DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

No declarations of interest were filed.

Prior to commencing with the regular items of business, Chair Hunter indicated he had received a letter from Councillor Arnold, wherein she announced that she would not be seeking re-election in the fall. The Chair said while the purpose of this week’s meetings was to plan for the City of Ottawa for the next 20 years, he found it hard to imagine how City Council would manage for the next three years with the loss of such a distinguished colleague as Councillor Arnold. He said the Councillor’s contributions to the work of the Planning and Development Committee had been indispensable and on behalf of the Committee, Chair Hunter wished Councillor Arnold well in her endeavours.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

SERVICES D’AMÉNAGEMENT

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

POLITIQUES D’URBANISME, D’ENVIRONNEMENT ET

D’INFRASTRUCTURE

1. DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN, MARCH 2003

PLAN OFFICIEL PROVISOIRE, MARS 2003

ACS2003-DEV-POL-0018 Citywide

Monday, 31 march 2003

As required under the Planning Act, Committee Chair Hunter began by reading a statement advising that anyone who intended to appeal the Draft Official Plan to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.

Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning Environment and Infrastructure Policy and Lesley Paterson, Program Manager, Planning Policy, Planning Environment and Infrastructure Policy appeared before the Committee. Mr. Jacobs explained that this week’s meetings were the last round of hearings on the Draft Official Plan (OP) prior to Council consideration. Ms. Paterson provided an overview to Committee on departmental report dated 20 March 2003, and related documentation; Mr. Jacobs highlighted major issues that had arisen during consultation and the staff response to those matters. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

Responding to questions from Councillor Eastman, Mr. Jacobs advised that any OMB appeals on the City’s OP would be filed after Ministerial approval of the Plan. Any applications for amendments that come forward after Council approval of the new OP on 23 April 2003 would be considered pursuant to the policies of the new OP.

Councillor Cullen noted the report indicated the target for the jobs per household for the three urban areas was 1.3. He asked if staff had the current figures with respect to each of the West Urban, the South Urban and the East Urban areas. Mr. Jacobs advised the jobs per household ratios in 2001 were: West - 1.5; South 0.6; and, East 0.5.

Councillor Stavinga commented that staff had indicated the City would not be looking at private communal systems, which was the direction of the former Regional Official Plan (ROP). Referencing the Village of Richmond, the Councillor noted growth is being focussed there; however, there is currently a public communal system and two imminent private communal systems. As well, a majority of the homes are on private wells and the City’s sewer system. She asked what would happen in this situation. Mr. Jacobs advised the thrust of the plan is to focus on private services and work with the community to ensure they know how to operate and manage their private systems. There are communal systems in place the City would continue to manage and monitor. In the wake of issues arising out of Walkerton and changes in Legislation, it is clearly the City’s responsibility to ensure water and waste water is provided in a safe and effective manner. In the case of Richmond with a multiplicity of systems, staff would be watching and working with the community to ensure existing systems continue to operate properly and are managed properly. In the longer term, if issues were to arise, the City would need to look at alternatives at that point; staff are not advocating moving to City operated communal services at this point.

Responding to further questions from Councillor Stavinga regarding the Hyde Park development and the fact that a private operator had just been signed, Mr. Jacobs advised this system would continue under the existing agreement. The basis of the Legislation (and the thrust of what has come out of Walkerton) is that should that system fail, it would become a municipal responsibility.

Referencing Document 8, Chair Hunter noted the area of developed urban land is approximately 24,500 ha., leaving 10,600 ha. vacant land. He observed this would mean the vacant urban land represents 40% of the developed urban land. In looking at Schedule B, the Chair could not see how the vacant urban land could even be 10% of the developed urban land. He asked if there was a document outlining where these vacant parcels were and their size. Mr. Jacobs advised staff would provide members with a map of these sites before the end of the week.

The Committee heard from the following delegations.

Leonard Poole, President, Community Council of Overbrook, provided the Committee with a copy of his PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. In summary, Mr. Poole spoke of the tremendous growth that occurred and continues to occur in Overbrook and the pressure put on the transportation infrastructure in the area. He urged the Committee consider, as a priority, a pedestrian bridge from Coventry Road to the Transitway Station at the Via Train Station, which would provide access to the Transitway Station for thousands of employees and customers of the businesses in the area, as well as patrons of the Ottawa Lynx Stadium. It was consistent with the goals of the OP; reduce automobile congestion, air pollution and increase OC-Transpo use.

Councillor Legendre noted this pedestrian link had been in the background for a long time, as part of an OMB process regarding the Ottawa Lynx Stadium. At that time development on the Coventry corridor was not sufficient to justify such a link over the Queensway. As Mr. Poole pointed out in his presentation, in the 10 years since, development proceeded at a high pace and the Councillor agreed the conditions now existed for this link to happen. Councillor Legendre queried how he could advance this project to have it inserted in the new OP. Mr. Jacobs referenced p. 27 of the current draft of the OP, Policy 28, which speaks to access to rapid transit facilities and the potential for developing partnerships with businesses and the private sector in providing access. One of the examples provided in that Policy speaks to this pedestrian overpass. Mr. Jacobs went on to explain that the approach taken by staff with the Draft OP and the supporting documents, is that the detail of specific projects would be captured in the implementation plans, the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) being one of them. He suggested the TMP (as well as the Capital budget) would be the correct source to implement this item.

David Jeanes, Transport 2000, submitted a copy of his presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Jeanes addressed a number of concerns he had with respect to the following issues: Rapid Transit; Schedule D Primary Transit Network; Lebreton Flats; additional River Crossings and Other Conceptual Links; as well as pointing out a number of typographical errors in the Draft OP. In addition to the comments made in his submission, Mr. Jeanes expressed support for the issue raised by the previous delegation and noted Transport 2000 had submitted a similar proposal for this pedestrian bridge, which was looked at by City staff and rejected due to cost and the City’s inability to accommodate it within the budget.

Catherine Boucher, Lynne Carson and Debbie Edwards appeared before the Committee representing the Ottawa Social Housing Network. A copy of this group’s presentation was distributed to the Committee and held on file with the City Clerk. Ms. Boucher noted the group had appeared before the Committee during the previous public meetings on the Draft OP to speak to the issue of affordable housing. At that time, they had requested changes and were satisfied some of these changes were made. However, Ms. Boucher stated the group still had concerns with Section 2.5.2 of the Draft OP, dealing with affordable housing and highlighted these concerns.

Councillor Arnold indicated she would be moving the following two motions, in response to the Ottawa Social Housing Network’s concerns.

Whereas Section 2.5.2 of the City of Ottawa Draft OP (March 2003) sets a target of 25% of housing units available each year to be affordable to households at the 30^th income percentile for rental and the 40^th income percentile for ownership housing;

And Whereas this draft also states that only a “minimum of 15% of the total new units in all development projects will be affordable for households up to the 40^th income percentile on the assumption that many resale homes and existing rentals are affordable;

And Whereas resale prices and existing rentals in Ottawa have been rising rapidly in recent years;

Therefore be it resolved that Policy 2 of Section 2.5.2 on Affordable Housing be amended to require that a minimum of 25% of the total new units in all development projects be affordable.

Whereas Section 2.5.2 of the City of Ottawa Draft OP (March 2003) recommends that the affordable units required in new developments be affordable at the 40^th income percentile;

And Whereas the 40^th income percentile represents affordable rents at $1,150 which is not affordable for many modest income households;

And Whereas affordable rents at the 30^th income percentile are $910, which can begin to address the real need for affordable, inclusive housing;

Therefore be it resolved that Policy 2 of Section 2.5.2 on Affordable Housing be amended to require a minimum of 15% of new units be affordable to households up to the 30^th income percentile and that the remainder of the 25% be targeted to households up to the 40^th income percentile.

Daniel McDade, provided a written copy of his presentation, which was distributed to members of the Committee and held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. McDade spoke in support of the removal of the Bronson-Portage Link from the OP.

Ned Lathrop, General Manager, Development Services, advised that as a result of further work on the TMP, it is recommended the Bronson-Portage link be removed. He explained the reasons for its removal related to issues around the development of the downtown and transportation movement but most importantly the focus on preserving the existing character downtown and moving to a much more aggressive rapid transit rather than depending on the road network for major north-south movements. It was also critical (as evidenced in the TMP) that two bridges - one east and one west - were built, which will provide much needed relief in terms of traffic to and from Quebec.

Councillor Arnold was delighted to hear this. She submitted some 20 pieces of correspondence she had received regarding this issue (all in support of the removal of the Bronson-Portage link) and asked that these form part of the record. The submissions were from: Angela Prokopiak; Rosemary Tayler; Garry Bowers and Jeff Richstone (2); Diane Holmes; Marjorie Fulton; Judy Girard; Noreen and John Carter; Dan McDade; Jean Christie; Drina Wethey; Deborah Ironside; Andrew Aitkens; Doug Gabelmann; Archie Campbell; Martha Musgrove; Jim Maloney; M.T.A. Lauzon; Paul Francis; and Martine Mandeville.

Lewis Kruger, Director of Development, Richcraft Quality Home Builders, appeared before Committee to address issues concerning the Eden Park development. Mr. Kruger submitted a letter outlining his concerns, which was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk. Specifically, Richcraft was concerned with the wording of Section 3.6.2.5 of the Draft OP and asked that Committee approve the deletion of the words “…, except in the case of the Mixed-Use Centre south of Innes Road and west of Mer Bleue Road, where a community design plan must be adopted.” It was their desire to develop under existing policy and not the new OP, and this clause would obligate this development to the new OP.

Councillor Hume referenced the letter submitted by Mr. Kruger and noted it stated “These reports together with the concept plan and previous consultations are intended to satisfy the intent of a “Community Design Plan”. The Councillor questioned why the delegation would be concerned with the deletion of this wording, if they have assurances the intent is met. Mr. Kruger responded that throughout the process, Richcraft has been saying they want to be processed under current policy, but will respect and address the requirements of the new OP. They wished to process this development as soon as possible and the timing of the OP is unknown (i.e. it is subject to appeals that could delay it). This clause would frustrate their efforts to be processed under existing policies.

At the Committee’s request, Mr. Lathrop advised that staff’s concern was that this is one of the few areas within the existing City, with a major tract of land that formerly had a fairly extensive industrial designation and is now being modified to move into a mixed-use development. Staff want to ensure the issues around the Community Design Plan and all the criteria that should be applied, is applied to this particular project. He had looked at the Eden proposal and felt there were still issues to be considered that staff wanted addressed under the Community Design Plan criteria. To the extent that staff can work with Richcraft to attain those goals and objectives, they would do so. At this point in time, staff see no reason why they this development could not come under the Community Design Plan objectives and processed as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Kruger stressed it is Richcraft’s intention to conform to these requirements and in this regard, submitted reports and are waiting to hear from staff. Timing was their concern and pointed out that at the end of the day, their application would have to come before the Planning and Development Committee (PDC) and staff will have to advise whether to support it or not.

Mr. Lathrop received confirmation that if there were issues related to Community Design Plans, in terms of additional information, the proponent would have no objections in providing this to staff.

Councillor Bloess noted this development was in his ward and could understand
Mr. Kruger’s concerns in terms of the timing being out of sync with the approval of the new OP. He did not hear the delegation objecting to the policies, but rather the fact this development would be isolated as an exception. Mr. Kruger agreed and the potential for delay was also of concern. Richcraft submitted reports pursuant to the requirements of the June 2002 OP and in January, when the new OP was released those reports were modified to conform. He contended that Richcraft also met the requirements of the March 2003 version of the OP and would continue to work with staff to address all concerns. Councillor Bloess then asked staff if it was really necessary to have the latter portion of Clause 5 included, since Richcraft is indicating they will adhere to those policies in any event. Mr. Lathrop stated he was prepared to look at the issue of timing, to ensure the development is not delayed. His concern was that the information they would normally require as part of the Community Design Plan process would be adhered to and heard that Richcraft was prepared to do that.

Marcel Bisson, advised he owned approximately 120 acres on Lot 22, Concession 8, Cumberland. He wished to divide this land into three distinct lots for his use and that of his sons. Mr. Bisson stated the new OP would not allow him to do this. He was seeking authorization to sever these three lots so that he can build houses for himself and his sons.

Councillor Munter received confirmation Mr. Bisson had the authority under the current OP to separate this property into three lots. Mr. Bisson wanted his children to benefit from the property, noting that currently, two of his sons live in mobile homes in Edwards, where there are concerns about water.

At the Committee’s request, Steven Boyle, Planner, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Approvals, advised that staff had spoken with Mr. Bisson on this issue previously. According to the current OP, Mr. Bisson has the right to sever the north half (which is designated Agricultural land) and the south half (which is General Rural with a rural features designation) and build a house on each lot. Mr. Boyle said that on the most southerly lot, depending exactly on what Mr. Bisson was proposing, he might be able to get a second lot. The new OP would not allow multiple, rural lot severances and even if it did, the problem is that Mr. Bisson does not have enough frontage on Frank Kenny Road to obtain three lots. Mr. Bisson then asked how many vacant acres within the east urban area were planned for development. Chair Hunter advised he had requested this information and staff would be providing it later in the week.

As a final point, Mr. Bisson noted the new OP required buffer zones for agricultural land – 3 km. for urban areas and 1 km. for village areas. He opined this was drastic control and would sterilize a lot of land owned by people like himself. A study for the Terry Fox area was recommended and he asked that Cumberland and the General Rural Area be included in this study, so that lots in this area can be developed in the near future.

Mr. Boyle explained that Mr. Bisson was raising the issue of the OP having policies that would indicate that within one km. of a village or five km. of the urban area there should be a restriction on certain land uses so that they would not impede a possible future expansion of the village or the urban area. This would not mean that any existing uses, such as agriculture, would not be permitted. He explained the intent was to prevent large, land intensive uses (e.g. a 50 acre car lot or a cemetery) on the edge of the urban area. The policy has in fact been removed for the urban area, but the village policy remained.
Mr. Boyle pointed out that if Mr. Bisson wanted the existing permitted agricultural use on his lands in Concession 11, so long as he respects the minimum separation distance, he could do so.

Mr. Bisson stated his land is surrounded by future urban development and he could therefore not use this land for farming. He had been before Committee many times since 1988 seeking equity for residents on the Cumberland side of Notre Dame. He had submitted written comments in which he stated he did not disagree with the by-pass set out on Schedule G; however, it should be expanded to the north by using the road space between the link in the future Blackburn By-laws. Mr. Bisson said there was no reason for the Mer Bleue area to become an arterial road. Residents want to maintain the value of their homes and do not want a major arterial roadway crisscrossing the area.

Brian Gifford, Peter Trotscha and Tom Capler, Cooperative Housing Association of Eastern Ontario. A copy of the group’s presentation was provided to the Committee and held on file with the City Clerk. In their submission, they expressed support for the proposals of the Ottawa Social Housing Network regarding affordable housing and provided analysis to back up their support.

Fred Boyd, Kanata Beaverbrook Community Association provided the Committee with a copy of his submission, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Boyd conveyed his Association’s concerns with a number of areas of the Draft OP, including the public participation process and principles contained in the Plan concerning the General Urban Area, Schools, Mixed Use and applications for OP or Zoning amendments.

Ed Balys, Balys and Associates and Pamela Sweet, FoTenn Consultants Inc. A copy of the delegations’ submission was distributed to the Committee and held on file with the City Clerk. Ms. Sweet, on behalf of Balys and Associates, requested changes to the Draft OP for the Kanata Highlands Property, Lots 8 and 9, Concession 1, in the former City of Kanata.

Councillor Munter stated the last time the delegation was before the Committee, he received what he asked for and it turns out this was not enough. The Councillor opined the lands referred to by the delegation (the west side of the future road alignment), do not need to be in the study area to be included in the consideration. The proponent wanted to ensure his proposal (which was not without merit) would be part of the consideration. Given that a portion of the lands owned by Balys and Associates are within the special study area, it would be impossible to deal with one portion without the other portions, since that is how they structured their proposal. Mr. Balys stated the City could not have provisions for corridors and passageways in the Terry Fox design that stop at private lands. He was simply trying to get this land into City ownership so it could have these passageways.

Councillor Munter felt the intent of what the proponent was seeking could be dealt with by adding wording to the appropriate section to the effect of “the study shall be required to take into consideration the lands surrounding the special study area and the ability to jointly plan those lands”. He asked if Ms. Sweet would agree with this. His concern with a special study area is that as soon as a line is put on the map, there is an implicit contract that people seem to assume has been made. As a result of that he was reluctant to make the area bigger because he did not want to inadvertently increase the size of the urban envelope.

Ms. Sweet agreed the Councillor and proponent were saying the same thing, but instead of putting something on a Schedule indicating it is part of the special study, he was suggesting that within the text of the Plan, wording could be included that would require, when the City is doing the special study, the connections, corridors and relationships will be looked at to the surrounding lands and in particular the rural lands to the west. Mr. Balys referenced the wording of a motion previously put forward by Councillor Munter, namely, “Whereas both the landowners of adjacent rural Natural Environment Area lands and interested residents have identified these adjacent rural lands as part of the overall greenspace solution for West Ottawa; potentially thus impacting on the interstitial lands; Therefore be it resolved that staff be directed to place the interstitial lands in a “Special Study Designation”...”. Mr. Balys explained he was simply taking the spirit of the Councillor’s message and making the dotted line. Councillor Munter did not believe that he and the proponent were that far apart and felt some language could be arrived at by the end of the week that would retain the intent to ensure all Mr. Balys’ lands are the subject of the coming review.

Councillor Cullen referenced the presentation made by Mr. Jeanes on behalf of Transport 2000, with respect to the definition of “Rapid Transit” and his opinion that the term was used indiscriminately because with rapid transit, it is assumed it does not operate in regular traffic. The Councillor asked if there was a need to clean up the language. Mr. Jacobs advised staff would look at the definitions but noted it was difficult to have a definition that covers all circumstances. For example, if the proposal for light rail transit into the downtown is successful, there would be a train running down a street which could be part of mixed traffic. It would be on tracks and clearly have priority, but it would be in mixed traffic. He explained staff are trying to attain a balance in the definitions that convey the intent but it is not possible to always capture everything. Councillor Cullen felt the definition was appropriate and the problem was where the term is applied.

Councillor Cullen received confirmation Mr. Jeanes’ point with regard to the issue of modal share in different sectors of the City would be considered in the TMP. Mr. Jacobs added that the overall vision and objective is identified in the OP. Referencing another issue raised by Mr. Jeanes, Councillor Cullen asked if staff intended to buy up land along such streets as Bank, Bronson, Somerset and Parkdale to protect a 40-m. width for rapid transit corridors. Mr. Jacobs stated it was not staff’s intent to change existing right-of-ways to meet standards clearly not achievable. There would always be exceptions and staff would look to the detail of the TMP in the upcoming consultation to further clarify such issues. Councillor Cullen suggested staff look at that wording because although it is understood at this stage, in a few years someone might come to a different conclusion. As a final comment, Councillor Cullen received confirmation staff would undertake to correct the minor typographical errors Mr. Jeanes pointed out.

Councillor Stavinga had questions with respect to the proposed prohibition of country lot subdivisions in the new OP and the options brought forward by staff, as requested by PDC. She noted previously in the Regional Official Plan (ROP) there were Natural Environment Areas (NEA) A and B and country lot subdivisions were permitted in NEA B (subject to an environmental assessment). In the new OP, staff integrated the two NEAs. If Committee and Council were to reinstate a country lot subdivision policy, how would the issue of the NEAs be dealt with. Ms. Paterson responded that if Council were to reinstate a country lot subdivision policy, it would also have to consider whether country lot subdivisions should be reinstated in the NEA B and, if so, staff would have to distinguish between the two NEAs again. Mr. Jacobs clarified that the proposed alternative policy on country lot subdivisions does not consider allowing these subdivisions in the NEAs. However, this was a Committee and Council decision.

Councillor Eastman referenced the section dealing with grandfathering applications (pp. 100 and 101 of the staff report) and questioned what was considered a complete application. Mr. Jacobs advised that with respect to subdivisions there is some allowance in the grandfathering clause as there is a reference to the current and meaningful pre-consultation element and a different date is provided for that. With respect to deeming an application complete, this is covered specifically under the Planning Act. Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals East and South, advised that applications currently come in through the Client Service Centres where they are reviewed to ensure they meet the basic requirements (i.e. the form is filled out, the appropriate fees submitted and the appropriate number of plans). The responsible planner then reviews the applications to ensure they are complete and that any necessary supporting studies (e.g. environmental impact statement) have been submitted. Ms. Currie said staff were trying to avoid the situation where on the last day, people fill in the form and run it into the office at 4:30 (i.e. without any of the background work or documentation completed) and suggest it is a complete application.

Another concern expressed by Councillor Eastman related to existing applications for plans of subdivisions and asked if these proponents had been notified that their submissions must be complete prior to April 23. Ms. Currie advised that over recent months during pre-consultation activities and particularly regarding country estate subdivisions, individuals have been made well aware there is a proposal in the new Plan to remove that allowance. They had not been given specific dates, because until the report is approved there is no specific date to that grandfathering clause, but certainly they have been advised to be involved or to follow this process. Ms. Currie advised that numerous applications were received over recent months for rural estate subdivisions resulting from the consultations and the understanding applications had to be filed.

The Committee adjourned between 12:00 Noon and 1:00 pm.

Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering, advised his firm had made eleven submissions with respect to the January 2003 OP, on behalf of the following entities: Kanata Research Park; North Tech Land Development; Osgoode-Rideau Soccer Association; Luigi Mion (South Gloucester); Charles Delahunt; Luigi Mion (Carp Road); Len Payne; PCM Kanata South; Hunt (and others); Yzenbrandt; and, Richardson and Broughton. Mr. Chown indicated he had reviewed the March 2003 OP with respect to his initial submissions and provided a written document outlining his comments in this regard, which was distributed to the Committee and held on file with the City Clerk.

Mr Chown also provided a written submission on behalf of Osgoode-Rideau Soccer Association regarding a proposed soccer field on Mitch Owens Road, in which he outlined concerns with policies contained in the Draft OP that will impact this property. This document and a third submission containing detailed comments on the OP in general were distributed and held on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Munter noted Mr. Chown had come before the Committee the previous week seeking a temporary use permit (re Osgoode-Rideau Soccer Association); however, he heard from Mr. Chown the proponent was now seeking a more permanent use. Mr. Chown explained a number of issues were involved and, depending on the will of this Committee and how they deal with these concerns, it will affect the level of investment his client makes on this property. A temporary use zoning by-law can run a maximum of three years. The zoning on this property will not be in effect until some time later this summer because of the conditions attached to the approval. Once approved, his client will undertake some work on the site, which could take a year, and a significant investment for two seasons of soccer. Councillor Munter questioned why the proponent did not apply for an OPA and rezoning. Mr. Chown agreed this was in effect what he was doing now. He was presenting two options to Committee; the first being to allow his client to extend the temporary use on the property. However, the preferred option would be to allow his client to return with a rezoning to allow the use as of right, to permit some significant capital investments.

Referencing the detailed comments Mr. Chown had submitted with respect to the OP, Councillor Eastman asked if staff would be reviewing these. Mr. Lathrop advised that any technical comments/corrections by Mr. Chown would be implemented. Any other issues the Committee wished to address should be made during the deliberations later in the week. Staff would review the letter and provide comments at the time of Committee deliberation.

Ron Clarke, Delcan Corporation, and Ron McHugh, owner Bearbrook Golf Course, appeared before the Committee seeking to have the Draft OP modified to designate the west half of Lot 18, Concession 6, former Township of Cumberland, as General Rural Area. A copy of the delegations’ submission was circulated to the Committee and held on file with the City Clerk.

Mr. Lathrop noted the agricultural designation was the result of a lot of work by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) and asked the delegation if the request was sent to OMAF for confirmation. Mr. Clarke understood staff had forwarded this to the Ministry. Mr. Lathrop cautioned the Committee that before changing the agricultural designation, it was best to receive the Ministry’s comments to determine if their assessment of the expert study conducted by Delcan would confirm this land should be designated General Rural rather than Agricultural.

Councillor Hume received confirmation that if the request were responded to favourably by OMAF, staff would support this re-designation, but Mr. Lathrop cautioned it was best not to prejudge OMAF’s decision. Ms. Paterson advised the request had been sent the previous week asking that OMAF advise how long it would take to deal with it. If the Ministry can deal with it prior to April 23 (Council consideration of the OP), staff would bring it forward to Council.

Councillor Munter pointed out this was the second attempt today, basically seeking amendments to the OP without the normal notice, circulation, consultation, etc. and he expressed concern in terms of due process. He pointed out these were site specific modifications and not broad policy issues and felt the Committee needed to bear this in mind during deliberations, should motions come forward on these issues.

Mr. Lathrop stated staff were looking at this from the technical aspect as to whether this land should be agricultural or general rural. Staff had made no comments on the appropriateness of the use but rather, if the expert assertion this is not good agricultural land is correct, then it would be a technical adjustment whether it should be in or out of agricultural land designation. It would be a Committee decision whether the application should be circulated.

Sue MacLatchie and Lucio Appolloni, Somerset West Community Health Centre provided the Committee with a written copy of their submission, which is held on file with the City Clerk. They expressed their opposition to the Bronson-Portage link and support for the motions introduced by Councillor Arnold regarding the definition of affordable housing in the OP.

Chair Hunter pointed out the Bronson-Portage link is no longer proposed in the OP.

Pamela Sweet, FoTenn Consultants Inc., and Jonathan Freedman, Equity Realty Group Inc., appeared before the Committee to convey their concerns with respect to the City Centre Lands, located at 880 Wellington Street and 6 Champagne Avenue. They requested that these lands be included in the comprehensive review of the Central Area and that they be provided clarification, in writing, that the need for a Community Design Plan under the Mixed-Use Centre does not apply to City Centre. A written copy of their submission was circulated to members of the Committee and held on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Arnold understood the proponent was happy with the OP and zoning designations for the site and sought clarification as to their concerns. Mr. Freedman stated the new OP requires study work for this area before a building permit can be issued. He said he would simply like confirmation in writing that the existing work conducted is acceptable and that further studies will not be necessary. Responding to a query for confirmation by Councillor Arnold, Ms. Paterson referenced policy 5, p. 75 of the Draft OP, which stated that development is permitted prior to the approval of a Community Design Plan, subject to the policies below. These policies describe a circumstance where a zoning by-law amendment was not needed and a circumstance where one is required. There was never any intention of stopping things from happening in mixed-use centres in the interim. The policy quite clearly stated in this draft that the only place a Community Design Plan is required is in the mixed-use area south of Innes Road and west of Mer Bleue.

Ms. Sweet pointed out that the new OP also has a number of criteria that must be met when requesting a zoning by-law amendment or a permit for development. She said the proponent would be permitted to go ahead without the Community Design Plan but there are certain criteria that need to be met. Her client was asking for confirmation that those criteria have been addressed in the design guidelines and the previous planning undertaken for the City Centre. Mr. Lathrop advised that staff would review this.

Adele Muldoon, provided a written copy of her presentation, which was distributed to the Committee and held on file with the City Clerk. Ms. Muldoon’s concerns centred on the proposed restrictions to development in the rural areas and the issues of affordable housing.

Councillor Eastman received confirmation that severances of agricultural land were really out of the City’s control, as the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) controls these.

Ms. Muldoon felt the date requirement for retirement lots was ridiculous. If a retirement lot was severed since 1970, another retirement lot cannot be applied for. By way of example, if a farmer near 60, received a retirement lot for his parents and was now ready to retire, he was prohibited from obtaining a retirement lot.

Responding to questions from Councillor Eastman, Ms. Paterson advised the 1988 ROP contained a policy that only one retirement lot per farm could be taken. The more recent ROP permitted one retirement lot per retiring farmer, so subsequent generations could have a retirement lot. The proposed Draft OP reverted back to the policy in the 1988 Plan of one retirement lot per farm for the history of the farm. The Province requires only that the City permit severances for retiring farmers; there is some flexibility on the frequency with which the City can permit these.

Ms. Muldoon expressed her opinion that it was more reasonable to say “per retiring farmer”. Chair Hunter questioned how many generations of retirees from the same family, could there be at any one time. Ms. Muldoon said for every generation there could be another farmer ready to retire and it was possible that with respect to previously severed retirement lots, the house could have been sold, destroyed or have other family members occupying it.

The meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m.

TUESDAY, 1 APRIL 2003 – 9:00 A.M.

Chair Hunter opened the meeting by relaying regrets on behalf of Councillor Hume.

Rudy Verspoor, on behalf of PORC (Protect Our Rural Communities), addressed two particular concerns related to the draft OP; the buffer zone with respect to intensive livestock operations; the Nutrient Management Act; and severances for development in rural areas (rural estate lots). Dr. Verspoor submitted a copy of his presentation, which was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk.

In closing, Mr. Verspoor respectfully requested that Committee and Council support the retention of the buffer zone and remove the section eliminating rural estate lot development if their goal was to have vibrant rural communities.

Councillor Eastman agreed that in a perfect world, it would be nice to see family farms continue to thrive. He wondered if the presenter was aware that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MOMAH) had written to the City to advise that it would not approve a 3-kilometer buffer zone, that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food had taken a similar stance, and that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture had also opposed the buffer zone. Based on that, he suggested that Council could retain the buffer zone if it made them feel good, but he did not believe it would be approved. Mr. Verspoor indicated he was fully aware of those points. However, he cited history and argued that if there is sufficient political will, things can be changed.

Mr. Ted Fobert, FoTenn Consultants, for Kanata West Landowners recalled that Council approved the Kanata West concept plan last week and that direction was given to bring the draft OP into conformity with the concept plan. Mr. Fobert indicated that he had undertaken a comparative analysis of the designations in the draft OP to those in the Council approved Kanata West Concept Plan. He noted some areas where the designations are not entirely compatible; and, for the Committee’s benefit, he elaborated on his findings. A copy of his presentation was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk.

Mr. Jacobs indicated that in speaking with Mr. Fobert, he had agreed to work towards some wording to reflect the concept plan with respect to changing the designations. The rationale for the proposal contained in the current plan is to provide optimum flexibility with respect to future opportunities in these areas, not only to achieve the goals of the Kanata West area but the City’s goals with respect to the provision of housing in the west Urban Community. Staff had selected designations that offered greater flexibility; however, staff was prepared to include wording to reference the Kanata West Plan and to work with the landowners and development community to reach common ground when considering re-zoning applications.

Responding to comments from Councillor Stavinga, Mr. Jacobs assured the Committee that the report approved with respect to Kanata West is consistent with the designations contained in the Plan and this morning’s discussions. He maintained staff was looking to work with developers and landowners in that area to achieve the objectives discussed during the Kanata West process.

Mr. Ted Fobert, FoTenn Consultants Inc., for Loblaws Properties Ltd, referenced his comments from a prepared letter dated 31 March 2003, circulated to the Committee and held on file with the City Clerk.

Mr. Alan Cohen, for Loblaws Properties Ltd, acknowledged the amount of time and effort in developing, approving and implementing documents such as the OP, which is why, in reviewing such documents, he and his associates try to be selective about what may be offensive or problematic for their clients. He recounted events with respect to an application to construct a Loblaws in the Westboro area and noted the ultimate result was a conclusion that stores of a certain size can exist and thrive within the urban fabric, if the proper land use principles are laid out and followed. Therefore, the application was successful. Mr. Cohen suggested the Draft OP would create grocery store-free zones. He proposed that proper land use planning guidelines, coupled with urban design, would lead on any application to the conclusion that a food store of any size is appropriate, or inappropriate, depending on the precise location and the precise design.

Ted Fobert, for Canada Lands Company (CLC) - Rockcliffe Airbase, elaborated upon written submission, which was circulated and on file with the City Clerk.

Peter Burns and Don Kennedy, Urbandale, elaborated upon his written presentation, which was circulated and on file with the City Clerk.

Ted Phillips, Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders’ Association, Pierre Dufresne, Manager of Land Development, Tartan Land Corporation, and Jack Stirling, expanded upon a written presentation that was circulated and on file with the City Clerk together with an addendum distributed at the meeting.

Mr. Phillips did not believe the document provides any ability to meet any of the targets in any of the areas that the City has set in terms of growth projections. He referenced an objective of adding 60,000 units inside the greenbelt and wondered where they would be built, how they would look, and how the City would promote their development. Mr. Phillips expressed similar concerns with respect to areas outside the greenbelt and maintained that the industry had been requesting information from staff with respect to where the new units would be built and had yet to receive a response.

Mr. Dufresne indicated the industry is not opposed to setting targets for affordable housing; however, it is concerned about the means by which the OP proposes to meet those targets. He suggested there is a very fine line between the provision of affordable housing and the provision of subsidized housing. Some of the Plan’s policies imply that if the industry is unable to achieve affordable housing targets, it will be financially penalized. He believed the industry would be willing to partner with the City or other levels of government to provide subsidized housing but maintained, it is not their responsibility to do so.

Mr. Dufresne noted that formal terms of references have not been issued with respect to developing communities; therefore, developers have no notion of what they will be expected to undergo in terms of the Developing Communities exercises. He referenced Section 4 of the OP which states that a number of new processes, policies, and studies will be required as part of the approvals process, however these have not been properly evaluated or discussed with industry representatives. He recommended that staff be directed to meet with industry representatives to ensure that developers have a clear understanding of what will be expected of them for future development applications.

Mr. Jack Stirling specifically noted the report speaks to the lapsing of draft conditions and the timing of applications and asked for clarification. He believed that was inconsistent with former Regional policy which required the City to notify developers of its intention to lapse applications. Mr. Jacobs believed Mr. Stirling was flagging a discrepancy between the report and the draft OP and maintained the requirements contained in the Planning Act ultimately govern. Chair Hunter submitted that in the past 20 years there were many differences between the Planning Act’s requirements and actual practice. He wondered if Mr. Stirling’s concern was that a new set of rules would apply, which may require installation of new infrastructure. Mr. Stirling explained that historiccally when a subdivision application had technically, but not legally lapsed, the developer would write to staff requesting on extension of the draft conditions. Staff would review it and make a decision whether or not it was in the City’s best interest to grant the extension. At this point, he was concerned the City would lapse the conditions to apply the new policies and procedures. He maintained fees were already paid and applications reviewed; therefore, it would be a cumbersome process and a duplication of work already undertaken.

Mr. Jacobs confirmed that page 101 of the agenda states “…If registration is not affected within the approved time frame three years after granting draft approval, extensions will not be granted and any resubmissions will be reviewed, evaluated on the basis of the new OP…”. He submitted that where there is a change in policy direction and a subdivision plan has reached that point, clearly staff would like to have the application reconsidered under the new policies. He recognized this differed from current practices, however he maintained that staff have the right to change or modify conditions any time an extension is being granted, subject to the developer’s concurrence.

Mr. Lathrop maintained the OP talks about densification within tight boundaries, a high level of transit, and a 30% modal split, which the development industry has understood from the start. He believed these issues would challenge both the City and the industry. Staff want to take into account opportunities to partner with the industry to achieve some of the goals outlined in the Plan,. He argued the lapsing provision outlined in the Plan is no different than any other lapsing provision. For example, under the old ROP, when a subdivision plan lapsed, staff did not revisit it because it had been approved under that same Plan. However, the City will now have a new Plan with a different vision and staff want the opportunity to review lapsed plans to ascertain whether or not some of the new principles can be applied and stressed the City will not abuse this.

Mr. Stirling expressed frustration with respect to obtaining specific information from staff on such principles as intensification and transit ridership. He did not believe the objectives outlined in the draft OP could be achieved within the prescribed timelines and argued it was therefore difficult for the industry to “buy into” the Plan.

Chair Hunter noted staff had indicated there are 10,000 acres, over 100 square miles, of developable land inside the urban area and advised he had requested a report, which will be available by the end of the week. Mr. Lathrop confirmed staff would bring forward a report by the end of the week to clarify the issue of density. Although he recognized the development industry did not believe it could be done, he felt the City could achieve the proposed densification within the urban area. He suggested the industry’s doubt was based on past experiences with the “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) syndrome. However, he believed the City would be in a position to work with communities, through Community Design Plans, to advance the argument that appropriate design can be brought to density so it will not be the aberration of the public. Furthermore, he suggested that suburban communities need to be viewed as more complete communities. This argument was put forward by the 1974 ROP, and put forward now. Mr. Lathrop maintained it would require the industry’s cooperation. He noted every urbanizing city in North America is moving in this direction and no longer a choice. Staff would endeavour to demonstrate to the industry these objectives can be accomplished. In closing, he asserted that just as the industry needs housing units, so does the City; and, they have to be affordable.

Mr. Al Cohen for SAKTO, referred to the affordable housing provisions outlined on page 47 of the newest version of the draft OP and suggested that provisions 2 and 3 went beyond the City’s jurisdiction. He did not wish to argue against the principles of affordable housing or against the notion there is a need. He focused on the possibility of rental housing within the inner limits of the greenbelt, and even within the central area. Mr. Cohen discussed a mixed used development project by SAKTO, which after many years in development was finally beginning construction. He suggested that should the provisions of the draft OP apply to that project, his client would not be building. Furthermore, he believed the provisions would render the City unable to meet other provisions.

Councillor Arnold inquired whether Mr. Cohen felt it was the municipality’s responsibility to ensure that the 40% of its population living at the lower end of the income scale have an affordable place to live. Mr. Cohen acknowledged the City’s duty to attend to those important matters; however, he maintained that OPs and zoning by-laws are not strangleholds or hammers, they are policies that provide for opportunities. He submitted that Conditions 4 – 9 were exemplary. He recalled these issues were reviewed in the past, through at least 2 task forces. The City was using its own leverage to address the issue by building units and that it could not build enough units. He acknowledged the development industry has a role to play and reiterated his belief the City has a duty to address the issue, but maintained it does not have jurisdiction to enforce it in this fashion.

Councillor Arnold upheld the City’s obligation to attempt to achieve affordable housing for the segment of the population at the lower end of the income scale. She noted there is funding in place to achieve approximately 250 affordable units per year and suggested that if existing funding holds, the gap worsens year after year. That poses serious problems not only for the affected households, but also for the economy and the community in general; therefore she wondered if the proposed mechanisms are not appropriate, which ones are. She maintained everyone has a right to an affordable place to live, regardless of whether they earn $1M per year or $400 per month, and that the City has a responsibility to make that a reality. Although Mr. Cohen supported the sentiments advanced by Councillor Arnold, he argued the City would not obtain results by imposing conditions that could not financially be met. He suggested that City representatives sit down with industry representatives to assess out how to make it work.

Erwin Schulz, West Ottawa Economic Development Association, read from a prepared submission on the Carp Road Corridor that was circulated and on file with the City Clerk.

Responding to questions from Councillor Eastman, Mr. Schulz confirmed the staff recommendation with respect to undertaking a Community Design Plan for the Carp Road Corridor and the Village of Carp prior to the end of this year was acceptable to him. His only real request pertained to the identification of rural industrial areas. The OP should identify rural employment areas and he expressed a willingness to work with staff to undertake a study. Councillor Eastman advised that prior to amalgamation West Carleton had undertaken a growth management strategy, which involved 1,000 people. One of the clear recommendations coming out of the process was that industry should be concentrated along the Carp Road Corridor. The community was in support of the concept and he would bring forward a motion to institute a Rural Employment Area.

Frederick Cogan, for Sedco Ltd, referred to Document 20, Schedule “E”, Urban Road Network, items 38 and 39, and submitted that Cyrville Road and Cummings Avenue should be designated as local roads rather than arterial roads. Furthermore, he suggested the width of the right-of-way to be protected along Cyrville Road should be 26 m. rather than 37.5 m. Mr. Cogan justified his recommendations with respect to Cyrville Road as follows: it is a short, two-lane road; it does not require widening; an existing structure would pose a physical constraint to widening; and from Montreal Road, it is essentially a residential street. (A communication from Mr. Cogan was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk.)

Chair Hunter noted this was within Councillor Bellemare’s ward and wondered if he was familiar with the issue so that Committee might seek his guidance. Councillor Bellemare responded affirmatively.

Angela Rickman, Sierra Club, applauded Council’s decision to expand and improve the public transportation system over the next couple of years. She was supportive of sustainable development and smart growth for Cities. She would have liked to see stronger language and commitment in a number of areas; the ecological importance of the development and maintenance of a network of green spaces, and stronger requirements for the percentages of affordable housing and new developments.

Ms. Rickman maintained the ultimate purpose of an OP is to ensure a healthy, vibrant city for all its residents, present and future, and that as its representatives, Council’s responsibility is to protect the interests of the community as a whole. She suggested that although it was but one component of the big picture, the percentage of green space was an indicator of the City’s sustainability. She stressed the need to put a high priority on the protection of healthy ecosystems. Ms. Rickman spoke in favor of re-routing traffic from the downtown core. She suggested the City must develop and maintain an efficient transportation network, including inter-provincial light rail, public transit roads, and cycling and walking opportunities. She felt the City should preserve and maintain its existing affordable housing stock and developers should be able to profit from affordable housing. She submitted the City must set firm urban boundaries for the next 10 years, with exception being made rarely and with full environment assessment and public consultation.

Ms. Rickman stressed that farmers (and their farms) must be protected through firm urban boundaries as well as provincial and federal policies that encourage and promote environmentally sustainable agriculture enterprises. She discussed the buffer zone for intensive livestock operations and indicated her hope that it would be supported. It was absolutely critical that industrial-type hog operations not be situated in or near residential areas. She referenced the new Nutrient Management Act, which provincial representatives claim will address the pollution and health problems associated with industrial livestock operations. However, she maintained the plan is inadequate and urged the municipality to appeal the permit for the Sarsfield hog farm.

Ms. Rickman spoke in support of an arts and theater district, which would promote culture. However, she maintained the importance of recognizing that not all urban areas have the same character or concerns. Furthermore, she felt that in developing community plans, additional consideration should be given to culture and language and special emphasis be placed on promoting the participation of women, youth and ethnically diverse groups.

Councillor Legendre referenced the requirement (outlined on page 102) that pig farms not be located within 3 kilometres of residential areas. Ms. Rickman re-iterated her support for the buffer zone and explained that her concerns pertained to the nutrient management plan.

Peter van Boeschoten provided a detailed overview of his submission, which was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk.

