerns and issues in their village. The results are village plans that are shaped to respond to community needs and some additional projects that need to be completed.

CONSULTATION

Notice of this amendment was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy.

Details on the public consultation and responses to the notification/circulation are provided in Document 5.

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLORS

The Ward Councillors are aware of this application and the staff recommendations.

Ward 19 Comments

Councillor Blais has reviewed the Official Plan Amendment proposal regarding the update to village plans. He actively participated in the rural review. The new vision statements, objectives and goals will be very useful moving forward.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct legal implications associated with this report.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There are no risk implications associated with this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct financial implications.

ACCESSIBILITY IMPACT

There are no direct accessibility impact implications associated with this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposed amendments to Volume 2C of the plan update environmental policies in the plan to be consistent with the Official Plan and provincial policy. The plan schedules include a natural heritage system overlay to be used in development review.

Policies in the Carp Community CDP have been updated to include a map of the wellhead protection area of the Carp municipal well. The CDP also includes an overlay of the natural system where, consistent with Official Plan policies, an environmental impact statement will be required prior to development. Finally, floodplain mapping within the Carp CDP has been replaced with the more current definition of a Conservation Authority regulation limit.

TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct technical implications associated with this report.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS

No advisory committee comments were received on the proposed amendments or policy directions.

TERM OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES

This report is supportive of the following objectives in the City strategic plan.

EP3 – Support growth of local economy

ES2 – Enhance and protect natural systems

HC1 – Achieve equity and inclusion for aging and diverse population

GP3 – Make sustainable choices

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATIONS

Revised Document 1 - Amendment to Volume 2C of the Official Plan to replace the secondary plans for the villages of: (distributed separately and on file with the City Clerk)

· Ashton

· Burritt’s Rapids

· Carlsbad Springs

· Cumberland

· Dunrobin

· Fallowfield

· Fitzroy Harbour

· Galetta

· Kars

· Kenmore

· Kinburn

· Marionville

· Metcalfe

· Munster

· Navan

· Notre Dame des Champs

· Osgoode

· Sarsfield

· Vars

· Vernon

Document 2 Carp Village Community Design Plan (2012) (attached separately)

Document 3 Constance Bay Village Community Plan (2012) (attached separately)

Document 4 Greely Village Community Design Plan (2012) (attached separately)

Document 5 Village Review Consultation Detail and Responses to Comments (distributed separately and on file with the City Clerk)

DISPOSITION

Planning and Growth Management to prepare the by-law adopting the Official Plan Amendments, forward to Legal Services and undertake the statutory notification.

Legal Services to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.

Planning and Growth Management to prepare and consult on Zoning By-law Amendments to implement the adopted Official Plan Amendment and updated CDPs.