Sharon Chisolm, Co-Chair, Health and Social Services Advisory Committee (HSSAC), presented the concerns of the HSSAC, as outlined in their submission, which was circulated and on file with the City Clerk.

Stan Rosenbaum, Ottawa Field Naturalists, did not address the Committee, but by e-mail (dated 1 April 203), to the Committee Coordinator, advised that he had reviewed a response from Ms. Paterson, dated 28 March 2003, in which she addressed point by point the issues raised in their brief (Brief #374); and, was pursuing some outstanding issues via a Motion. In view of this, he would not require the time allotted. Correspondence from Mr. Rosenbaum and the response noted, from Ms. Paterson, were circulated and held on file with the City Clerk.

Frank Martin, Member, Health and Social Services Advisory Committee (HSSAC), maintained that access to affordable housing is one of the key factors in enabling struggling families to remain intact. To illustrate this, he drew parallels between the availability of affordable housing and the level of demands on the services of the Children’s Aid Society.

Murray Chown, Kanata Research Park (KRP), referenced his previous submission to the Committee, which briefly acknowledged the change being made to the OP with respect to the policies for enterprise areas and the introduction of residential uses. He recalled that his submission also noted that the detailed criteria contained in the current draft differed from the policy recently approved by Committee and Council for the lands owned by KRP. Mr. Murray was concerned the draft OP had not brought forward those specific policies and asked that they be reinstated, perhaps as a site specific amendment, to retain the permissions recently granted by Committee and Council.

Ray Leclaire, Kanata Research Park Corporation, referenced Council’s recent approval of Amendment 25 to the former ROP and Amendment 66 to the former City of Kanata OP. The amendments granted KRP the right to include residential development in its land in the Kanata Research Park however, the new Draft OP (at page 85) restricts that provision. Mr. Leclaire asked that either the section of the new OP be amended or that the previously approved amendments (ROPA 25 and LOPA 66) be grandfathered.

Janet Bradley, Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson, quoted from a letter prepared on behalf of her client, Remer Holdings Ltd., distributed and on file with the City Clerk, asking that her client’s lands be redesignated in the OP from “Developing Communities” to remain categorized as “General Urban Area”.

Responding to a question from Chair Hunter, Ms. Bradley explained the only distinguishing feature between her client’s lands and other developing community designations across the south urban area is the degree of planning that has already been undertaken. She outlined the discussions that have already taken place and expressed concern that changing the designation would cause the process to be halted. Chair Hunter suggested the designation would have to be verified.

Jim Burghout, Development Manager, Claridge Homes, provided a written submission, which was circulated and on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Burghout addressed the Affordable Housing Policy.

Councillor Arnold was glad industry representatives had acknowledged that they and the City have a joint responsibility to solve the problem. She noted that 200 municipalities in the United States had inclusionary zoning and rules similar to the ones proposed in the OP, and they seemed to work. She suggested that was due, in part, to a level playing field; developers know the rules and expectations and compete with each other under a common set of rules. Mr. Burghout indicated he did not have specific knowledge of those issues, but cautioned that, in reviewing examples, the City should ensure it is comparing apples to apples. He maintained that currently, there is no level playing field. Councillor Arnold noted most of Mr. Burghout’s comments pertained to home ownership and wondered if he had any concerns with respect to targeting the 40^th percentile on the rental side as well. Mr. Burghout referenced Mr. Cohen’s earlier comments and suggested that it can be very difficult to impose lower rents on new units; it could make or break a project. He maintained that other issues arise with respect to rental housing.

Councillor Cullen noted the Planning Act requires that municipalities provide housing in anticipation of population growth. He submitted that population growth would have a diversity of income; therefore, a diversity of housing would be needed. He referenced the Mayor’s Task Force on Homelessness Initiatives, which had strong private sector participation, and recalled that it showed how it could be done using existing costing; therefore he had difficulty with the fact the industry is now saying it cannot be done. He wondered if Mr. Burghout was suggesting the municipality do it through direct ownership; which he suggested would lead to higher taxes for the balance of the population. Mr. Burghout indicated his company tries to build numerous forms of housing; however, other builders may not be in a position to do so, either because they have fewer sites, fewer opportunities or different concentrations. There has to be a better way to address the need for affordable housing and maintained it is not going to work the way it is currently set out in the OP. Councillor Cullen felt it was being presented as the cost of doing business; if a builder builds for the high end, he has to provide some accommodation for the low end. He believed it was a socially responsible approach. He re-iterated the City’s responsibility to ensure there is a diversity of housing and suggested the policies aimed to achieve that. Mr. Burghout re-iterated his concerns with respect to builders being forced to sell at reduced costs and buyers quickly reselling for profit.

The following correspondence was circulated at the meeting and held on file with the City Clerk:

· Letter dated 28 March 2003, from Pamela Sweet, FoTenn Consultants Inc., for Canadian Waste (owner – Carp Road Landfill Site) re Section 3.8 Waste Disposal Sites

· Letter dated 31 March 2003, from Robert Tennant, FoTenn Consultants Inc., for Arnon Corporation and Arnon Development Corporation Limited

· Letter dated 31 March 2003, from Robert Tennant, FoTenn Consultants Inc., for Rideau Carleton Raceway, Lot 24, Concession 4, Rideau Front

The Committee adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

WEDNESDAY, 2 APRIL 2003 – 2:00 P.M.

Bruce Hudson, a Pork Producer, referenced his comments from a prepared statement, which was distributed and is on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Hudson noted the Draft OP still included a 3 km buffer zone, which he felt might be an oversight and asked for clarification on this matter.

Chair Hunter indicated the Committee previously had a number of speakers who spoke in favour of the 3 km buffer zone notwithstanding the position of OMAFRA and MMAH and posed the question to staff. Mr. Lathrop responded that Council had given staff clear direction the 3 km buffer zone was to be included.

In response to Chair Hunter’s query, Councillor Eastman commented he would not be taking any further action, as there was no point, noting that the 17 members of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture were unanimously against it, yet Council next week would expend more money on the appeal of the Building Services By-law. He had no control over this issue and this Council was not listening to residents from the rural and agricultural areas.

Kathleen Willis and David McManus, David McManus Engineering Ltd.. addressed the Committee on behalf of the Macy siblings [Macy’s Estates Subdivision], owners of a 283 acre parcel in Lot 19 and the West Half of Lot 20, Concession 10 in the former Township of Goulbourn, respecting modification of the wetland mapping as it pertains to this particular property by changing it to a Natural Rural designation, and the Limestone Resource setback. A written subdivision was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk.

With respect to the Significant Wetlands designation, Councillor Stavinga inquired if the City had the capacity to hold the zoning in that particular area in abeyance, pending validation from MNR. Ms. Paterson responded that there would be two approaches; to put it into the Plan as has been done and follow due process, or to wait and deal with it as an amendment later once the MNR has confirmed the boundaries. She cautioned Committee that to take it out might create the misunderstanding that the wetland designation is being deleted. She further advanced that staff had information this is a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW), and once confirmed, the City will not have any jurisdiction to change the boundary or the designation. In response to the Councillor’s further request for clarification, Ms. Paterson confirmed that although staff could delay identifying the PSW in the OP pending confirmation by the Ministry and introduce the wetland by amendment once it’s confirmed; however, it seemed “cleaner” to do it now.

Chair Hunter suggested an alternative would be to go with what it is and before the Ministry gave final approval to seek a revision to the Schedule. Councillor Stavinga advised she would clarify the matter further with staff and the delegation.

Martin Laplante, Director of Planning Development, Action Sandy Hill, provided a written presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Doug Kelly, Soloway, Wright, on behalf of DCR/Phoenix Management Corporation, provided a written letter, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk, and referenced a letter dated 1 April 2003 from Peter Vice, Vice and Hunter, on behalf of the National Capital Commission, with an attached letter from Doug Kelly dated 28 March 2003 to the Committee, which was distributed and is also on file with the City Clerk.

Jack Stirling, Vice-President, Land Development, Minto Developments Inc., and Doug Kelly, Soloway, Wright, referenced his comments regarding Emerald Station, from a written submission, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Mr. Kelly added that in the Urban Natural Features, especially developable areas, it is in the City’s interest to acquire these earlier on, and that the longer the City waits, the more interest charges and the higher the cost of acquiring these parcels of land, shown on the NEA lands in Kanata.

In response to a question from Councillor Harder, Mr. Stirling stated the burden of affordable housing should not be borne solely by the new home developers, acknowledging that the affordability issue is of very serious concern to this City; and, that the City, the industry and others, working together, need to find a solution. He had been fortunate to participate in the Mayor’s Task Force on Affordable Housing a year ago, with Councillor Arnold and others, resulting in many good suggestions on how to encourage and develop affordable housing. As a company, the City proposal calls for affordable housing P3’s, were watched with interest, and the Richmond Road piece of land was reviewed carefully and investigated quite extensively to determine if there was an opportunity to participate. He had attended the latest meetings held by the City at the Nepean Sportsplex with respect to future proposal calls and would continue to work with other groups and interests as he thought other development companies would. He expressed concern the methodology being set out in the OP is solely directed at either new home construction or rental and that, as indicated in the Mayor’s Task Force, even if, as a solution for affordable housing, land was given free, development charges and application fees waived, it would be difficult to provide an affordable typical town home in suburban Barrhaven as suggested. He added it is not an issue of opposition by the industry to the provision of affordable housing; it’s how you define it and how partnerships are set up to ease this situation.

Councillor Harder asked if this were accepted, would the City be within its legal rights to force developers such as Minto or Monarch on the 25%. Mr. Stirling opined that components of the policy, as drafted were not legal. Councillor Harder then addressed the Urban Natural Features (greenspace), asking if Mr. Stirling was speaking to the hardwood and cedar lots in South Nepean, to which he indicated he had three sites. In response to the Councillor’s reference to a fund to pay for this in the past, he indicated the former City of Nepean, in its development charge, had an item related to the acquisition of “lands of unique value”, and they were looking for that kind of relationship again.

Councillor Cullen objected to the notion the City could not make developers build for those earning $37,0000 and clarified that no one suggested the industry should build rent geared to income, that being a government responsibility. The $37,000/year wage earner did not qualify for public housing, yet needed housing. Mr. Stirling noted the OP stated a certain percentage of new development will be built in the 30^th percentile, which sets a sale price of $157,000; and, the developer had to sign an affidavit when submitting an application, that in accordance with the policies of the OP, to provide the required percentage of units at that price point. Responding to further questions, Mr. Stirling opined it was not a question of social conscience, but rather with the OP policies; e.g. creation of open space, buffers, criteria for design and community design studies, etc., it is very difficult to provide affordable housing. He cited the Councillor’s argument last week at Committee that Minto install a traffic signal light on Jeanne D’Arc Boulevard. He pointed out that lost in that discussion was the fact that a rental product was being constructed to hopefully provide affordable housing. Despite the fact that every study demonstrated no requirement for that traffic light, the Councillor had arbitrarily argued it should be there, and the $150,000 cost of a traffic light that wasn’t warranted be put on the cost of those units.

Paul Strongitharm, President, accompanied by David McKeen, Grandview Developments Limited, provided a written presentation with diagrams, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk. (Letter from Doug Kelly, Soloway, Wright, dated 31 March 2003, was also distributed and on file with the City Clerk.)

Chair Hunter asked for clarification of the issue and wondered if they didn’t agree with the boundaries shown in the documentation for the NEA. Mr. Strongitharm confirmed it was his concern, but when he spoke with City planning officials, he received some indication there was a matter of uncertainty whether they should be included or excluded and he was attempting to clarify that.

Councillor Eastman noted preliminary discussions had been held with Mr. Lindsay, who had been most helpful. He pointed out to Mr. Strongitharm there is no argument regarding the area of natural and scientific interest in the Torbolton Forest, adding in the various features. The area shown in yellow was identified for development in the early eighties, with an analysis and nothing of a scientific nature in those areas, which might have to be reviewed and repeated. Growth was being directed to villages and this was the only growth area in this village, to which Mr. Strongitharm agreed. Councillor Eastman opined the Committee is in agreement that with proper studies in place this will be allowed to proceed.

Responding to Chair Hunter’s query with respect to the boundary shown, Grant Lindsay, Manager Development Approvals, provided the Committee with a brief summary, indicating he was the planner who dealt with the original application in 1983 and at that time the entire peninsula was designated as a village, which then allowed for consideration of residential development. It was a three phase project with phase three comprising the land running east/west outlined in green, with two or three additional areas brought on for consideration. Phases one and two were registered and developed with most lots sold. The phase three lands were not registered, hence the draft subdivision approval lapsed on those lands and in the intervening period the designation changed in the former ROP to NEA, which has been maintained in the draft OP. He went on to suggest the need for an analysis on those lands outlined in green to determine whether or not they should be part of the NEA designation in this OP and if in the final conclusion they should not be, they should be put in an appropriate designation for Committee and Council to make a decision and if that designation allows for the consideration of residential development then in essence this would be completing the original application made in 1983, subject to those three additional parcels of land being put forth.

Mr. Strongitharm disagreed with the latter part of the explanation that being the implication the area was redesignated NEA and opined that was an error and not supported by any of the explanations contained in either the modifications to the OP or subsequent documents. He recited from the Constance Bay planning report, “the Torbolton Forest is publicly owned by the Township of West Carleton and is designated NEA B in the new ROP, the development is significantly constrained in such areas…”, which he agreed with. He has contention with the area which was previously established as residential that abuts the community centre facilities.

Ms. Paterson noted there was a request with the MNR to finalize the boundary interpretation on this development. Mr. Strongitharm noted that when he contacted the MNR, their response was that they chose not to be involved and referred it back to the City for decision. His disputed once again whether the 97 ROP made a mistake and indicated the Committee had both the opportunity and responsibility to dismiss this decision, which has neither been substantiated nor appropriately discussed with the landowners.

Chair Hunter thanked the speaker for making his point, indicating that it would be subject to further discussion. Councillor Eastman agreed that this is best handled with staff and there is general agreement the two parties will take a look at it.

Doug Poulter, provided a written presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk on the matter of diesel exhaust. Mr. Poulter mentioned that in terms of planning, there is a need to plan for transportation and infrastructure to handle vehicles and transportation needs, look at the implications of choosing alternate fuels or alternate transportation methodologies and their impact on the OP.

Chair Hunter suggested this might be an issue for the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) to take up and certainly one Transportation and Transit should be addressing; as it is promoted that one bus can carry the equivalent of 30 or 40 cars. Mr. Poulter advanced that the latest study that addressed exactly this issue, shows that based upon ridership levels, cars were actually less polluting on a per passenger mile basis than diesel buses due to the emission controls on cars, which has not been implemented on buses.

Responding to a query by Councillor Munter on the City’s Plan to green the fleet, Mr. Poulter indicated the fleet emissions reduction strategy was wanting, totally inadequate and not cost effective, in that it proposes looking at the not yet proven ethanol diesel, which is more expensive than propane, that is available and cleaner.

In response to Councillor Legendre’s query, Mr. Poulter indicated he had given a copy of the referenced studies to the City’s Medical Officer by e-mail.

André Lamontagne, Alta Vista Community Association, and Gary Lindbergh provided a written copy of their comprehensive presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

In response to Councillor Hume’s query, Mr. Lamontagne stated that basically the Alta Vista, Faircrest and Riverview Park Associations developed the plan from a survey that was conducted. They had the support of the other two communities in today’s presentation, noting the survey was completed by a professional survey firm and produced as a vision contained in a document that was filed as part of the OP for the City as a revision for Alta Vista, Faircrest Heights and Riverview Park and the amendment was put forward and added to the OP as a key principle for their neighbourhood. The community asked that the City retain those Key Principles and were willing to work with staff to address concerns as a result of the policy changes coming from the OP to address their key principles.

Responding to a further question, Mr. Lamontagne indicated the Visioning Study was completed in 1996. Councillor Hume noted it took four years to get these into the OP and in three short years they were dropped out and the community wanted them back.
Mr. Lindbergh added that what truly surprised them was the suggested official definition of a community design plan, i.e. a plan of development for a community or neighbourhood that will undergo significant change. Alta Vista is an established community that wants to preserve its status quo because based on this definition they would never be permitted to have a Community Design Plan since they would never undergo significant change. He suggested that either the rhetoric at the beginning of Sections 1 and 2 be changed or some of these key principles be included. They very much wanted to have this recognized in the OP as their baseline and work with the City and residents interested in seeing change in the community in a orderly fashion.

Councillor Hume gave notice he would be moving that Volume 2A, the Secondary Plans, be amended to include or carry forward from the old City of Ottawa OP, the Key Principles developed as a result of the work by the community, currently incorporated in the OP.

Councillor Hume asked Mr. Lindbergh, who was involved in a number of infill development applications if he had any thoughts regarding policies contained in the compatibility of development section, to which Mr. Lindbergh noted he did submit a written brief and noted several factors concerning infill in the January draft, had been left out, e.g. lot sizes when looking at the surrounding area for an infill project, building mass, volume, streetscape, setbacks, etc. He would be talking with Councillor Hume on how to address that matter. Councillor Hume turned to staff for comment. Ms. Paterson advised that a number of people had indicated the criteria was too specific and couldn’t be implemented. Staff reviewed the criteria and inserted those that related to compatibility. Those that related to streetscape and the other design criteria were integrated into Section 4, hence may not actually be lost, but it would be reviewed to ensure that was the case.

Miguel Tremblay, FoTenn Consultants representing Gib Patterson, provided a written presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Stavinga questioned the staff optional alternative requested by Committee, indicating that one of the items that came up in the discussions on Monday was that previously in the former ROP, the NEAs were designated A & B and in B, country estate lot development would be considered with certain caveats. In this new OP, NEAs A & B were brought together. If the Committee pursued the staff alternate proposal, it would reduce the opportunity for country estate lot development as it relates to the former regional plan, however, it is not a complete prohibition, which is in the current OP. Councillor Stavinga asked Mr. Tremblay to what extent he saw this as a compromise position. Mr. Tremblay responded that he would agree and felt the current language, although not ideal, does provide some opportunities. The need to preserve property immediately adjacent to village and urban boundaries was understood and residents in the development community would be prepared to accept the alternative policies as a compromise. He acknowledged that both can be good under certain circumstances and if criteria is laid out in the alternative policy that is based on good planning, which he felt was important, it would be a reasonable compromise that a proposal would be based on good planning and not exclusively on inventory or holding the urban boundary.

Councillor Stavinga raised the matter of the monitoring program, which she supported, because there are concerns particularly when they look at communities north of Toronto, particularly in the rural areas that allowed estate lot developments to happen continuously, as opposed to intensification. There was no protection of the countryside. Mr. Tremblay maintained they are not ideal policies from a development perspective but at the same time from the City’s perspective there is an importance and acknowledgement these policies can be revisited and at the same time the monitoring process might indicate the lot inventory isn’t as significant as thought and the policy would be relaxed to allow for a greater number of country estate lot subdivisions.

In response to questions from Councillor Eastman, Mr. Lindsay indicated staff would be sitting down with applicants and had dialogued with the proponent on this particular application. If staff have a clear determination the proponent is serious and in the process of preparing the appropriate studies, then a flexible approach would be taken in processing the application. Staff would have to balance the concern between legitimate applications being filed and “random” applications coming in. Staff clearly would view this in the context of a serious application. Mr. Lindsay surmised that in all likelihood this application would continue to be processed past the date mentioned.

In response to Chair Hunter’s query, Mr. Tremblay indicated that most property owners would appreciate the comfort of extending the deadline in at least some sort of policy document, rather than depend on “all likelihood”.

Paul Koch, Chair, EAC, provided a written presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Richard Fraser, Chair, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee (ARAAC), provided a written presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Eastman concurred with the speaker’s comments relative to surplus farm dwellings, indicating that people do not realize that farms are rarely one property anymore and change hands, as farmers grow older. He opined that individual properties should not be frozen, citing that often when a farmer buys another farm, the house may be an older house, perhaps built in the 1800s and not the type wanted. He suggested that perhaps as a son or daughter ages and begins to assist in the farm operation, they would want to build a modern home, not expend $200,000 to fix an old farmhouse. He objected to City directing where potential infill is. He questioned staff as to whether he needed to bring these issues forward as motions, to which Mr. Lathrop affirmed motions would be required.

Councillor Stavinga confirmed that Mr. Fraser was supporting the proposed alternative to allow for country estate lot development, and not the prohibition.

Jane Dobell, Rockcliffe Park Residents’ Association, referenced her comments from a prepared submission to Committee, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Legendre asked for staff comment on the research the Princess/Lisgar/Rideau Terrace/Acacia linkages functioned as collector. Mr. Jacobs advised there was significant analysis done of the network overall, involving traffic counts, the nature and routing of buses, other vehicles, the use of these roads and identifying, primarily from a surface operations perspective, the need for maintenance to ensure these roads remain clear in the winter particularly because they provide access and conductivity to move vehicles in and through the community. The original designations of the roads within the village were part of that review, and were recommended at that time. In recognition of the comments and concerns raised by the community, staff acceded to removing those, but indicated that in doing so the level of maintenance would remain at the current level as opposed to the new level on collector roads in the City, as a means of facilitating traffic movement during the winter months in particular. He added that there was an assessment, however these roads weren’t arbitrarily drawn on the map, although they do connect collectors in adjacent communities and the boundary condition of the roads left in, as it was felt important to maintain that network. Councillor Legendre questioned whether staff could make the traffic counts and research available since the community did not have this information.

Chair Hunter queried if the traffic counts to establish collectors were uniform across the City, or if they varied neighbourhood by neighbourhood, noting that in his ward those designated as minor collectors are probably carrying, at peak hour, 600-800 vehicles per hour. He doubted some of the streets in Rockcliffe carry that in a day. Mr. Jacobs responded that he would have to defer to his colleagues in TUPW who carried out the work, and would ensure that information was provided.

Councillor Stavinga questioned if traffic counts were undertaken in Goulbourn for the OP, but ascertained in all likelihood drew upon historical information. She expressed concern with the definition for ‘collector road’ and the associated attributes, such as a curb, sidewalk, which she felt lead to an expectation that in a village area, whether it be Rockcliffe or Richmond; that at one point or another there will be curbs and sidewalks. She added that as a City, that is not what is intended, because that would impact on financial requirements dramatically. Clarification was required; citing that ‘collector’ in the community of Kanata could mean sidewalks and curbs on one side, whereas ‘collector’ in the Village of Richmond could mean something different with rural ditches where there will never be a sidewalk.

Chair Hunter subsequently asked if it that was the intention, or was there an intention to bring uniformity to the definition and indeed reconstruction of collectors. Mr. Jacobs reiterated he would have to defer to his colleagues in TUPW, however noted there were examples throughout the Region of rural and urban arterials; and, rural, urban and village collectors, with differing approaches to their design and cross section. Chair Hunter questioned whether it was the intention in rebuilding a collector to put sidewalks on both sides of the street.

Councillor Munter expressed his view the main purpose for designating collector roads was to determine the most important roads to plow first. He received confirmation that any decision around rebuilding a street and putting in sidewalks, etc. would be subject to budget debate and, once approved, a discussion of the project details. Chair Hunter indicated that in Nepean, there were policies for construction in new areas whereby a collector would have a certain amount of sidewalk, a different level of lighting, width etc. Councillor Munter added there were similar policies in new areas for Kanata; however Rockcliffe was not a new area. Mr. Dobell stated that page 38 indicated, “…on reconstructed roads, where feasible.”. Councillor Munter noted there was no proposal, no money and at some point, if it came time to re-do Princess Street, he doubted the ward Councillor or community would simply turn a blind eye to the reconstruction project.

To close, Councillor Legendre referred to the maintenance, which the community did not want increased. He pointed out that the delegation also flagged for Committee, the Community Design Plan on Beechwood, which was a prepared study that Mr. Lathrop has. He asked that Committee would accede to the request to put that very early in the new City’s program for Community Design Plans, as it is a main street which meets all of the criteria.

Lloyd Phillips, Lloyd Phillips & Associates Limited, representing Palladium Auto Park Limited, Richcraft Homes and Taggart Residential Developments, elaborated upon prepared statements to the Committee, which were distributed and on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Lewis Kruger was also present.

In response to Chair Hunter’s query, Mr. Phillips confirmed that zoning is in place for the Auto Park and the OP was in place under current rules. A condominium application was in process and he was concerned the OP said nothing about the Auto Park, making them non-conforming. Mr. Phillips noted his concern was twofold and that, as a general matter, he asked the Committee to put in the suggestions made regarding the grandfathering policy in the OP and he would address land use as a separate matter.

Mr. Phillips continued with comments for Kau & Associates, 1045064 Ontario Limited (Bill Cuff); and Melron Property Enterprises Limited, which were distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Stavinga specifically spoke to the Taggart proposal and appreciated they would like to see the industrial converted to general urban now, but there was a public process that had begun and must travel its due course, with the information session on the 8^th,followed by a report to Committee. Although supportive of the conversion, she believed the public process had to happen and mentioned to the Committee that she would not put a motion forward to convert to general urban. She asked staff if it was possible following Committee deliberation and adoption of the OP by Council and the Minister, if the Committee through the public process deemed it appropriate to convert from industrial to residential, if it would revise the use rather than requesting an amendment to the new OP. Mr. Jacobs stated that if the process proceeded as she unveiled, there would be a pending amendment to the old plan that would be carried forward and recommended to the Minister to be incorporated in the new plan. Mr. Phillips clarified they were not expecting a shortcut, but made the submission for the record in the event there is an appeal to the OMB, he did not want the Chair to say that no submissions had been made with the new OP.

Responding to Chair Hunter’s question on the Palladium Auto Park, Mr. Jacobs declared that it is not specifically recognized in the new OP as it is in the Kanata West Concept Plan as a permitted use and there would be no need to recognize it in this new plan. Chair Hunter asked if an alternative would be to put a further condition under the mixed use indicating that notwithstanding other policies, an Auto Mall is permitted at the corner of Huntmar and 417. Mr. Jacobs confirmed it would be an alternative but it would be the opinion of staff that the Palladium Auto Park, as a stand-alone use, notwithstanding that it is approved, would be inconsistent with the mixed-use designation.

Chair Hunter brought to the Committee’s attention correspondence from Michael Polowin respecting the properties on the northwest and southwest corners of Merivale and West Hunt Club Roads.

David Fleming, President, Heritage Ottawa, provided a written copy of his presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

In response to Councillor Arnold’s question, Richard Kilstrom indicated that arising from her previous motion, the map and text adding the reference to the Heritage conservation districts when looking at intensification or infill had been done, and he would follow up with the Councillor as to where the text was located.

Wenda Daly, referenced letters dated December the 5^th, 2002 and February 20^th, 2003, with supporting material, which had been circulated and on file with the City Clerk.

Responding to Chair Hunter’s queries on the medium density designation in the City’s new OP and whether zoning supported it, Ms. Daly stated that it is in the existing former City of Nepean OP and they would like it to be retained, and that it was supported.

As follow up, Mr. Lindsay indicated that until the adoption and approval of the new OP, the existing OP provisions of the former municipalities will apply. Once the new OP is approved these type of details will be contained in the Community Design Plans to be undertaken.

Councillor Harder stated that Ms. Daly is talking about the land use study by Nepean in 1999 and at this point she would not be concerned that what they were asking for was not going to change. She confirmed that the Chair noted there was no designation called medium density in the new OP, but rather general urban. Chair Hunter noted that the Bells Corners Secondary Plan, which is now 10 years old has a medium density designation on that land, which was confirmed in the land use survey and that carries forward, to which Councillor Harder agreed. Ms. Daly noted that once the Nepean OP is repealed they will lose the medium density, hence her request that they retain the medium density, to be included in the City’s new OP where they have secondary plans and site specific policies.

Responding to a query by Chair Hunter, Ms. Paterson advised that the Bells Corners Secondary Plan had been incorporated into the former Nepean OP. The Baseline and Woodroffe, Merivale Road South and other areas in South Nepean Secondary Plans co-exist with the Nepean OP and were brought forward as is. The OP for Nepean did not carry forward similar to other OPs for other former municipalities. It was further clarified that the intent when the new OP is approved that all former municipal plans would be repealed save and accept that identified in that Annex as Secondary Plans, Village Plans and some site specific policies such as Kanata Town Centre and Orleans Town Centre.

Chair Hunter maintained Ms. Daly may have some reason for concern because the medium density designation is going to be diffused to a designation of general urban. Ms. Daly reiterated they were requesting that it be in volume 2, under sites specific policies in the new OP. Chair Hunter thanked Ms. Daly for raising that concern because he had not been aware until this point.

Denis Eberhart, Vice-President, Development, First Professional Shopping Centres, and Bill Holzman, Holzman Consulting, elaborated upon a written submission, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk through Peter Smith, Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler & Smith.

Chair Hunter appreciated the speaker’s points, questioning whether the neighbourhood shopping centres were somewhat of an anachronism or a dinosaur. Mr. Eberhart clarified he was referring to community shopping centres, and that neighbourhood shopping centres to him would be unanchored. Mr. Eberhard highlighted the OP talks about centres over 50,000 square meters, but does not allow anything smaller and if it does, there are restrictions because of built form, with two storey buildings and would not allow any anchor stores, a department store, a Canadian Tire or Loblaws, but even if it did the parking would have to be underground. The proposed built form for community shopping centres is not a proven form, with insufficient examples for today’s retailers.

Ms. Paterson indicated staff never intended excluding community shopping centres with an anchor store of over 8,000 square metres; community size shopping centres are permitted in practically every designation, except employment areas. Freestanding big box stores were not envisaged throughout the General Urban Area. Staff could revisit the wording. Secondly, Ms. Paterson stated the Mixed-Use centres with more detailed requirements (e.g. Tunney’s Pasture), is where staff did not want to see a large, above-ground parking lot and single story buildings; whereas throughout other locations, the requirements were different. Mr. Eberhard agreed there could be discussion.

Mr. Lathrop suggested the proponent was happy with the status quo; with how shopping centres evolved, but unhappy with the guidance provided in terms of urban design, to build more human scale and human nature issues into the development of shopping centres. Mr. Eberhard responded that a shopping centre, especially with regard to the components on its success and attractiveness to people, should not be dismissed on an untried built form with no history of success. The centre is not a creation of the developer; but a creation of human wants and needs, with the retailer trying to build what the consumer liked.

Mr. Holzman, Holzman Consultants Inc., in consultation with Simmering & Associates Limited, submitted a letter dated 31 March, which was circulated and on file with the City Clerk on behalf of a number of clients, one of which has a current application for a plan of subdivision on circulation and another preparing to submit.

Councillor Eastman agreed with Mr. Holzman; one of his problems with estate lot subdivisions was that they eat up land at a tremendous rate, at 2 acres per lot and asked for an opinion. Mr. Holzman indicated he would agree to a certain extent. A one acre lot is roughly the size of an American football field and a huge piece of land, which is why most residents are happy with one acre. He disagreed with staff on eliminating these in the future because of the demand on future urban type services; however, he agreed there is technology that could create smaller lots. On behalf of his clients, they were looking at one-acre minimum, which was thought reasonable combined with a recreational facility.

Following up, Councillor Stavinga noted there are certain areas, which have actually investigated through hydrogeological studies and determined that in some cases the country estate lots can be smaller but in other cases they need to be bigger, to sustain the hydrogeology of the area. She asked to what extent would it be a valuable exercise to undertake, particularly if Council wished to consider a limited extent of Country estate lot development in conjunction with the various conservation authorities because we have a number of watersheds within our community an appropriate hydrogeological study to comprehensively determine whether it is appropriate that these lots be smaller, larger or possibly a mixture of both. Ms. Paterson advised an evaluation of the hydrogeology study requirements is going on as part of the ground water management strategy, appreciating that much smaller lots in villages are permitted and that in the ROP, the .8 ha. minimum lot size was only partially related to servicing and was much more with the notion of the rural landscape. It was a balancing act.

Michael Mack, Carleton Heights, provided a written copy of his presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Chair Hunter requested that staff take note of the textual errors identified in Mr. Mack’s presentation. He thanked Mr. Mack for the presentation, indicating that he had highlighted areas, which warranted a second look.

Ida Henderson, Dalhousie Community Association, (DCA), provided a written copy of her presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

David Gladstone provided a written copy of his presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Brian Beaven, Council of Heritage Organizations of Ottawa (CHOO), provided a written copy of his presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Andy Ellwood, Executive Member, Kempark Property Owners Association, accompanied by Bruce Lillico, President of the Association, provided a written copy of his presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

In response to Councillor Munter’s queries, Mr. Ellwood indicated that the Association had not had discussions with the City’s legal staff since they only were informed this morning of the error in Schedule K; and, to clarify the Association’s position that no further lots be created. Chair Hunter interceded, restating the Association’s wish to have an OP in place that is in conformity with their thinking; they should apply for a zoning by-law amendment, that could only be considered if it is in conformity with the OP; and, only if the OP says what the Association wants it to say. Mr. Ellwood further elucidated the Association’s desire that the OP indicate that although the zoning by-law allows severances and buildings, the OP says you can’t build in this area. Councillor Munter remarked that there had been other delegations who addressed the matter of due process, and there were likely those on the opposite side of this argument. He expressed the view that good process would entail both OP and zoning amendments done concurrently, with adequate notice, signage and a public hearing. Mr. Ellwood responded indicating that the Association would follow Committee direction, and reiterated that the community wished to preserve the environment within which they live.

Chair Hunter remarked on the similarity of Kempark to the Merivale Gardens situation when that community wanted to reduce the burgeoning number of potential severances caused by the NCC’s introduction of water in the area. At that time, former Nepean restricted frontages to a minimum 100 feet per lot, regardless of the lot size. This curtailed the severances and preserved the community as it was originally envisaged. Mr. Ellwood closed by indicating that this is what Kempark would like to do; however they do not want the OP to say they can’t.

Garry Bowers/Jeff Richstone, Bronson-Portage Link provided a written copy of their presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk, but did not appear before Committee.

Joanna Dean and Jackie Oblack, Ottawa Forests Advisory Committee (OFAC), provided a copy of their PowerPoint presentation, which is on file with the City Clerk.

Chair Hunter made reference to an earlier presentation respecting the Torbolton Forest, commenting that he had not known it was not fully City owned. In response, Ms. Dean indicated the forest is City-owned, however the ansi area (area of natural and scientific interest), i.e. all of the sand hills and Constance Bay peninsula has been ansid, so that even the private lands have natural science features. She elaborated on her understanding that the lots around Torbolton Forest are ansid and under Provincial jurisdiction. Chair Hunter indicated that this was not what Committee had heard earlier. Ms. Dean indicated the fire lane behind the church is the municipal boundary line. She expressed her understanding that former West Carleton Township had held lands for future sites for subdivision lots and the Advisory Committee would have a concern if it were not municipally owned.

Chris Szpak, Greenspace Alliance, accompanied by Amy Kempster, provided a written copy of his presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Ms. Kempster added that emphasis should be put on due public process, should the holding zones be lifted, indicating that almost all NCC lands in the City of Ottawa are under holding zones. She strongly recommended deleting all reference to holding zones and to refer to a public process any lifting of the holding zones. Councillor Munter noted that lifting of holding zones had never been subject to a public process. In response to his question, Ms. Kempter clarified that she was referring to NCC lands in the greenway system, for which there was an OMB Order. She further indicated that the underlying zoning was EW (waterway corridor) or L (leisure), with exceptions to allow such things as retirement homes, cemeteries etc.

Stephen Levandusky, spoke on behalf of Mr. And Mrs. Edwards, owners of Lot 23, Cumberland, and provided a written copy of his presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Tom Blood, Chairman, Official Plan Committee for the Manotick Community Association and Rita Lukasik, Manotick Community Association, addressed the Committee. A copy of their presentation was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Harder expressed her view that Manotick was in the perfect location for higher density affordable housing given the City’s investment in its rapid transit strategy with the Strandherd bridge, O Train, transit routes and by-pass corridor the Province is looking at south of Manotick. Ms. Lukasik responded that she understood Councillor Harder’s point of view, adding that was why the community had come up with a Secondary Plan with a vision for the next twenty years. She went on to indicate that they wished to maintain the character of the Village, which did not apply to higher density.

Councillor Munter followed up on Councillor Harder’s remarks, asking if it was the Association’s intent that affordable housing policies not apply to Manotick. Mr. Blood replied that the Associations’ concern was with a developer who purchased a parcel of land and was required to provide higher density housing in an area that should be lower density, as shown by the Association’s plan. Councillor Munter stated his understanding that the Association supported the goal of having a range of housing types for a range of incomes, including having that range in the Village of Manotick, to which Mr. Blood indicated his agreement.

Councillor Eastman referred to a similar point made earlier respecting the need to look at the whole village when looking at affordable housing, not just a specific development. Mr. Blood emphasized the Association’s request for a good rapport between the City’s planners and the Manotick community to achieve a common goal, while ensuring some flexibility for developers. Ms. Lukasik added her hope that the Committee recognize the secondary plan and respect some of the wishes expressed therein.

Councillor Stavinga expressed her understanding, from a previous conversation with staff, that affordable housing would be looked at on a community/neighbourhood basis rather than a per parcel basis and requested staff confirmation. Ms. Patterson indicated that the current OP provides that each developer be required to provide 15% affordable housing, however it could be provided through various means to assist in achieving the affordable housing goal. Councillor Stavinga then sought and received confirmation that there are tools to be used with communities to identify appropriate affordable housing areas, given transportation etc.

Ms. Lukasik closed by expressing hope the OP would include a buffer around Manotick.

Barbara Barr provided a written copy of her presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Andrea Peart, Coordinator, Campaign for Pesticide Reduction, provided a written copy of her presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Eastman clarified that Ontario passed a Nutrient Management Act in June, and that Phase I was already in place. He corrected Ms. Peart’s statement that all farmers, big or small, have to do the same thing. Larger farms are subjected to a much more onerous process and required to be reviewed by experts. Although the Councillor took exception to some of the statistics presented, he indicated he would not argue the issue, pointing out the City’s Medical Officer of Health would be coming forward with a report, later this month or next, on the health effects of intensive livestock operations.

Ms. Peart responded that although the Nutrient Management Act may have been passed, it has not been fully enacted, thus intensive livestock operations currently opening up are neither required to forward their nutrient management plans to the MOE nor follow any of the regulations until 2005, creating an immediate short term incentive to open intensive hog farm operations. Responding to a comment from Chair Hunter, Ms. Peart indicated she would be happy to email the next day, a more detailed paper on varying Provincial legislations.

Gregg Elliott, President of the Crestview Meadowlands Association provided a written copy of his presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

In response to Chair Hunter, Ms. Paterson advised that staff comments on all of the environmental submissions, similar to this one, are together in one of the documents. Councillor Stavinga received confirmation that review would take place as part of the Greenspace Master Plan, with subsequent amendments to the OP. Chair Hunter remarked that there had been some fifty changes to Schedule B from January to March with respect to urban open space. Ms. Paterson indicated there had been some inconsistency in how lands had been designated as urban natural feature and major open space, necessitating staff to return to all of the existing OPs, continuing to designate those lands that had been protected in previous plans. Additional lands were identified where protection was warranted, and it was felt that this was not the proper place to redesignate those lands without going through the proper process, particularly if not owned by the City. She added that staff had merely made the new designations consistent with existing designations.

Robert Copeland, President, Subspace Inc., (Lot 4, west half of Lot5, Lot 6, West Carleton, Fitzroy Township) provided a written copy of his presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Ms. Paterson pointed out that in the general rural area policies referenced on page 99, Policy 3C permits new sand and gravel pits and underground mining. She further defined her understanding of underground mining to be the removal of material from under the ground making a space. In response to Chair Hunter’s query, Mr. Copeland indicated that the referenced lots back onto Concession 1, Township of Packenham, now known as Mississippi Mills, with a Kinburn postal address.

Councillor Eastman received confirmation the proposed operation would be acceptable, given removal of limestone from the side of a hill and thereby creating a major underground storage facility.

Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Development Law, advised that the subject lands went to the OMB in 1998/1999 and the former Region was successful, however he would defer to Mr. Jacobs for clarification of the present policy. Mr. Copeland added that the Region made some undertakings that never happened. The area was to be renamed the Panmure Natural Area with modifications to West Carleton to specifically permit the underground development.

Dr. David Liang provided a written copy of his presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

In response to Councillor Arnold’s request for clarification of the plan for mixed development for the Bronson-Somerset/Centretown area, staff confirmed that no amendment to the OP would be required.

Al Crosby, addressed the Committee on the loss of greenspace and related matters. He provided a written copy of his presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Chair Hunter was advised that forest cover in the sense of woodland areas is approximately 27% citywide.

Don Stephenson provided a written copy of his presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Chair Hunter noted Mr. Stephenson’s last reference was to a parcel that backed onto Highway 416 and pointed out there was a Council decision not to appeal to the OMB on the subject property. Councillor Stavinga suggested that, given that Council decision, staff would make the appropriate revisions to the schedule. Mr. Lindsay recollected that staff recommended against the severances as they did not conform to any of the OP policies that were in force and effect, however pursuant to the Council direction, no appeal would be made to the OMB. Councillor Stavinga noted that, due to timing constraints, staff had not yet made the appropriate amendments to the document, albeit it was her expectation it would be done. Ms. Paterson opined that it would not be done, as the subject area was deemed to be a poor pocket in the middle of a large agricultural resource area, and it would not typically be staff’s practice to redesignate, but rather to permit the use on the poor pocket. Ms. Paterson affirmed the Councillor’s final clarification that with respect to the delegations before Committee who were concerned that their permitted zonings were not reflected in the OP, the staff position is that the approval that has been given is allowable and that there is nothing in the new OP that would undermine the decision made as a Council.

Hank Starno, MHI Canada, Trade Association to the Manufactured Housing Industry, provided a written copy of his presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Stavinga inquired if development applications currently moving through the process, due to various complexities, were in jeopardy in terms of the plan. Ms. Paterson affirmed they were not. In response to a further query from the Councillor, Ms. Paterson indicated that page 31 of the new OP permits consideration of only public communal systems, and only in villages. Hence, a development similar to that referred to by
Mr. Starno, in a village as part of a community design plan would be considered and it would be the responsibility of the plan to look at the full range of service types, including alternative and traditional systems. She further elaborated that staff are currently preparing specifications to be applied to that consideration.

Mr. Starno noted that consideration would only be within the villages, indicating that once again the communities typically get built outside of incorporated boundaries simply because highly affordable housing cannot be built on expensive land within the boundaries. He went on to indicate that they have a model for the provision of their own services, which is quite cost effective. Councillor Stavinga referred to a mobile home development located on Highway 7 at Dwyer Hill Road and inquired if this development would be permitted if it were to enter the process following adoption of the OP. Ms. Paterson affirmed that should it come in as a new application after the OP is adopted, it would not be permitted. The Councillor advised that she would be following this up with staff.

Mr. Starno reiterated the view that it is a major undertaking to remove this type of development from the City and that consultation should be undertaken with the public and development investors before it is added to the OP. Further he suggested staff assess the economic impact of driving these types of communities outside the City and still having the associated drawbacks without the revenue. He closed by requesting that it be removed from the plan at this time, that consultation be undertaken, and that staff work with stakeholders to bring it in at the beginning of the next five year cycle.

Deborah Ironside supported the removal of the Bronson-Portage link and provided a written copy of her presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Stavinga expressed her intent to move a motion that Committee reconvene on Monday morning at 9:00 a.m., in lieu of Friday, for further deliberation/discussion, based on her view that sufficient time was required to prepare. She put the Committee on notice that if she was not comfortable with the level of discussion, given the details that have been put forward over the last number of weeks, she would be prepared to extend discussions beyond Monday. Chair Hunter affirmed that this would also be the Committee’s desire, and requested staff input. Mr. Jacobs advised that it was staff’s preference to commence deliberations on Friday, and continue on Monday, since several senior staff would not be available past 3:00 p.m. on Monday, due to the Long Service Awards Ceremony.

Councillor Stavinga clarified that her motion would indicate Committee would reconvene on Monday from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., and direct the Committee Coordinator to determine, in conjunction with other Committee Coordinators, another available day, should it be required. Chair Hunter indicated that should Committee have to adjourn on Monday, Wednesday morning and Thursday afternoon, after the regular Committee meeting, would be available.

Councillor Arnold felt it might be a problem to reschedule after Monday as many Councillors had pushed commitments into next week, based on their understanding that Committee would meet on Friday and Monday. Her preference was to recess for a period to allow senior staff to attend the awards and reconvene until conclusion.

Councillor Munter concurred with Councillor Arnold’s preference to reconvene Monday and questioned whether the regular Committee meeting could be used as an overflow day. Councillor Arnold reminded Committee that Thursday was the joint meeting of PDC and ESC to deal with the environmental strategy. Chair Hunter advised that the regular PDC meeting was scheduled to commence at 11:00 a.m. and would circulate the agenda items to determine if there was any controversy; however, from his view the meeting would be short. Chair Hunter favoured Councillor Munter’s suggestion of Monday and Thursday.

Catherine Lindquist, Ottawa Tourism and Convention Authority (OTCA) provided a written copy of her presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga

THAT Planning and Development Committee reconvene on Monday, April 7 at 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and that staff be directed to look at Thursday, April 10 as the overflow day if required, and that staff be directed to make the appropriate notification in the public newspapers of the meeting dates.

CARRIED with Councillor Arnold dissenting.

The following additional written submissions were received and circulated to the Committee:

· E-mail dated 27 March 2003, Noreen and John Carter, re Bronson-Portage Link

· Letter dated 29 February 2003, Jean Christie, re Bronson-Portage Link

· E-mail dated 20 February 2003, Archie Campbell, Dalhousie Community Association, re Bronson-Portage Link

· E-mail dated 18 February 2003, from Doug Gabelmann, re Bronson-Portage Link

· E-mail dated 21 February 2003, from Andrew Aitkens, re Bronson-Portage Link

· E-mail dated 22 September 2002, from Paul Francis, re Bronson-Portage Link

· E-mail dated 26 September 2002, from Jim Maloney, re Bronson-Portage Link

· E-mail dated 26 September 2002, from Martine Mandeville, re Bronson-Portage Link

· E-mail dated 30 September 2002, from Matha Musgrove, re Bronson-Portage Link

· E-mail dated 27 March 2003, from Dan McDade, re Bronson-Portage Link

· E-Mail dated 28 March 2003, from Judy Girard, re Bronson-Portage Link

· E-mail dated 31 March 2003, from Rosemary Tayler, re Bronson-Portage Link

· E-mail dated 31 March 2003, from Angela Prokopiak, re Bronson-Portage Link

· Letter dated 29 March 2003, from Diane Holmes, re Bronson-Portage Link

· E-mail dated 23 March 2003, from Marjorie Fulton, re Bronson-Portage Link

· Letter dated 30 March 2003, from T. A. Lauzon, with letter dated 29 September 2002re Bronson-Portage Link

· E-mail dated 31 March 2003, from Angela Beale re Bronson-Portage Link

· Letter dated 1 April 2003, from William Davidson, with related documentation re Clydesdale Meadows Enterprises Land Review

· E-mail dated 1 April 2003, from Dan Mainguy, re Acacia Avenue

· E-mail dated 1 April 2003, from Margaret Nelson, President, Ontario Association of Social Works (OASW) Eastern Branch, re affordable housing

· Submission from Peter Burns, on behalf of Urbandale Corporation

· Submission from David McNicoll, with attached letter from Ernie Eves, Premier, Ontario

· E-mail dated 31 March 2003, from Barry Head

· E-mail dated 30 March 2003, from N. Suzanne Thompson, George D. Thompson, Cathy MacDonald and Harry Thompson

· E-mail dated 30 March 2003, from Don Kennedy, for the Swaita family, Cumberland

· E-mail dated 30 March 2003, from Don Kennedy, for the Marlin Group, Enterprise Area, north of Highway 174, between Trim and Tenth Line Roads, Cumberland

· E-mail dated 29 March 2003, from Karen Hawker

· E-mail dated 28 March 2003, from Garry Lindberg

· Letter dated 25 March 2003, from Faye Colbourn and William E. Ambrose

· Letter dated 25 March 2003, from Michael Hatoum

· Letter dated 31 March 2003, from Janet E. Bradley, for 764703 Ontario Limited, Frank Nighbor Place, former City of Kanata

· Dated 14 March 2003 from Don Maciver, Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, Brief #368

· E-mail dated 20 March 2003, from Ron Tolmie, Brief #369

· Letter dated 17 February 2003, from John Nakanishi, Brief #370

· E-mail dated 12 March 2003, From E. J. (Ted) Legg, Brief #371

· From Margaret Nelson, Ontario Association of Social Workers, Brief #372

· Letter dated 20 March 2003, from Jane Ironside, J. E. Ironside Consulting Ltd., and David Grant, Cornwall Gravel Co., Brief #372

· Comprehensive submission from EAC (Joint Commun ity Workshop Report/Comments on OP and A Review of Greenspace Protection), Brief #376

· From Pamela Sweet, FoTenn Consultants, for Hydro One Networks Inc.

· Additional submission by Ron Tolmie, dated for PDC 2 April 2003

· Additional information, by e-mail, to Councillor D. Deans, from Andy Ellwood and Bruce Lillico, Kempark

· Letter dated 21 February 2003, from Christophr B. Taggart, Vice-President, Tamarack Development Corporation

· Letter dated 21 February 2003, from Vice-President, FoTenn Consultants Inc., re Canadian Waste, Section 3.7, Solid Waste Disposal Sites

· Letter dated 2 and 4 April 2003, from Ron Clark, Delcan, on behalf of Canadian Tire Real Estate

· Letter dated 3 April 2003, from Dacic family, re Bronson-Portage Link

· E-mail dated 3 April 2003, from Lucile McGregor, Board of Directors, CCC 289, re Bronson- Portage Link

· E-mail dated 3 April 2003, from Danny Finch, #507-479 Laurier Avenue West, re Bronson- Portage Link

· Letter dated 7 April 2003, from John Doran, Domicile Developments Inc., re affordable housing

· Letter dated 3 April 2003 (faxed), from Bob Kemp, Kemp Service Centre Ltd., re 4505 Bank Street

· E-mail dated 3 April 2003, from Denis Labreche, President, Carlsbad Springs Community Association

· E-mail from Murray Chown, re Osgoode Rideau Soccer Association, re suggested wording/motions

· E-mail dated 3 April 2003, from Darlene Zimmerman re Bronson-Portage Link

· Letter dated 2 April 2003, from Michael Bowman, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, for Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited

· E-mail dated 3 April 2003 and submission from Gary D. Ludington

The Committee adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

The Committee received an e-mail dated 3 April 2003, from Ms. Paterson clarifying a response on affordable housing. The proposed policies will require that each development provide 15% affordable units. If that is not possible on site, there are provisions to explore other means to meet the policy requirements. The overall intent is to integrate affordable housing throughout the community. She added that in the question/answer session, structural type was confused with affordability. The distribution of densities across the community may vary based on compatibility and OP policies.

MONDAY, 7 APRIL 2003 – 9:00 A.M.

Chair Hunter advised that the meeting would commence with a brief review and presentation by staff. Mr. Jacobs provided a presentation that reviewed some of the issues addressed in a substantial number of submissions received over the last week. Wednesday’s adjournment allowed for an opportunity to pull many of those together, which was appreciated. Before Committee was a package of Motions circulated electronically on Friday that proposed staff suggestions and recommendations with respect to changes and those were incorporated into a hard copy of MOTIONS submitted by Committee members, also in advance. As the Committee progressed, it was staff’s intent to bring forward the recommendations identifying those that relate to the same issues on a Section-by-Section basis throughout the OP. But, with respect to the presentation, he wanted to emphasize the Plan was very long term in perspective and strategic in its approach. It required the City to take a firm look at where it wanted to be and not react in the short term to area specific issues or concerns that present themselves. The inventory of land presented in Map form and to be discussed in the presentation was intended to address all land use requirements for the new City for the 20-year period, not simply residential land. It reflected a mixture of designations, all of which were currently vacant. It did not include land that had a potential for redevelopment and, by way of example, FoTenn was contracted by the former Region to undertake an exhaustive review of land development potential for residential purposes within the Region at that time. Since that study was published, 6,000 dwelling units were generated across the City, only 14% of which were utilized land identified by FoTenn. The balance were lands not identified as having any potential prior to that time. Staff submitted it was not about specific properties; not about how many particular housing units could be put on any particular lot, it was all about the potential to achieve the objectives and in a manner both compatible and supportive to the existing community character as well as supporting the general quality of life that was clearly identified in the Vision for the new OP. Staff would continue to look at the entire scope of the City and not area specific issues. There was a substantial inventory of land sufficient to meet the City’s requirements and as the City moved forward and adjusted its approach to development, from the traditional forms generally seen, the City would be able to achieve the objectives outlined in the Plan. Mr. Jacobs turned the presentation over to Ian Cross who would look not only at historic development examples in the communities, which identified the targets, requirements suggested for development and the density of development across the City that he submitted were not difficult to achieve. These were projects that clearly exceeded many times over the kinds of densities staff believed were necessary to achieve the Vision. Staff would be available to respond to any questions at the conclusion of the presentation.

Mr. Cross walked the Committee through a detailed PowerPoint presentation on Managing Ottawa’s Growth, a copy of which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk together with a Map that outlined Vacant Urban Land, 2001.

Councillor Cullen recalled the Committee’s concern that the Growth Projections were quite aggressive. Parts were based on the demographics of mortality and birth rate, but a significant part was based on migration linked to expectations on employment. In fact, the projections were very sensitive to that and many thought it projected the high tech boom, which became the high tech crash. Were there numbers from the 2001 Census because the growth projections were based on 1996? Did staff see anything in that Census that would ameliorate or reduce the expectations in terms of growth? Mr. Cross explained that staff had seen the Census was slightly higher than projected. The projection was based on the Post-Censal number at 791,000. Staff proposed a review by the end of the year. For example, the labour force survey numbers released on Friday demonstrated very strong growth, with 20,000 jobs added within the last 12 months. 2002 had the highest number of housing starts since 1988, also above the projection; however, the growth peak was about 2006. Staff wanted to wait and see. Councillor Cullen noted the OP spoke to 400,000 residents and 150-200,000 more housing units required. There was a projected increase in households of 186,300 and it referred to the current non-family households; e.g. couples without children, single adults and seniors, which was currently at 35%, but projected at 38% in 2021. Applying that number against the 186,300 provided 70,800 in housing. He posited single-family homes were not anticipated for that sector? Mr. Cross commented that it was a very diverse housing market, which the projection allowed for. There was a long series of housing propensities; age by household type, by housing type and the projected demand was based on those patterns. Councillor Cullen commented the expectation of the increase in non-family households/household size was actually shrinking. Mr. Cross confirmed that had been the case for many decades.

On the other side of that, if 38% were singles, childless couples and seniors, with an aging population, the 62%, would bring 115,500 families and ran to the affordability issue, with the 30% cut-off in terms of affordability, that left 80,000 families above the 30%. Responding to a further question, Mr. Cross explained the 9/ha. reflected what existed on the ground today for all uses; housing, schools, parks, etc. Councillor Cullen suggested a higher rate of density was anticipated for the developable lands than 9 within the OP, which Mr. Cross confirmed was desired.

Councillor Cullen noted the OP was to have regard to the PPS under Section 3 of the Planning Act. Mr. Lathrop responded they were intended as guidelines for municipalities to follow to ensure there was appropriate land available for development. The Councillor accessed the PPS from the Web, which he read; and, received assurance from Mr. Lathrop the Draft OP accommodated every aspect. Councillor Cullen had copies of the Section in the event Committee members wanted to avail themselves. Chair Hunter added that the same could have been said of the last OP’s and the same responses would have been given.

Councillor Stavinga referred to the Vacant Land Survey; Mr. Cross had mentioned that specific areas not included such as the developing community of South Urban Nepean, and Kanata West (700 ha.). Responding to the approximate land size not included, Mr. Cross guesstimated it was in the neighbourhood of 2-3,000 ha. Councillor Stavinga referred to past and future land consumption mentioned at 350 ha. per year, with a 30-year land supply and asked if that integrated those areas not originally included in the Vacant Land Supply Survey. Mr. Cross responded the 350 ha./year was that consumed for all purposes; e.g. Queensway interchanges, housing, schools, jobs, parks, etc. In response to a further question by the Councillor on vacant land supply determination, Mr. Cross explained that the 10,600 ha. of vacant urban land included Kanata West. Future development designation was divided by 350 per year. Mr. Jacobs interjected that two matters were being discussed. The Vacant Urban Land Residential Study (VURLS) referred to dealt with vacant land for residential purposes. The 10,600 ha. was all vacant land. These were two different reports and studies. The VURLS was the report referred to by many presenters before Committee. The 10,600 ha. was a number based on all vacant land, regardless of designation available for potential development. Councillor Stavinga noted some of the advocates of expansion basically said that using the VURLS and even Kanata West and the South Nepean area did not supply adequate land for residential development. That assumed continuing the type of development historically seen. Mr. Cross confirmed that was the basis of their argument, although he did not agree with that premise.

Councillor Stavinga acknowledged the MMAH required municipalities to adhere to certain policy requirements; one of which was to maintain at all times, at least a three year supply of residential units with servicing capacity and draft approved or registered plans, for new development to occur. There was value in the one city approach as it related to comprehensive planning strategy for managing growth, rather than individual municipalities striving to meet that policy. Mr. Cross confirmed Councillor Stavinga was correct.

Councillor Harder noted that in former Nepean 14% of South Nepean was developed as green space, parkland, etc., but the Ministry only dictated 5%. She inquired what rate was set when staff conducted its analysis. Mr. Cross responded that essentially it would reflect the type of development seen; for example, in South Nepean it would reflect 14%. Mr. Cross added that the 9 units/ha. would reflect all of the existing open space and park space that existed in 2001 outside the greenbelt for any use. Councillor Harder commented that although the Nortel lands, 100 acres at 416 and Fallowfield, were highlighted as developable, that did not mean staff was thinking the zoning would be changed to allow for housing. Mr. Cross recollected it was designated as Enterprise Area and the Plan would permit higher density housing under certain conditions in that area. That was not to say the whole area would be housing, but there was residential potential.

Councillor Munter received confirmation that based on the busiest, active years of development and projecting that forward, there was a 30-year supply of vacant urban land.

Councillor Bellemare referred to the map with serviced lands that could be appropriate either for housing or employment areas, either commercial, industrial development or residential development. Mr. Cross responded the Councillor was correct in that the land was vacant urban, but not all was presently serviced, since some areas required pipes to be extended. Part of the plan over the next 20 years was to have services extended as required. Mr. Jacobs confirmed the map illustrated vacant land for all types of uses. Certainly residential opportunities were identified, but not specifically on the map. There was employment, parkland; all that required to sustain future growth as far as land requirements and currently vacant were identified. Councillor Bellemare questioned whether the pink areas categorized residential potential, since highlighted one area was the Canotek Business Park recently rejected for residential development, or, rather vacant land.

Councillor Bellemare focused on the Greenspace policy. P. 41 indicated the City would develop a Greenspace Master Plan by the end of 2004. Will all greenspaces be mapped? There was a woodlot in his Ward he understood would be studied and received confirmation he would not need to bring forward a Motion to include it. Staff brought forward in the current Plan an inventory and designation of all greenspaces as defined in the former plans. There was insufficient time to undertake the type of Greenspace Master Plan noted in the report. It was staff’s intention to inventory and identify the appropriate designations for all parks and bring that report back to the Committee. It would likely require an amendment to the Plan to reflect that strategy at that time.

Councillor Bellemare next referred to the implementation mechanisms for the OP and received confirmation from Mr. Jacobs that all the implementation tools necessary to carry out the Plan were included. Should there be amendments to the Planning Act or other, staff would bring those forward at that time. Some of the implementation tools do require studies to be completed before they could be implemented, but the necessary tools were identified. Councillor Bellemare proposed the most important implementation tool was a Comprehensive Zoning By-Law. P. 155 outlined that the current Zoning By-Laws of the former municipalities would remain in effect until Council adopted the new Comprehensive Zoning By-Law, despite the fact there would be a new OP. Responding to a query,
Mr. Jacobs advised that implementing the Plan with respect to new development applications could begin immediately. As new applications were submitted staff could amend the Zoning By-Law or introduce new categories to reflect the policies approved in the Plan. With respect to an overall Comprehensive Zoning By-law, staff was looking at a timetable of three years with a new Comprehensive Zoning By-Law that would reflect all the provisions in the Plan in 2005/6. Councillor Bellemare questioned Mr. Marc in the case of a conflict between the new OP and existing Zoning By-Laws of the former municipalities, who responded that for a single detached housing, the existing zoning would govern the situation. If a development application was brought forward then there was the opportunity for DSD to seek to apply the new OP; however, even in that circumstance, the existing zoning would be given weight.

Chair Hunter requested that further questions be based on the content of the presentation. Questions on various sections of the Plan would be allowed when the Committee dealt with that particular Section.

Councillor Arnold focussed on the map since there was general focus on vacant urban land in terms of the development potential and whether projections were accurate. She referenced the Environmental Strategy coming forward to Committee on Thursday, which talked from an environmental perspective on how the City needed to intensify and meet environmental goals as well. Looking at the map, it did not identify anything other than LeBreton Flats in the downtown area as a place for new residential development. She was aware that in Centretown, in particular, in keeping with the existing OP, Secondary Plan and Zoning By-Law, the City could vastly increase the number of residential units. She wanted it clear for the Record that within the estimates to meet growth projections, it included intensification not only on vacant urban land, but on already developed urban land. Mr. Cross responded that it was an integral part of the projected housing supply. The reason many parcels were not shown as vacant land was a combination of two things; one, many parcels were so small they do not show up at that scale; and, secondly, he agreed totally with Councillor Arnold’s observation that there was a huge supply available through non-vacant land, but if it was used as a parking lot, which was an under use of the land, it was still used for something and therefore not vacant. It was a definitional issue. Or, there were a lot marginal uses. Councillor Arnold pointed out the City should not focus solely on the land identified on the map or in the documents, since there was a large supply and hopefully that land would be developed quickly because it was the land most serviced from a transit point of view as well as sewer, water, etc. Mr. Cross added that projections shown in the Plan call for about 60,000 new housing units inside the Greenbelt over the 20-year planning period; 3,000 units per year. In fact, in 2002 2,907 permits were issued inside the Greenbelt, which was virtually exactly the projection.

Councillor Legendre received confirmation that some of the lands may be designated for other uses, but could in fact be used for residential purposes. Also, in response to Councillor Arnold’s questions, he would have anticipated the small parcels that did not show up on the map would nonetheless have been totalled in the study. Mr. Cross explained that the VURLS’ primary purpose was to monitor the subdivision approval pipeline. It dealt exclusively with Greenfield development. It did not and never did try to take into account residential potential outside the Phase I suburban residential land. Councillor Legendre referred to the Rockcliffe Air Base, which he surmised could not be considered greenfields, yet it was possibly the largest piece of land within the Greenbelt that had developers salivating at almost 350 acres. He received confirmation that would not show up in the survey, since it was a redevelopment situation.

Responding to Councillor Legendre, Chair Hunter intended to advance through the Plan Section by Section using the Omnibus Motions from staff. Additional Motions would be moved by Committee members at the specific Sections, on their own behalf or for Councillors who did not sit on the Committee.

Chair Hunter noted Committee asked last week for an indication of how much land supply, how much intensification, how much was available for intensification by Friday, particularly concentrating on housing. The Committee received a map that depicted all the vacant urban land in pink. The Committee was now informed of the VURLS that was available for a dozen or more years, conducted on an annual basis. Why was all that information not compounded in one report so that when the Committee was talking about housing, the Committee could be talking about housing; when talking about the availability of land, the Committee would know what land was available; when talking about how much redevelopment was expected in each area, that figure could be seen so as to know if the area was likely to accept it; or whether it was logical or outrageous. To him this was obfiscation, presenting a map that did not show what the Committee was asking and then coming forward and admitting it did not. The Committee anticipated a more comprehensive set of information. When could the Committee anticipate receiving the real information it was looking for, which was the availability of sites, land (raw and serviced), land likely to be redeveloped for housing? Mr. Jacobs responded that the approach taken with the Plan, as indicated from the outset was one of looking at all the urban land requirements; how to approach that; how to deliver to accommodate the City’s needs over the 20-year period. The map presented identified the vacant land available for development for all types of land uses. The ability to move beyond or to focus specifically on housing was at best an inexact science. The report, which FoTenn completed in 1997, focussed on residential land development potential and made an attempt to try to identify those sites. Almost one year was spent completing that work; and, even with that exhaustive research, they identified a substantial potential, but historic evidence has shown that only 14% of the land identified was needed to generate 6,000 units. It was not possible to itemize all the specific opportunity because land could be redesignated and redeveloped. Staff presented evidence to Committee there was sufficient land to meet the urban land requirements; that using lands currently designated residential, there was a significant supply, but that was not the only supply to meet housing needs. It was not possible or practical to try to build a plan on the basis of a site-specific review. What was practical was to look at all the urban land requirements, historically, and project that into the future and plan proposed policies to, if necessary, redesignate, redevelop, but clearly to move the Plan forward based upon the policies proposed. Staff was confident there was sufficient land to meet those requirements.

Chair Hunter pointed out: 1) the FoTenn report only worked on land inside the Greenbelt; 2) the FoTenn report expected that it would not cover all the land, approximately 30,000 of the units that need to be achieved inside Greenbelt would be on land other than vacant parcels identified in FoTenn’s report; and, 3) of the FoTenn report and the expected densities, not a single project was developed at the densities expected on those lands.

Chair Hunter highlight in the vacant land supply it used the term ha., but density of development was referred to in net ha. How many ha. were needed to make a net ha.? Mr. Cross explained that the residential density measured in net ha. referred to merely the building lots. So, if one asked what the ratio net building land and a general urban area designation, staff performed an exercise to check on that and the assumption in the past was that 60% of an area like Bridlewood, general urban area, accommodated housing, roads, schools, local parks, local commercial, would be net residential. Chair Hunter received confirmation that for every 10 ha. of developable land, general urban land, there was 6 ha. net ha. of land. Chair Hunter referred to the West Urban Community that needed 1,700 net ha. to accommodate the residential growth expected. How much land was available for residential development in the West Urban Community? While Mr. Cross was preparing that information, Mr. Jacobs indicated it was important to recognize that staff was not just talking about vacant land. It was land that could be used for a variety of purposes. It did not need to be designated residential to have residential development. The principle of the Plan was based on both residential neighbourhoods as well as mixed-use development occurring in town centres, at transit stations, in enterprise and employment areas; a number that related to specifically identified or designated residential land today was only a portion of the supply that was felt available to meet the residential land requirements in not only the West Urban Community, but anywhere within the City’s boundary. Chair Hunter noted there was an expected increased employment by 2021 of 257,000 new urban jobs. How many ha. were needed to host 257,000 new jobs? He added that within the urban boundary land for jobs and housing had to compete. So, to say that an enterprise area was being changed to allow housing meant there was that much room, whether on the ground or above the ground for jobs.

Mr. Lathrop observed the Chair was challenging the concept of development in the past vs. the concept of development in the future. He drew the Committee to the Kanata Business Park, which had exampled a planner’s view of a low-density industrial campus style development. The end result was completely different, with a much higher density development, close to some of the building densities and high-rise capability of the buildings seen downtown. In essence, there was an intensification much higher than anticipated. He argued the principle the Chair put forward and challenges made to staff, both on the residential side and business, speak to the way in which suburbia used to develop. Staff tried to express that suburbia had not had that kind of development as time progressed, but it was densifying. The same was happening in the mixed-use centres, the main streets and in the business parks. Staff was saying that the best of the information given to Committee today was not a detailed lot by lot description of what would happen because those kinds of details were not the appropriate mechanism to use when analyzing growth. Staff projected the 30-year supply that could be achieved; and, was also saying there would be a review every five years to ensure it was achieved or not achieved to monitor itself. Staff was trying to provide the best information possible. Chair Hunter countered he was not challenging anything, but trying to establish it would work. Smart Growth was put forward; he was trying to determine work was undertaken to ensure it was Smart and would work.

Mr. Cross advised that staff did a vacant industrial and business park land survey, but not annually similar to the residential. A report was produced at the end of last year and conducted every 2-3 years. Based on historical average consumption rates, that report estimated a 46-year supply of business park and industrial land. Staff never attempted to quantify it since it was so extensive, but the retail and office opportunities were throughout the existing urban area. He posited it was not an issue, but there appeared to be an excessive supply. Chair Hunter reiterated his question was to the number of jobs.

Chair Hunter referred to the 10,600 ha. said to be available within the present urban envelope and asked how much was expected to be lost to development for – natural features, open space, river corridor, flood plains, lands bordering on mineral resources, schools, parks, arenas and like facilities, in the developing communities. Mr. Cross first responded to the job question. In round figures, 1,300 net ha. would be required for that number of jobs (1,500 gross ha.). On the open space, Mr. Cross advised that the approach of 9 units per gross ha. as alluded, to reflected the situation the Chair listed. All the suburban areas outside the Greenbelt were affected by constraints such as mineral resource, flood plain and uses such as parks and open space, schools, etc. That could easily be accommodated within the vacant land supply.

Councillor Munter indicated that when the City introduced residential uses into the Kanata North Business Park in 2002, the analysis demonstrated that in addition to introducing residential uses, the City would also exceed the employment targets on those lands because the market had driven taller office buildings than originally foreseen with a denser form of employment development. In fact, in Kanata North there will be just as many jobs or more than projected, plus there would be housing units. Mr. Jacobs confirmed that was correct, which was the premise of the approach in the Enterprise Areas, not to sacrifice the employment potential, but the introduction of additional uses within that designated area. The number of jobs would still be maintained, but additional residential units would be added. Councillor Munter moved across the road from the Kanata Research Park Corporation, to Innovation Drive with an application for some fairly dense form of residential development that did not compromise the employment targets. If there were 1,000 units, it saved the equivalent of 40 ha. of residential land. Councillor Munter pointed out the analysis was only partially about how much land there was; it was also about how that land was used. Mr. Jacobs confirmed the Councillor was correct on both counts.

Councillor Harder pointed out that whether business or residential, was it not largely driven by market demand and what people and/or businesses want to invest in? Mr. Jacobs confirmed the market did influence what the development community built. The City could also influence how and where it was built. It was the partners working together that develop the community. She applauded the vision, but people and businesses might not necessarily buy into it. Mr. Lathrop responded the Councillor was right, it was partnership and staff had tried to demonstrate in the Plan that the City would like to partner with the development industry to generate the kind of development it opined there was a market for and staff felt there was the potential for slightly higher densities. If staff was wrong, the Plan would be revisited in five years. There was a potential to work with the development community and save money by not extending services where not required, since the long-range financial plan projected funds were not available. Councillor Harder did not disagree with extending the services, but why could the City not wait for the new growth projections that would take place over the next year, which could not be changed if the City was wrong or right. Mr. Jacobs responded that the outcome of the review of population projections, if proven to be too high, would be to curtail the boundary or there was more than enough land. Staff was putting forward there was more than enough to meet the maximum it was striving to achieve. Waiting would not change where the Plan would take the City. There was still sufficient urban land. There was no need to expand the boundary and clearly an expansion would be premature.

Councillor Harder inquired if there were contingency plans for extraordinary events such as if DND were to take over the JDS campus that would change things dramatically for South Nepean. Was there any ability once everything was set in Motion and approved, to change if necessary? Or, will the City be locked in entirely for five years? Mr. Jacobs responded that the Plan could be amended for such circumstances, but in the case described it was merely relocating existing employment to another location within the City. Councillor Harder countered the type of employment was vastly different, affecting residents all over the City who would have to travel to the location and possibly relocate. She received confirmation there was some flexibility.

Councillor Stavinga followed up on the question of waiting one year. She referenced the City’s ability to start the process to review the Development Charges was contingent upon the adoption of the OP. Mr. Lathrop responded that the adoption of the Plan did allow staff to comprehensively review the Development Charges. Mr. Jacobs added that having a single vision would make it more effective to develop a new Development Charge that would apply citywide. Certainly, staff would find the adoption of the Plan would provide the direction necessary to put in place the financial tools that were clearly important in delivering on the vision contained in the Plan. On the Development Charges, Councillor Stavinga referred to the ability to look at the extension of various services in terms of the future (20 year horizon) should the development community be more willing to entertain full cost, which Council had committed to moving towards, both in the long range financial and the Sub-Committee on Debt Management. It was articulated and ratified during the 2003 Budget process. But, if there was a willingness to pay the full cost and, if indeed, the projections say additional land was needed, was that the appropriate time for the City to look at where expansion would occur? How can the City best facilitate that process, so it was not subsidizing growth, but would see growth planned in the appropriate locations; for example, on transit. Mr. Jacobs responded that by undertaking a comprehensive review of the Plan and if the City did need to expand, the City would be in a position to identify locations or expansions that would minimize increases in Development Charges by providing cost-effective services. So, clearly working with the development community and the City as a whole would allow the City to better analyze locations for expansion, not only on the basis of land use, but also on the basis of cost service delivery.

Chair Hunter summarized that it was not if the City conducted the comprehensive review, but when was the best time to commence. The question was how long should the City wait to do that review? Mr. Jacobs responded it was not needed for at least five years or longer.

Chair Hunter advised he would commence with the Prologue in Section 1. Councillor Eastman noted some of the questions dealt with staff recommendations in the Agenda and referred to the Definition Section specifically; and, asked how that would be handled since they did not appear in the package. Chair Hunter clarified they did appear within the 31 pages of motions distributed. The Plan would be dealt with Section by Section, using the Omnibus Motions that contained the Motions staff suggested come forward. Questions would be dealt with as the Committee came to particular sections.

MOTIONS

Note: For record purposes the Omnibus Motions from staff are numbered.

Councillor Stavinga introduced her Motion that referred to the Prologue on P-i, of the introduction. Her Motion provided clarity and was an important amendment for fact.

Prologue

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:

Amendments to P-i, Pg. 1

That the following statement “…brought 12 urban and rural municipalities together as one government structure…”

be amended to “…brought 11 urban and rural municipalities and a regional government into one government structure…”

CARRIED

Councillor Harder introduced her Motion and exampled the TMP and others outstanding. She suggested that the final decision on the Plan be deferred until such time as those Plans were complete. Chair Hunter added that the Motion echoes comments by Ms. Hoad, Mr. Gladstone and Ms. Barr. Councillor Harder mentioned that people from diverse areas all agreed that approval was precipitous.

Councillor Munter commented on the Motion to defer, which he would not support, that criticism of the OP was coming from those who think the modal shares/splits were too low or too high; and, while Councillor Harder pointed out that the Home Builder’s Association, the Greenspace Alliance and transportation advocates from the central city opposed the Plan, it was worth noting they opposed it for very different reasons. This was the third time he had undertaken an OP exercise and by far this was the most consultative participative process, starting with the Growth Summit. So, to suggest now that it should be delayed and instead of having the future Plans conform to the Principles of this document, but rather prolong it indefinitely for the development industry to continue to try its campaign to change the Plan’s basic principles was not acceptable.

Councillor Arnold also opposed the Motion. It was time to proceed with approval of the Plan so the City could move forward. The approach being embarked upon for the OP was the correct approach. Some of those other Plans would be coming forward on April 23^rd to Council and were developed concurrently, which was exactly what the advocates from the Greenspace Alliance, the City Centre Coalition and others asked for. Others like the Environmental Strategy, which was coming to PDC on Thursday, were totally consistent with the OP, although with more detail in terms of implementation. It was important to move this Plan to the Ministry for approval so that as the City moved into its second term it could be operating under one Plan.

Responding to Councillor Cullen, Mr. Jacobs advised that the TMP and the Infrastructure Master Plan were to be concluded and brought forward for final approval in June 2003. The Environmental Strategy was anticipated for September 2003. The Greenspace Strategy would likely result in amendments to this Plan, but built upon its principles, would be completed at the end of 2004. The framework in the Plan allowed for those to be completed. Councillor Cullen had been through this process twice and as everyone knew they were not carved in stone with opportunity to take a second look every five years. This Plan was different than the ROP dealt with in 1997 and the City of Ottawa OP in 1994 in that this was one City and it could not continue with 12 different directions. Although these had to conform to the ROP, they still had different standards and ways of encouraging growth in the community. With growth pressures, it must be completed; and, it must recognize the principles of Smart Growth.

Councillor Stavinga related an experience at the Youth Summit in 2001 where she brought forward to the participants the 12 OPs, for the 11 municipalities and the Region, and the various Comprehensive Zoning By-Laws and asked if they would be willing to participate in the growth and management of the City, they vociferously responded in the negative. That was the challenge. It was an arduous task, but important in defining the new City.

Chair Hunter reminded the Committee that business as usual in the City meant no expansion of the urban boundary. The 1997 ROP unanimously approved by the Regional Council called for no expansion of the urban boundary. This was not new nor breathtaking and not new Smarts. It was the continuation of a Policy put in place over five years ago by the Region. On the proposal to defer until all the information was known and there was a comprehensive package as the Region did in 1997, he presented was too close to the finish line. It should be followed through regardless of the decisions taken.

Section 1, Introduction

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

Re: OTTAWA’S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANS

Page 5 & page 7, sections 1.4 and 1.5

Amend that Council approval of the OFFICIAL PLAN be deferred until such time as the MASTER STUDIES and GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANS are completed and approved by Council.

LOST

YEAS (1): Councillor Harder

NAYS (8): Councillors Munter, Eastman, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume, Hunter

Councillor Harder presented her next Motion and advised that there was more to recreation than a pathway and a park; there were facilities.

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That Section 1.6, Subsection, A Healthy and Active City, (P.10) be amended to change to “recreational pathways and facilities”

CARRIED

Section 2.0 Strategic Directions

1. Page 15, Section 2.1 The Challenge Ahead

Amend the subsection Maintaining Environmental Integrity, second bullet point, by deleting “~~The most significant~~” and the word, “~~conserved~~” and adding the word “protected”, so that the text as amended reads, “Wetlands and forests will be protected.”

Councillor Eastman had a concern on the interpretation of the word “protected”.
Ms. Paterson responded that this was a list of policies to follow. The word “conserve” gave the impression of being loaded. Councillor Harder commented that not all forests were indigenous. This would not mean that anything that was a tree in numbers larger than 20 would have to be protected. She received confirmation it was a direction. Councillor Stavinga defined the word “conserve” to be wise use. The suggestion was preserve, but following that there was concern that conserve would be interpreted as a museum piece. Dealing with issues after talking with staff, it was decided that the word “protected” be used. She asked the Committee to support that.

On the Recommendation.

CARRIED with Councillor Eastman dissenting.

2. Page 17, Section 2.2 Managing Growth

Amend the preamble by deleting the sentence, “~~Policies for the General Rural Area address the review of land uses within 5 kilometres of an urban boundary to ensure they do not impede future expansion potential~~.” (PDC motion 25)

Councillor Cullen questioned the rationale for this Motion. Ms. Paterson clarified that the Policy was already deleted. This was in the preamble and it was missed.

On the Recommendation.

CARRIED

Moved Councillor J. Harder:

WHEREAS it has not been shown that there is enough available urban land available to accommodate the expected population and job growth for the next twenty years; and,

THAT Section 2.2.1 Urban Area Boundary Policy 3 (P. 17) be amended to add at the beginning: “Following the approval of this Plan and every five years thereafter”…

“Each review should take no more than one year to complete” after “requirements”.

Councillor Cullen understood the Planning Act required the City to review the OP every five years and the language contained therein stated “every five years the City will undertake a comprehensive review to assess the need to designate…” He inquired what the difference was between that proposed and what was in the Plan. Mr. Jacobs interpreted the proposal to mean that as the preamble stated it was not demonstrated there was sufficient land and the need to start tomorrow to analyze and come up with a suggested expansion.

Councillor Munter clarified the Planning Act required the municipality to consider whether or not to re-open the OP. He would not vote in support of any Motion that had this type of “whereas” in it. There was a 30-year supply of vacant urban land and this was obviously a central question and the Committee would return to discuss it frequently through this Section and through the Plan, but to suggest when there was a 30-year supply of vacant to commit the City every five years and future Councils to embark on an exercise to expand the urban area was simply another clever attempt to derail the intent of the OP.

Chair Hunter submitted that the Motion did not attempt to say the City undertake a review of the OP, but that the City undertake a review to assess the need for a review or an update of the OP. The Policies in Sections 3, 4 and 5 were good and they were questions that should be looked at if the City were to look at the OP or assess the need to carry out an adjustment of the urban boundary. He took issue with and was not satisfied by the answers he received during the questioning following the presentation when the review should take place. He opined the City would get through the next 4-5 years with the current land supply. It was absurd to say there was a 30-year supply; and, Mr. Jacobs was quoted in the Citizen that there was probably a 10-year supply available. That was far away from the 20-year. If there was a 5-10 year supply, the review had to take place soon because any expansion of the urban boundary was characterized as being developer-friendly. If there was no expansion of the urban boundary, that was developer friendly as well because it created shortages of particular types of land and created almost a monopoly situation and put land in the hands of approximately six developers. It cut down on the competition within the market place tremendously, which was not to the benefit of people who wanted to purchase homes. It may be beneficial to those who want to sell their homes. There was one policy in the Plan limiting the land supply fighting against another policy, which was creating affordable housing.

The second issue was that if the City came up with a shortage of land and were waiting five years down the road, the only people with plans where the next community should be would be these same developers; those lined up at the OMB based on the City’s decision on March 27^th. They don’t necessarily own the lands in the right place. They did own farmland, some of which was purchased in 1970. They would be espousing the proper location for the next community and many may not agree with that supposition, but the City would not have a finger on where that next community should be or where that expansion would be if the City did not study that now or as soon as possible after the Plan was approved. Many say that no growth was Smart Growth and he provided the paradigm of Melbourne, Australia espoused 15-20 years ago; but recently released a Smart Growth Plan called Melbourne 2030. Their version of Smart Growth was to channel growth where the services were already in place or could be in place such as the highway or rail arterials or right-of-ways. The City should pick nodes or places where growth was best. In their case they preserved the agricultural, the natural features and the environmentally sensitive features. That was what Ottawa should be doing.

Councillor Harder referred to the just completed Rapid Transit Strategy Plan as a 20-year Plan. The Ring Road was not coming soon. The by-pass was coming in 20-25 years, but the planning was started. That was what the Motion suggested. It was to start the planning because whether one believed or did not believe there was enough land, this City would need to expand somewhere. Was it not better that the First Council of the new City of Ottawa in its first term in approving the OP start to plan for that eventuality?

Councillor Cullen commented that the Committee was dealing with Section 2.2.1 Urban Area Boundary, Policy 3, which stated every five years the City would undertake a comprehensive review to assess the need to designate additional land to meet its requirements. This met the objectives of the Planning Act. He heard the Motion talk somewhat beyond what the Planning Act required. The current language served the needs of the City; if there was a need to look at it, it would be done. If not, taxpayer dollars and time should not be spent unnecessarily when not required.

Mr. Jacobs submitted that staff supported the current wording in the Plan and would be undertaking a review as indicated every five years, with no need to commence one earlier.

On the Motion:

LOST

YEAS (3): Councillors Harder, Eastman, Hunter

NAYS (6): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

Page 18, section 2.2.1.7 (New)

Amend to allow for the submission and due consideration of OP amendment applications to designate additional urban lands based upon the merit of the individual applications themselves

Chair Hunter asked Mr. Marc about an individual’s right to bring amendments to the OP and did due consideration have to be given, notwithstanding the Policy might be to not give positive consideration to the amendment. This would seem to state the obvious that a person has a right. Mr. Marc advised that any individual had a right to submit an OPA request at any time. The direction of the OP was that urban boundary expansions were to be considered on a five year time frame, so that policy would direct staff not to circulate it to deem it to be premature and if the person appealed it to the OMB, it would be for the Board to decide if such an approach was well founded in Policy or if the application should be considered. Councillor Stavinga noted applicants had a right under the Planning Act to make an application, but it was evaluated in the context of the OP and the City would be saying in this case that the policies in the OP carry; that it was deemed premature and it would only be assessed on a comprehensive review and the comprehensive review to date indicated that no urban expansion was required. There was a position that would be advanced to the OMB, if for example Del Brookfield in May decided to return with the 4-5,000 dwelling units. Mr. Marc confirmed that was the position that would be advanced by staff on behalf of the City; however, under the 90-day rule the applicant would have the right notwithstanding that position to move their OPA to the OMB. Councillor Stavinga asked that the Committee reject the Motion. It was imperative as the new City to continue to look at these comprehensively. This Motion weakened the Policy in the OP by looking at things piecemeal. Growth Management was not piecemeal; it was done comprehensively and holistically.

On the Motion:

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors Harder, Eastman

NAYS (7): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume, Hunter

Councillor Munter informed the Committee he had a discussion with Jack Stirling about the notion that if the urban boundary was expanded, it should be hard to do. It should not be easy to do; it should be subject to a number of hurdles so that when it was done, the City could ensure the decision was made soundly. Notwithstanding the rest of the intent of the Plan, Subsection 6 talked about under what parameters the City would expand the urban boundary in the future. He proposed adding to Section 6. Mr. Marc had informed him that there may or may not be the legislative permission; although surprisingly, given his encyclopaedic knowledge of these matters, he was not able to cite the particular statute that would inhibit the City from doing this. In the event he was right, he added that the City seek legislative approval to implement the measure should it be required. The intent was to require an extraordinary majority of Council to expand the urban boundary similar to other procedural matters that required the 2/3 vote at Committee and Council. There was a substantive and significant difference between a re-zoning application, even a large one, to add a few hundred units or to change a designation of land and an urban boundary expansion, which had significant impact on the municipality and on the financial means. He pointed out the one major urban boundary expansion over the last 7-8 years, notwithstanding the words in the 1997 ROP (the Kanata West Concept Plan) did, in fact, secure an extraordinary majority, well over 2/3 and there was consensus.

Councillor Hume received confirmation the two items Councillor Munter referenced were not contained within any Planning context, but within the Procedure By-Law. The Councillor queried why the statement could not be added into the Procedure By-Law. Mr. Marc responded that those provisions went to procedure and affect the time for debate or the ability to get an item on an Agenda. This was a substantive provision; while he could not cite the exact Section in the Municipal Act that said decisions were made by majority vote, he could assure the Committee there was such a provision in the Municipal Act that said decisions were made by majority vote and in his opinion the suggested amendment to the OP would not be in accordance with the Municipal Act. Legally, he had no difficulty with Council seeking such an amendment from the Legislature; it was entirely in order.

Councillor Eastman pointed out the Committee and Council dealt with planning issues on a regular basis and to stack the cards somehow in favour of a 2/3 smacked on being undemocratic. Mr. Marc had submitted the Province would not allow it; the Municipal Act did not permit it. He encouraged the Committee not to support the Motion.

Councillor Harder reiterated what Councillor Eastman said. Once again the City was going to ask the Province to make an exception and requested the Committee to keep it in perspective.

Councillor Cullen reminded the Committee of Executive Committee at the former Regional Council that would make a decision that would take 2/3 of Council to overturn. It related to the expenditure of funds, but nothing could be done without the expenditure of funds that affected services in the City. He thought it was inappropriate when dealing with decisions that affected the community. The use of 2/3 should be reserved for very special occasions. This was clearly one. He could recall predecessors to this Council expanding the urban boundary in the east end, the south end, against the planning advice of the day, because growth was seen as the path to getting community centres, libraries and was subsidized by everyone because Development Charges did not pay for it. Now, Development Charges only paid for 70%. His ratepayers were saying don’t allow for urban sprawl, put up a barrier and make efficient use of existing land. If 2/3 of Council could be convinced, it was a good project.

Moved by Councillor A. Munter:

Amend Section 2.2.1 (6) to add the following sentence:

Given the significant impact of urban boundary expansions on City budgets, taxes, development charges and other matters, it shall require a two-thirds majority vote of City Council to approve the designation of additional urban land.

And further that Council secure legislative approval to implement this measure, should it be required.

LOST

YEAS (4): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Cullen, Arnold

NAYS (5): Councillors Harder, Eastman, Bellemare, Hume, Hunter

3. Page 19, Section 2.2.3 Managing Growth within the Urban Area

Amend the preamble by adding the words “Enterprise Areas” in the third paragraph, so that the revised sentence reads, “… growth will be directed to locations with significant development potential, specifically those designated Central Area, Mixed-Use Centres, Employment Areas, Enterprise Areas, Developing Communities…” (Doc 20)

CARRIED

4. Page 21, Section 2.2.3 Managing Growth within the Urban Area

Amend policy 3 b) by deleting the word, “~~Public~~” so that the policy as amended states, “School sites are generally not included in this category and will be treated on a site-specific basis.’

CARRIED

Councillor Bellemare referred to P. 27, Section 2.3.1, Policy 35, re tree plantings on arterial roads; he wanted to amend the third sentence by adding the words “all” and “but not limited to”, and read out the text, as amended. The idea was to capture residential areas and not to exclude them. He did not believe that was the intent, but wanted to clarify that and reinforce the City was talking about all other arterial and collector roads. Mr. Jacobs did not have any difficulty with the proposal; if an analysis was undertaken it would be done comprehensively and if the words made it clearer there was no problem.

Moved by Councillor M. Bellemare:

Page 27, Section 2.3.1, Policy 35

Amend Policy 35, third sentence, by adding the words “all” and “but not limited to”, so that the text is amended to read:

“The City will prepare and implement similar guidelines for all other arterial and collector roads, including, but not limited to, roads in heritage districts, tourist areas and business improvement areas.”

CARRIED

5. Page 29, Section 2.3.1, Transportation – Transportation Terminals

Amend by changing in policy 47 the words “such as” to “like the existing”.

CARRIED

Councillor Stavinga presented a Motion that related to Conservation Authorities and recognized there was an hierarchy of servicing options with full municipal the most preferred and partial and mixed services the least.

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:

Amendment 2.3.2 Public Water and Waste Water Service Areas (P. 31/32)

WHEREAS the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) creates a hierarchy of servicing options with Full Municipal Services the most preferred and partial or mixed services being least preferred.

WHEREAS the servicing and other provisions of the PPS are presently under review.

WHEREAS the current Policy clearly allows approval authorities to exceed minimums established by the province.

WHEREAS a recent report from the Environmental Commissioner’s Office for Ontario (Annual Report 2001 / 2002) expressed concern regarding the numbers of private sewage systems in the Province and the lack of regulation / inspection once these systems were installed.

WHEREAS the City has indicated that it is proactively investigating means of implementing regular inspections for the life of a well and septic system and discussions are well advanced with the Conservation Authorities addressing cosncerns expressed by the Environmental Commissioner’s Office for Ontario.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 2.3.2 be amended to be clear in discouraging future growth on the basis of partial services (especially allowing further development in areas where City water has been provided to address a contamination issue such that contamination of the aquifer could continue or be intensified by pollution from septage and indiscriminate water use.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this matter be also reviewed in the context of the Draft Infrastructure Master Plan.

Councillor Cullen understood the thrust of the Motion, but appropriate wording was required. Responding to Councillor Cullen, Mr. Jacobs advised that wording could be drafted.

The Committee agreed to return to Councillor Stavinga’s Motion once staff drafted appropriate wording.

6. Page 33, Section 2.4 Maintaining Environmental Integrity

Amend the third paragraph of the preamble by inserting the text, “with the Conservation Authorities” after the word, “partnership” so that the amended text reads, “The City will undertake environmental studies in partnership with the Conservation Authorities and neighbouring municipalities

CARRIED

7. Page 35, Section 2.4.2

Amend the second sentence in the preamble to add additional examples to the definition of natural feature so that the revised sentence reads, “…Natural Features are defined here as physically tangible elements of the environment, including wetlands, forests, ravines, rivers, valleylands, and associated wildlife habitat areas along the edge of, or which support significant ecological functions within, the natural feature.

CARRIED

8. Page 35, Section 2.4.2

Enhance the description of ecological functions in the first paragraph in the preamble so that the revised sentence now reads, “All natural features perform an array of natural functions resulting from natural processes, products or services such as groundwater recharge, provision of wildlife habitat, temperature moderation, natural cleansing and filtration of surface water, and carbon sequestration (carbon sinks).”

CARRIED

9. Page 35, Section 2.4.2

Amend Policy 1 to provide additional clarification of objectives so that it now reads:

“The City will protect natural features and functions in the urban and rural area by designating in this Plan forests, wetlands and other natural features which perform significant natural functions including:

o Protecting endangered, threatened, and rare species and natural communities

o Maintaining a full range of natural communities in good condition

o Providing for the needs of a variety of wildlife including seasonal habitats and linkages

o Protection of surface and groundwater resources including recharge and headwater or discharge areas

and by determining how these lands should best be protected or managed to ensure their environmental health

CARRIED

10. Page 35, Section 2.4.2

Amend Policy 2 to say “The City will ensure that land that is developed will be developed in a manner that is environmentally-sensitive and incorporates design with nature principles through the requirements of the development review process, including studies of environmental systems, development practices to maintain and enhance these systems, and the integrated environmental review.”

CARRIED

11. Page 36, Section 2.4.3 Watershed and Subwatershed Plan

Amend the preamble by deleting the word “~~conserved~~” from the second bullet point and adding the word, “protected”, so that the text as amended reads, “Identify the significant natural features and linkages within the watershed that need to be protected.”

CARRIED with Councillor Eastman dissenting

12. Page 38, Section 2.4.3 Watershed and Subwatershed Plans

Amend policy 2(b) to add the words “such as creeks” after the words “…to protect significant features…” so that the policy as amended reads, “Specific mitigation measures to protect significant features, such as creeks, identified for preservation…” (Doc 20)

CARRIED

13. Page 37, Section 2.4.3

Amend policy 3 to add headwater protection to the guide for watershed planning so that point 3 a) under watershed plans now reads: “…features and resources within the watershed including headwater areas.”

CARRIED

14. Page 38, Section 2.4.3

Amend policy 4 to add headwater protection to the terms of reference for subwatershed plans so that point b) at the top of page 38 reads “…subwatershed objectives and recommendations regarding areas for development and preservation, protection of headwater areas, public access, and implementation…”

CARRIED

15. Page 38, Section 2.4.3 Watershed and Subwatershed Plans

Amend policy 1 to add the words, “in consultation with the Conservation Authorities” to policy 1 in the subsection Environmental Management Plan, so that the policy as amended states, “…the City will coordinate the preparation of an environmental management plan, in consultation with the Conservation Authorities.”

CARRIED

Councillor Stewart addressed the Committee regarding concerns on Section 2.4.5, Greenspaces; Greenspaces such as the Rideau Canal are included as well as creek and river corridors. Page 40, the last line in the second paragraph said, “While waterways such as the Rideau and Ottawa Rivers, the Rideau Canal and other watercourses are not greenspaces,”. She required some clarification. Ms. Paterson advised that Motion 16, changed the wording to reflect the Councillor’s concern. Councillor Stewart accepted the proposed wording was an improvement. She was concerned both here, under the strategic directions and later under the Policies. She did not see in this OP the same protective designation for waterfront open space as in the former Plans, both the City of Ottawa and the Region. Her concern was magnified because of the significant amount of waterfront in River Ward. If a development proposal such as the Moffat Farm application were to come forward today, a proposal that this Council strongly rejected, the communities would not have the tools needed to make that recommendation on that decision or to fight it during Appeal. She would save her Motions for when she could make them at Council when this was considered because the City had set out to do something very positive and that was intensify development and protect greenfields. She was very concerned this lacked the protective Policies that protect the highest values of City residents.

Councillor Cullen shared Councillor Stewart’s concerns. He referred to P. 42, which continued the discussion with respect to greenspaces, Policy 8, “in its review of development applications, the City will recognize the central role of the Ottawa River, Rideau River and Rideau Canal in the environmental health of the city, as well as …” Specifically, he turned to P. 68 of the OP, Section 3.3 talked about Open Space, Major Open Space and “6. The City will review its Major Open Space needs in the Rideau River Corridor…”, which he managed to get through at the last iteration. There were a number of Policies. The Councillor may wish to clarify it, but he posited it was recognized by staff and, if they were not clear, the Committee would make them clear, but the intent was there.

Councillor Eastman referred to greenspaces, specifically along river corridors. The intention was not to make these public spaces; was he correct? Ms. Paterson questioned if the Councillor referred to the Polices that relate to river corridors, these were on pp. 130, 131 and it was staffs’ intent where there was a Plan of Subdivision abutting a shore line to require that the land dedicated for park purposes be along the shore line. It was also staffs’ intent, as opportunities arise to take advantage of them to provide public access along the shoreline. Councillor Eastman noted in reading the document it raised an alarm regarding other waterways like the Castor, the Jacques, the Carp River, that run through private lands, agricultural lands; and, he would like to see some further clarification.

16. Page 40, Section 2.4.5, Greenspace

Amend the last sentence of the second paragraph that begins with the words “While waterways such as…” by replacing it with “The Rideau and Ottawa Rivers, the Rideau Canal and other watercourses contribute extensively to the green and open quality of the Greenspace Network”.

CARRIED

17. Page 41, Section 2.4.5, Policy 1

Add an emphasis on examining greenspaces adjacent to the urban area so that Policy 1 a) iv) reads “To identify the greenspaces that are connected in a Greenspace Network, gaps in the network and criteria to select new components and linkages particularly in areas close to urban and village boundaries”

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

Page 41, Section 2.4.5, Policy 3

Amend last sentence:

“The lifting of a holding zone provision on an area where a public special study has been conducted will be done by Council in a public process but will not be considered a Zoning By-Law amendment, for the purposes of this policy.”

Mr. Jacobs advised that he was not sure the wording caused any difficulty. Staff was operating under the provisions of the Planning Act where the lifting of an H was not subject to a public process. As long as conditions were met, it was a By-Law that simply returned to Council, unless Mr. Marc corrected him. The Motion made sure that if there was a study dealing with the lands to make sure it met those provisions under the H, that that study becomes public prior to the H being lifted. Residents could see that condition was met.

Councillor Eastman was concerned since normally the H symbols were removed by staff and if it was to return to Council, did that open up a whole new appeal system.

On the Motion.

CARRIED

18. Pages 40 and 66

Correct references to read former City of Ottawa’s Natural and Open Spaces Study

(Greenspace Alliance)

CARRIED

19. Page 40, Section 2.4.5 Greenspaces

Amend the preamble to the policies by inserting the following phrase in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph after the word ‘Commission’: ‘and the lands owned or managed by the Conservation Authorities for leisure and conservation uses.’ The City also….’ As amended, the sentence would read, ‘ …the City of Ottawa benefited from the greenspace contribution of the National Capital Commission and the lands owned or managed by Conservation Authorities for leisure and conservation uses. The City also inherited a legacy of greenspaces from previous municipalities…’ (RVCA)

CARRIED

20. Page 41, Section 2.4.5 Greenspace

Amend Policy 1 (a)(i) to add a reference to areas around the urban area so that the policy reads “…and other natural areas in and around the urban area….”

(Greenspace Alliance) and 1(a)(iii) to add after the word ‘greenspace’: “in the urban and rural areas”

CARRIED

21. Page 41, Section 2.4.5 Greenspace

Amend Policy 1 b) to set a minimum City wide target for forest cover so that the policy no reads “…and individuals. The forest target cover for the entire City will be maintained at 30% pending completion of the Greenspace Master Plan.” (Greenspace Alliance)

CARRIED

On the following recommendation, Chair Hunter questioned whether it put in an impediment to the potential to develop active recreation lands and sportsfields on these lands. Ms. Paterson responded in the negative.

22. Page 43, Section 2.4.5, Greenspaces

Add policy 10 d) Continuing to naturalize City-owned greenspaces.

CARRIED

Councillor Hume presented a Motion that related to building liveable communities and with respect to 2.5.1 a) that said “The extent to which proposed development …”. His motion would add the words “building mass, proportion”. The Motion was designed to ensure that it related more to the streetscape of a development proposal, so that the massing of the building was considered in the context of the entire streetscape; the proportion of the new building to others on the site. He submitted that when you get down to mitigation, it spoke of those very features in terms of materials, walls, shape, size and location of doors and windows. Those additions would make the consideration of the pattern complete. The main resistance he received from infill development had nothing to do with development per se, but with how development looked. He was tempted to bring in pictures with opportunities to create streetscapes that were now a litany of fences or blank walls with hydro meters, fireplace outlets, with streetscape. The community was opposed to that type of poor design and felt that looking at the building mass and its proportion to others on the street was another streetscape factor that would allow the City to have better development processes. Staff did not have any difficulty with the Motion.

Moved by Councillor P. Hume:

Be it resolved that Section 2.5.1 Compatibility of Development – Police 1 a) be replaced with the following:

a) The extent to which the proposed development takes into consideration the pattern of surrounding area in terms of height, building mass, proportion, set back from the street and distance between buildings. Where the height…

CARRIED

23. Page 45, Section 2.5.1, Compatibility of Development

Add a new policy 2 e) to say: “Building and siting a structure that respects the existing pattern of development with respect to lot area and yard requirements, even if the structure contains more units than is characteristic of the surrounding area.

CARRIED with Chair Hunter dissenting.

Councillor Arnold indicated she had two Motions on affordable housing. The Social Housing Network requested these and numerous members came forward and spoke on the need to set a target in the OP that reflected the reality of residents in the community. The reality was that there were people living in the community coping with living at all sectors of the income band. That meant that the City had to find ways to provide affordable housing for people in all those income bands. The OP was about setting the target and putting in place mechanisms. It was imperative the City have affordable policies that would state very clearly the City believed everyone in the community should have an affordable place to live. This Policy was about people who fell through the cracks, who couldn’t afford what was built by the market; who couldn’t afford the $1,000+ /month rents; residents working in the community; the working poor, sometimes at minimum wage jobs and more often at jobs above minimum wage, not earning salaries that enable them to pay rent within 30% of their disposable income, which was the nationally acknowledged target to be aimed for. First, she spoke to the amendment that would require a minimum of 25% of total new units in all development projects to be affordable. The second would be that Policy 2 in this Section be amended to require that a minimum of new units be affordable to households up to the 30^th income percentile and that the remainder be targeted to households up to the 40^th income percentile. The Committee would recall when the Social Housing Network came forward they talked about people at the 30^th income percentile that included people at entry level jobs. The City needed from the point of view of economic sustainability in the community to be able to attract investment in the community, to be able to house those workers. The term used by the delegation was key workers.

She provided an example of growth communities like Silicon Valley in California, who had to grapple with affordable housing and put in place policies that would require the development of affordable housing. They did it for many reasons, primarily to aid the economic development of the community. When the Committee heard from Home Builders who said they agreed with the laudable goals of affordable housing, but were not as naïve as Councillors, it was a little disingenuous. She asked the Committee to look at the facts and one of the most interesting ones was the information forwarded to Committee on Thursday by the Social Housing Network that talked about the examples in the U.S., the 200 municipalities that were able to identify, and there may be more, that had successful examples of inclusionary zoning, which was what this would be. They were examples of where municipalities had put in place requirements for example in the State of New Jersey that 10% of the housing to be built would have to be affordable to the 25^th – 40^th income percentile. That was exactly what was being asked for. It could be done and those were in place for a decade and those units were being built. It was not impossible. The OP would set a goal that said that people from across the income spectrum in the community over the next 20 years would have a place they could afford to live. The next piece was the mechanisms and if the proposal in the Plan were looked at there were a host of them. It was necessary for economic sustainability. There should be range of choices for people to live across the City. She asked the Committee to support the Motions. She referred to the latest ORLA news magazine, produced by the Ottawa Region Landlords Association. She quoted an article on who should be responsible for the provision of housing and she read that private landlords were by far the most cost-effective provider of housing at all rent levels.

Councillor Harder indicated she was presenting a Motion achievable by Home Builders in newer communities, that affordable housing be based on the 50^th income percentile, as defined in the January 2003 Draft OP. A freehold townhome in her community was selling for $189,000. Was it feasible to build a home at $150,000 in today’s market? Was it the development industry’s responsibility? Should there not be other partners? Was the City shirking its responsibility by putting it solely on their backs? Should not any business that applied for a permit be charged a development charge, or asked to provide space in their building, or land for affordable housing? Was it their responsibility, or was it legal to expect that? The City could do some really good things, but should be realistic. If it was true that the major method of providing housing for low-income households, as Councillor Arnold read, were landlords; they already provide it. The City had a responsibility and it was opportunistic to push it onto one segment of the business community.

Councillor Munter addressed both Motions. On Councillor Harder’s proposal to go to the 50^th income percentile, that meant a $194,000. house or rent at $1,500; and, better to have no policies on affordable than to have patently absurd policies. He was amused by the notion that trying to ensure there was a balance and range of different housing types was an onerous requirement on the development industry. That industry when developing a subdivision had to give up land for greenspace, for parks – 5% dedication; for roads and they wanted to give up less land for roads, with narrower roads because the more land they turn over for roads, the less they had to develop upon. They were required to set aside school sites. While they sell those parcels they made less money on a school site than if it was developed as a subdivision block. The principle that underlay those requirements was that the City was building communities in a City. There was the belief that in building the City there should be greenspace, roads, schools and surely there should be a range and mix of different housing types, so as Councillor Arnold pointed out there was housing for the broad range of income groups in the community. In his area he heard about affordable housing from those who need it, but he also heard about it from the major high tech employers. In fact, the reality was that until recently there was a relatively affordable housing mix in the City, which produced investment. Affordable housing was always the reason given for investments in the community. It was key to the City’s economic success in the future to have that balance in housing types. To the 40^th income percentile as proposed by Councillor Arnold, was a house at $157,200 and an apartment at $1,200, which was incidentally the average market rent in the City today. That was suggested as affordable and there was a product being built in his community for $157,200 or less. It could be done. If it was felt it could not been done there were series of other measures. He was willing to reject Councillor Arnold’s Motion and what was in the Plan if someone had a better idea to accomplish the necessary goal of ensuring a balance and range of different housing type. But so far Councillor Arnold’s proposal was the best, most viable and achievable way of attaining a very important goal.

Councillor Eastman noted the Policy in the current Draft Plan would set the target at 25% for affordable housing and 15% within any one development. Those were good and ambitious goals and the development industry was genuinely struggling with how to accomplish that. It would require major concessions from the City in terms of reducing Development Charges, waiving building permit fees, etc. The effect of Councillor Arnold’s two Motions would be to say not 15% in any one development as a minimum, but 25%. The City would just increase by 40% within any one development. Her second Motion would say, now that you’ve done that, the City wanted to take 60% of those and reduce them to the 30^th percentile. The industry has already said it could not be reduced to the 40^th percentile without concessions. It was laudable, but not doable. The City should proceed with what was contained in the Draft Plan, which was in itself ambitious. He recommended the City not further tighten it up for at least a few years until it could be determined how it was working.

Councillor Cullen proposed the City had to deal with reality and that was that right now 40% of the population rented, 60% own. The reality was the need to ensure housing to meet their needs. Similarly, he had spoken earlier about household type, families and non-families, with percentages. Taking Councillor Harder’s approach 50% would not be able to afford homes because she wanted to set it at $194,000/$1,500/month. Earlier he had asked what the City’s obligation was under the Planning Act. That was to have regard to the provincial policies when it came to land use planning. Under the PPS for land use planning it was very clear, “provision will be made in all planning jurisdictions for a full range of housing types and densities to meet projected demographic and market requirements of current and future residents of the housing market area”. He asked the City how to deal with the residents who earn $27,000, $37,000, $47,000? How did the City deal with the residents, seniors or singles, who do not need single-family homes? The PPS outlines that Provision would be made by encouraging housing forums and densities designed to be affordable to moderate and lower income households. The City had an obligation and a responsibility to put in place policies and the market would adjust within that context. The housing market cannot be allowed to be dominated by those who said the market was single-family homes. Looking in the communities, there was a distinct mixture of townhouses, apartments, duplexes and single-family homes. There was a need for community balance and an obligation to provide a range of housing and densities affordable to moderate and lower income households. If rules were set down, 25% as a target and 75% would be at market. The developers would not lose money; they could do it. There was a need to provide affordable housing to the lower income earners.

Councillor Stavinga would support Councillor Arnold’s Motions. She appreciated it was in the Draft Plan put out in January. She heard the concerns by Councillors Harder and Eastman. Time would tell with the City’s ability to deliver on this particular Policy and to reach the target. Was it achievable within the next five years of the Plan? No. But it was important to establish and aim for that target. On the comments related to percentiles bandied about, she looked at 10 years ago and referred to her family’s first purchase at $134,000, after renting for a period of time. They had to move out of the Kanata community because they could not afford a single-family home, which they wanted in Kanata, as a young family. They looked farther west and the Village of Stittsville began a new development with townhomes, Forest Creek, which was remarkable and new in that community. That opportunity to buy that $134,000 home for her husband, her son and herself lead to many other opportunities in the community. She recalled the affordable housing targets referenced in the ROP set at $170,000. She found that inconceivable. She encouraged the Committee to support Councillor Arnold’s amendment to take a large step and be progressive. She applauded the developers of Hyde Park and Village Court in the Village of Stittsville building $100,000 and $105,000 homes for seniors to live and age in place in the community.

Chair Hunter presented this was the second great debate of the day and possibly of the Plan and appreciated the Committee’s comments and placing personal examples into it. Councillor Stavinga’s mention of Kanata highlighted for him why the first two Policies in the Affordable Housing Section were not worth the paper they were written on. 20 years before Councillor Stavinga tried to buy a house, he tried to buy a house in Glen Cairn under an affordable housing plan called Home Ownership Made Easy and was not able to purchase the home, but others did. But it was interesting to note, that some years later, even though those houses were built under an affordable housing plan, and they were very affordable, Councillor Stavinga could not find an affordable house in Kanata. The point was that just because an affordable house was built, under the tools proposed, did not keep it affordable. Each owner flips the property until they reach what the market would pay. Sometimes it only takes one flip. He provided examples in Nepean, Borden Farm built under the same Home Ownership Made Easy and Fisher Glen, another community under another Plan. There was no difference in value of the houses for similar units in those two communities. There was only a windfall gain for the first purchaser of the unit. There was no continuing affordability in the programmes as laid out. To look at affordability, he referred to the many units in the Gatineau area, built not because there was a policy to build affordable units, but there was not a policy to charge $15,000 per unit on development charges, which helped the builder. If the City wanted to do something that really helped the market, processes that decrease the cost within the City’s purview are accomplished. There were 9 Policies under Affordable Housing. He liked Policies 3-9. The first two, which dealt with income percentile, did not do anything in terms of providing long-term affordability. The second problem he had was that in Policy 2, it said a minimum of 15% of the total new units in all development projects. It did not delineate the size and therefore reduced the practicality of it. There was success in the past in developing and building affordable housing with a section of land, 80-100 ha. in size, where mixed use community could be developed; where there could be sites designated by the Community Development Plan and the zoning, with apartments, townhouses, semi-detached, singles, etc., with the full mix. But, someone with 20 acres to be required to provide affordable housing was wrong because the economy of size was lost and the ability to target the affordable units perhaps where they should; e.g. by the transitway in the community or by the bus stops. Better to develop a policy that had a range of housing type in the full community as was done in Nepean, Gloucester, Greenboro in Ottawa South, as communities developed. He would not support the amendments, except Councillor Harder’s because that came a little closer; he would not support Policies 1 and 2 as stated in the plan. The City should put more energy into supporting the cooperatives, the non-profits, and the sectors that go towards the real and true needs in the community of the lower income.

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

Page 46, Section 2.5.2

That the definition of affordable housing be based upon the 50^th income percentile, as it was defined in the January 2003 Draft OP.

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors Harder, Hunter

NAYS (7): Councillors Munter, Eastman, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume

Moved by Councillor Arnold:

WHEREAS Section 2.5.2 of the City of Ottawa Draft Official Plan (March 2003) sets a target of 25% of housing units available each year to be affordable to households at the 30^th income percentile for rental and the 40^th income percentile for ownership housing;

AND WHEREAS this draft also states that only “a minimum of 15% of the total new units in all development projects will be affordable for households up to the 40^th income percentile on the assumption that many resale homes and existing rentals are affordable;

AND WHEREAS Resale prices and existing rentals in Ottawa have been rising rapidly in recent years;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That Policy 2 of Section 2.5.2 on Affordable Housing be amended to require that a minimum of 25% of the total new units in all development projects be affordable.

CARRIED

YEAS (5): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Cullen, Arnold, Hume

NAYS (4): Councillors Harder, Eastman, Bellemare, Hunter

Moved by Councillor Arnold:

WHEREAS Section 2.5.2 of the City of Ottawa Official Plan (March 2003) recommends that the affordable units required in new development be affordable at the 40^th income percentile;

AND WHEREAS the 40^th income percentile represents affordable rents at $1,150 which is not affordable for many modest income households;

AND WHERAS affordable rents at the 30^th income percentile are $910, which can begin to address the real need for affordable, inclusive housing;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That Policy 2 of Section 2.5.2 on Affordable Housing be amended to require a minimum of 15% of new units be affordable to households up to the 30^th income percentile and that the remainder of the 25% be targeted to households up to the 40^th income percentile.

CARRIED

YEAS (5): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Cullen, Arnold, Hume

NAYS (4): Councillors Harder, Eastman, Bellemare, Hunter

On Policies 1, Section 2.5.2, as amended

CARRIED

YEAS (6): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume

NAYS (3): Councillors Harder, Eastman, Hunter

On Policies 2, Section 2.5.2, as amended

CARRIED

YEAS (5): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Cullen, Arnold, Hume

NAYS (4): Councillors Harder, Eastman, Bellemare, Hunter

24. Page 50, Policy 2.5.4 A Strategy for Parks and Leisure Areas

Amend policy 6 by adding the words, “ including the use of alternative requirements” after the word, “Planning Act”, so that the policy as amended reads, …the City will acquire land for park or other public recreational purposes through the provisions of the Planning Act, including alternative requirements, in a way that…”

CARRIED

Councillor Harder had a Motion to delete Section 2.5.4.9 since it was contrary to the Provincial Planning Act. Responding to a request by Councillor Cullen for legal comment, Mr. Marc referred to staff recommendation 25 and would also comment on Policy 9. Staff Motion 25 suggested Policy 8 should be taken out, if the City wished to use provision such as were identified in Policy 8, they did need to be in the Plan, otherwise the City could not use them. There was no precise authority under the Planning Act for what was contained in Policy 9, although he understood there was a staff Motion, which basically called for further examination on what could be done with parkland dedication. Councillor Cullen interpreted the comment to say that it was not explicitly contrary and that it was in the City’s ambit to put it in place. Mr. Marc suggested that in his opinion the Committee should retain Policy 8 because it was necessary and with respect to Policy 9, there was no express authority for it.

Mr. Jacobs directed the Committee to Staff Motion 26. Chair Hunter referred to Staff Motions 25 and 26 where staff recommended the deletion of Policy 8 and an amended Policy 9, which said the City would determine the parkland dedication for mixed-use development on the basis of the proportion of the site or building occupied by each type of use. He inquired if that responded to her concern. Following extensive discussion, Mr. Marc clarified that he was reading Motion 26 and not 24 and Mr. Jacobs was correct, the alternative requirement was covered off by Staff Motion 24.

Councillor Harder withdrew her Motion.

25. Page 50, Policy 2.5.4 A Strategy for Parks and Leisure Areas

Delete policy 8, which states provisions of the Planning Act, and renumber policy 9 to policy 8. (Novatech)

CARRIED

26. Page 50, Policy 2.5.4 A Strategy for Parks and Leisure Areas

Delete policy 9 and replace it with the following, “The City will determine the parkland dedication for mixed-use development on the basis of the proportion of the site or building occupied by each type of use, or some other proportionate basis, and will implement these provisions through a parkland dedication by-law which has been prepared in consultation with the public, the development industry, and other interested parties.” (Novatech).

CARRIED

27. Page 51, Section 2.5.5, Cultural Heritage Resources

Amend the sentence beginning with “Documentary heritage” in the preamble so that it says “Documentary and material heritage, such as archives, museums, and historical artifacts ………”

CARRIED

On Staff Motion 28, Councillor Cullen questioned what happened when “Design criteria used in this Plan are not meant to be prescriptive” was said. What was the use if it was not prescriptive? Mr. Jacobs responded that it was used to provide direction. Councillor Cullen suggested if it was not prescriptive one could not go to the OMB. Would a more appropriate term be Design Guidelines? Mr. Jacobs responded that he was before the OMB a number of times on things that were not prescriptive. It was a matter of negotiation and collaboration with the proponent and a staff recommendation to Committee and on to Council. If the policies provide direction and staff made recommendation based on those Policies and it was appealed, it was a matter that could be debated before the OMB. The moment it is made prescriptive, it limited the opportunity for discussion on things not listed as prescriptive. Councillor Cullen suggested that flexibility was built into the process.

Mr. Jacobs concluded by saying that the suggestion that the whole strategy of the Plan was to put things in a manner to allow for an open collaboration with everyone involved and to provide what was felt to be Policies of direction and guidelines to suggest examples, but staff was not in the sphere of being omnipotent and knowing all of the innovations that could come forward. Councillor Cullen suggested if the Motion could be amended to say, “Design criteria used in the Plan are meant to be guidelines… He did not like to lead it with a negative.

Councillor Hume noted that now the Policy said “the City will adopt a Design Strategy by the end of 2003 that identifies the various components of a Strategy and how each will increase design awareness among communities, the private sector…” Now, it will say once that Design Strategy was developed, that our design criteria used in this Plan are not meant to be prescriptive… He did not understand the thought behind qualifying what would come forward as the strategy for design for how the City wanted to see the community change. It seemed to him to be undermining the development of a Design Strategy by the second Policy, that it was not meant to be prescriptive. Did it not undermine Policy 1? Mr. Jacob proposed it was complementary to Policy 1. Councillor Hume opined it was not necessary and would not support the Motion. It would be used to subvert the Design Strategy as opposed to support it. His residents informed him that design was critically important; and, they want strong policies, not undermined in any way.

Councillor Legendre concurred with Councillor Hume that this was an aspect that was important certainly to his community as well. He asked staff to recall when there was a Design Committee in the former City of Ottawa. What was the authority that Committee had? Did it go beyond making useful positive suggestions? Mr. Kilstrom advised that authority was granted under the City of Ottawa Act, not the Planning Act. He received confirmation that Committee had some real power. The current City of Ottawa Act did not provide this ability. Mr. Jacobs surmised the Design Committee was repealed during amalgamation. Councillor Legendre questioned whether Policy 1 was passed without the new Policy 2, would staff also seek some authority to say thou “shalt”. Would there be a need for an amendment to the Legislative Authority? Mr. Jacobs responded that staff would wait for the outcome of the Design Strategy to determine what tools could be used, but at this point he did not anticipate seeking authority for a Design Committee.

28. Page 54, Section 2.5.6 A Design Strategy for Ottawa

Revise S.2.5.6 to add a new Policy 2 between existing Policies 1 and 2 and renumber subsequent policies (FoTenn on behalf of Loblaws). The new Policy 2 to read as follows:

“Design criteria used in this Plan are ~~not~~ meant to be ~~prescriptive~~ guidelines, and the applicability of the criteria will be determined by the authority permitted under the Planning Act for the type of approval being sought. City Council recognizes that in any given situation, the objectives underlying these criteria can be achieved by utilizing a variety of design approaches that have to be evaluated and weighted on the basis of site circumstances.”

LOST

YEAS (1): Chair Hunter

NAYS (5): Councillors Eastman, Stavinga, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume

Councillor Eastman referred to Staff Motion 29 and suggested that the amendment “or may exist” added after “where heritage resources exist” could mean anywhere. He did not know how that could be justified. Chair Hunter commented that within the last 1½ years there were two examples of it before the Committee, which he outlined. Councillor Eastman submitted that taken literally this would second-guess the heritage designation and all it would take would be for someone to suggest a building warranted designation.

Councillor Cullen inquired why staff made the recommendation, since there was a process to obtain that designation. Mr. Kilstrom responded that without the Motion the City would only be doing it where there were known resources. The purpose of putting “may exist” was that there may be some there that no one bothered to recognize before and it ensured they were. Councillor Cullen questioned if someone wanted to pursue a designation, noting Councillor Eastman’s concern, was there not a process for determining heritage? Mr. Kilstrom responded there was a process that protected willy nilly designations.

Chair Hunter stated the risk was that someone would proceed with plans in good faith and somewhere along the process someone states that the building “may” be heritage, not that it was, but that it might increase the costs for the proponent. LACAC reports on development applications concerning heritage areas, heritage conservation districts and heritage conservations buildings; LACAC also goes out and tries to find buildings and designate them in advance so it was known if a heritage resource DID exist or not to get on with the business of developing and redeveloping the community. He also was not in favour of the amendment.

29. Page 56, Section 2.5.7, Collaborative Community

Amend policy 3 g) to add “or may exist” after “where heritage resources exist”.

CARRIED

YEAS (5): Councillors Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume

NAYS (3) Councillors Harder, Eastman, Hunter

30. Page 57, Collaborative Community Building and Community Design Plans

Insert a new policy 5 and renumber the policies that follow. The new policy 5 states, ‘Community design plans will draw upon studies and plans prepared in the past for the area. Once Council approves a community design plan or other comprehensive policy plan, the approved plan will guide future development of the area.”

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor D. Eastman:

Whereas the Carp Road Corridor is already home to over 200 businesses and 3,000+ employees,

Whereas staff are recommending that the Carp Road Corridor be part of a community design plan to be conducted this year,

Therefore be it resolved that the Carp Road Corridor be designated a Rural Employment Area, the perimeters of which will be defined as part of the Community Design Plan.

Councillor Eastman advised the community was happy to have the Community Design Plan. The first draft had Rural Employment Areas, which was taken out. The community’s fear was that after the Community Design Plan it would require an OPA and did not know how that would be accomplished. He opined it should be put in now, but that the perimeters not be defined until the Community Design Plan was completed.

Councillor Cullen suggested the Motion was premature. Was not the purpose of the Study to determine both a need and scope; or, was staff comfortable with the Motion. Ms. Paterson had a number of conversations with Mr. Shulz and her understanding was that he made two points. He ultimately wanted to have Rural Employment Areas in the Plan, but in her conversations he preferred the Study was concluded before boundaries were placed around the Carp Road Corridor. That was why the Motion was written as in Staff Motion 31. What was missing was an ultimate commitment to Rural Employment Areas and staff determined it would be better to finish the Study and see what kinds of advantages there might be. Staff used Mr. Shulz’ wording. Councillor Eastman commented the Motions were almost similar. Councillor Cullen noted the operative part of Councillor Eastman’s Motion was “that the Carp Road Corridor be designated a Rural Employment Area”. He did not believe the Motion did and the study had to be completed first. He declared that when the Study came forward he would be in support, but would support the staff Motion.

Chair Hunter noted that Councillor Eastman suggested the Studies be conducted, but that the boundaries be incorporated into the Plan without further amendment. Councillor Eastman clarified that he suggested the Studies be done, but that perimeters be added after the Study was completed. But, that the Employment Area be created now because otherwise there would need to be an OPA.

Mr. Jacobs interjected to add that in any event, there would need to be an OPA. It was staff’s position that the Study be carried out and come forward with a City-initiated Amendment that outlined the outcome of that Study. Councillor Eastman was concerned there was no guarantee it would incorporate a Rural Employment Area. Mr. Jacobs responded it was quite likely it would include some form of Employment Designation. Councillor Eastman emphasized it was known it was an Employment Area since over 3,000 people worked there.

Chair Hunter stated that one Motion would produce one Amendment to the Plan to Schedule A; the other would produce the need for two Amendments, one an Amendment to Schedule A and the other to a Policy Section.

On Councillor Eastman’s Motion:

CARRIED

YEAS (6): Councillors Harder, Eastman, Stavinga, Bellemare, Hume, Hunter

NAYS (2): Councillors Cullen, Arnold

Mr. Jacobs had a concern with respect to Councillor Eastman’s Motion since there were no Policies to go with the Rural Employment designation and no definition since the study was yet to be completed to define the designation. In response to Councillor Eastman, Ms. Paterson advised that there was never a Rural Employment Area in any Draft, but there was discussion in the departmental report with a list of Documents, which is where the Councillor may have seen the different Employment Areas that potentially could exist in the Rural Area. Ms. Paterson suggested possibly changing the wording in Staff Motion 31; e.g. the results of these exercises will be used to determine the extent and policies associated with a Rural Employment Area. Councillor Eastman was satisfied with that wording.

Moved by Councillor D. Eastman:

That the Motion on the Rural Employment Area be reconsidered.

CARRIED

Councillor Eastman withdrew his Motion on the Rural Employment Area.

31. Page 57 Section 2.5.7 (Carp Road Corridor)

Add a new policy 11 as follows: “The Village of Carp and the Carp Road Corridor will be the subject of individual Community Design exercises, both of which are to be completed by the end of 2003. The results of these exercises will be used to determine the boundaries of the Rural Employment Area and the Policies associated with it and the detailed land use designations for each of these areas that will be incorporated by separate amendments into the Official Plan. (Erwin Schultz)

CARRIED as amended

Section 3.0 Designations and Land Use

32. Amend various sections of the Official Plan to add the term “Enterprise Area” immediately following the words “Employment Area”:

a. Section 3.1 policies 3, 5 and 6

CARRIED

33. Page 59 Section 3 Designations and Land Use

Amend the third paragraph, second sentence in the preamble to read, “In areas where little or no new development….”

CARRIED

On Staff Motion 34, Councillor Munter requested a clarification of what was meant by a shelter. Ms. Paterson reminded the Committee that there was a delegation, possibly Sandy Hill, that suggested the manner in which shelter accommodation was addressed required them in areas of higher density, etc.; whereas Policy 3 on Rooming Houses and Policy 5 on Retirement Homes spoke to larger ones that would be directed to areas of higher density. To make it consistent they did the same thing with shelter accommodation. Councillor Munter could not find the definition of Shelter in the glossary. The Councillor questioned what was the definition of large, since there was an upcoming application for a shelter for abused women and children in Kanata for 25 beds. Stan Wilder responded that there were different degrees of size; the Union Mission was almost a miniature complex in terms of several buildings; the Shepherds of Good Hope; these were large. Councillor Munter requested clarification that when staff spoke to a Shelter, they meant a Homeless Shelter. For example in the case of a Women’s Shelter, it was not desired in a commercial area; it should be in a neighbourhood. He was concerned that a Policy was being adopted that could make it difficult for that kind of use in the future. Mr. Wilder advised that the rationale for no definition, which was discussed at length within the Zoning By-Law Team, dealt with the definition of a Secondary Dwelling Unit because there was a Specific Policy on that, but in terms of designations, it was presumed these would all be defined, rooming house, boarding house, as they were now in the current Zoning By-Laws of the former municipalities; and, likewise they would have definitions which would be more exact in the Zoning By-Law. Councillor Munter posited that in reading the Motion, the Carling Family Shelter would not conform since it was surrounded by single-family homes. He was uncomfortable with the Motion. He understood the intent to make it somewhat difficult to put shelters in neighbourhoods, which did not please him, but it made it so difficult and so broad since anything could be a shelter, it should either be struck or re-defined.

Councillor Legendre was not familiar with the presentation that generated the Motion, but like Councillor Munter he would have a proposal coming to the Committee for a Women’s Shelter. It was important that Women’s Shelters not be in any way conspicuous. Basically, the structure had to fit in wherever it was situated. Possibly the wording could be tweaked to allay Councillor Munter’s concerns and focussed more on the fit of the structure in the neighbourhood. Chair Hunter assumed the change had accomplished that. Mr. Lathrop advised that was the intent behind the Motion.

Councillor Munter noted Councillor Legendre’s language was more appropriate.

34. Page 60, Section 3.1, Generally Permitted Uses

Moved by Councillor A. Munter:

That Staff Motion 34 be replaced by the following:

Amend policy 4, Shelter Accommodation to amend the second sentence to read: “Shelter accommodation shall be designed in a manner compatible with the general area.”

CARRIED

(Mr. Lathrop advised that staff was satisfied with the Motion by Councillor Munter to replace Staff Motion 34.)

35. Page 61, Section 3.1 Generally Permitted Uses

Amend policy 9 by adding the words “that are” between the “facilities” and “subject to” so that the policy as amended reads, “…Hydro One Networks Inc. facilities, that are subject to the requirements…” (Doc 20)

CARRIED

On Page 62, 12. Wayside Pits and Quarries, Councillor Stavinga did not have a Motion, but she had been discussing this Policy with staff. She appreciated that staff had made some changes with regard to the presentation by Erwin Schulz as well as the Goulbourn North West Community Association with respect to the public consultation process. There was still the possibility of having a number of Wayside Pits and Quarries scattered throughout the community that were not rehabilitated, yet new Wayside Pits and Quarries went through a public consultation. Councillor Stavinga indicated she would pursue the matter with staff and possibly bring the matter forward on Thursday since staff had been undertaking some research for her. The Committee agreed.

36. Page 62, Section 3.2 Natural Environment

Delete the text of the first bullet and replace it with the following:

· “A high level of diversity in terms of features, functions, representation or amount of native vegetation and animal communities.” (Conservation Authorities)

CARRIED

37. Page 64, Section 3.2.2, Natural Environment Areas

Amend Policy 1 to include Schedule B so that the policy now reads “…are designated on Schedules A and B.

CARRIED

On Page 67, Section 3.2.4 Rural Natural Features, Councillor Stavinga had a Motion that recognized a tool under the Municipal Act. She recognized her Motion (3-15) sought amendment, but should have given specific wording. These were something the City was already investigating and actually said consideration would be given to using the tools and making a Policy Statement. Chair Hunter questioned the wording. Councillor Stavinga indicated the section underlined and in quotes would be added to the four Policies contained therein. It was in keeping with the direction given to staff on investigating the Policies that the City had an opportunity to implement through the Municipal Act. Responding to a concern by Councillor Stavinga, Ms. Paterson pointed that the tool could be used in many different designations, not just in Rural Natural Features. The intent of that section was to capture a number of initiatives the City could undertake. Councillor Stavinga requested the opportunity to discuss this further with staff to determine the appropriate location, given the suggestion made was more encompassing. The Committee agreed.

WHEREAS, rural natural features are really given no protection other than in policy;

WHEREAS, recognition of the need for protection of the flora and fauna found within these areas and of the ecological processes they sustain is required;

WHEREAS, the Municipal Act provides municipalities with protection tools such as tree cutting by-laws (S. 135) and site alteration / top soil preservation powers (S. 142)

WHEREAS no reference to these powers appears in this section; protection occurs in policy only through the development approvals process; and no provision is made for pro-active protection measures;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that an additional Policy stating “That the City will give consideration to the use of pro-active protection measures as required in selected areas using tools as provided for in the Municipal Act through application of tree cutting and top soil removal by-laws.”

To be discussed with staff.

38. Page 67, Section 3.2.4 Rural Natural Features

Amend policy 2 by

a) deleting the reference to “~~Section 3.6~~” in the first sentence and replacing it with “Section 3.7”.

b) deleting the second sentence, which reads, “Any development necessitating a severance, site plan, zoning by-law amendment or a variance to change a use or expand a use, will require an Environmental Impact Statement, as described in Section 4.7.8, which demonstrates that the development can occur with limited or no impact on the natural feature.”

c) by adding a new second sentence, as follows:

Any development;

i.) involving the creation of two or more lots by severance or subdivision; or

ii.) requiring a zoning by-law amendment or a variance to change a use or expand a use; or

iii.) requiring site plan approval,

must be supported an Environmental Impact Statement, as described in Section 4.7.8, which demonstrates that development can occur with no adverse impact on the significant ecological features and functions in the natural feature.”

CARRIED

39. Page 67, Section 3.2.4 Rural Natural Features

Amend policy 2 by adding the following sentence: “Any allowed uses should avoid significant encroachment on the features for which the area has been designated.” (Doc 20)

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor E. Arnold (on behalf of Councillor W. Stewart):

New 4:

In order to preserve what is irreplaceable, where a Major Open Space abuts a River Corridor as defined in Section 4.6.3, any activities or uses in Policy 3 (above) must require a water front location.

Councillor Eastman suggested the more appropriate location was P. 130, which dealt with River Corridors where a 4 could be added.

Councillor Stewart advised that the Motion was drafted by staff in response to her concern the Policies in the first Draft had not adequately protected the water front open space when development was considered. This added some clarity and would ensure water front open space would not be used gratuitously for uses that could be accommodated elsewhere. There was a finite amount of water front open space and it should be saved for uses that require water front. Staff had advised this was the appropriate place to insert the Policy. Ms. Paterson added that a designation was needed and the river corridor was not a designation. It talked about what would be done along a river corridor. Major Open Space was a designation with permitted uses and it incorporated a number of previous designations from previous Plans, including water front open space from the Regional Plan. The Policy was intended to take the permitted uses in Policy 3 and say that when you were in a river corridor when looking at sports, recreation and leisure and cultural facilities or small scale commercial activities and institutional areas, you were looking at things that pertain to the river corridor. Major Open Space designations occur everywhere, some abut a river.

Chair Hunter suggested some phraseology was missing since he had read it, that if you were a Major Open Space designation on a river corridor and one of the activities in Policy 3 you must require a water front, but the Councillor was trying to say that if it was going to be located on the bank of a river it must be something that needs to be located on the bank of a river such as a beach, a marina, but a water park that could be located anywhere or a golf course that could be located anywhere should go elsewhere. Councillor Stewart confirmed that was the intent. The Chair suggested wording that “must be ones that require a water front location”. Councillor Stewart accepted that as a friendly amendment. The following amended Motion was approved.

New 4:

In order to preserve what is irreplaceable, where a Major Open Space abuts a River Corridor as defined in Section 4.6.3, any activities or uses in Policy 3 (above) must be ones that require a water front location.

CARRIED

40. Page 69, Section 3.4 Central Experimental Farm

Add to the first sentence so it now reads: “The Central Experimental Farm is a National Historic site and cultural landscape of national historic significance as well as having significant local heritage value that contributes to Ottawa’s distinct identity.”

CARRIED

41. Page 70, Section 3.5, Greenbelt

Delete policy 2 b) in its entirety and add a to the preceding sentence.

CARRIED

Councillor Harder brought forward a Motion, which was drafted for her by staff, further to the delegations of the Daly family last week. She was not happy with the Motion and was looking for guidance. The community’s concern related to the contentious piece land and related land use studies, with a Specific Secondary Plan. The surrounding community associations and the Dalys had concerns with lumping it in General Urban Area. She referred the Committee to p. 118, 4.1 Site Specific Policies and Secondary Policy Plans, the first paragraph, third sentence, The site-specific policies found in these plans address unique situations requiring policy direction for an area or neighbourhood. Clearly medium residential was the recommendation of the land use, approved by Nepean. She wanted to add the Bell’s Corners Secondary Plan to the Annex since she did not believe it was safe in the General Urban and was looking for suggestions.

As the drafters of the Motion, Mr. Jacobs indicated that staff did not have any difficulty with the Motion. The General Urban designation from staff’s perspective would address the issues raised to the development of the property and the zoning in place, or could be entertained on these lands, was accommodated within the General Urban designation and given his recollection of the Development Plan work that went into the site, there was nothing in the Plan that would frustrate achieving the opportunities being discussed. Councillor Harder clarified that the community was afraid of losing them. The Bell’s Corners community (three community associations and individuals) worked hard for over 20 years to ensure they had a firm idea of what they could expect with that land, and that was medium density. But, the General Urban Area allowed for more than that and that was a problem for the community. She did not see the difficulty in adding the Bell’s Corners Secondary Plan to the Merivale Road and that for South Nepean, given the extensive involvement of the community.

Councillor Cullen originally understood this was already urban land and therefore the issue of zoning was not before the Committee and it was dealt with under zoning; and, if there was something in a previous Secondary Plan that carried forward because zoning was not being changed today. The Councillor looked at the map and asked staff if this was something within the confines of the boundary in Bell’s Corners because the Motion said “north of the National Capital Commission Greenbelt lands”. Chair Hunter confirmed it was within the urban boundary. It was designated urban land and today with the OP, nothing was being done with the Plan to alter whatever zoning or property rights had accrued because of zoning.

Councillor Munter confirmed there was existing land use permission for the use (medium density) and a designation in the OP that permitted it and that would continue. He had a concern with the proposal since he received similar requests from residential groups in Kanata and informed them that based on advise from staff the land uses were protected and permissions given. If it was not necessary, as advised by legal and planning staff, then he did not see the need to put something so specific in the General Urban Area section of the Plan. Responding to a query by Chair Hunter on whether the community would lose some protection of designation, Mr. Marc advised that in such a situation they would be losing. But, they would still have had to bring forward a Zoning Amendment in any case and retained the ability to do so.

Councillor Munter submitted his point was that the question of the specificity of the local OP vs. the ROP was not unique to this parcel, but was in fact in the entire City. If the intent was to protect existing land use permissions, then maybe there should be general wording to catch any kind of situation that might fall within the cracks. Chair Hunter posited this might be the tip of an iceberg throughout the City. Councillor Munter noted that the former municipalities’ zoning was never brought into conformity with the former municipality’s; if that was the concern should there not be some wording that addressed that problem; that in cases of conflict between zoning and the former OP, no land use permissions would be lost; or were there a lot of unintended consequences as a result of that. Mr. Jacobs suggested the latter would happen; there would be a whole series of unintended consequences. The zoning and OP were never really in sync. The Zoning By-Law was only changed in response to development applications. If there was provision such as discussed with respect to medium density or whatever form of use in the former OP, with the new approach to this OP that permission still existed since it was contained within the General Urban category. There was sufficient evidence to indicate the use proposed could be accommodated should there be a development application on those lands. Staff could write a report that supported a medium density development application if it satisfied all other criteria.

Councillor Stavinga understood this was a situation where the Nepean OP specified a designation that had not been articulated within the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law and suggested that rather than trying to resolve it today, that Councillor Harder discuss it further with staff and the matter could return to Committee.

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

WHEREAS the Planning and Development Committee at its meeting of April 2, 2003 received public delegations on the March 2003 Draft Official Plan;

AND WHEREAS the Committee received written submissions from Wenda R. Daly and J. H. Ernest Daly dated December 5, 2002, February 20, 2003 and April 1, 2003 and heard a verbal submission from Wenda R. Daly;

AND WHEREAS the Dalys had requested that the contents of their letters, which included the Secondary Plan for Bell’s Corners Community and the Nepean Official Plan as amended by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as pertaining to the property in the triangle between Richmond Road and Moodie Drive and north of the Green Belt, be incorporated into Volume 2; Secondary Plans and Site Specific Policies of the March 2003 Draft Official Plan;

AND WHEREAS it would be more appropriate in the March, 2003 Draft Official Plan to make reference only to the contents of the Secondary Plan for the Bell’s Corners Community and the Nepean Official Plan that apply specifically to the property in the triangle;

AND WHEREAS the Daly’s property lies within the triangle that was identified in the Official Plan of the former City of Nepean as suitable for redevelopment to medium density residential uses;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the March, 2003 Draft City of Ottawa Official Plan be amended as follows:

Section 3.6.1 General Urban Area is amended as follows:

1. Add a new Policy 8 to read:

The lands located between Richmond Road and Moodie Drive, north of the National Capital Commission Greenbelt lands are suitable for redevelopment to allow medium density residential uses due to their existing development pattern and locational characteristics.

2. Renumber existing Policies as necessary.

Deferred for further discussion with staff.

42. Page 71, Section 3.6.1, General Urban Area

Amend Policy 3 by deleting “~~and retail uses …… with Section 3.6.8~~” and adding a new Policy 4 to say “A full range of retail uses will be considered, as defined in Section 3.6.8.”

CARRIED

43. Page 72, Section 3.6.1 General Urban Area

Revise Policy 7 to add a new a) – ‘Recognize the importance of new development relating to existing community character so that it enhances and builds upon desirable established patterns and built form’. Renumber subsequent policies accordingly and revise Policy 7.c) to delete the phrase “~~as a~~ ~~compatible means~~” and replace it with the phrase ‘as one means’. (Alta Vista Community Association and Carleton Heights Community Association).

CARRIED

44. Page 73, Section 3.6.2 Mixed-Use Centres

Revise Policy 1 to delete the phrase ‘~~other than large format retail stores with a single market focus~~’ where it occurs in the text and replace it with the phrase “in accordance with Section 3.6.8.”

CARRIED

45. Page 74, Section 3.6.2 Mixed-Use Centres

Amend policy 3 to remove the words “~~General Rural~~” and add the words “General Urban” so that the revised policy reads, “ In order that an appropriate transition occur between a Mixed-Use Centre and the adjacent General Urban Area, the policies of section 2.5.1 will apply.” (Doc 20)

CARRIED

Councillor Cullen requested some clarity on Staff Motion 46. Mr. Jacobs advised that where there was a Loblaws store, as a permitted main use (many come with seasonal uses), which required outdoor storage, this policy would not be used to say no. Councillor Cullen did not have a problem with that, but perhaps the wording was incorrect. He maintained that if having the large parking areas and large storage areas caused a problem, whether a main use or a minor use, it still caused that problem. If the idea was not to stop Loblaws from having a garden centre, that was good, but the door was opening an unintended result. How did he ensure the wrong thing did not happen?

Chair Hunter suggested staff could clarify the original intent when FoTenn came forward on behalf of Loblaws. Mr. Jacobs explained it would be uses along the line of a car dealership, or a plain garden centre, or primarily land-intensive uses with a very limited amount of building as part of the use. Councillor Cullen inquired if the thought was that Loblaws would have an ancillary use and he did not want to close that door to that ancillary use.

46. Page 76, Section 3.6.2 Mixed-Use Centres

Revise Policy 7 e) to delete the phrase “~~Not permit uses~~” and replace it with the phrase ‘Not permit as a main use those’ so that the policy reads “Not permit as a main use those uses which are land extensive and which require large outdoor areas for parking or the storage of goods”. (FoTenn on behalf of Loblaws).

LOST

YEAS (4): Councillors Harder, Eastman, Stavinga, Hunter

NAYS (5): Councillors Munter, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume

Additional Staff Motion

Page 75, Section 3.6.2, Policy 5 – Replace existing with the following:

Development is permitted prior to the approval of a community design plan subject to the policies below. In the case of the Mixed-use Centre south of Innes Road and west of Mer Bleue Road, development will only be permitted after the adoption of a Secondary Plan by the City.

CARRIED

47. Page 76, Section 3.6.2 Mixed-Use Centres

Revise policy 7 f) to add the words ‘(minimum of two storeys)’ immediately following the words “within multi-storey buildings”. (FoTenn on behalf of Loblaws).

CARRIED

Additional Staff Motion

Page 76, Section 3.6.2, Mixed-Use Centres

Revise Policy 8 c) to add the following phrase at the end – ‘including measures such as those contained in Policy 12 of S.2.5.5’

CARRIED

48. Page 77, Section 3.6.3, Mainstreets

Amend Policy 1 to add “in accordance with Section 3.6.8” after “retail stores.”

CARRIED

Councillor Cullen questioned whether this was watering down the restriction. He commented that part of the Main Street was that if there were going to be certain uses there was a restriction on auto oriented retailing service, such as gas bars and muffler shops. The entire meaning appeared to be changed by the Motion. Mr. Jacobs asked to withdraw the Motion.

49. Page 79, Section 3.6.3 Mainstreets

Revise Policy 4.b) vi) to delete the word ‘~~Restriction~~’ at the beginning of the text and replace it with the phrase ‘The appropriateness of establishing restrictions’ (FoTenn on behalf of Loblaws).

WITHDRAWN

50. Page 80, Section 3.6.3, Mainstreets

Add a new policy 7 c) “Conserves and enhances the area’s cultural heritage resources” and renumber others accordingly.

CARRIED

51. Page 80, Section 3.6.3, Mainstreets

Modify policy 8 d) to add after the word “proposal” the words “conserves and enhances the area’s cultural heritage resources, and”.

CARRIED

Councillor Stavinga spoke to staff with regard to providing specific wording on her Motion, referencing that various communities, specifically the Village of Stittsville, had developed a Main Street Master Plan Urban Design Guidelines. That document assisted in various developments in the Village of Stittsville in providing unique and wonderful streetscape. The Plan was not currently structured to continue that in the Goulbourn community. This document was instrumental. She viewed this as an opportunity for other communities where there had been Main Street and Urban Design Guidelines, so she did not want to just look out for the community of Stittsville, but other areas. The wording would be:

Therefore be it resolved that, Section 3.6.3 be amended to include an additional policy stating: "that any new construction of buildings, structures or modifications, alterations and additions to existing buildings and structures, which have the effect of altering exterior character along a Main Street frontage shall be evaluated in the context of the existing Main Street Master Plans and Urban Design Guidelines.

Councillor Harder opined Councillor Stavinga was doing a good job for Stittsville, but she heard the Councillor say that where there were other Main Streets and other main street design plans in other parts of the City that they adopt anything not built yet. For example on the corner of Strandherd and Greenbank, would that impact that location where there was the Sante Fe look. Or, can it go on the mostly unbuilt or half-built unbuilt part, would it be according to that design standard or was she imposing that across the City. Councillor Stavinga explained that her original Motion dealt specifically with the Village of Stittsville, but after conferring with staff it was acknowledged rather than just highlighting the Village of Stittsville there were other areas where there were Main Street plans and Design Guidelines even though there will be a review of them, some had some priority, others were fine and could remain as is. Those that were fine and remain as is would continue to be referenced. Councillor Harder questioned who would decide that. Councillor Stavinga understood that as part of the Urban Design Strategy, staff would be conducting a review and bringing recommendations forward. Councillor Harder was concerned with providing a tool that would upset the apple cart worked on for many years. Councillor Stavinga clarified that was not the intent.

With respect to the Motion, Mr. Jacobs could support the attempt to make it generic, there were some concerns whether it was site specific or generic and would not support the Motion. It was not necessary to include detailed policies about specific areas within the OP. There was sufficient strength within the OP and coming out of what would be the Urban Design Strategy Guidelines and Directions that would support this decision-making process.

Councillor Stavinga returned to her original wording and dealt specifically with Stittsville Main Street. It was important to recognize that 26 months into the New City that document provided by the Township of Goulbourn allowed her to make some significant changes on that Main Street; and, she did not want to lose that leverage, which would happen if it was not adopted.

Councillor Legendre commented that he liked the idea of applying the tool elsewhere in the City and was saddened she was withdrawing it. He encouraged her to apply the Motion to the City. He faced that issue several times on St. Laurent Blvd. and Coventry Road.

Councillor Stavinga indicated she would move the Motion to relate specifically to the Village of Stittsville, but would explore the concept citywide where there were existing Main Streets and there may be some wording that might be acceptable to staff.

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga

3.6.3. Main Streets

WHEREAS, the former Township of Goulbourn commissioned in 1988 the development of a Main Street Master Plan and Urban Design Guidelines for the Village of Stittsville;

WHEREAS, the Master Plan and Urban Design Guidelines otherwise known as the Stittsville Main Street Design Guidelines were formally integrated in the Goulbourn Official Plan;

WHEREAS, the Main Street Design Guidelines continue to be utilized in the review of all new construction of buildings/structures or modifications, alterations and additions to existing buildings and structures, which have the effect of altering exterior appearances along the Stittsville Main Street frontage;

AND WHEREAS, the City of Ottawa Official Plan Schedule B – Urban Policy Plan recognizes the designate of Stittsville Main Street as a “Main Street”;

Therefore be it resolved that, Section 3.6.3 be amended to include an additional policy stating: "that any new construction of buildings, structures or modifications, alterations and additions to existing buildings and structures, which have the effect of altering exterior character along a Stittsville Main Street frontage shall be evaluated in the context of the existing Stittsville Main Street Master Plans and Urban Design Guidelines.

CARRIED

Page 81, Section 3.6.3, Main Streets

Revise Policy 10 c) to add the following phrase at the end – ‘including measures such as those contained in Policy 12 of S.2.5.5’.

CARRIED

The Committee adjourned at 3:15 p.m. and would re-convene at the conclusion of the Regular Committee meeting on 10 April 2003. The Chair advised that Councillor Little had to leave the meeting early due to an emergency meeting on a pressing legal matter. All other Committee members were present.

THURSDAY, 10 APRIL 2003 – 12:40 P.M.

Chair brought forward some tidy-up wording by staff:

Page 13, Section 2.1 The Challenge Ahead

Amend the fourth paragraph of the preamble by deleting the words “~~shown in Figure 2-2~~” in the second sentence and adding the text “for the rural area and the urban area inside and outside the Greenbelt, as shown in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2.”

CARRIED

Page 29, Section 2.3.2 Public Water and Wastewater Service Areas

Delete the subsection title and rename it, “Water and Wastewater Services”

CARRIED

Page 36, Section 2.4.3 Watershed and Subwatershed Plans

Add the word, “site” to the box in Figure 2.4, so that it refers to a “Stormwater Site Management Plan”.

CARRIED

Page 86, 89, Section 3.6.6 Central Area

Delete the word, “Ottawa” from the project name, “Downtown ~~Ottawa~~ Urban Design Strategy” so that the text refers to the “Downtown Urban Design Strategy”

CARRIED

Responding to a question by Chair Hunter, Ms. Paterson advised that the Revised Document 16 updated the document to correct some discrepancies.

Chair Hunter referred to some Motions from Councillor Stavinga that were to be re-worded in concert with staff. Councillor Stavinga referred to her Motion that dealt with Section 2.3.2 Public Water and Waste Water Services Areas, Page 31; the same preamble would remain, but adding a new Policy to read:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Section 2.3.2 be amended to add an additional Policy stating:

6. The City will discourage future growth on the basis of partial services, particularly where City water is provided to resolve a groundwater contamination issue. Growth may be considered where an Environmental Assessment, as referred to in Policy 4 c) above, has addressed the potential for aquifer contamination by pollution from septage, and has addressed the impact of indiscriminate water use.

This was an original concern raised by the Conservation Authorities (CA). Staff worked with her to develop the words for the Policy.

Chair Hunter questioned whether there was a Policy continuing forward that where City water was available one could not develop on their own water services. Ms. Paterson responded that the Motion did not talk about private services, but where there was one public service. She submitted it was always policy that if the City serviced a village there would be two services because there were always problems created with one or the other. It was not always implemented because it was not always practical. It reinforced the notice not to have future growth on the basis of one public service, but both. Councillor Stavinga referenced the preambles in her original Motion, which mentioned the PPS and the hierarchy of delivering municipal services. The greatest concern from the CA was those areas that had a problem with contamination where development was allowed to occur although contamination was responded to with piped service; it was being compounded by allowing development to occur. Ms Paterson advised that the Policy was entirely consistent with those in the OP and in many ways were not really necessary, but underlined that the environmental assessment will look at how to address such matters as indiscriminate water use when there was a pipe as opposed to a private well, etc.

On Councillor Stavinga’s Motion.

CARRIED

Page 43, Section 2.4.5 Greenspaces

Councillor Stavinga advised there were two components to this Motion:

That Section 2.4.5 Greenspaces, following Policy 10 be amended to add an additional Policy stating:

That the City will work with the Conservation Authorities and other interested stakeholders to develop a by-law under the Municipal Act to regulate the removal of top soil.

This had originally been raised because the CAs had thought the City had not spoken to that, but under Section 2.4.5, Greenspaces, Policy 10 did speak to the protection of trees through developing a municipal by-law and she was adding a policy with regard to topsoil.

An addendum to that would be on Section 3.2.4 Rural Natural Features, Page 67, be amended to add a Policy:

That the City will pursue measures as identified in Section 2.4.5, Polices 10, 11 and 12 to assist in the protection of Rural Natural Features.

The above would make it very clear that those Sections were interconnected and that in their Rural Natural Features area matters such as a Tree By-Law, topsoil, forestry practice, etc. would be looked at. Ms. Paterson noted that staff was concerned that a Policy was being added to Rural Natural Features that applied throughout the City. There were already Policies to adopt a Tree By-Law, Topsoil Removal By-Laws, etc. and when placing such a By-Law in a designation, it was sometimes forgotten and not amended properly; therefore, it was preferred to have the reference back to Section 2 where the Policy was enhanced to make it clearer. Chair Hunter received confirmation it was currently there and that there would be harmonization and one By-Law.

On the Motions.

CARRIED

52. Page 82, Section 3.6.4 Developing Communities

Revise Policy 4.e) to add the words ‘or landscape’ immediately following the phrase “existing desirable landform”. (Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders Association).

CARRIED

Page 82, section 3.6.4.4 a) ii

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

Amend that residential densities for single family homes be defined within the range of 17-25 units per net hectare

Councillor Harder found that residents were not so much concerned with the depth of the lot, but the width and that of the house. She raised the issue since many pictures shown in the 10,000 ha. were within the Greenbelt showing the density that could be achieved.

Councillor Munter received confirmation an average was being discussed and that nowhere in the Plan did it say that all single-family home development had to be at 25 units net ha. Given that, it answered Councillor Harder’s earlier question that it could be varied. He was struck by the fact the Beaverbrook Community in Kanata, which was presently the most desirable part of the community in terms of resale value had the highest density of any community in Kanata because it had a variety of different housing types. It seemed to him that since it was an average, pulling down the average was not what the City wanted. It may be what the Home Builders wanted to make their case that the forests and farmlands they owned should be redesignated, but other than that there was not much virtue to the argument.

Chair Hunter read the Section and noted the Motion did not call for a change in the overall average referred to by Councillor Munter, but for singles, the 25 was too ambitious and dense and did not allow for the full market range for singles and asked for flexibility in reaching the overall of 29 units. Councillor Harder added that a lot would depend upon what the market would bear. She was concerned that for it to happen, there would need to be very few singles and increased density and understood that was required to meet targets.

Mr. Jacobs advised that the ability to average was still inherent in the Policy. For single detached housing, a product could be provided at 17 units/ha. or 34 units/ha., so long as the average within the single detached portion of the community was 25 units/net ha. What was accomplished through the Policy was the provision of a range of single detached product at different price points and a greater of flexibility in meeting the whole market and not just providing one form of single detached housing.

Referring to averages and communities, Councillor Stavinga queried whether a community was a neighbourhood or the broader community. Mr. Jacobs responded that community was the area defined as Developing Community. Following on that, Councillor Harder referred to the Longfields Concept Study approved in 2002 for Barrhaven allowed for a tremendous increase in density as opposed to the current density along the future transitway. That would be factored in and part of the mix. Mr. Jacobs referred the Councillor to Schedule B, portions of South Nepean that were Developing Communities were those lands south of the Jock River; all lands north of the Jock River were in General Urban. The Policy would not apply to the land Minto currently owned. Councillor Harder clarified that it did not solely relate to Minto, since there were other developers affected in her area.

On the Motion:

LOST ON TIE VOTE

YEAS (4): Councillors Harder, Eastman, Bellemare, Hunter

NAYS (4): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Arnold, Hume

Page 82, section 3.6.4

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

Amend to add Section 3.6.4.5 “Until such time that a community design plan is adopted by Council, and any changes required to the OP to conform to the community design plan are approved by Council with all avenues of appeal exhausted, development may proceed in accordance with the underlying land use designation”

Councillor Harder explained that the Motion would allow Applications to proceed until a Community Design Plan was developed. She posited the City needed to maximize the land to be developed and would not like to see applications delayed.

Mr. Lathrop clarified that Community Design Plans on the Schedule in the OP were meant to be areas that were relatively new and therefore need a fair amount of community design input. The reason for the Community Design Plan was the patent need to conduct work before approving anything. It was previously called a Secondary Plan, Development Plan or Area Plan and part of the underlying principles in properly developing the community. Councillor Harder had some concerns related to some areas in South Nepean. Chair Hunter clarified the affected lands; the Rockcliffe Air Base lands, some of the Amendment 1 (1988 Plan) lands designated General Urban in the East Urban Community, some lands around Leitrim, in the South Urban Community south of Armstrong and south of the Jock River. From his understanding, especially with the Amendment 1 lands, there was some land ready to develop, but may not be able to wait until all the Appeals were exhausted on the OP.

Councillor Munter suggested it might make more sense to delete the Community Design Plan section of the Plan since there was a whole section that would say the new areas would involve an exercise to plan them holistically in accordance with the principles of the Plan because it was a blank slate; but notwithstanding, the Motion proposed that development could proceed in accordance with the underlying land use designation. This inadvertently had the effect of nullifying the intent of that Section of the Plan. How could there be a Community Design Planning exercise that would allow development until such time as the exercise was concluded regardless of the findings. It did not make sense.

Councillor Hume asked for clarification using an example. Mr. Jacobs responded that where planning approvals were in place such as a Plan of Subdivision that received Draft Plan Approval would not be affected. Areas affected were those currently in a discussion phase. Councillor Hume received confirmation this did not say that one could not use some of the work undertaken to designate those lands in the urban area as part of the Community Design Plan. Mr. Jacobs added that staff tried to make it clear that these would not be considered without taking into consideration existing work carried out, which would provide the foundation to building a new Community Design Plan. Councillor Hume added this would be adjusting a Concept Plan that may already be in place. Mr. Jacobs added the intent was not to frustrate the City’s growth, but to accommodate it and use existing studies to the extent possible and work with the development community and current residents in the community to develop a plan that satisfied everyone’s interest.

On the Motion:

LOST ON TIE VOTE

YEAS (4): Councillors Harder, Eastman, Bellemare, Hunter

NAYS (4): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Arnold, Hume

Chair Hunter noted that Councillor Legendre requested the Committee to return to Motion 52 on Developing Communities. The Committee agreed.

On the words “or landscape” that was added to that Section, Councillor Legendre asked if the word “landscape” was defined in the Plan since an issue arose fairly recently in his Ward and might be generic in nature, which was why he raised it. If landscape was not defined as being soft, it could be hard landscape and that word may be less meaningful than Committee members think it was. In that regard, he asked for clarification in time for the Council debate.

53. Page 82, Section 3.6.4 Developing Communities

Revise Policy 4.f) iv) by adding the phrase ‘Considering variations in lotting arrangements such as’ immediately prior to the phrase “orienting units around central courtyards”. (Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders Association).

CARRIED

54. Page 82, Section 3.6.4 Developing Communities

Revise policy 4.f) v) to add the phrase ‘wherever necessary to accommodate such matters as recognizing environmental features, establishing Major Open Spaces or identifying new Mainstreets’ to the end of the policy. (Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders Association).

CARRIED

55. Page 83, Section 3.6.5, Employment Area and Enterprise Area

Modify policy 3 to delete everything after “~~research and development uses~~” and add “and big-box retail uses in accordance with Section 3.6.8. The zoning by-law will permit a variety of complementary uses, such as convenience retail, personal service businesses, and recreational uses to serve the employees of Employment Areas and Enterprise Areas, the general public in the immediate vicinity and passing traffic”. Then, delete policy 5.

(N.B. – In light of Motion 62, Policy 9, being LOST, Motion 55 was Redundant. See Motion 62.)

Councillor Munter requested clarification. Ms. Paterson explained that the Policies later in the Plan for retail permit big box retail and convenience retail in the employment areas making it misleading in Policy 3 to say retail uses in accordance with Section 3.6.9 since the only retail use that was permitted was “where housing type big box”. That was clarified in this section, but the actual policies were in a later section and on Policy 5 it continued to elaborate on permitted uses, therefore staff drew that into Policy 3. It was to tidy up the package. The only change was to add the word “big box”. Councillor Munter commented that big box retail uses were being promoted in employment areas. Ms. Paterson confirmed that, but there was a Motion later that clarified the Retail Policies – Motion 62. Mr. Jacobs added that it was not promoting, but responding to a request for greater flexibility and opportunity. Ms. Paterson stated it was only for certain kinds of big box and there were many qualifiers in Motion 62, Policy 9. Councillor Munter commented that the market went through cycles and there was a current cycle, but the introduction of big box uses a few years ago into an employment area in Kanata was not welcomed by some of the big employers and large landowners since it was not compatible with the development of prestige business park uses. It did not have adequate transportation, etc. One of the problems with industrial parks and one they were trying to move away from was auto-dependence, which meant dwelling units should be put into those employment areas making it easier for residents to travel to work as well as providing higher density office development, which has started. He referenced the taller buildings in Kanata North. Using large amounts of land in employment areas for low density auto-dependent uses seems to subvert the intent, which was to make those areas work more efficiently from a transportation point of view. If there was a shortage of big box that would be different, but there were many locations for big box and hardly an inadequate supply.

Councillor Harder added that businesses and types of business styles ran in 10-15-year cycles. On retail in employment area, big box retail employed a large number of people. Those travelling to business parks were encouraged to use buses, cycling and would have an opportunity to shop for items they might need. She did not see this as black and white, but as making full use of an area.

Mr. Lathrop commented that the particular Section, if adopted, added big box retail as a permitted use in the employment area; if not accepted, big box retailing in employment areas would revert back to the original uses, which would include a variety of complementary uses such as convenience retail, personal services business, recreational uses to serve employees of the employment areas, etc. There was a clear decision the Committee could make. Ms. Paterson clarified that the policy for big box retail was found in Section 3.6.8, which was amended by Motion 62; this was simply a reference to it. The discussion should be made around retail in general and then return to the designation and make reference to it.

Councillor Harder inquired how this Motion impacted her Motion on Page 83 wherein she asked for one sentence to be added to the bottom of the second paragraph, which she opined tied in with the Committee’s discussion. Ms. Paterson reiterated that this matter should be discussed in the context of retail in general since it was a different interpretation of how the City wanted retail to develop. The Councillor agreed to return to her Motion on Page 96.

The Committee agreed to return to this matter after consideration of Motion 62, as suggested by Councillor Munter. (See Note immediately following Motion 55, page 94.)

Section 3.6.5 Employment Area and Enterprise Area

Councillor Munter presented a Motion that would add an 8 f), which he discussed with staff. He recapped the presentation by Kanata Research Park Corporation (KRPC) and that in mid-2002 the City adopted the OPs to introduce residential uses into the North Business Park in Kanata and the intent was to grandfather the provisions of those amendments for the life of this OP and then these could be considered when the OP was reviewed at some time in the future. Mr. Jacobs advised that staff would have some concerns with carrying forward site-specific policies; therefore staff would not support the amendment. Councillor Munter would tend to agree with the general point, which was that there was no benefit in site-specific re-statements of existing permissions. That was not the intent of the Motion. The OPAs approved were the product of a long and interesting negotiation process that resulted in a bargain being struck to extract higher levels of density than the proponent originally wanted to deliver in exchange for a version of the averaging previously discussed. If this was adopted in 1992, it would be a different matter, but given that the framework was adopted in 2002; that these were the first lands in the City for which residential designation was put into the business park and given that as a result of the approval six months’ ago, the planning was underway, it made sense for the life of this Plan only to preserve what was already approved.

Moved by Councillor A. Munter

THAT an 8(f) be added as follows:

f) In the exceptional case of employment lands designated for residential development under Amendment 25 (2002) to the former Regional Official Plan and Amendment 66 (2002) to the former Kanata Official Plan, existing minimum density requirements specified under those amendments shall continue for the life of this Official Plan only.

CARRIED

YEAS (6): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume, Hunter

NAYS (2): Councillors Harder, Eastman

56. Page 88 Section 3.6.6 Central Area

Amend Policy 2h) by adding the words "and convention facilities and" between "tourism" and "amenities" so that the policy as amended reads "...to enhance existing retail, tourist and convention facilities and amenities, pedestrians..."

CARRIED

57. Page 88 Section 3.6.6 Central Area

Amend by deleting Policy 3b) "In keeping with the Central Area's role as a main tourist destination, supporting the National Capital Commission and other stakeholders initiatives that maintain and develop tourist attractions and facilities." and adding a new Policy 3b) as follows: "In keeping with the Central Area's role as a main tourist destination, supporting the Ottawa Tourism and Convention Authority, National Capital Commission and other stakeholder initiatives that maintain and develop tourism and convention attractions, facilities, activities and programming."

CARRIED

58. Page 89, Section 3.6.6 Central Area

Modify policy 4 a) so it now reads “Providing financial incentives, such as exemptions from development charges, building permit fees or other development fees and levies.”

CARRIED

59. Page 91, Section 3.6.6 Central Area

Add an new policy 8 d) iv) to say “support weather-protected and universally accessible connections between the Congress Centre and nearby hotels”

Councillor Munter understood OTCA wanted the connection and that it was expensive, was it just a motherhood statement or did it mean something in which case there might need to be a proviso – subject to affordability. In response to a question by Councillor Munter, Mr. Kilstrom advised that it referred to the former City of Ottawa Linkages Study conducted a few years ago, for connecting Les Suites, Novotel, Westin and Chateau Laurier to the Congress Centre. If that clause were inserted it should not make a substantial difference since it was essentially a statement of a desire on the part of OTCA who were the lead in that Study. Chair Hunter acknowledged it was part of the Linkages Policy and determined it was a detail that should not be in the OP, although it was in the previous ROP.

Councillor Legendre was supportive of the Chair’s comment. It was not just cost issues that came to mind, but he recalled the Study and the concerns he had with the Study to do with these linkages affecting the look of the downtown and also whether they would be considered public space; or, private space the private sector could simply shut down at whim. He was not aware there were policies that dealt with that. He was uncomfortable with broad statements saying, “supporting” without all of the provisos in place.

Councillor Munter had considered moving an amendment, but encouraged Committee members to reject the Motion. Ottawa needed more street life, not burying street life. The experience in Winnipeg that had a harsher climate was interesting since they got rid of Portage and Main as an intersection, buried and elevated it, but that intersection was barricaded to pedestrians and the municipality was seeking to reverse the situation. He believed the issue required a larger discussion and it was not appropriate to inset in the OP.

Councillor Bellemare did not view a real commitment on the part of the City, in d) and e), to fund this type of infrastructure, but even if it did, he would refer the Committee to Policy 6 of Section 5.4, which dealt with interpretation of the OP. It stated “The implementation of this Plan will take place over time and that the use of the word will to indicate a commitment to action on the part of the City should not be construed as a commitment to proceed with all of these undertakings immediately. These commitments will be undertaken in a phased manner as determined by Council and subject to budgeting and programme availabilities.” This was a catch-all for all of these statements on whether or not to provide this piece of infrastructure or another; that it was always subject to budgets. He did not even see the word “will” in this particular section. It implied at the very least cost sharing. Mr. Lathrop added that notwithstanding the comment it was important to understand that when putting something such as the Section in it became a Policy direction. It should be clear that if the Committee and Council wanted the Policy in the Plan, it should be retained; if not, it should be removed.

Councillor Stavinga clarified that whether or not the Section was removed, the conclusions of the Study would still rise to Committee for deliberation.

On the Motion:

LOST ON A TIE

YEAS (4): Councillors Eastman, Bellemare, Arnold, Hunter

NAYS (4): Councillors Harder, Munter, Stavinga, Hume

60. Page 91 Section 3.6.6 Central Area

Amend Policy 9 by adding the words "and loading” between "parking" and "facilities" so that the policy as amended reads "...ensure that parking and loading facilities address the unique role..."

CARRIED

61. Page 91 Section 3.6.6 Central Area

Amend Policy 9a) by adding the words "and loading facilities” between "parking" and "to serve" and by adding the words "and the tourism industry” between "sectors" and "and limiting" so that the revised policy as amended reads "...provision of short-term parking and loading facilities to serve the retail and commercial sectors and the tourism industry and limiting the provision of long-term parking..."

CARRIED

62. Page 96, Section 3.6.8 Provision for Retail

Ms. Paterson provided a brief explanation. Policy 7 stated that retail facilities should be close to residences. They were not permitted in General Urban Area, but were permitted on Mainstreets and large concentrations. In response to a concern raised at one of the meetings, staff was saying that where a big box was part of a shopping centre and managed as part of that centre, staff would not call it big box; it would be part of a shopping centre and follow shopping centre policies. Where an individual retail store of more 8,000 square metres met a number of criteria, staff recommended that they be permitted in employment and enterprise areas; and, the criteria were delineated. It was difficult to design these to fit onto a Mainstreet, if they require large areas of land for storing building supplies. As a final clarification, Policy 10 stated that retail establishments that provide goods and services needed on a daily basis should be located in communities were permitted everywhere but employment areas.

Councillor Legendre queried Mr. Lathrop regarding a recent issue on Coventry Road, big box related and another still to be decided on St. Laurent Blvd. in a current shopping centre. He did not have a problem with big box per se, but it was the intimation the store could not be designed to be street friendly. The Section stated that retail was permitted providing they met the conditions in Section 3. He questioned whether the issues he was concerned with were encompassed by the other elements in the Section. Mr. Lathrop explained that the principle of trying to create the Mainstreet environments and move buildings to the front of the street was to address that issue and to deal with the parking lot in a similar manner as with the Westboro Loblaws, not to make it the primary focus of the street frontage. The only exceptions were in some of the big box retailing that were clearly free-standing warehousing type environments. These were allowed to be in Enterprise and Employment Areas. This may be a problem for Councillor Legendre on Coventry Road and the question which came up on Coventry covered under an existing Secondary Plan for the former City of Ottawa was related to a project with an existing Canadian Tire situated at the very back of the site with parking in front. He read it as a continuing problem in the employment areas coloured blue where buildings were allowed to sit at the back of the lot. Councillor Legendre recently received a communication, which assured him that for the rest of that corridor that would not happen, but now heard it may be a problem. Mr. Lathrop opined it may be a problem but that it would have to be taken under advisement in that particular area because he understood the concerns expressed. He would endeavour to discuss the situation with staff. Councillor Legrendre returned to the situation on St. Laurent and referenced the Westboro Loblaws, which would be large, but street friendly and that would be ideal for St. Laurent and wanted to ensure Policies were in the OP that would make that happen.
Mr. Jacobs responded they were not with respect to the employment and enterprise areas. St. Laurent would be Mainstreet and the Policies would be in place in those areas.

Councillor Munter focussed on the introduction of big box retail into the enterprise and employment areas and inquired who asked for that. Mr. Jacobs responded that it was raised by a number of presenters during the consultation. Councillor Munter commented that his own experience was that in Kanata where they did not want that use. He referenced the recent proposal in Councillor Bellemare’s Ward with concern related to traffic; big box retail uses in the Canotek Business Park and similar areas would increase traffic dramatically. This change was very significant and he argued there were enough planning abominations like Kanata Centrum or South Keys and the notion of introducing such uses to make them more prevalent and add them into employment and enterprise areas was wrong in the overall concept of what the City was trying to achieve. It was particularly inappropriate given the Section just approved on the Employment and Enterprise Areas to introduce mixed-use with more residential development; and, more retail that served those who live and work in the area. He agreed with Councillor Harder on the need for retail in business parks, but not destination retail such as Home Depot, but retail that would serve those living and working in the business park. He had not heard a demand for this use in the employment he represented; to the contrary they historically did not want this kind of use; and, because of the variety of landowners when one pursued that use, it disturbed the equanimity of the business park. It was the wrong direction to take and asked the Chair to divide the Section with a separate vote on 9 since it was introducing the concept.

Chair Hunter clarified that the use had been in existence for over a decade in parts of the City and pointed out areas in the City; e.g. Merivale and Hunt Club, Innes Road/Tenth Line area. It should either be allowed or the designation on the lands should be changed to ensure they were not employment area, otherwise they became major non-conforming uses. Councillor Munter countered there was sufficient big box retail and inserting it into Employment Areas where not currently permitted went counter to the intent of the Plan.

Councillor Eastman referred to Policy 9, which indicated they were on the periphery of employment areas; and, if there was mixed use with homes, should residents be driving out of the area to get to big box? He opined it was well covered.

Mr. Jacobs raised an issue with respect to the grocery stores in particular in the West Urban Centre and if the Policy were changed or not approved, it would effectively mean that grocery stores currently under development or to be developed would not be permitted since they were not permitted in General Urban. Currently, the only place a grocery store would be permitted in Kanata was in the Town Centre or on Mainstreet.

Councillor Stavinga wondered whether it was envisioned with the additional Policy that those uses could be seen in that area next to the General Urban or residential areas identified through the Kanata West Concept Plan. Did introducing Policy 9 change the vision unanimously approved by Committee, Council and the community. Mr. Jacobs responded that in the case of Kanata West there were a number of representations with respect to that particular issue itself and the landowners were satisfied that as long as the Kanata West Concept Plan was considered the framework for recommending and approving zoning by-law amendments it would not be an issue since it became more detailed and was more prescribed than outlined in the Plan; therefore, those issues would not arise. Councillor Stavinga clarified that since there were other measures in that Concept Plan, Policy 9 would not have an impact. Mr. Jacobs advised it would be part of the consideration, but the Concept Plan itself provided the definitive description of what was permitted in those land use designations. Councillor Stavinga was also concerned, recognizing there were existing uses and looking at the community on a 20-30 year horizon and referencing the abominations mentioned by Councillor Munter, why the City would want to continue on that path.

Delete policies 7 and 8 under Big Box Retail and replace with the following:

Big-box Retail

7. Individual retail stores of 8,000 square metres or more, except as described in policy 8 below, are permitted on Mainstreets, within the Central Area and in Mixed-Use Centres, subject to the policies in Section 3 regarding achieving compact form and mixed-use development in these areas.

8. Where a retail store of 8,000 square metres or more is part of a shopping centre planned and managed as an operating unit, it is not considered to be a big-box format.

CARRIED

9. Individual retail stores of 8,000 square metres or more are permitted in Employment Areas and Enterprise Areas where:

a. They are well served by transit; and

b. They are on the periphery of the Employment Area or Enterprise Area near to residential communities; and

c. They are grocery stores, and/or

d. They sell goods in a warehouse format; and/or

e. They require large areas of land for storage and display of goods.

Examples include building supply outlets, home improvement centres and retail warehouses.

LOST

YEAS (3): Councillors Harder, Eastman, Hunter

NAYS (5): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold

Other Retail

10. Retail establishments providing goods and services required on a daily basis, should be located within residential areas except for the exceptions noted in Section 3.6.8, policy 9. Neighbourhood and community-sized shopping centres, up to 50,000 square metres gross leasable area, are permitted in General Urban Areas, Mixed-Use Centres, Mainstreets and the Central Area.

CARRIED

Motion 55, which was held pending a decision on Motion 62, was declared Redundant.

Employment Areas

Councillor Harder presented her Motions and submitted that pieces of it fit with the recently approved Staff Motion.

Page 83, Section 3.6.5

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

Amend the introductory text to Section 3.6.5 by adding the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph: “In addition, shopping centres and free-standing retail uses serving adjacent residential neighbourhoods and wider parts of the city may be permitted through an amendment to the zoning by-law.”

Ms. Paterson commented that the Motion would not conform with the Policies as proposed by staff since staff was not proposing that shopping centres be in enterprise and employment areas. Councillor Harder inquired if she removed the words “shopping centres and” would that not complement the staff Policy? Ms. Paterson explained that Policy 5, Page 84 said the Zoning By-Law would permit convenience retail, personal service businesses and recreational uses to serve the employees of employment areas, the general public in the immediate vicinity and passing traffic. The uses permitted were described.

Councillor Munter inquired what scale was proposed since the Committee just said there would not be big box retail uses. The Motion fundamentally reintroduced big box retail, which was just voted down.

Councillor Cullen submitted there was no definition for free-standing retail and would this open the door to the equivalent of a Regional Shopping Centre. He did not have any difficulty supporting Councillor Harder when she wanted complementary uses to serve the employment and enterprise area, convenience retail, personal serve, etc.; that made sense if people were in the area. What he did not want was a Wal-Mart or Sears, which is free-standing; that needed careful consideration. He was not opposed to those stores, but there were locations for such stores. Mr. Jacobs would agree with the Councillor’s interpretation since it would open the door to a full range of retail uses where the intent of the Policy, as currently outlined, was to only provide for smaller scale retail uses to serve those working or perhaps residing within that business park if there was any residential.

Councillor Harder referred to Schedule B that recommended the area of Hunt Club and Merivale be employment area. The headquarters for Costco for Canada was there. This was Hunt Club Road, which was the “little” Queensway. Did it not make sense that what was there serve the wider community, since the wider community was driving on it?
By not including her proposal, it eliminated all opportunities anywhere in the City. Possibly she could add “where retail already dominated 99% of the employment area”. If it was not included, it eliminated a lot of opportunity. It was crucial to take advantage of it.

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors Harder, Hunter

NAYS (6): Councillors Munter, Eastman, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold

Councillor Harder presented her next Motion, which allowed the City to have some flexibility when developing the community design plan. Ms. Paterson advised this would be consistent with the Plan. It was always the case when Council adopted a Community Design Plan.

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

Page 85, section 3.6.5.8 b)

Amend to include “unless otherwise subject to approval by Council through the adoption of a community design plan”

CARRIED

Councillor Eastman presented his Motion related to Villages and referred to the departmental report, Page 156, Item 4. The Motion set a timeline for the community design plan. Chair Hunter clarified it was a Work Programme issue. In response to an inquiry, Mr. Jacobs advised that they had not consulted with staff that conducted the work, but if Committee deemed this was a priority project then that would take place.

Councillor Stavinga inquired if staff had intended to come forward with a list of priority areas for the Community Design Plans and the time frame to conduct same. Mr. Jacobs advised that staff would produce an Annual Work Programme that identified work flowing out of the OP along with other projects and priorities and that would be submitted as part of the annual budgeting process. Councillor Stavinga noted that certain areas were subject to pressure, which was part of the community design analysis, that those would rise to the top; would they not? Mr. Jacobs responded that first the list of projects would be created and then criteria for ranking would be produced for setting priority under which those would be undertaken. That would come forward as more than a single year Work Programme, identifying over a number of years the approach to be taken. Councillor Eastman referred to the Delahunt request before Committee, which was in the middle of the Village, could not be considered since it was not in the village boundary. This had been taking place since 1996 and there were two applications on that Village and he simply wanted to get them on the agenda with a time frame he could convey to them. It would prevent the City appearing before the OMB. Staff indicated very clearly in the Work Programme that it would be undertaken; it simply put in a time frame.

Moved by Councillor D. Eastman:

Whereas staff have recommended (on page 156, item 4, document 19) that their work program should be reviewed to include a community design plan study as the best way to review the boundaries of the Village of Dunrobin,

Therefore be it resolved that staff include a village of Dunrobin design plan as part of their 2004 work program.

CARRIED

63. Page 96, Section 3.7.1 Villages

Amend policy 6 f) iv) regarding considerations in reviewing retail, commercial proposals in villages, to delete the policy, “~~Minimum building heights of two storeys in Mainstreet and core area locations~~”. Add the following: “The feasibility of achieving development f more than one storey. Where the predominant form of development is two storeys or more, single-storey development will be discouraged.” (Doc 20)

CARRIED

Councillor Bellemare introduced his Motion, which was further to an announcement made by the Federal Government on Monday of this week.

Moved by Councillor M. Bellemare:

WHEREAS the Federal Government has announced $50,000 in funding through its Agricultural Rural Minority Language Community Planning Initiative to determine the development potential of the villages of Sarsfield, Vars and Carlsbad Springs;

That staff be directed to work with the Federal Agricultural Rural Minority Language Community Planning Initiative and the community associations of Sarsfield, Vars and Carlsbad Springs to develop planning documents to provide concrete directions and a framework for future development.

And that staff bring forward proposals to Planning and Development Committee in May for the City to be a partner in this initiative.

Councillor Bellemare drafted the Motion with the assistance of staff and it was further to a request for modest expansions to a number of villages and in keeping with the statement on P. 97 of the OP that smaller villages may continue to grow at modest levels. The Federal Government was making funding available. Chair Hunter suggested the Motion should be taken as a Notice of Motion, but if was not a text for the OP, it would not be discussed at this time. Councillor Bellemare suggested it would be an 8 to the main recommendations contained in the departmental report. Chair Hunter submitted that the Motion did not have a place in the Plan since it would continue past the time the study was completed. Councillor Bellemare requested a comment from staff since he understood that in addition to modifying the language of the OP itself, at the end of the meeting the Committee would be adopting recommendations approving the Amended OP, but also giving a number of directions to staff on a myriad of issues including Carp, with seven recommendations in total. It could be raised now or at the end of the meeting. Ms. Paterson responded it was appropriate for staff to investigate and respond with a proposal. It was agreed to deal with the Motion later in the meeting.

Councillor Harder was presenting a Motion on behalf of Councillor D. Thompson. Councillor Thompson indicated the Motion was self-explanatory. Sun Vista had three phases; completed Phase 1, were working on Phase 2 and the former Township of Osgoode conditionally approved Phase 3 and they wanted that included in the new OP.

Councillor Cullen recalled dealing with a report on the Albion Sun Vista Lifestyle Community during this term. He would have expected Phase 3 to have come through the normal planning process and if it needed an amendment or a rezoning it would be through the process. Did the proposed Motion leapfrog the normal approval process? It appeared the case to approve something without the supporting documentation or conditions in conformity with the OP. Ms. Paterson explained that some of the land was currently designated rural natural feature and there was never an intent to amend the Plan once a proposal came forward. The feature was retained even after a development was approved; it provided that certain studies would be required. The Plan would never have been amended. Secondly, staff would not amend the Plan because they did not know what would happen in five years. It was similar to a grandfathering clause in the Plan. Councillor Cullen suggested the proposal should come through the normal evaluation to see what applied or did not apply and could/could not be recommended. This was premature.

Mr. Lathrop received confirmation there was approval of Phase 1 and 2 in the former Osgoode OP. He inquired if there was ever consideration for Phase 3 as being approved in the Osgoode OP. Ms. Currie responded that Phase 2 was in the process of being reviewed for approval; Phase 3 was currently outside the bounds of the OP. It was discussed as part of the original OP, but not incorporated. Mr. Lathrop had a problem, since it had not undergone a fairly rigorous review process, especially if was to be with water and wastewater in a communal system.

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

WHEREAS Albion Sun Vista Lifestyle Community has been completed in Phase 1, has been zoned for Phase 2, and has been conditionally approved by Official Plan Amendment #11 of the former Township of Osgoode for Phase 3.

AND WHEREAS future Zoning By-Law Amendments and site plan approvals will be required to complete this ongoing and developing community.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albion Sun Vista Lifestyle Community be recognized as a conforming use under the City’s new Official Plan by:

1. designating the entire site (Phases 1, 2 and 3) as General Rural Area on Schedule A; and,

2. adding the following new policy to Section 3.7.2

“x. The Albion Sun Vista Lifestyle Community (Phases 1, 2 and 3), a mobile home park, located in part of Lots 1 and 2, Concession IV, former Township of Osgoode is a permitted use under the General Rural Area designation. It is intended that development of this community is to take place on small water and wastewater works, subject to the requirements of Section 4.4.2.4.2.a) to d).”

LOST

YEAS (1): Councillor Harder

NAYS (8): Councillors Munter, Eastman, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume, Hunter

Section 3.7.2

Councillor Stavinga explained that at the last OP meeting staff was asked to provide alternative wording, if Committee wanted to consider the re-establishment of country estate lot developments because the current policy said no. Staff provided on page 70 of Agenda 49, beginning with Draft Policy Permitting Country Lot Subdivisions an extensive policy if the Committee wanted to consider that, which she referenced in her Motion. She was putting the amendment forward because many delegations came forward both to Committee as well as community meetings with regard to the former ROP, which permitted country estate lot developments. They were permitted with certain restrictions in place. In this draft, the door was closed entirely on country estate lot developments. She asked that they be re-introduced with various restrictions put in place; those specified by staff at the Committee’s request. It was also important to recognize that the Policy she was advancing was more restrictive than the former ROP, since that Plan allowed country estate lot developments to occur in NEA B; however, in the new OP NEA A and B were integrated into one area. As a consequence there was an automatic restriction not to allow them at all since NEA B did not exist. She asked the Committee to support the amendment, but also to recognize that it needed to be monitored since development was to be focused in the villages. She certainly wanted to see the Village of Richmond thrive. Policy 2 stated the City would monitor the residential development activity in the rural area on an annual basis to determine if villages were remaining as a primary focus of rural development. Based on that assessment, Council may revisit these policies for country estate lot development. Reviewing and monitoring was an important component of this Policy, but to go to no country estate lot development was too severe, given what was put forward in the ROP.

Councillor Munter stated that this Committee and Council approved the creation of some 125 or 130 new rural subdivision lots in the past two years in rural Kanata alone, which was an area with an annual take up for those lots in the neighbourhood of 30, thereby taking up a four-year supply of rural subdivision lots. That did not take into account previous permissions and approvals. He viewed the Policies around country estate lot development as a moratorium and at the time the five-year review, the demand for this kind of house could be looked at. There was clearly a demand for this type of housing, but there was already clearly enough land for this use. A five-year moratorium on more rural subdivisions to ensure there was something rural about the rural area made sense, with an opportunity to assess the demand. There was no need to add more estate lot subdivision in the rural area.

Councillor Cullen looked at the Draft Policy in Document 10 and noted it was an alternative policy with respect to country estate lot subdivisions, but staff did not recommend it. Mr. Jacobs confirmed the Councillor’s understanding, but should Councillor Stavinga’s Motion be approved there were some editorial corrections that had to be made.

Councillor Eastman wanted to support Councillor Stavinga’s Motion and asked the Committee to think about the fact that the OP directed growth in the rural area to the villages. That was an admirable plan, but it was not feasible. The villages could not absorb very much growth and the real difficulty was that the villages could not grow because in most cases they were surrounded by high priority agricultural land or in the case of Carp there were areas of natural scientific interest. The Policy put forward as an option by staff, but not recommended, kept the door open and the constraints were much more difficult than today. Looking at his area, the small construction companies would be unduly affected and existing lots would escalate in price with no additional lots coming on stream. He asked the Committee to support Councillor Stavinga’s Motion since it was important in the rural areas.

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:

WHEREAS Planning and Development Committee has heard from numerous delegations that Country Lot Subdivisions are an important, desired and necessary housing option for many residents within the City of Ottawa and are a significant component of the rural economy and;

WHEREAS Country Lot Subdivisions are appropriate in certain circumstances and generally well-suited for properties in rural areas and can yield environmentally-conscious development designed to preserve the natural, rural and agricultural character of areas outside of the greenbelt and;

WHEREAS the “Draft Policy Permitting Country Lot Subdivisions” provide some flexibility to allow a limited number of country lot subdivisions while preserving sufficient land for future urban and village boundary expansions;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the alternate “Draft Policy Permitting Country Lot Subdivisions”, as drafted by staff, and included in Document 10 (p.70) of the staff report accompanying the Draft Official Plan be adopted by City Council to amend Section 3.7.2 of the proposed Draft Official Plan.

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Document 10.5 Section F iii be amended to:

iii) Adjacent non-residential uses such as home-based businesses or clusters of non-residential uses such as rural industrial subdivisionss, which may conflict and whose expansion potential may be impeded by the presence of residential uses.

iv) DELETE.

LOST

YEAS (3): Councillors Eastman, Stavinga, Hunter

NAYS (5): Councillors Munter, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume

64. Page 99, Section 3.7.2

Amend policy 3a) by deleting the words, “~~concrete plants~~” and “~~and salvage and recycling yards~~” and adding the word, “and” after contractors, so that the phrase as amended reads, “building products yards, landscape contractors, and nurseries”, (Novatech)

CARRIED

65. Page 99, Section 3.7.2

Add a new policy 3b) which states, “Uses that are noxious by virtue of their noise, odour, dust or other emissions or that have potential for impact on air quality or surface water or groundwater, such as salvage or recycling yards, composting or transfer facilities; concrete plants; the treatment of aggregate products; and abattoirs” (Novatech);

CARRIED

Councillor Cullen questioned the rationale for deleting the last sentence “A transportation impact study will support applications for developments with potential to generate large volume of traffic.” Ms. Paterson responded that it was removed to be consistent. The requirement for a transportation impact study was covered in Section 4 and applied throughout the Plan and to make one specific reference to it was considered irrelevant.

66. Page 99 Section 3.7.2

Amend policy 4 b) by deleting the last sentence (Don Stephenson)

CARRIED

67. Page 99, Section 3.7.2

Delete policy 4 g) and replace it with a new policy that states, “Noxious uses will only be considered where suitable screening and buffering can be provided and generally these uses will not be considered in locations within groundwater recharge areas or immediately adjacent to residential areas, Scenic-Entry Routes, or waterfront areas.” (Novatech)

CARRIED

Page 100, Section 3.7.2.7 General Rural Area

Councillor Stavinga noted that in March the Committee deleted the reference to a similar policy for the urban area although it referred to a 5 km. distance as opposed to 1 km. She received confirmation it was in order for such a policy to be introduced.

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:

That Policy 7 be amended to read:

Development proposals within 1 kilometre of a village and/or urban boundary will be reviewed with respect to lot size, type of use and other …

CARRIED

Page 99, Section 3.7.2.3 b) General Rural Area

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

Amend to permit additional recreational uses, by adding a new policy 3c), and renumbering the following policies:

3c) New not for profit recreational uses, such as active parkland, conservation areas, soccer, rugby or other athletic fields, nature trails, cross country ski trails or similar uses:”

Councillor Cullen remarked that it had to do with General Area and 3 started off by saying “A Zoning By-Law Amendment will be required where any of the following uses are proposed in the General Rural Areas:” Councillor Harder wished to present the Motion and gave an example from a recent meeting; that would be St. Mark’s High School and the land temporarily re-zoned for soccer uses. Responding to a query, Ms. Paterson suggested that possibly b) could be amended to say, “new recreational commercial uses and not for profit recreational uses” and add in some examples. It fit with b).

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That Section 3.7.2.3 b) be amended to read:

New recreational commercial and non-profit uses, such as golf courses, driving ranges, mini putt operations, campgrounds, outdoor theme parks, sportsfields or similar uses.

CARRIED

68. Page 100, Section 3.7.2 General Rural Area

Amend by deleting policy 5a, “… ~~the subdivision will be located near to the interchanges on Highways 7, 416, and 417~~”. (Doc 20)

CARRIED

69. Page 100, Section 3.7.2 General Rural Area

Amend policy 6 (g) by adding the words “be less than” after the words “Limestone Resource Area”, so that the revised policy reads, “The lot will not impact on land designated Limestone Resource Area or be less than 150 metres from land designated Sand and Gravel Resource Area…” (Doc 20)

CARRIED

70. Page 102, Section 3.7.3 Agricultural Resources

Amend Policy 4, last line, to delete ‘~~accessory apartments~~’ and replace it with ‘secondary dwelling units’.

CARRIED

Section 3.7.3.10 and 11 Agricultural Resources, Farm Retirement Lots

Councillor Eastman indicated that as he read the current OP, a farm retirement lot could not be taken off the same farm, a second one; and, he agreed in that it could not be taken off the same property. But, most farms consist of numerous properties usually within a five-mile radius. He would not like to see a second retirement lot off the same property. But, if one was taken in 1980 and the next generation was retiring five years from now, they should be able to take a retirement lot off one of the other farms in their holdings that did not have one. He was in support of the once only on a property.

Mr. Lathrop required some clarification. On retirement lots, in the previous municipalities were they significantly different depending upon the municipality? Ms. Paterson responded that Policy 11 d) stated farming had to have commenced before January 1^st 1994. If she understood it correctly, the Policy would permit what he asked for. Councillor Eastman asked if the Motion, outlined below could be tabled for discussion with staff. Mr. Lathrop agreed that would be wise since a clear understanding was required. Eventually there would only be farm units of a certain size and no farm severances.

Whereas the criteria for obtaining a farm retirement lot as described in the draft op are substantially more restrictive than previous local and regional OP’s, i.e. January 1,1994 cutoff for start-up farmers,

Whereas previous OP’s dictated only one farm retirement lot could ever be created from a farm property,

Whereas the current draft op would extend that restriction to encompass all farm properties that constitute a single farming operation,

Therefore be it recommended that the restriction be revised to permit only one farm retirement lot that may ever be created from a farm property, as described in the current ROP.

The motion was tabled for discussion with staff.

Section 3.7.3.14 b) Agricultural Resources, Farm Consolidation – Surplus Dwelling

Councillor Eastman provided an analogy on the modern farm operation, which was a collection of multiple properties within a manageable distance. The Policies would prevent a new home on the balance of a farm that had a surplus dwelling severed. That would not allow a child to build on one of the farm properties since there were no farm help lots. The other impact was that if he were to purchase a farm that had the surplus farm dwelling severed, he would not be able to move to the farm, start up a farm operation, etc. The gist of his Motion was that a farmer could not build a new home on a property where a surplus farm dwelling was taken for a period of three years minimum or until it changed ownership. The current Policy acted to sterilize the land.

Responding to a query by Councillor Cullen for staff input, Mr. Lathrop believed the proposed Policy from staff was a similar Policy provided in many of the existing LOP, which talked about making sure that subsequent lots created were not automatically evolving into separate residential lots on a on-going basis. Ms. Paterson added that was the practice in Cumberland, in Rideau and she was aware that Regional staff applied that.

Mr. Lathrop commented that the principle was that unless there was such a restriction there was an ongoing creation of lots as time progressed. In these Policies a farm help dwelling unit was allowed on the same property, but did not allow for severance.

Moved by Councillor D. Eastman:

Whereas the agricultural industry in North America continues to undergo massive change and consolidation,

Whereas few modern farms consist of a single property,

Whereas the proposed policy would continue to permit farmers to sever a surplus farm dwelling from a newly purchased farm property and such policy is very important for the efficient operation of a modern farm,

Whereas farmland is commonly bought and sold as farms and farming operations evolve over time,

And whereas the draft recommendations that prohibit, in perpetuity, the construction of a new home on a property from which a surplus dwelling has been severed could seriously effect not only the value of the property but also the ability of a farm to evolve as circumstances change,

Therefore be it recommended that the first sentence in Section 3.7.3.14 b) be amended to replace the first sentence with the following: “The vacant agricultural parcel so created is rezoned to prohibit any residential use for a period of three years or until a change of ownership.”

CARRIED

YEAS (5): Councillors Harder, Munter, Eastman, Stavinga, Bellemare

NAYS (4): Councillors Cullen, Arnold, Hume, Hunter

Staff indicated with the approval of the Motion a Policy would need to be prepared.

Section 3.7.3.16 Agricultural Resources, Severances in Areas of Poor Soils

Councillor Eastman advised that the current Policy said that small scale industrial and commercial uses directly related to agriculture would be permitted. His Motion would broaden that to include a residential dwelling. He would be extremely surprised if businesses related to the agricultural community set up in these areas. Additionally, any new home would have to meet all the minimum separation distances.

Mr. Lathrop was certain there was a poor pockets policy in the former Osgoode OP and he believed there was one in place at the former Region. Ms. Paterson believed the Policy allowed residential uses on 2 ha. parcels. The permission was there in the ROP for a local municipality to amend their Plan to permit development on poor pockets; and, some municipalities did not do that. Poor pockets were defined as large 25-acre areas.

Chair Hunter submitted that if there was a desire to include a residential poor pockets policy, under Severances and areas of Poor Soils, there should be a 17 that referred to what would be allowed for residential development on poor pockets and it should be written specifically for residential and re-number the balance 18 and 19. Ms. Paterson agreed to draft the wording.

Moved by Councillor D. Eastman:

Whereas historically the idea of a “poor pocket policy” in agricultural designations was to recognize areas of land that are of little use to the agricultural industry,

And whereas such residential development must respect minimum separation distances from agricultural operations,

Therefore be it resolved that Section 3.7.3 be amended by adding a new Policy 17 as follows and that the balance be re-numbered:

17. The severance of one lot for residential purposes is permitted in areas of Poor Soils, as defined in Policy 16 above, provided the severed lot complies with the minimum distance separation formula and provided no previous lot has been severed for these purposes since the date of adoption of this Plan.

CARRIED

71. Page 106, Section 3.7.3, Agricultural – Infill in Areas of Clusters of Housing

Amend the wording of policy 18 in the third sentence to delete the wording “~~separate lots, generally with existing non-farm residences on each, that are of similar size and~~” and replace with the words “lots of similar size or between an existing lot and a cultural or physical feature, such as a road or water course,” so that the complete sentence reads: Only in these identified areas may lot(s) be created between two existing lots of similar size or between an existing lot and a cultural or physical feature, such as a road or water course, that are situated on the same side of the road and are not more than 100 metres apart. (ARAAC)

CARRIED

72. Page 109, Section 3.7.4 Mineral Resources

Add new policy 9 e) v), which states: “Wetlands, woodlands, and fish and wildlife habitat” (Conservation Authorities)

CARRIED

Councillor Stavinga had a concern with mineral resources and wanted it on the record that there continued to be concern with regard to the movement from mineral reserve to mineral extraction. To clarify the City’s ability to contain areas to be mineral reserve vs. turning them over to mineral extraction, it was her understanding if it was designated as a reserve that regardless of the fact there were neighbouring quarries opened, the City did not have the authority to continue it to be in reserve if the MNR through the Aggregate Act deemed it appropriate to give a license. Ms. Paterson confirmed that was correct. The Councillor followed that if the City wished the MNR in the licensing process to consider the supply; the fact there was a public perception and perhaps a truth the number of quarries opening up and yet the quarries were not exhausted and therefore rehabilitation was not happening, that there was a concern regarding the movement from reserve to extraction without rehabilitation. This was something the City would have to petition the Province.
Ms. Paterson responded that the Councillor was correct. Councillor Stavinga received confirmation that regardless of her frustration within her community with the issue there was nothing further with respect to OP policies that she could do.

Section 3.9 Snow Disposal Facilities

Councillor Stavinga introduced her Motion, which had the support of staff.

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:

WHEREAS, snow disposal facilities should be excluded from hazardous areas such as floodplains and adjacent to unstable slopes and natural environment areas

WHEREAS, permits would be required from the Conservation Authority in areas affected by the Conservation Authorities Act regulations and they would in all likelihood not be granted;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that 3.9 Snow Disposal Facilities be amended as follows:

1. That Policy 2 be amended to read: “Existing snow disposal facilities will be recognized in the zoning by-law. A new snow disposal facility will require an amendment to the zoning by-law. …”

2. That a new Policy be added stating:

Snow disposal facilities will not be permitted Natural Environment Areas, significant wetlands, south and east of the Canadian Shield, flood plains, unstable slopes and the urban natural features.

CARRIED

73. Page 113 Section 3.9

Add a new Policy 3 as follows and renumber existing Policy 3 as Policy 4. “The impacts of snow disposal facilities for existing or committed sites shall be mitigated through urban design and site plan control measures which include locating landscaping, road allowances, open space uses, utility installations, commercial uses etc. in any intervening separation distance between the SDF and a sensitive land use" (OCHBA)

CARRIED

74. Page 114, Section 3.10.1 Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport

Amend by deleting policy 2, which states “~~The distribution of land uses on airport lands will be based upon the Airport Master Plan~~” and adding a new policy 2, as follows: “The consideration of land uses on airport lands will be based upon the Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority Land Use Plan, as amended from time to time.” (Doc 20)

CARRIED

3.11 Special Study Area

Councillor Munter recapped that staff was directed by Committee to create the Special Study Area to deal with the lands between the two Terry Fox. His Motion was a refinement of the work undertaken by staff. Mr. Jacobs confirmed it was not exactly as proposed. Chair Hunter asked if it caused any difficulty for staff or the Plans and recalled that a presenter had made a representation stating the lands south of the Richardson Side Road should be part of the Special Study Area and the Councillor was simply stating that it be held off until such time as the Special Study was completed.

Councillor Munter submitted that Committee and Council approved putting the lands between the two Terry Fox alignments into a Special Study Area. The landowner requested that the southernmost portion of his lands not go into the Special Study Area, but be redesignated urban, changing from rural to urban. Given that the triangle of land was bisected by a series of roads and given that in all likelihood it would end up as urban in any event, it was a reasonable concession to make to the landowner, but to be clear there was a concession to the landowner and the urban boundary was being expanded. However, Clause 3, which was new, was designed to address the community concern precisely by saying that subdivision approval won’t happen until the Special Study was completed, which would be in 12 months. He pointed out that that land did not have zoning as yet and he did not think this was a hardship on the landowner and it did allow the City to look at the area as a whole, given that one of the other changes being made for Mr. Balys represented by Pamela Sweet was to add Section C, which was to say the Special Study Area would also look at the adjacent lands. The other change/clarification, which was the last clause, on the Schedule for the Special Study Area, was that the current underlying land use designations be reflected. The land was currently in the rural area. The Schedule B had the environmental designation as a rural environmental designation; and, the land below it had an urban designation. The Special Study should be allowed to conclude before it was determined what the designations were and he was reluctant to say it in an open forum, but there was a land acquisition matter coming forward and the City would purchase them. The designations should remain as they currently were, which was rural; conduct the Special Study; and, in all likelihood move some of the lands within the Special Study Area into general urban and potentially some lands outside the Special Study into general urban.

Mr. Lathrop added the Councillor was quite correct. This was one of those issues that had been difficult in terms of a number of different areas and it was reasonable from what was required from a planning perspective. Many assumed that Terry Fox Drive was the boundary of the urban area, but residents were correct that it should proceed through a Special Study Area designation to confirm that as a result of that study. Staff was content with how this was rolled out.

Moved by Councillor A. Munter:

THAT Section 3.11 (Special Study Area) in the Draft Official Plan be replaced in its entirety by the following:

“1. Lands in the vicinity of Terry Fox Drive are designated Special Study Area on Schedule B of this Plan. The purpose of the Special Study Area designation is to permit a refinement of designation boundaries within it. In particular, the city will undertake a study within 12 months of Council’s adoption of this Plan – in consultation with landowners, community groups, individuals and other stakeholders with an interest – to evaluate the following:

a) The appropriate boundaries of the Natural Environment Area found within the Special Study Area based on an assessment of natural values and its role as part of a large greenspace in the area;

b) Mechanisms to ensure public ownership of the Natural Environment Area Lands;

c) The relationship of all lands surrounding the Special Study Area, including the adjacent Natural Environment Area lands in the rural area to the west and north, to determine the potential greenspace linkages, trail connections and opportunities for land acquisition.

d) The most appropriate land use designations within the Special Study area; and

e) The location of the Urban Boundary.

2. The recommendations of the Special Study will require Council approval. At that time, a determination will be made as to the need for an Official Plan Amendment.

3. Subdivision approval on the lands to the south of Richardson Side Road, immediately adjacent to the Special Study Area, shall be withheld until the Special Study is complete in order to ensure that road connections, parkland dedications and other matters subject to subdivision approval are planned with regard to the findings of the Special Study and in a manner that will complement the land use designations and other findings of the Special Study.” and

FURTHER THAT, for clarity, the depiction of the Special Study Area on all Official Plan schedules reflect the current, underlying land use designations.

CARRIED

Section 3.10.1 Ottawa MacDonald-Cartier International Airport

Councillor Stavinga presented and provided rationale for her Motion.

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga

WHEREAS, the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport property is 1800 hectares in size, within the property there are natural areas important in their own right as well as areas linked to natural areas and functions off site and permitted uses are listed.

WHEREAS, extensive sand deposits also allow run off to percolate into the ground replenishing the shallow aquifer.

WHEREAS, work was done some years ago on developing a master drainage plan for the property and a comprehensive drainage planning will be required as this property develops to ensure that natural systems are sustained and that there are no adverse environmental impacts off the property.

WHEREAS, currently policy 3.10.1.3 reads “Where development is proposed adjacent to the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport, Section 4.8 will apply” and there is no reference, however, to constraints to development associated with the natural environment.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that reference must also be made to adherence to the provisions of Section 4.7 (Environmental Protection) of the Plan as well as to Section to 4.8 (Protection of Health and Safety).

CARRIED

75. Page 119, Section 4.2 Adjacent to Land-Use Designations

Amend the table below the heading by adding entries in the three columns, “Section 3.7.4/ Impact Assessment Study/ Development proposals for land within 500 metres of an licensed quarry or within 150 metres of a licensed pit where there may be conflict with existing extraction operations.” (Novatech)

CARRIED

76. Page 119, Section 4.2 Adjacent to Land-Use Designations

Amend the table below the heading by amending entries in the three columns across the first row, which state, “ Section 3.6.2/Ensure development proposals do not limit potential expansion of the urban area/Within an area of 1 kilometres outside of the urban area boundary”.

CARRIED

Additional Staff Motion, Page 119, Section 4.2

Add to the Table:

3.7.3

Intensive livestock operations involving the raising of pigs will be limited

Within 3 km. of a village, the urban area, existing or approved country lot subdivision etc.

Ms. Paterson clarified that in this section of the Plan, the table was not in itself establishing a Policy; it was referring Committee/Council to a variety of policies in the Plan that say within x m. of this or 5 km. of because they might be missed if someone was not reading the right section. It referred someone to a Section of the Plan; in of itself did not establish a Policy. Mr. Lathrop added that it clarified an existing Policy in the Plan.

Councillor Eastman indicating he was not putting forward a Motion to remove the 3 km. since there was no purpose in doing so, but the buffer zone will not survive since two Provincial Ministries would appeal it; numerous agricultural organizations would be appealing it; it eliminates expansions within the whole City of Ottawa. Staff have taken a position that it would not defend it at the OMB since they could not support it.

On the Motion.

CARRIED

YEAS (5): Councillors Munter, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume

NAYS (4): Councillors Harder, Eastman, Stavinga, Hunter

Page 118, Section 4.1 Site-Specific Policies and Secondary Policy Plans

Councillor Harder returned to her previous Motion from Monday. Originally the Motion was talking about the Site-Specific and Secondary Plan Policies. She asked the Committee to support her since it was an extremely important issue as a piece of the former Bell’s Corners Secondary Plan to the Bell’s Corners community.

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

WHEREAS the Planning and Development Committee at its meeting of April 2, 2003 received public delegations on the March, 2003 Draft Official Plan;

AND WHEREAS the Committee received written submissions form Wenda R. Daly and J. H. Ernest Daly dated December 5, 2002, February 20, 2003, and April 1, 2003, and heard a verbal submission from Wenda R. Daly;

AND WHEREAS the Dalys had requested that the contents of their letters, which included the Secondary Plan for the Bell’s Corners Community and Nepean Official Plan as amended by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as pertaining to the property in the triangle between Richmond Road and Moodie Drive and north of the Green Belt, be incorporated into Volume 2: Secondary Plans and Site Specific Policies of the March, 2003 Draft Official Plan;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff be directed to process an amendment to the Zoning By-Law for these lands, excepting those currently zoned as Institutional, to bring them into conformity with the provisions of the former Nepean Official Plan.

CARRIED

77. Page 123, Section 4.4.1 Servicing in Public Service Areas

Delete the first sentence of the preamble to this section, “~~Section 2.3 states that development in Public Service Areas must be on the basis of public services~~.” Add a new first sentence, “Development in Public Service Areas is primarily on the basis of public services, with exceptions described in Section 2.3.” (Novatech)

CARRIED

78. Page 124, Section 4.4.2 Private Water and Wastewater Servicing

Add a last paragraph to the preamble, before subsection 4.4.2.1, stating, “Requirements for private services in Public Service Areas, where no public services exist, are described in Section 2.3.” (Novatech)

CARRIED

79. Page 125, Section 4.4.2 Private Water and Wastewater Servicing

Amend Subsection 4.4.2.2 on severances, policy 2, by deleting the words “~~the City granting a severance~~” and adding the words, “the approval of the severance” so that the policy as amended reads, “…the City may require the proponent to drill a well and undertake hydrogeological testing, prior to approval of the severance.” (Novatech)

CARRIED

80. Page 127, Section 4.6 (OCHBA)

Amend the first column of the table below as follows

Delete:	Replace with:
~~4.6.6~~	4.6.2
~~4.4.4~~	4.6.3
~~4.6.4~~	4.6.3
~~4.6.7~~	4.6.3

CARRIED

Section 4.0 Review of Development Applications

81. Page 133, Section 4.6.5, Major Recreational Pathways

Amend policy 2 to add after the words “reviewing development applications” the words “for non-agricultural uses”. (ARAAC)

CARRIED

82. Page 134, Section 4.7.1 Integrated Review to Support Development

Amend by deleting the heading “~~Integrated Review to Support Development~~” and add a new heading, “Integrated Environmental Review to Assess Development Applications.” (Doc 20)

CARRIED

83. Page 134, Section 4.7

Amend the table below by deleting “~~Department of Oceans and Fisheries~~” and replacing it with “Department of Fisheries and Oceans” (OCHBA)

Amend the table below by deleting “~~4.7.5~~” and replacing it with “4.4.2”

CARRIED

84. Page 134, Section 4.7.1 Integrated Review

Amend the preamble to add Federal and Provincial Environmental Assessments to the list of examples so the second sentence now reads “… significant findings from support studies (e.g. tree preservation and protection plans, environmental impacts statements, stormwater site management plans, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments, and Federal or Provincial Environmental Assessments documents where applicable). (Greenspace Alliance)

CARRIED

85. Page 135, Section 4.7.2

Delete the last sentence in the introduction and replace it with the following:

“However, development proposals may necessitate removal of existing vegetative cover in some instances. Through the following policies, development proposals will be required to preserve vegetative cover to the greatest extent possible or replace it where removal cannot be avoided.” (OCHBA)

CARRIED

Page 135, Section 4.7.2 Protection of Vegetation Cover

Councillor Legendre had circulated a Motion copied below:

Resolved that:

The Ottawa Official Plan be amended by adding a seventh policy statement to Section 4.7.2 Protection of Vegetation Cover to read:

7. When considering development proposals, require that the development “design with nature” in such a way that woodlands in Ottawa are increased beyond 30%.

The Councillor explained that the idea beyond his Motion was that when subdivisions were approved they be done in such a way that the 30% in the OP was not eroded, but if anything went beyond it.

Mr. Lathrop cautioned that in some existing subdivision policies approved in some municipalities there was a restriction in terms of what vegetation could be allowed on a lot depending upon the soil type that existed in the area. Ms. Paterson advised that in Section 2 of the Plan there was a citywide target that was added in. She further cautioned the Committee against requiring that each subdivision application achieve at least 30%.

Councillor Hume agreed to move the Motion on the understanding that it was not per development application, but citywide so that the tree coverage was not reduced in each application such that the 30% across the City continued to be eroded, which was the point of the Motion as he understood it and why he agreed to support it.

Ms. Paterson suggested that possibly the better option would be to amend the Introduction to Policy 1, which was agreed to.

Moved by Councillor P. Hume:

That Policy 1, Section 4.7.2 be amended by adding to the beginning:

In order to support the Official Plan objective for 30% tree cover, applications for subdivision…

CARRIED

86. Page 135, Section 4.7.2 Protection of Vegetation Cover

Policy 1 h) delete the word “~~wildlife~~” and replace it with “fauna”.

CARRIED

87. Page 136, Section 4.7.2 Protection of Vegetation Cover

Delete policy 3 and renumber policies 4, 5, and 6 as 3, 4, and 5.

CARRIED with Councillors Cullen, Munter dissenting.

88. Page 137, Section 4.7.3 Erosion Prevention

Delete the word “~~current~~” from policy 7 and replace it with “established” and delete the word “~~practices~~” and replace it with “procedures.” (Conservation Authorities)

CARRIED

89. Page 139, Section 4.7.6 Stormwater Management

Amend policy 1 by deleting the words “~~and zoning~~” and adding the word, “and” after “subdivision”, so that the policy as amended reads, “A stormwater site management plan will be required to support subdivision and site-plan applications.” (Novatech)

CARRIED

90. Page 139, Section 4.7.6

Add a new policy 2 d) which states: “The quality of water that supports water-based recreational uses is not affected” (Conservation Authorities)

Renumber existing policies 2 d), e) and f) as 2 e), f), and g).

Delete former policy 2 f), now renumbered as policy 2 g), and replace it with the following:

“Any other impacts on the existing infrastructure or natural environment are addressed in a manner consistent with established standards and procedures;” (Conservation Authorities)

Add a new policy 2 h) which states:

“Objectives related to the optimization of wet weather infrastructure management are realized. (Conservation Authorities)

CARRIED

91. Page 140, Section 4.7.8

Add the following to the preamble to the description of Environmental Impact Statement to clarify that they will be reviewed and approved by the City or delegate so that the preamble reads “…and Rural Natural Features. These statements will be reviewed and assessed by the City or delegated authority as a component of the approvals process”. (Greenspace Alliance)

CARRIED

92. Page 140, Section 4.7.8 Environmental Impact Statement

Delete policy 2 a) and replace it with the following:

“A map drawn to scale identifying the location and extent of the feature, a description of the environmental values within the environmental feature or designation which could potentially be adversely effected by the proposed development, a description of the terrain/topography, vegetative cover and types, soil type and depth, and surface water movement patterns;” (Conservation Authorities)

CARRIED

93. Page 140, Section 4.7.8 Environmental Impact Statement

Add a new policy 2h) which states:

“Identification of monitoring needs and recognition of parties to be responsible for assessing and reporting on these needs over a prescribed period of time.” (Conservation Authorities)

CARRIED

94. Page 142, Section 4.8 (OCHBA)

Amend the first column of the table below as follows

Delete:	Replace with:
~~4.8.4 Phase 1 ESA~~	4.8.5 Phase 1 ESA
~~4.8.4 Evaluation safety hazard~~	4.8.6 Evaluation safety hazard
~~4.8.6 Noise control study; Airport zoning requirements~~	4.8.7 Noise control study; Airport zoning requirements
~~4.8.7 Noise study Vibration Study~~	4.8.8 Noise study Vibration Study
~~4.8.7 Noise control feasibility study~~	4.8.8 Noise control feasibility study
~~4.8.7 Noise Study~~	4.8.8 Noise Study

CARRIED

95. Page 144, Section 4.8.3 Unstable Soils or Bedrock

Amend the preamble by deleting the first sentence of the introduction, which states, “~~Unstable soils or bedrock could be unsafe for development and site alteration due to natural hazards~~” and replace it with the following: “Unstable soils or bedrock could be unsafe or unsuitable for development and site alteration due to natural hazards or risk of damage to the structures built on these soils or bedrock.” (Doc 20)

CARRIED

96. Page 144, Section 4.8.3 Unstable Soils or Bedrock

Further amend the preamble by deleting the second paragraph, which states, “This Plan contains policies to minimize the threat of injury and loss of life, property damage and distress caused by slope failure or landslide and to facilitate safe and compatible land uses and development on sites where hazard risk has been minimized.”

Add the following text:

“This Plan contains policies to:

· Minimize the hazard risk from threat of injury and loss of life, property damage and distress caused by unstable soils resulting in foundation stress caused by differential settlement, or slope failure or landslide, and

· Facilitate safe and compatible land uses and development on sites where hazard risk has been minimized.” (Doc 20)

CARRIED

Councillor Cullen requested clarification on Motion 97. Ms. Paterson advised the intent was to ensure that a property be examined in terms of the presence of Leda Clay, but staff in error stated that development should not be permitted where there was Leda Clay, when it intended to say that where safe to do so it would be permitted otherwise it would not. The real key change over previous Plans was that a geotechnical analysis would be required for all development and subsequently precautions would be identified. Councillor Cullen received confirmation that even though it would be removed there were other policy statements that would require certain standards to be met before it was safe to build.

Councillor Harder inquired which large parts of the City would be affected. Mr. Lathrop responded that it affected many areas in Orleans, the South Urban Community, portions of the West Urban Community outside the bedrock areas; there was a fairly complicated geotechnical requirement. Councillor Harder was concerned because there were areas in her Ward with two grade separations in Fallowfield and Woodroffe.

Chair Hunter pointed out that the Committee twice heard from representatives of the built community that had horror stories on the drawing of clay and the dewatering of the clay when construction took place around them.

Councillor Stavinga noted that of the areas mentioned it would include the Village of Richmond and by prohibiting development it would effectively prohibit development in that Village. She understood staff to say there would need to be sufficient geotechnical analysis to allow development and if there were not those various assurances as identified in the Policy statement, then development would not happen. Mr. Lathrop clarified that the original Policy was placed in error; since it was never intended for development not to occur on Leda Clay, but that development occur cautiously. Councillor Stavinga noted the problems areas cited by Chair Hunter and Councillor Harder and questioned whether lessons were learned and that the Policy was tighter than previously. Mr. Lathrop responded that was the case in that the geotechnical requirements prior to a subdivision would outline the stability factors, subsurface materials required, etc.

97. Delete policy 2, which states, “~~In areas identified as having Leda Clay, development will not be permitted~~.” and renumber policy 3 as 2. (Doc 20)

CARRIED with Councillors Harder, Hunter dissenting.

Additional Staff Motions; Section 4.8.7 Land Use Constraints Due to Aircraft Noise

a. Page 147, third sentence of the first paragraph – add the word “auditorium” after “libraries”.

b. Page 148, Delete the last two sentences “~~The Ottawa Airport Influence Zone~~ shown on Schedule K indicate where shows the area where the noise contours apply. The extent of the noise contours will be determined by consulting the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) and Noise Exposure Projection (NEP) maps” and replace them with the following sentence “The Ottawa Airport Influence Zone is shown on Schedule K”.

c. Page 148, amend policy 2b) by adding the following sentence “ The prescribed Measures Document only applies to typically built residential tract housing”.

CARRIED

Page 150, Section 4.8.8 Road, Rail, Transit Corridor Noise and Noise from Stationary Sources

Councillor Legendre had circulated a Motion together with a copy of the current ROP that dealt with the same topic, that he asked Committee to consider. Essentially the Motion was to reinstate in the Plan the identical language that existed in the Region’s Policy. He explained that the relevant point over which the noise would be averaged. Mr. Jacobs advised that the level of detail was more than staff would prefer. The intent of the policy as proposed did not create any difficulty for staff. The technical ability to carry out the work was slightly different and may have some impacts in terms of gathering information and providing it, but it could be done.

Moved by Councillor P. Hume:

That Section 4.8.8 Road, Rail, Transit Corridor Noise and Noise from Stationary Sources be amended by adding the following text immediately following the opening two sentences:

Council recommends the following maximum average noise level (Leq) for noise from roads, railways or Transitways:

· 58 dBA (decibels on a weighted scale average for 30 minutes i.e. Leq (30 min.)) or less averaged between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.

· 53 dBA (Leq (30 min.)) or less averaged between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

This is considered an acceptable level for outdoor living areas of residential areas and other land uses such as nursing homes, schools, and day care centres. However, noise from major roads, railways and Transitways are likely to exceed these levels in urban areas.

CARRIED

Section 5 – Implementation

98. Page 154, Section 5.1, Introduction, add a bullet under Entering into Partnerships to say: “Establish a working partnership with the Conservation Authorities to address environmental matters with special emphasis on watershed, sub-watershed planning, stormwater management, fish habitat and Environmental Impact Assessments.” (RVCA)

CARRIED

Additional Staff Motion, Page 31, Section 2.3.2, new Policy 6

Ms. Paterson clarified the need for this Motion since the City was sending a sewer down Leitrim Road, from Bank Street to the community centre, and permitting this property to connect to the sewer. Evidently, the manner in which the Plan is written there would need to be an amendment to permit that. Over time a general policy could be written to deal with that type of situation, but for the time being to permit this property to connect a site specific policy was required.

6. Notwithstanding the policies of this Section, the property known as 4505 Bank Street, located outside of the urban boundary, is permitted to connect to the sanitary sewer.

CARRIED

Additional Staff Motion, Page 156, Section 5.2.1.7

The City may utilize a holding symbol (H), in conjunction with any use designation in the Zoning By-Law to specify the use to which lands shall be put to in the future, but which are now considered premature or inappropriate for immediate development.

CARRIED

Annex 1 – Road Classification and Rights-of-Way

99. Page A-1, 1.0 Classification Summary – City Freeway

Amend the wording of the first sentence by changing the word “cross-city” to “intra-city”. (Jeanes)

CARRIED

Annex 1 – Road Classification and Rights-of-Ways

Councillor Stavinga advised that she had two Motions on Road Classification and Rights-of-Ways.

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga

That there appears to be a number of discrepancies in the Rights of Ways to be protected for those roads located in the former Township of Goulbourn listed in Tables 1 and 3;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the ROWs for these roads be approved subject to further clarification and confirmation between City staff and the Goulbourn Ward Councillor prior to adoption of the OP by City Council.

CARRIED

Councillor Stavinga had understood from staff that these particular Tables were changing daily as new information came forward and Goulbourn would not be the only area experiencing changes. She understood that staff would be revising the Tables and highlighting the new information and striking out those that were incorrect to provide further clarity for Council. Ms. Paterson advised that all of the Motions related to the same type of Tables and to facilitate the process staff would collect the information as outlined by Councillor Stavinga.

The following Table noted errors with respect to streets being incorrect or spelling.

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga

Amend Annex 1 - Table 6 – Collector Former Township of Goulbourn

Changes are underlined text.

Road	From	To	ROW to be Protected

Harry Douglas Drive	Iber Road	Randall James Drive
Hobin Street	Carp Road	Renshaw Avenue
Iber Road	Abbott Street East	Hazeldean Road
Johnwoods Street	Hazeldean Road	Maple Grove Road
Moss Hill Trail	Trailway Circle	Abbott Street East
Ottawa Street	McBean Street	Eagleson Road
Shea Road	Brownlee	Abbott Street East
Sweetnam Drive	Hazeldean Road	Harry Douglas Drive
Trailway Circle	Hedgerow Lane	Moss Hill Trail
Trailway Circle	Springbrooke Drive	Moss Hill Trail

CARRIED

Motions 99 – 124 were dealt with in Bulk

100. Page A-6, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial - Existing

Remove Bayswater/Bayview from Scott to Somerset (Doc 4)

101. Page A-6 Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

Amend Booth (Chaudière to proposed Lebreton Boulevard) to replace “39” with “30 + 9” and replace the text of the note as follows: “Note: a 9 metre widening on the east side of Booth may or may not be required pending the outcome of the Interprovincial Transit Study.” (NCC)

102. Page A-6 Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

On Booth (Proposed Lebreton Blvd to Fleet), delete note. On Booth (Fleet to Aqueduct), delete note. On Boothe (Aqueduct to Wellington), delete note. (Doc 4)

103. Page A-7 Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – existing

Delete the road segment and note for Commissioner (Wellington to Bronson).

104. Page A-7 Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – existing

Amend Cyrville (St. Laurent to 100 m north of Maxime) by changing the word “St. Laurent” to “Cummings”

105. Page A – 7, Annex 1, Table 1 - Urban Arterial Roads

Add a new road segment as follows: Cummings, from Ogilvie to Cyrville, 37.5 metres, to reflect that planning for the roads in this area diverts Cyrville through-traffic via Cummings to Ogilvie. (Doc 20)

106. Page A – 7, Annex 1, Table 1 - Urban Arterial Roads

Delete the road segment Dalhousie, St. Patrick to Murray, 20 metres, to correct an error in classifying this collector road as an arterial. (Doc 20)

107. Page A-8, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

On Heron, in the Prince of Wales segment to Bank, change “Bank” to “Bronson/Airport Parkway” and add in new line “Heron - Bronson/Airport Parkway – Bank 37.5”. (Doc 4)

108. Page A – 8, Table 1 - Urban Arterial Roads

Delete the road segment Fleet, Booth to Lett, 21 metres, because it is no longer needed for approved plans for LeBreton Flats area. (Doc 20)

109. Page A-10, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

On Leitrim (River Road to SUC limit) add “Note: An additional 5.0m on the Greenbelt side may be required to construct a rural cross-section.” (Doc 4)

110. Page A-13, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

Delete Prince of Wales (Greenbelt Boundary to Amberwood) and revise following segment of Prince of Wales by changing “Amberwood” to “Greenbelt Boundary”. (Doc 4)

111. Page A-13, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

Amend Preston (Northern terminus to Scott), with a 23m r-o-w, to Preston (Proposed Lebreton Boulevard to Wellington) with a 26m r-o-w.

112. Page A-13, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

Amend Preston (Scott to Carling) to replace reference to “Scott” with “Wellington”.

113. Page A – 15 Annex 1, Table 1 - Urban Arterial Roads

Change the segment St. Joseph, Eastern Urban Community – west limit to Place d’Orléans, 37.5 metres to Eastern Urban Community – west limit to Edgar Brault, 32 metres to reflect recent studies for the future development of St. Joseph Boulevard. (Doc 20)

114. Page A – 15 Annex 1, Table 1 - Urban Arterial Roads

Add in a new segment St. Joseph, Edgar Brault to Gabriel, 26 metres, to reflect recent studies for the future development of St. Joseph Boulevard. (Doc 20)

115. Page A – 15, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial Roads

Delete the reference to St. Joseph, Place d’Orléans to Trim, 44.5 metres and replacing it with two new segments: St. Joseph, Gabriel to 130 metres west of Duford/Place d’Orléans, 32 metres; and St. Joseph, 130 m west of Duford/Place d’Orléans to Trim, 37.5 metres, to reflect studies of future development of St. Joseph Boulevard. (Doc 20)

116. Page A-16, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

Delete Woodroffe (West Hunt Club to South Urban Community - north limit) and replace “South Urban Community - north limit” with “Fallowfield”. (Doc 4)

117. Page A-16, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

Change Woodroffe (South Urban Community - north limit to Longfields) to Woodroffe (Fallowfield to Greenbelt Boundary). (Doc 4)

118. Page A-16, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

Change Woodroffe (Longfields to Strandherd) to Woodroffe (Greenbelt Boundary to Strandherd) and drop note. (Doc 4)

119. Page A-18, Annex 1, Table 2 – Urban Arterials (Proposed)

Amend Lebreton reference to add after “Lebreton” the words “proposed new boulevard” (Jeanes)

120. Page A – 28 Annex 1, Table 5 – Major Collectors and Collectors, Former City of Gloucester

Change the reference in the segment of Cummings between Donald and Cyrville to Donald and Ogilvie, to reflect that use of St. Laurent, Ogilvie, Cummings and Cyrville (east of Cummings) as the main roads in the area means the upgrading of this segment of Cummings south of Ogilvie Avenue to arterial and its placement in Table 1. (Doc 20)

121. Page A-29, Annex 1, Table 6 – Collector – Former Township of Goulbourn

On Abbott Street East (Main Streeet to Sweetnam Drive) replace reference to Sweetnam Drive with “Iber Road”. (Doc 4)

122. Page A-29, Annex 1, Table 6 – Collector – Former Township of Goulbourn

On Iber Road (Harry Douglas Drive to Hazeldean Road) replace reference to Harry Douglas Drive with “Abbot Street East”. (Doc 4)

123. Page A-38, Annex 1, Table 10 – Major Collector and Collector, Former City of Ottawa

Add Bayswater/Bayview from Scott to Somerset with a right-of-way to be protected of 23 metres. (Doc 4)

124. Page A – 42, Annex 1, Table 13 – Collector, Former Township of West Carleton

Change the reference in the segment of Upper Dwyer Hill between Herrick and Richie to Future Highway 417 and Richie, to reflect that the new Highway 417 work truncates this roadway. (Doc 20)

CARRIED

Additional Staff Motion, Annex 1 - Road Classification and Rights-of-way

Page A-9, Annex 1, Table 1 - Urban Arterial Roads

Amend Jeanne d'Arc (St. Joseph to Innes) to change "~~St. Joseph~~" to "Highway 174".

CARRIED

Annex 2A

125. Amend Annex 2A Central Area Key Views and View Sequences of the Parliament Buildings and other National Symbols by inserting a title page and a table that identifies the locations of the numbered viewpoints shown on Annex 2A, as attached as Document 25.

CARRIED

Annex 3 - Central Area Gateways, Nodes and Distinctive Streets

126. Amend the lower box on the map by replacing the word "deleted" between "to be" and "upon relocation" with "added" so that the revised sentence in the box reads " Gateway to be added upon relocation of the Ottawa Parkway".

CARRIED

Annex 6 – Urban – Areas Subject to a Community Design Plan or Policy Plan approved by Ottawa City Council

127. Amend Annex 6, which is provided for information purposes only, by adding the following note: “Annex 6 represents areas subject to a community design plan or policy plan at the time of printing. Periodic updating of Annex 6 does not require an Official Plan Amendment.” (Doc 20)

CARRIED

Schedules

Schedule A – Rural Policy Plan

Motions 128 – 131 were considered together.

128. Amend Schedule A to add a Provincially Significant Wetland at the Highway 7 and 417 interchange as shown on Document 21, to correct an omission from the schedule. (Doc 20)

129. Amend Schedule A to add the boundary of the Special Study Area east of the future alignment of Terry Fox Drive, as shown on Attachment 1, to reflect that the boundary in this location is subject to further study. (Doc 20)

130. Amend Schedule A, adjacent to Stittsville, south of Abbot and between Shea and Caribou to add change a small area from General Rural Area to Natural Environment Area as shown in Document 27.

131. Amend Schedule A to change the boundary of the Village of Greely to reflect Amendment 40 to the Osgoode Official Plan as shown in Document 26.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:

Amend Schedule A – Rural Policy Plan to change the designation for the Richmond Conservation Area from Major Open Space to Natural Environment Area in keeping with Section 3.2.2 Natural Environment Areas as well as the designation in Volume 2-C Village Plans for Richmond.

CARRIED

Councillor J. Stavinga asked that it be on the record that she WITHDREW the following two Motions. She had originally put them forward since the Goulbourn OP as it related to Agriculture Resource Areas had significantly more designated than was in the Draft OP. That concerned her, but after speaking to Ms. Paterson it was confirmed that the new OP was actually more up to date than the Goulbourn and it was as a consequence of the LEER process that lands were taken. She was concerned that appropriate amounts were not designated. With the Limestone it was the reverse, where the ROP identified more than was in Goulbourn.

Amend Schedule A – Rural Policy Plan to revise the areas designated Agricultural Resource Areas to be consistent with those areas designated in the Goulbourn Official Plan (Office Consolidation – October 2000).

Amend Schedule A – Rural Policy Plan to revise the areas designated Limestone Resource Areas to be consistent with those areas designated in the Goulbourn Official Plan (Office Consolidation – October 2000).

WITHDRAWN

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:

Amend Schedule A – Rural Policy Plan to adopt contrasting colour codes for the land use designations to avoid the current difficulty in distinguishing between colours for such designations as General Rural Area and Urban Area.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That Schedule A be amended to change the designation of lands located in the east half of Lot 1 Concession 1, former Township of Osgoode, from “~~Agricultural Resource Area~~” to “General Rural Area”.

Councillor Harder explained that the amendment stemmed from the St. Mark’s High School situation. Responding to a question by Councillor Cullen, Mr. Jacobs advised that staff would not support the amendment. There was no information provided to support the change. If Committee or Council wished to recommend the change, once the Plan was submitted to the Province, it would be reviewed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, which will ask for evidence on the change and documentation would need to be provided.

Chair Hunter returned to the presentation by the Osgoode Rideau Soccer Association and their representatives who provided reasons why redesignation should be made. One, the school did not sit on agricultural resource and was an institutional use. The land next to it was marginally agricultural at best; a lot of which was overgrown, etc.

On the Motion:

LOST

YEAS (3): Councillors Harder, Eastman, Hunter

NAYS (6): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume,

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:

That Schedule A, Rural Policy Plan, be amended to change the Limestone Resource Area Designation to General Rural, in the east half of Lot 20, Concession 10, in the former Township of Goulbourn.

Councillor Stavinga advised that this related to the presentation by David McManus with regard to the Macy’s Estate Subdivisions. This area was less than 1 km. of the boundary of the Village of Stittsville. It was a small limestone resource parcel divided by two property owners. There was multiple ownership. There were questions with respect to the size of the deposit and Mr. McManus provided detailed information as well as a schematic for the area. There was concern with regard to the proximity to the significant wetland and the fact this will, of course, in terms of set back, impact the aerial extent that could be excavated; the proximity to areas of natural features as well. There were significant concerns.

In response to a query, Mr. Jacobs advised that staff was not in support of the proposal. The evidence presented to date was insufficient to warrant a redesignation. If there was sufficient evidence, the regular process should be undertaken to amend the Plan.

On the Motion:

LOST ON A TIE VOTE

YEAS (4): Councillors Harder, Stavinga, Bellemare, Hunter

NAYS (4): Councillors Eastman, Cullen, Arnold, Hume

Schedule B – Urban Policy Plan

Motions 132 – 137 were considered together.

132. Amend Schedule B to delete the Employment Area designation south of Strandherd Drive and west of the Town Centre, and add a General Urban Area designation, as shown on Attachment 2, to reflect the current designation in the Official Plan for the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton. (Doc 20)

133. Amend Schedule B by deleting the Mainstreet designation on Bronson Avenue north of Gloucester Street at the boundary of the Central Area, to ensure a consistent approach to terminating Mainstreet designations at the boundary of the Central Area, where all streets function as Mainstreets. (Doc 20)

134. Amend Schedule B with respect to the public lands along the East Shore of the Rideau River accessed from Rhea Place (off River Road) from Natural Environment Area to Urban Natural Feature as shown in Document 28.

135. Amend Schedule B with respect to the intermittent creek corridor south of Leitrim, between River Road and Limebank, from Major Open Space to Employment Area as shown in Document 28.

136. Amend Schedule B with respect to Gloucester Glen / Boyd Farm Are from Natural Environment Area and Greenbelt Rural designation to General Urban Area as shown in Document 28.

137. Amend Schedule B at the mouth of Mosquito Creek at River and Leitrim Roads from Natural Environment Area to Urban Natural Feature as shown in Document 28.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor P. Hume: (on behalf of Councillor W. Stewart)

Whereas the Secondary Plan for the Hunt Club Community takes precedence over the policies in Volume 1:

Amend Schedule B to designate a Major Open Space between Riverside Drive (to the west) and the rail corridor (to the east) to reflect exactly the designation found in Schedule 1 of the Hunt Club Secondary Plan and found in Volume 2A of the Official Plan.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

Whereas concerns relating to the possible development of lands known as the Woodroffe-Merivale Corridor adjacent to the Crestview Community have been identified.

Whereas these concerns relate to serious construction problems in the area related to Leda clay, certain traffic congestion, loss of previously identified open space and conflict with a future recreational pathway identified in the Official Plan.

Therefore be it resolved that Schedule B be amended to designate the lands as Urban Open space

Be it further resolved that the city owned lands adjacent to Nepean Creek, except for the playing fields, be designated as Urban Natural Feature.

Responding to a query, Mr. Jacobs advised that staff did not support a change at this point, since these were lands that would be studied under the Greenspace Master Plan and at that point staff would come back after having used a continuous method of evaluation to balance off what the issues were and what should be greenspace and what should not be and come forward with an amendment at the end of that process towards the end of 2004 with appropriate designations recommended for these lands as well as other greenspace lands.

Councillor Cullen indicated he would support this Motion. In the 1997 ROP, the Region had to deal with NCC and their National Interest Land Mass Study (NILM) that had proposed at one point disposing certain inner Greenbelt Corridors, which the City had identified and this corridor was part of that. The community always saw this as Open Space as part of the Inner Greenbelt Lands. It was unfortunate it was not captured at that time; this was now correcting an oversight from 1997 and should form part of the Major Open Greenspace or Urban Open Space within the context of this OP.

Chair Hunter heartedly supported the Motion and thanked Councillor Harder for putting the Motion forward. In the interests of fairness there was Policy in the Plan that said General Urban Area that formed Transportation Corridors no longer needed for transportation would be considered for urbanization.

On the Motion:

CARRIED

YEAS (6): Councillors Harder, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Hume, Hunter

NAYS (3): Councillors Munter, Eastman, Arnold,

Councillor Harder presented a Motion, with an attached map that had an area outline at Merivale and Hunt Club, which straddled hers and Chair Hunter’s Wards.

Moved by Councillor Harder:

That Schedule B should amend the boundary according to the attached highlighted map at the Hunt Club and Merivale intersection to General Urban from Employment Area.

Councillor Harder advised that the Head Office and Warehouse for Costco, Canadian Tire, The Brick, Rona, Mobilia, GoodLife, etc. were located in that area. The change made sense.

Councillor Cullen would expect that if big box were coming in that a study and other requirements would be undertaken. This was another means of amending the OP without supporting studies. He asked staff if this was an OPA without supporting studies and was it something that staff would support. Mr. Jacobs responded that staff did not support the Motion and it was an OPA.

Councillor Munter had suggested to Councillor Harder that if the designation was wrong change the designation, but by going through the regular process. He was informed the area encompassed approximately 50 acres. It was a major OPA and the process, with advertising, etc. should be followed. Chair Hunter submitted that calling this area Employment or Enterprise Area followed forward the historic designation on that whole block of land from McFarland to Colonnade, from Prince of Wales to the Hydro Corridor west of Merivale for a very long time. He submitted that an OP Review should accomplish amongst other things to clear up anomalies that occurred since the OP and one of those since the late 1980’s was that while this area was called some form of Employment Area between the LOP and ROP; it developed with the help of many studies, starting with the Costco/Price Club Study to justify the insertion of various retail uses. It was one of the busiest intersections in the City and functioned as a Retail Area whether the City wanted it to or not. In a sense it was an Employment Area since many employees worked there serving the public. There would be no problem to continue that except that inserting into the Employment Area text were issues and polices that become problematic for the landowners and developers. It was largely built out as retail, some big box, some smaller supporting industries, but it was anything but a concrete plant, a truck repair, that occurred in the rest of the Merivale Acres Business Park. It was time to recognize it as a Retail Area. He added that because of the correct policies for Employment Areas being inserted into the Plan, exception had to be made now and remove the lands from the Employment Area because they were not functioning that way.

Mr. Jacobs acknowledged that the area was studied in a multitude of ways with costly OMB Hearings, but the purpose of all those studies was to demonstrate these lands were not retail, but Employment lands accommodating a use that did not fit in a retail category. They were intended to satisfy the big box format coming into the community without compromising the retail areas. The whole premise behind the areas was to identify an area where big box would fit and operate in the context of the retail hierarchy at the time. For that reason it was put into an Employment Area and was actually quite consistent with the policies the Committee removed earlier from the Retail Policy Section. With respect to the Motion itself, to move it to General Urban would not permit current uses because the scale of retail proposed was beyond that permitted in the General Urban Area. They would need to be on a Mainstreet or a mixed use centre that allowed the existing intensity. Other than the Crossroads Centre, the other uses were traditionally found in Employment Areas; they were land extensive, the automobile dealerships, the fitness clubs, were all supportive uses that fit into the General Employment Category, particularly moving south of the West Hunt Club Road.

Chair Hunter questioned the feasibility of changing the wording from General Urban to Mixed Use. Mr. Jacobs suggested “Mainstreet” with some General Urban. The Mainstreet would be extended along West Hunt Club. The policies under Mainstreet talked about frontage when talking about the design guidelines to put in place. It would only be frontage along Merivale Road, which was already built.

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That the Motion be amended to read:

That Schedule B should amend the boundary according to the attached highlighted map at the Hunt Club and Merivale intersection to General Urban and that the Mainstreet be extended from Roydon to the power lines.

Moved by Councillor P. Hume:

That the item be split.

On the General Urban designation.

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors Harder, Hunter

NAYS (6): Councillor Munter, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume

Councillor Harder WITHDREW the Mainstreet amendment.

Schedule C – Primary Urban Cycling Transportation Network

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga

Amend Schedule C – Primary Urban Cycling Transportation Network to include the:

off-road cycling route extending west from Stittsville Village Square to Carleton Place as well as the on-road cycling route from Stittsville Main Street at Abbott Street southbound to Fernbank, eastbound to Shea Road and northbound to the Trans Canada Trail.

CARRIED

Additional Staff Motion:

Amend Schedule C to add in as an on-road cycling route the following road segments: North River Road in between Montréal Road and McArthur Avenue, Montréal Road/Rideau Street in between North River Road and Cobourg Street, all of Cobourg Street, Stewart Street west of Cobourg Street and Ogilvie Road north of Montréal Road.

CARRIED

Schedule D – Primary Transit Network

138. Amend Note 3, in reference to ROW protection for future rapid transit corridors, by adding after “40 metres” the words “or a lesser width if determined to be suitable by the City.” (Jeanes)

Councillor Hume questioned when it would be determined that a smaller ROW was suitable? Was that not done through the EA process? Staff advised that a number of speakers had pointed out that perhaps in the case of light rail the full 40 m. would not be needed. The wording suggested that depending on further study it may be less than 40m. The criticism was that the reference was overstating what was required. Councillor Hume emphasized that in some cases corridors were being designated that were not 40 m. without knowing the exact parameters and whether the corridor could be achieved in those spaces. He added that corridors were being designated in his Ward that were not 40 m. wide and probably less than 10 m. wide suggesting they were acceptable and the community was saying they were not. He posited the wider the corridor the better, not smaller.

CARRIED with Councillors Harder, Stavinga, Hume dissenting.

Councillor Hume asked that his dissent be noted on the Browning Avenue Corridor (from the Alta Vista Corridor to Russell Road; west of the Innes/St. Laurent link, a bus only rapid transit corridor). He added that the Riverview Park Community Association most likely would be appealing the designation of that Corridor.

Schedule E – Urban Road Network

139. Amend Schedule E to indicate that the bridge at Armstrong Road in the South Urban Community is “Proposed” rather than “Existing”. (Doc 20)

CARRIED

140. Amend Schedule E to indicate that the portion of Cummings Avenue in between Ogilvie Road and Cyrville Road is classified as an arterial road and not a major collector. (Doc 20)

CARRIED

141. Amend Schedule E to indicate that the portion of Cyrville Road in between St. Laurent Boulevard and Cumming Avenue is classified as a local road and not an arterial road. (Doc 20)

CARRIED

142. Amend Schedule E to indicate only the following roads in the former Village of Rockcliffe Park as collectors:

· Acacia between Corona/Rideau Terrace to Beechwood

· Lisgar between Maple Lane and Princess

· Princess between Lisgar and Rockcliffe Parkway (Doc 20)

Moved by Councillor P. Hume:

That Staff Motion 142 be amended as follows:

1. That the Official Plan be amended by redesignating in Schedule E the following roads as local and not collectors:

· Acacia between Corona/Rideau Terrace to Beechwood

· Lisgar between Maple Lane and Princess

· Princess between Lisgar and Rockcliffe Parkway (Doc 20)

Mr. Jacobs pointed out that the Motion would in effect be deleting all references to Collector Roads from Rockcliffe since currently Schedule E illustrate some collectors and the community would like to have them all removed. The purpose of Motion 142 was to remove some and only include those that were boundary roads. On the basis of the work done with respect to the collector system that there was a need to maintain continuity in the network at least around the edge of the Village of Rockcliffe if not through the former Village of Rockcliffe.

On the Motion:

CARRIED with Councillor Harder dissenting

2. That Alta Vista Drive be considered as a collector and not a Major Collector.

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors Munter, Hume

NAYS (6): Councillor Harder, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hunter

Responding to a question by Councillor Stavinga on the designation of collector roads, Mr. Jacobs advised that the primary work done to designate the roads as collectors was a uniform look across the City from a maintenance perspective, primarily winter. The improvements or changes to the roads would be subject to any normal budgeting process, which would entail volumes and standards, etc. all of which were subject to a public process.

Motions 143 – 150 were considered together.

143. Amend Schedule E to indicate that Labelle Street between Michael Street and Cumming Avenue is classified as a major collector.

144. Amend Schedule E to indicate that Jeanne D’Arc Blvd between St. Joseph Blvd. and Regional Road 174 is classified as an arterial and not as a major collector.

145. Amend Schedule E to indicate that Scala between Provence and Esprit Drive is classified as a collector road.

146. Amend Schedule E to indicate that Aquaview between Portobello Blvd and the Proposed Blackburn Hamlet By-Pass is classified as a collector road.

147. Amend Schedule E to indicate that Lakepointe Drive between Tenth Line Road and Aquaview is classified as a collector road.

148. Amend Schedule E to indicate that a portion of Old Carp Road between Second Line and March Road is classified as a local road and not a collector road.

149. Amend Schedule E to indicate that a portion of Herzberg Road from Sandhill Road to approximately 500 metres south of Sandhill Road is classified as a local road and not a major collector.

150. Amend Schedule E to indicate that a portion of Fourth Line Road from Sandhill Road to approximately 500 metres north of Sandhill Road is classified as a local road and not a collector road.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga

That the appropriate Schedules and Base Maps be amended:

Urban Road Network to include the extensions of Iber Road and Abbott Street East as well as Shea Road from Abbott Street East to Fernbank Road in the southeastern quadrant of the Village of Stittsville as well as making the appropriate table in Annex 1 – Road Classification and Rights-of-Ways and other Schedules.

Urban Road Network to clarify the proposed Westridge Drive extension from Thresher Avenue south to Abbott Street West as well as the proposed extension from Bell Street south to Fernbank Road as well as the appropriate table in Annex 1 – Road Classification and Rights-of-Ways.

Urban Road Network to include the proposed arterial corridor for the Stittsville By-Pass in keeping with the Township of Goulbourn Official Plan – Schedule C – Transportation and Utilities Plan as well as the appropriate table in the Annex 1 – Road Classification and Rights-of-Ways.

CARRIED

Schedule F – Central Area/Inner City Road Network

Motions 151 – 155 were considered together.

151. Amend Schedule F by deleting the Bronson-Portage Link. (Doc 20)

152. Amend Schedule F by changing Commissioner Street from an Arterial to a local street.

153. Amend Schedule F to indicate that Preston Street north of Scott Street is a “Proposed” rather than “Existing” arterial, and connect it with LeBreton Boulevard. (Doc 20)

154. Amend Schedule F to indicate that the portion of Dalhousie Street in between Murray and St. Patrick is classified as a collector road and not an arterial road. (Doc 20)

155. Amend Schedule F to indicate that the portion of Fleet Street east of Booth Street is classified as a local road and not an arterial road. (Doc 20)

CARRIED

Schedule G – Rural Road Network

Motions 156 – 164 were considered together.

156. Amend Schedule G to indicate that Montague Boundary Road is classified as a collector road and not an arterial road. (Doc 20)

157. Amend Schedule G to indicate that Upper Dwyer Hill Road from City of Ottawa boundary to new Highway 417 is classified as a local road and not a collector road. (Doc 20)

158. Amend Schedule G to indicate that the portion of Frank Kenny from Highway 417 to approximately 500 metres north of Highway 417 is classified as a local road and not an arterial road.

159. Amend Schedule G to indicate that the portion of Upper Dwyer Hill Road from the Ottawa City Limits to Highway 417 is classified as a local road and not a collector road.

160. Amend Schedule G to indicate that a portion of Upper Dwyer Hill Road be realigned between Galetta Side Road and the southwest portion of the new Highway 417/City of Ottawa Road 29 interchange.

161. Amend Schedule G to indicate that a portion of Highway 17 between Highway 417 and Breezy Heights Road is classified as a local road and not a collector road.

162. Amend Schedule G to indicate that the intersection of Highway 17 and Grants Side Road be located northeast of Highway 417.

163. Amend Schedule G to indicate that the intersection of Grainger Park Road and Breezy Heights Road be located southwest of Highway 417.

164. Amend Schedule G to indicate that a portion of Old Carp Road between Second Line and March Road is classified as a local road and not a collector road.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:

Amend Schedule G – Rural Road Network to reflect Crawford Road from Dwyer Hill east to Ondrovic Gate and Canadian Drive to Links Drive South are currently unopened roads within Country Club Village.

Note: These are roughed in roads through the last phase of the subdivision and will not be opened until the developer launches the phase. They are not plowed nor maintained by the city.

CARRIED

Schedule I – Major Recreational Pathways and Scenic-Entry Routes

165. Amend Schedule I to add the Walker Trail as a Major Recreational Pathway along the western boundary of Stittsville from Hazeldean Road south to the Trans Canada Trail.

CARRIED

Schedule K - Environmental Constraints

166. Correct the Legend in Schedule K (OCHBA):

Delete “Airport Vicinity Development Zone” and replace it with “Ottawa Airport Operating Influence Zone”

Delete “Ottawa Airport Operating Influence Zone” and replace it with “Airport Vicinity Development Zone”

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor Munter (for Councillor Eastman):

Whereas the Wellhead Protection Policies indicate that “the zoning by-law will restrict land-uses that have the potential to cause contamination of the groundwater resource in areas identified on schedule k as wellhead protection areas”,

Whereas schedule k shows large wellhead protection zones within agriculture resource areas,

Whereas although health concerns dominate, the potential exists to impact numerous agricultural operations,

Whereas the city will undertake a wellhead protection study in 2003 to define wellhead protection areas,

Therefore be it recommended that schedule k reflect the wellhead protection areas once the wellhead protection study has been completed and that the agricultural community be consulted during the process.

Ms. Paterson advised that the only Wellhead Protection areas designated under Schedule K were those for which a study was already completed. Outstanding was a Zoning By-Law that would define the uses permitted. The key issue was that the uses that should be permitted in the Wellhead Protection Study were intended to be deferred to the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law.

Councillor Stavinga asked the Committee to support the maintenance of the Wellhead Areas and it was critical that the information was placed in the OP documents.

On the Motion:

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors Harder, Hunter

NAYS (6): Councillor Munter, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume

Chair Hunter referred the Committee to a delegation from Kempark, off Bank Street, who asked that the line for the Airport vicinity development zone be drawn more logically and be protected that way. They had asked for protection from intensification that Gloucester had implemented to allow for an increase in zoning. He brought that forward for the Committee’s information.

Volume 2

Moved by Councillor P. Hume (on behalf of Councillor J. Legendre):

Revised Document 24 – Secondary Plan for Rockcliffe Park

1. Section 3.2 should read “Heritage easement/agreements”

2. Section 2.3.2.1, Sentence #1, should read “..anticipated demand for housing in the former Village of Rockcliffe Park.”

3. Section 2.4.2.2 – the subheadings should read 1 through 7, not 9 through 16

4. Section 3.0 – line #1, replace “Village Council” by “the City”.

5. In the Table of Contents; Add: “Section 2.3.4 Maintenance and Occupancy Standards”

6. Section 4.8.2 should read: “Drainage and stormwater control”

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor P. Hume:

WHEREAS on October 24, 2000 the Council of the former City of Ottawa approved Offical Plan Amendment 42 – Alta Vista/Faircrest Heights/Riverview Park (Key Principles);

AND WHEREAS these Key Principles were derived from the Alta Vista Visioning Study, a City of Ottawa funded and community driven community consultation effort;

AND WHEREAS the Key Principles contained in OPA 42 are not carried forward in the new City of Ottawa Official Plan;

AND WHEREAS Community Associations such as the Alta Vista Community Association and the Alta Vista Drive Residents Association have made submissions to Planning and Development Committee requesting that the Key Principles contained in OPA 42 be reinstated into the new Official Plan;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Official Plan Amendment 42 – Alta Vista/Faircrest Heights/Riverview Park(Key Principles) be reinstated into Volume 2-A Secondary Plans of the new Official Plan.

Councillor Hume put forward a Comprehensive Visioning Study conducted in the 1990’s that distilled into the Key Principles to become part of the City of Ottawa OP. It spoke to the area development and existing character of Alta Vista and dealt mainly with residential areas, some neighbourhood serving uses and leisure areas and the Health Sciences Complex. It was very important for those who worked on that OPA. It was not included because it duplicated other parts of the existing Plan.

Ms. Paterson consistently maintained not bringing forward these Policies from previous Plans and carrying forward only those from Secondary Plans or similar to Secondary Plans. She added that should the Committee choose to carry it some of the references had to be revised and she provided a document that would accomplish that.

Revisions to Key Principles – Volume 2 Ottawa Official Plan

Alta Vista/Faircrest Heights/Riverview Park – former City of Ottawa

Text language to be updated	Changed to	Page
(Map 3 of the Official Plan)	(delete)	1
Notwithstanding Policies 3.6.2 f) and i) of the Primary Plan,	(delete)	3
Appendix 11 of Volume III: Appendices of the Official Plan,	Appendix II (attached)	3
in accordance with Policy 3.6.2 d) of the Primary Plan,	(delete)	3
In addition to the factors outlined in Policy 3.6.2 of the Primary Plan,	(delete)	3
in accordance with Policy 6.2.2 of the Primary Plan	(delete)	3
In accordance with Policy 9.2.2 of the Primary Plan, Appendix 11 of Volume III: Appendices of the Official Plan identifies the existing parks containing Leisure Facilities in Alta Vista/Faircrest Heights/Riverview Park, which are in addition to the Leisure Facilities shown on Schedule A – Land Use of the Official Plan.	(delete)	4
in accordance with Policy 10.2.2 of the Primary Plan.	(delete)	4
in accordance with Policy 6.9.2 a) of the Primary Plan.	(delete)	4
the policies and objectives of Section 13.25 of the Primary Plan,	Ottawa Official Plan, Section 5.2.3	4

On the Motion with the Revision of the Key Principles:

CARRIED

YEAS (5): Councillors Harder, Munter, Cullen, Bellemare, Hume

NAYS (3): Councillors Stavinga, Arnold, Hunter

Motions 166 – 169 were considered together.

167. Amend in Volume 2 A - Secondary Plans, Volume 2 B Site - Specific Policies and Volume 2 C - Village Plans by deleting selected tables showing the revisions to the plans and policies and adding revised tables, shown in Document 23. (Doc 20)

168. Amend Volume 2 A – Secondary Plans by adding the Official Plan of the former Village of Rockcliffe Park as a Secondary Plan, shown in Document 24. (Doc 20)

169. Volume 2 C – Village Plans - Replace Schedule A - Map 2 - Village of Greely with a revised Schedule which incorporates OPA 40 to the Osgoode OP (error).

CARRIED

Glossary (Document 3)

170. Amend the definition Rapid Transit Facility to replace the words “The whole of” with “The components of”. (Jeanes)

CARRIED

171. Amend wildlife habitat to include a definition of wildlife so the definition reads: “Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat: Wildlife refers to flora and fauna. Wildlife habitat means areas where plants, animals…” (Greenspace Alliance)

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen (on behalf of Councillor D. Eastman):

Whereas a glossary of terms has been included in the draft op,

Therefore be it recommended that the following definitions be revised as follows:

1. Farm – for other farm types, such a market gardening greenhouse operations would exist”

3. Private individual services – “one individual, autonomous water supply and wastewater disposal system, normally a well and septic system, owned and maintained by the property owners(s).

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor J. Harder (on behalf of Councillor D. Eastman):

Whereas a glossary of terms has been included in the draft op,

Therefore be it recommended that the following definitions be revised as follows:

2. Minimum distance separation formulae- - “…..so as to reduce incompatibility concerns about odour, dust, noise, etc., often associated with normal farm practices”.

LOST

YEAS (0):

NAYS (7): Councillors Harder, Munter, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume Hunter

Add the following definitions:

Motions 172 – 175 were considered together.

172. Significant (when applied to natural features and functions)

Significant means ecologically important in terms of natural features and functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of a defined natural area or system. In regard to wetlands identified as provincially significant or Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, significance is established using evaluation procedures established by the province, as amended from time to time. In regard to other areas and features, significance is determined through application of criteria or assessment methods in the context of systematic studies such as those described in Section 2.4.3 (Watershed and Subwatershed plans) and Section 3.2.2 (Natural Environment Areas), Section 3.2.3 (Urban Natural Features) and Section 3.2.4 (Rural Natural Features). (Barr, Greenspace Alliance)

173. Wetlands

Include lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water as well as lands where the water table is close to or at the surface. The four major categories of wetlands are swamps, marshes, bogs and fens. (Greenspace Alliance)

174. Natural Features

Physically tangible elements of the environment including wetlands, forests, ravines, rivers, valleylands, and associated wildlife habitat areas along the edge of, or which support significant ecological functions within, the natural feature.

175. Natural Functions

Natural processes, products or services provided or performed by natural features within or between natural systems and species at a variety of scales. Examples include groundwater recharge, provision of wildlife habitat, temperature moderation, natural cleansing and filtration of surface water, and carbon sequestration (carbon sinks).

CARRIED

Document 6

176. Page 45, Former City of Ottawa Official Plan

Add to the table of Sections to be repealed:

“9.0 Key Principles – Alta Vista / Faircrest Heights / Riverview Park” (missed in error)

WITHDRAWN

Grandfathering

Mr. Moser prepared appropriate wording for the grandfathering and on the suggestion that the June 23 date be changed to July 23, from 60 to 90 days, did not create a problem from staffs’ perspective.

Councillor Stavinga had a prepared a Motion in respect of country lot severances and country lot subdivisions and asked if the Motion prepared would apply for these. Mr. Moser responded that wherever the June date appeared the July date would replace it throughout Document 17.

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:

7. Approve a Grandfathering Policy for “in stream” applications as detailed in Document 17 an amended by:

· Adding a new section after Zoning By-Law as follows:

Site Plan

If a complete application is received by April 23, 2003, it will be processed on the basis of existing policy.

If current and meaningful pre-consultation has taken place on a Site Plan prior to April 23, 2003 and a complete application is received prior to July 23, 2003 such application will be processed based on existing policy.

If no current and meaningful pre-consultation has taken place on a Site Plan prior to April 23, 2003 and an application is received after April 23, 2003 such application will be reviewed/evaluated on the basis of the new Official Plan.

If a Site Plan Agreement is not registered within the approved time frame (one year after granting approval), extensions will be reviewed/evaluated on the basis of the new Official Plan. Any re-submissions will be reviewed/evaluated on the basis of the new Official Plan.

· Changing the words “June 23, 2003” where they appear in Document 17 to July 23, 2003.

CARRIED

Councillor Bellemare indicated his Motion would be a number 9 to the report and was further to the federal announcement of $50,000 funding through its Agricultural Rural Minority Language Community Planning Initiative. It would recognize the fact that if the City would increase the Village boundaries it required study; that any work on Mainstreets in villages required study; it was about partnering with the Federal Government and ascertaining the City’s options in helping the villages and their community associations’ priorities come to fruition. It was a direction to staff. Mr. Lathrop requested that the timeline be removed since he was not sure that staff could respond within that time frame. Secondly, there was no budget set aside for the initiative and that issue as well as others would have to be reviewed.

Moved by Councillor M. Bellemare:

And that staff bring forward proposals to Planning and Development for the City to be a partner in this initiative.

CARRIED

On Departmental Recommendation 3:

Councillor Cullen had a concern with the Rideau River Corridor, on the west side between Prince of Wales / Highway 416 to the River; that as much as possible that there be Major Open Space. He would be voting against it since the OP had indicated there would be a study along that corridor because on either side, the former Nepean side, the former Gloucester side there would be 100,000 residents and in his view the City should be replicating access to the Rideau River as the NCC has provided to the Ottawa River. It was a major community amenity. It was wrong to permit more development in a corridor that he hoped in the long run would bring in public property over time to provide access for the 100,000 residents. That principle was very important for him. Ms. Paterson clarified that it allowed consideration of the severance. The existing policies would apply, but that currently the Nepean Secondary Plan would not permit the City to consider it since it was not on piped services, but the former ROP and the proposed Plan would permit consideration as a small exception.

The Committee approved the departmental recommendations contained in report dated 20 March 2003 as amended.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council:

1. Amend the Draft Official Plan, dated March, 2003 to include the Glossary included as Document 3 to this report.

2. Amend the Draft Official Plan, Annex 1, to incorporate corrections to the Rights-of-Way Schedule, and a change to Schedule E in the former Rockcliffe Park, as identified in Document 4 to this report.

3. Amend the Draft Official Plan, Volume 2, Nepean South Secondary Plan for Areas 1, 2 and 3 which would permit consideration of a severance application within the urban area on private services as described in Document 5 to this report;

Councillor Cullen dissented.

4. Adopt the Draft Official Plan dated March, 2003, Volumes 1 and 2 as amended;

5. Repeal the existing 12 Official Plans of former municipalities save and except for the secondary plans, site-specific policies and village policies in Volume 2 (dated January, 2003) of the Draft Official Plan and described in Document 6.

6. Forward the draft Official Plan, as adopted, along with the ‘Record’ as required under the Planning Act to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for final approval.

7. Direct staff to combine the terms of reference for a Community Design Plan for Carp with a study of the Carp Road Corridor and report back with recommendations on future land uses and associated requirements by the end of 2003.

8. Approve a Grandfathering Policy for “in stream” applications as detailed in Document 17 and amended by:

· Adding a new section after Zoning By-Law as follows:

Site Plan

If a complete application is received by April 23, 2003, it will be processed on the basis of existing policy.

· Changing the words “June 23, 2003” where they appear in Document 17 to July 23, 2003.

9. WHEREAS the Federal Government has announced $50,000 in funding through its Agricultural Rural Minority Language Community Planning Initiative to determine the development potential of the villages of Sarsfield, Vars and Carlsbad Springs;

And that staff bring forward proposals to Planning and Development Committee for the City to be a partner in this initiative.

10. That the following amendments be approved:

10.1 Prologue – P-i

That the following statement “…brought 12 urban and rural municipalities together as one government structure…”

be amended to “…brought 11 urban and rural municipalities and a regional government into one government structure…”

Section 1 Introduction

10.2 That Section 1.6, Subsection, A Healthy and Active City, (P.10) be amended to change to “recreational pathways and facilities”

Section 2.0 Strategic Directions

10.3 Page 13, Section 2.1 The Challenge Ahead

Amend the fourth paragraph of the preamble by deleting the words “~~shown in Figure 2-2~~” in the second sentence and adding the text “for the rural area and the urban area inside and outside the Greenbelt, as shown in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2.”

10.4 Page 15, Section 2.1 The Challenge Ahead

Amend the subsection Maintaining Environmental Integrity, second bullet point, by deleting “~~The most significant~~” and the word, “~~conserved~~” and adding the word “protected”, so that the text as amended reads, “Wetlands and forests will be protected.”

10.5 Page 17, Section 2.2 Managing Growth

Amend the preamble by deleting the sentence, “~~Policies for the General Rural Area address the review of land uses within 5 kilometres of an urban boundary to ensure they do not impede future expansion potential~~.”

10.6 Page 19, Section 2.2.3 Managing Growth within the Urban Area

Amend the preamble by adding the words “Enterprise Areas” in the third paragraph, so that the revised sentence reads, “… growth will be directed to locations with significant development potential, specifically those designated Central Area, Mixed-Use Centres, Employment Areas, Enterprise Areas, Developing Communities…” (Doc 20)

10.7 Page 21, Section 2.2.3 Managing Growth within the Urban Area

Amend Policy 3 b) by deleting the word, “~~Public~~” so that the policy as amended states, “School sites are generally not included in this category and will be treated on a site-specific basis.’

10.8 Page 27, Section 2.3.1, Policy 35

Amend Policy 35, third sentence, by adding the words “all” and “but not limited to”, so that the text is amended to read:

10.9 Page 29, Section 2.3.1, Transportation – Transportation Terminals

Amend by changing in Policy 47 the words “such as” to “like the existing”.

10.10 Page 29, Section 2.3.2 Public Water and Wastewater Service Areas

Delete the subsection title and rename it, “Water and Wastewater Services”

10.11 Page 31/32, Section 2.3.2 Public Water and Waste Water Service Areas

WHEREAS the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) creates a hierarchy of servicing options with Full Municipal Services the most preferred and partial or mixed services being least preferred.

WHEREAS the servicing and other provisions of the PPS are presently under review.

WHEREAS the current Policy clearly allows approval authorities to exceed minimums established by the province.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Section 2.3.2 be amended to add an additional Policy stating:

10.12 Page 33, Section 2.4 Maintaining Environmental Integrity

10.13 Page 35, Section 2.4.2

10.14 Page 35, Section 2.4.2

10.15 Page 35, Section 2.4.2

Amend Policy 1 to provide additional clarification of objectives so that it now reads:

o Protecting endangered, threatened, and rare species and natural communities

o Maintaining a full range of natural communities in good condition

o Providing for the needs of a variety of wildlife including seasonal habitats and linkages

o Protection of surface and groundwater resources including recharge and headwater or discharge areas

and by determining how these lands should best be protected or managed to ensure their environmental health

10.16 Page 35, Section 2.4.2

10.17 Page 36, Section 2.4.3 Watershed and Subwatershed Plans

Add the word, “site” to the box in Figure 2.4, so that it refers to a “Stormwater Site Management Plan”.

10.18 Page 36, Section 2.4.3 Watershed and Subwatershed Plan

10.19 Page 38, Section 2.4.3 Watershed and Subwatershed Plans

Amend Policy 2(b) to add the words “such as creeks” after the words “…to protect significant features…” so that the policy as amended reads, “Specific mitigation measures to protect significant features, such as creeks, identified for preservation…” (Doc 20)

10.20 Page 37, Section 2.4.3

Amend Policy 3 to add headwater protection to the guide for watershed planning so that point 3 a) under watershed plans now reads: “…features and resources within the watershed including headwater areas.”

10.21 Page 38, Section 2.4.3

Amend Policy 4 to add headwater protection to the terms of reference for subwatershed plans so that point b) at the top of page 38 reads “…subwatershed objectives and recommendations regarding areas for development and preservation, protection of headwater areas, public access, and implementation…”

10.22 Page 38, Section 2.4.3 Watershed and Subwatershed Plans

Amend Policy 1 to add the words, “in consultation with the Conservation Authorities” to Policy 1 in the subsection Environmental Management Plan, so that the policy as amended states, “…the City will coordinate the preparation of an environmental management plan, in consultation with the Conservation Authorities.”

10.23 Page 40, Section 2.4.5, Greenspace

10.24 Page 40, Section 2.4.5 Greenspaces

10.25 Page 41, Section 2.4.5, Policy 1

10.26 Page 41, Section 2.4.5, Policy 3

Amend last sentence:

10.27 Pages 40 and 66

Correct references to read former City of Ottawa’s Natural and Open Spaces Study

10.28 Page 41, Section 2.4.5 Greenspace

Amend Policy 1 (a)(i) to add a reference to areas around the urban area so that the policy reads “…and other natural areas in and around the urban area….”

and 1(a)(iii) to add after the word ‘greenspace’: “in the urban and rural areas”

10.29 Page 41, Section 2.4.5 Greenspace

10.30 That Section 2.4.5 Greenspaces, following Policy 10 be amended to add an additional Policy stating:

That the City will work with the Conservation Authorities and other interested stakeholders to develop a by-law under the Municipal Act to regulate the removal of top soil.

10.31 Page 43, Section 2.4.5, Greenspaces

Add Policy 10 d) Continuing to naturalize City-owned greenspaces.

10.32 Be it resolved that Section 2.5.1 Compatibility of Development – Policy 1 a) be replaced with the following:

10.33 Page 45, Section 2.5.1, Compatibility of Development

Add a new Policy 2 e) to say: “Building and siting a structure that respects the existing pattern of development with respect to lot area and yard requirements, even if the structure contains more units than is characteristic of the surrounding area.

10.34 WHEREAS Section 2.5.2 of the City of Ottawa Draft Official Plan (March 2003) sets a target of 25% of housing units available each year to be affordable to households at the 30^th income percentile for rental and the 40^th income percentile for ownership housing;

AND WHEREAS Resale prices and existing rentals in Ottawa have been rising rapidly in recent years;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That Policy 2 of Section 2.5.2 on Affordable Housing be amended to require that a minimum of 25% of the total new units in all development projects be affordable.

10.35 WHEREAS Section 2.5.2 of the City of Ottawa Official Plan (March 2003) recommends that the affordable units required in new development be affordable at the 40^th income percentile;

AND WHEREAS the 40^th income percentile represents affordable rents at $1,150 which is not affordable for many modest income households;

AND WHERAS affordable rents at the 30^th income percentile are $910, which can begin to address the real need for affordable, inclusive housing;

10.36 Page 50, Policy 2.5.4 A Strategy for Parks and Leisure Areas

Amend Policy 6 by adding the words, “ including the use of alternative requirements” after the word, “Planning Act”, so that the policy as amended reads, …the City will acquire land for park or other public recreational purposes through the provisions of the Planning Act, including alternative requirements, in a way that…”

10.37 Page 50, Policy 2.5.4 A Strategy for Parks and Leisure Areas

Delete Policy 8, which states provisions of the Planning Act, and renumber Policy 9 to Policy 8.

10.38 Page 50, Policy 2.5.4 A Strategy for Parks and Leisure Areas

Delete Policy 9 and replace it with the following, “The City will determine the parkland dedication for mixed-use development on the basis of the proportion of the site or building occupied by each type of use, or some other proportionate basis, and will implement these provisions through a parkland dedication by-law which has been prepared in consultation with the public, the development industry, and other interested parties.”

10.39 Page 51, Section 2.5.5, Cultural Heritage Resources

Amend the sentence beginning with “Documentary heritage” in the preamble so that it says “Documentary and material heritage, such as archives, museums, and historical artefacts …”

10.40 Page 56, Section 2.5.7, Collaborative Community

Amend Policy 3 g) to add “or may exist” after “where heritage resources exist”.

10.41 Page 57, Collaborative Community Building and Community Design Plans

Insert a new Policy 5 and renumber the policies that follow. The new Policy 5 states, ‘Community design plans will draw upon studies and plans prepared in the past for the area. Once Council approves a community design plan or other comprehensive policy plan, the approved plan will guide future development of the area.”

10.42 Page 57 Section 2.5.7 (Carp Road Corridor)

Add a new Policy 11 as follows: “The Village of Carp and the Carp Road Corridor will be the subject of individual Community Design exercises, both of which are to be completed by the end of 2003. The results of these exercises will be used to determine the boundaries of the Rural Employment Area and the Policies associated with it and the detailed land use designations for each of these areas that will be incorporated by separate amendments into the Official Plan.

Section 3.0 Designations and Land Use

10.43 Amend various sections of the Official Plan to add the term “Enterprise Area” immediately following the words “Employment Area”:

a. Section 3.1 policies 3, 5 and 6

10.44 Page 59 Section 3 Designations and Land Use

Amend the third paragraph, second sentence in the preamble to read, “In areas where little or no new development…”

10.45 Page 60, Section 3.1, Generally Permitted Uses

Amend Policy 4, Shelter Accommodation to amend the second sentence to read: “Shelter accommodation shall be designed in a manner compatible with the general area.”

10.46 Page 61, Section 3.1 Generally Permitted Uses

Amend Policy 9 by adding the words “that are” between the “facilities” and “subject to” so that the policy as amended reads, “…Hydro One Networks Inc. facilities, that are subject to the requirements…” (Doc 20)

10.47 Page 62, Section 3.2 Natural Environment

Delete the text of the first bullet and replace it with the following:

· “A high level of diversity in terms of features, functions, representation or amount of native vegetation and animal communities.”

10.48 Page 64, Section 3.2.2, Natural Environment Areas

Amend Policy 1 to include Schedule B so that the policy now reads “…are designated on Schedules A and B.”

10.49 Page 67, Section 3.2.4 Rural Natural Features

Amend policy 2 by

i. deleting the reference to “~~Section 3.6~~” in the first sentence and replacing it with “Section 3.7”.

ii. deleting the second sentence, which reads, “Any development necessitating a severance, site plan, zoning by-law amendment or a variance to change a use or expand a use, will require an Environmental Impact Statement, as described in Section 4.7.8, which demonstrates that the development can occur with limited or no impact on the natural feature.”

iii. by adding a new second sentence, as follows:

Any development;

1. involving the creation of two or more lots by severance or subdivision; or

2. requiring a zoning by-law amendment or a variance to change a use or expand a use; or

3. requiring site plan approval,

10.50 Page 67, Section 3.2.4 Rural Natural Features

Amend Policy 2 by adding the following sentence: “Any allowed uses should avoid significant encroachment on the features for which the area has been designated.” (Doc 20)

10.51 New 4:

10.52 Page 69, Section 3.4 Central Experimental Farm

10.53 Page 70, Section 3.5, Greenbelt

Delete Policy 2 b) in its entirety and add a to the preceding sentence.

10.54 Page 71, Section 3.6.1, General Urban Area

Amend Policy 3 by deleting “~~and retail uses …… with Section 3.6.8~~” and adding a new Policy 4 to say “A full range of retail uses will be considered, as defined in Section 3.6.8.”

10.55 Page 72, Section 3.6.1 General Urban Area

Revise Policy 7 to add a new a) – ‘Recognize the importance of new development relating to existing community character so that it enhances and builds upon desirable established patterns and built form’. Renumber subsequent policies accordingly and revise Policy 7.c) to delete the phrase “~~as a compatible means~~” and replace it with the phrase ‘as one means’.

10.56 Page 73, Section 3.6.2 Mixed-Use Centres

Revise Policy 1 to delete the phrase ‘~~other than large format retail stores with a single market focus~~’ where it occurs in the text and replace it with the phrase “in accordance with Section 3.6.8.”

10.57 Page 74, Section 3.6.2 Mixed-Use Centres

Amend Policy 3 to remove the words “~~General Rural~~” and add the words “General Urban” so that the revised policy reads, “ In order that an appropriate transition occur between a Mixed-Use Centre and the

adjacent General Urban Area, the policies of section 2.5.1 will apply.” (Doc 20)

10.58 Page 75, Section 3.6.2, Policy 5 – Replace existing with the following:

10.59 Page 76, Section 3.6.2 Mixed-Use Centres

Revise Policy 7 f) to add the words ‘(minimum of two storeys)’ immediately following the words “within multi-storey buildings”.

10.60 Page 76, Section 3.6.2, Mixed-Use Centres

Revise Policy 8 c) to add the following phrase at the end – ‘including measures such as those contained in Policy 12 of S.2.5.5’

10.61 Page 77, Section 3.6.3, Mainstreets

Amend Policy 1 to add “in accordance with Section 3.6.8” after “retail stores.”

10.62 Page 80, Section 3.6.3, Mainstreets

Add a new Policy 7 c) “Conserves and enhances the area’s cultural heritage resources” and renumber others accordingly.

10.63 Page 80, Section 3.6.3, Mainstreets

Modify Policy 8 d) to add after the word “proposal” the words “conserves and enhances the area’s cultural heritage resources, and”.

10.64 3.6.3. Main Streets

WHEREAS, the former Township of Goulbourn commissioned in 1988 the development of a Main Street Master Plan and Urban Design Guidelines for the Village of Stittsville;

WHEREAS, the Master Plan and Urban Design Guidelines otherwise known as the Stittsville Main Street Design Guidelines were formally integrated in the Goulbourn Official Plan;

AND WHEREAS, the City of Ottawa Official Plan Schedule B – Urban Policy Plan recognizes the designate of Stittsville Main Street as a “Main Street”;

Therefore be it resolved that, Section 3.6.3 be amended to include an additional policy stating: "that any new construction of buildings, structures or modifications, alterations and additions to existing buildings and structures, which have the effect of altering exterior character along a Stittsville Main Street frontage shall be evaluated in the context of the existing Stittsville Main Street Master Plans and Urban Design Guidelines.

10.65 Page 81, Section 3.6.3, Main Streets

Revise Policy 10 c) to add the following phrase at the end – ‘including measures such as those contained in Policy 12 of S.2.5.5’.

10.66 Section 3.2.4 Rural Natural Features, Page 67 be amended to add a Policy:

That the City will pursue measures as identified in Section 2.4.5, Polices 10, 11 and 12 to assist in the protection of Rural Natural Features.

10.67 Page 82, Section 3.6.4 Developing Communities

Revise Policy 4.e) to add the words ‘or landscape’ immediately following the phrase “existing desirable landform”.

10.68 Page 82, Section 3.6.4 Developing Communities

Revise Policy 4.f) iv) by adding the phrase ‘Considering variations in lotting arrangements such as’ immediately prior to the phrase “orienting units around central courtyards”.

10.69 Page 82, Section 3.6.4 Developing Communities

Revise Policy 4.f) v) to add the phrase ‘wherever necessary to accommodate such matters as recognizing environmental features, establishing Major Open Spaces or identifying new Mainstreets’ to the end of the policy.

10.70 THAT an 8(f) be added as follows:

10.71 Page 88 Section 3.6.6 Central Area

Amend Policy 2h) by adding the words "and convention facilities and” between "tourism" and "amenities" so that the policy as amended reads "...to enhance existing retail, tourist and convention facilities and amenities, pedestrians..."

10.72 Page 88 Section 3.6.6 Central Area

Amend by deleting Policy 3b) "In keeping with the Central Area's role as a main tourist destination, supporting the National Capital Commission and other stakeholders initiatives that maintain and develop tourist attractions and facilities." and adding a new Policy 3b) as follows: "In keeping with the Central Area's role as a main tourist destination, supporting the Ottawa Tourism and Convention Authority, National Capital Commission and other stakeholder initiatives that maintain and develop tourism and convention attractions, facilities, activities and programming."

10.73 Page 89, Section 3.6.6 Central Area

Modify Policy 4 a) so it now reads “Providing financial incentives, such as exemptions from development charges, building permit fees or other development fees and levies.”

10.74 Page 91 Section 3.6.6 Central Area

Amend Policy 9 by adding the words "and loading” between "parking" and "facilities" so that the Policy as amended reads "...ensure that parking and loading facilities address the unique role..."

10.75 Page 91 Section 3.6.6 Central Area

Amend Policy 9a) by adding the words "and loading facilities” between "parking" and "to serve" and by adding the words "and the tourism industry” between "sectors" and "and limiting" so that the revised Policy as amended reads "...provision of short-term parking and loading facilities to serve the retail and commercial sectors and the tourism industry and limiting the provision of long-term parking..."

10.76 Page 96, Section 3.6.8 Provision for Retail

Delete Policies 7 and 8 under Big Box Retail and replace with the following:

Big-box Retail

7. Individual retail stores of 8,000 square metres or more, except as described in Policy 8 below, are permitted on Mainstreets, within the Central Area and in Mixed-Use Centres, subject to the policies in Section 3 regarding achieving compact form and mixed-use development in these areas.

8. Where a retail store of 8,000 square metres or more is part of a shopping centre planned and managed as an operating unit, it is not considered to be a big-box format.

Other Retail

9. Retail establishments providing goods and services required on a daily basis, should be located within residential areas except for the exceptions noted in Section 3.6.8, Policy 9. Neighbourhood and community-sized shopping centres, up to 50,000 square metres gross leasable area, are permitted in General Urban Areas, Mixed-Use Centres, Mainstreets and the Central Area.

10.77 Page 85, section 3.6.5.8 b)

Amend to include “unless otherwise subject to approval by Council through the adoption of a community design plan”

10.78 Whereas staff have recommended (on page 156, item 4, document 19) that their work program should be reviewed to include a community design plan study as the best way to review the boundaries of the Village of Dunrobin,

Therefore be it resolved that staff include a village of Dunrobin design plan as part of their 2004 work program.

10.79 Page 96, Section 3.7.1 Villages

Amend Policy 6 f) iv) regarding considerations in reviewing retail, commercial proposals in villages, to delete the Policy, “~~Minimum building heights of two storeys in Mainstreet and core area locations~~”. Add the following: “The feasibility of achieving development f more than one storey. Where the predominant form of development is two storeys or more, single-storey development will be discouraged.” (Doc 20)

10.80 Page 99, Section 3.7.2

Amend Policy 3a) by deleting the words, “~~concrete plants~~” and “~~and salvage and recycling yards~~” and adding the word, “and” after contractors, so that the phrase as amended reads, “building products yards, landscape contractors, and nurseries”,

10.81 Page 99, Section 3.7.2

Add a new Policy 3b) which states, “Uses that are noxious by virtue of their noise, odour, dust or other emissions or that have potential for impact on air quality or surface water or groundwater, such as salvage or recycling yards, composting or transfer facilities; concrete plants; the treatment of aggregate products; and abattoirs”

10.82 Page 99 Section 3.7.2

Amend Policy 4 b) by deleting the last sentence

10.83 Page 99, Section 3.7.2

Delete Policy 4 g) and replace it with a new policy that states, “Noxious uses will only be considered where suitable screening and buffering can be provided and generally these uses will not be considered in locations within groundwater recharge areas or immediately adjacent to residential areas, Scenic-Entry, or waterfront areas.

10.84 That Policy 7 be amended to read:

Development proposals within 1 kilometre of a village and/or urban boundary will be reviewed with respect to lot size, type of use and other …

10.85 That Section 3.7.2.3 b) be amended to read:

New recreational commercial and non-profit uses, such as golf courses, driving ranges, mini putt operations, campgrounds, outdoor theme parks, sportsfields or similar uses.

10.86 Page 100, Section 3.7.2 General Rural Area

Amend by deleting policy 5a, “… ~~the subdivision will be located near to the interchanges on Highways 7, 416, and 417~~”. (Doc 20)

10.87 Page 100, Section 3.7.2 General Rural Area

10.88 Page 102, Section 3.7.3 Agricultural Resources

Amend Policy 4, last line, to delete ‘~~accessory apartments~~’ and replace it with ‘secondary dwelling units’.

10.89 Section 3.7.3.14 b) Agricultural Resources, Farm Consolidation – Surplus Dwelling

Whereas the agricultural industry in North America continues to undergo massive change and consolidation,

Whereas few modern farms consist of a single property,

Whereas farmland is commonly bought and sold as farms and farming operations evolve over time,

Therefore be it recommended that the first sentence in Section 3.7.3.14 b) be amended to replace the first sentence with the following:

“The vacant agricultural parcel so created is rezoned to prohibit any residential use for a period of three years or until a change of ownership.”

10.90 Section 3.7.3.16 Agricultural Resources, Severances in Areas of Poor Soils

Whereas historically the idea of a “poor pocket policy” in agricultural designations was to recognize areas of land that are of little use to the agricultural industry,

And whereas such residential development must respect minimum separation distances from agricultural operations,

Therefore be it resolved that Section 3.7.3 be amended by adding a new Policy 17 as follows and that the balance be re-numbered:

17. The severance of one lot for residential purposes is permitted in areas of Poor Soils, as defined in Policy 16 above, provided the severed lot complies with the minimum distance separation formula and provided no previous lot has been severed for these purposes since the date of adoption of this Plan.

10.91 Page 106, Section 3.7.3, Agricultural – Infill in Areas of Clusters of Housing

Amend the wording of policy 18 in the third sentence to delete the wording “~~separate lots, generally with existing non-farm residences on each, that are of similar size and~~” and replace with the words “lots of similar size or between an existing lot and a cultural or physical feature, such as a road or water course,” so that the complete sentence reads: Only in these identified areas may lot(s) be created between two existing lots of similar size or between an existing lot and a cultural or physical feature, such as a road or water course, that are situated on the same side of the road and are not more than 100 metres apart.

10.92 Page 109, Section 3.7.4 Mineral Resources

Add new policy 9 e) v), which states: “Wetlands, woodlands, and fish and wildlife habitat”

10.93 Section 3.9 Snow Disposal Facilities

WHEREAS, snow disposal facilities should be excluded from hazardous areas such as floodplains and adjacent to unstable slopes and natural environment areas

WHEREAS, permits would be required from the Conservation Authority in areas affected by the Conservation Authorities Act regulations and they would in all likelihood not be granted;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that 3.9 Snow Disposal Facilities be amended as follows:

1. That Policy 2 be amended to read: “Existing snow disposal facilities will be recognized in the zoning by-law. A new snow disposal facility will require an amendment to the zoning by-law. …”

2. That a new Policy be added stating:

10.94 Page 113 Section 3.9

10.95 Page 114, Section 3.10.1 Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport

Amend by deleting policy 2, which states “~~The distribution of land uses on airport lands will be based upon the Airport Master Plan~~” and adding a new policy 2, as follows: “The consideration of land uses on airport lands will be based upon the Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority Land Use Plan, as amended from time to time.” (Doc 20)

10.96 3.11 Special Study Area

THAT Section 3.11 (Special Study Area) in the Draft Official Plan be replaced in its entirety by the following:

a) The appropriate boundaries of the Natural Environment Area found within the Special Study Area based on an assessment of natural values and its role as part of a large greenspace in the area;

b) Mechanisms to ensure public ownership of the Natural Environment Area Lands;

d) The most appropriate land use designations within the Special Study area; and

e) The location of the Urban Boundary.

2. The recommendations of the Special Study will require Council approval. At that time, a determination will be made as to the need for an Official Plan Amendment.

3. Subdivision approval on the lands to the south of Richardson Side Road, immediately adjacent to the Special Study Area, shall be withheld until the Special Study is complete in order to ensure that road connections, parkland dedications and other matters subject to subdivision approval are planned with regard to the findings of the Special Study and in a manner that will

complement the land use designations and other findings of the Special Study.” and

FURTHER THAT, for clarity, the depiction of the Special Study Area on all Official Plan schedules reflect the current, underlying land use designations.

10.97 Section 3.10.1 Ottawa MacDonald-Cartier International Airport

WHEREAS, extensive sand deposits also allow run off to percolate into the ground replenishing the shallow aquifer.

10.98 Page 119, Section 4.2 Adjacent to Land-Use Designations

10.99 Page 119, Section 4.2 Adjacent to Land-Use Designations

10.100 Page 119, Section 4.2

Add to the Table:

3.7.3

Intensive livestock operations involving the raising of pigs will be limited

Within 3 km. of a village, the urban area, existing or approved country lot subdivision etc.

10.101 Page 118, Section 4.1 Site-Specific Policies and Secondary Policy Plans

WHEREAS the Planning and Development Committee at its meeting of April 2, 2003 received public delegations on the March, 2003 Draft Official Plan;

10.102 Page 123, Section 4.4.1 Servicing in Public Service Areas

Delete the first sentence of the preamble to this section, “~~Section 2.3 states that development in Public Service Areas must be on the basis of public services~~.” Add a new first sentence, “Development in Public Service Areas is primarily on the basis of public services, with exceptions described in Section 2.3.”

10.103 Page 124, Section 4.4.2 Private Water and Wastewater Servicing

Add a last paragraph to the preamble, before subsection 4.4.2.1, stating, “Requirements for private services in Public Service Areas, where no public services exist, are described in Section 2.3.”

10.104 Page 125, Section 4.4.2 Private Water and Wastewater Servicing

10.105 Page 127, Section 4.6

Amend the first column of the table below as follows

Delete:	Replace with:
~~4.6.6~~	4.6.2
~~4.4.4~~	4.6.3
~~4.6.4~~	4.6.3
~~4.6.7~~	4.6.3

Section 4.0 Review of Development Applications

10.106 Page 133, Section 4.6.5, Major Recreational Pathways

Amend policy 2 to add after the words “reviewing development applications” the words “for non-agricultural uses”.

10.107 Page 134, Section 4.7.1 Integrated Review to Support Development

Amend by deleting the heading “~~Integrated Review to Support Development~~” and add a new heading, “Integrated Environmental Review to Assess Development Applications.” (Doc 20)

10.108 Page 134, Section 4.7

Amend the table below by deleting “~~Department of Oceans and Fisheries~~” and replacing it with “Department of Fisheries and Oceans”

Amend the table below by deleting “~~4.7.5~~” and replacing it with “4.4.2”

10.109 Page 134, Section 4.7.1 Integrated Review

10.110 Page 135, Section 4.7.2

Delete the last sentence in the introduction and replace it with the following:

10.111 Page 135, Section 4.7.2 Protection of Vegetation Cover

That Policy 1, Section 4.7.2 be amended by adding to the beginning:

In order to support the Official Plan objective for 30% tree cover, applications for subdivision…

10.112 Page 135, Section 4.7.2 Protection of Vegetation Cover

Policy 1 h) delete the word “~~wildlife~~” and replace it with “fauna”.

10.113 Page 136, Section 4.7.2 Protection of Vegetation Cover

Delete Policy 3 and renumber policies 4, 5, and 6 as 3, 4, and 5.

10.114 Page 137, Section 4.7.3 Erosion Prevention

Delete the word “~~current~~” from policy 7 and replace it with “established” and delete the word “~~practices~~” and replace it with “procedures.”

10.115 Page 139, Section 4.7.6 Stormwater Management

10.116 Page 139, Section 4.7.6

Add a new policy 2 d) which states: “The quality of water that supports water-based recreational uses is not affected”

Renumber existing policies 2 d), e) and f) as 2 e), f), and g).

Delete former policy 2 f), now renumbered as policy 2 g), and replace it with the following:

“Any other impacts on the existing infrastructure or natural environment are addressed in a manner consistent with established standards and procedures;” (Conservation Authorities)

Add a new policy 2 h) which states:

“Objectives related to the optimization of wet weather infrastructure management are realized.

10.117 Page 140, Section 4.7.8

10.118 Page 140, Section 4.7.8 Environmental Impact Statement

Delete policy 2 a) and replace it with the following:

10.119 Page 140, Section 4.7.8 Environmental Impact Statement

Add a new policy 2h) which states:

“Identification of monitoring needs and recognition of parties to be responsible for assessing and reporting on these needs over a prescribed period of time.”

10.120 Page 142, Section 4.8

Amend the first column of the table below as follows:

Delete:	Replace with:
~~4.8.4 Phase 1 ESA~~	4.8.5 Phase 1 ESA
~~4.8.4~~ ~~Evaluation safety hazard~~	4.8.6 Evaluation safety hazard
~~4.8.6 Noise control study; Airport zoning requirements~~	4.8.7 Noise control study; Airport zoning requirements
~~4.8.7~~ ~~Noise study Vibration Study~~	4.8.8 Noise study Vibration Study
~~4.8.7 Noise control feasibility study~~	4.8.8 Noise control feasibility study
~~4.8.7 Noise Study~~	4.8.8 Noise Study

10.121 Page 144, Section 4.8.3 Unstable Soils or Bedrock

Amend the preamble by deleting the first sentence of the introduction, which states, “~~Unstable soils or bedrock could be unsafe for development and site alteration due to natural hazards~~” and replace it with the following: “Unstable soils or bedrock could be unsafe or unsuitable for development and site alteration due to natural hazards or risk of damage to the structures built on these soils or bedrock.” (Doc 20)

10.122 Page 144, Section 4.8.3 Unstable Soils or Bedrock

Further amend the preamble by deleting the second paragraph, which states, “This Plan contains policies to minimize the threat of injury and loss of life, property damage and distress caused by slope failure or landslide and to facilitate safe and compatible land uses and development on sites where hazard risk has been minimized.”

Add the following text:

“This Plan contains policies to:

· Facilitate safe and compatible land uses and development on sites where hazard risk has been minimized.” (Doc 20)

10.123 Delete Policy 2, which states, “~~In areas identified as having Leda Clay, development will not be permitted~~.” and renumber Policy 3 as 2. (Doc 20)

10.124 Section 4.8.7 Land Use Constraints Due to Aircraft Noise

a. Page 147, third sentence of the first paragraph – add the word “auditorium” after “libraries”.

b. Page 148, Delete the last two sentences “The Ottawa Airport Influence Zone shown on Schedule K indicate where shows the area where the noise contours apply. The extent of the noise contours will be determined by consulting the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) and Noise Exposure Projection (NEP) maps” and replace them with the following sentence “The Ottawa Airport Influence Zone is shown on Schedule K”.

c. Page 148, amend policy 2b) by adding the following sentence “The prescribed Measures Document only applies to typically built residential tract housing”.

10.125 That Section 4.8.8 Road, Rail, Transit Corridor Noise and Noise from Stationary Sources be amended by adding the following text immediately following the opening two sentences:

Council recommends the following maximum average noise level (Leq) for noise from roads, railways or Transitways:

· 58 dBA (decibels on a weighted scale average for 30 minutes i.e. Leq (30 min.)) or less averaged between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.

· 53 dBA (Leq (30 min.)) or less averaged between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

10.126 Page 154, Section 5.1, Introduction, add a bullet under Entering into Partnerships to say: “Establish a working partnership with the Conservation Authorities to address environmental matters with special emphasis on watershed, sub-watershed planning, stormwater management, fish habitat and Environmental Impact Assessments.”

10.127 Section 2.3.2, new Policy 6

6. Notwithstanding the policies of this Section, the property known as 4505 Bank Street, located outside of the urban boundary, is permitted to connect to the sanitary sewer.

10.128 Page 156, Section 5.2.1.7

Annex 1 – Road Classification and Rights-of-Way

10.129 Page A-1, 1.0 Classification Summary – City Freeway

Amend the wording of the first sentence by changing the word “cross-city” to “intra-city”.

10.130 Annex 1 – Road Classification and Rights-of-Ways

That there appears to be a number of discrepancies in the Rights of Ways to be protected for those roads located in the former Township of Goulbourn listed in Tables 1 and 3;

10.131 Amend Annex 1 - Table 6 – Collector Former Township of Goulbourn

Changes are underlined text.

Road	From	To	ROW to be Protected

Harry Douglas Drive	Iber Road	Randall James Drive
Hobin Street	Carp Road	Renshaw Avenue
Iber Road	Abbott Street East	Hazeldean Road
Johnwoods Street	Hazeldean Road	Maple Grove Road
Moss Hill Trail	Trailway Circle	Abbott Street East
Ottawa Street	McBean Street	Eagleson Road
Shea Road	Brownlee	Abbott Street East
Road	From	To	ROW to be Protected
Sweetnam Drive	Hazeldean Road	Harry Douglas Drive
Trailway Circle	Hedgerow Lane	Moss Hill Trail
Trailway Circle	Springbrooke Drive	Moss Hill Trail

10.132 Page A-6, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

Remove Bayswater/Bayview from Scott to Somerset (Doc 4)

10.133 Page A-6 Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

10.134 Page A-6 Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

On Booth (Proposed Lebreton Blvd to Fleet), delete note. On Booth (Fleet to Aqueduct), delete note. On Booth (Aqueduct to Wellington), delete note. (Doc 4)

10.135 Page A-7 Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – existing

Delete the road segment and note for Commissioner (Wellington to Bronson).

10.136 Page A-7 Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – existing

Amend Cyrville (St. Laurent to 100 m north of Maxime) by changing the word “~~St. Laurent~~” to “Cummings”

10.137 Page A – 7, Annex 1, Table 1 - Urban Arterial Roads

10.138 Page A – 7, Annex 1, Table 1 - Urban Arterial Roads

Delete the road segment Dalhousie, St. Patrick to Murray, 20 metres, to correct an error in classifying this collector road as an arterial. (Doc 20)

10.139 Page A-8, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

On Heron, in the Prince of Wales segment to Bank, change “~~Bank~~” to “Bronson/Airport Parkway” and add in new line “Heron - Bronson/Airport Parkway – Bank 37.5”. (Doc 4)

10.140 Page A – 8, Table 1 - Urban Arterial Roads

Delete the road segment Fleet, Booth to Lett, 21 metres, because it is no longer needed for approved plans for LeBreton Flats area. (Doc 20)

10.141 Page A-10, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

On Leitrim (River Road to SUC limit) add “Note: An additional 5.0m on the Greenbelt side may be required to construct a rural cross-section.” (Doc 4)

10.142 Page A-13, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

Delete Prince of Wales (Greenbelt Boundary to Amberwood) and revise following segment of Prince of Wales by changing to “Greenbelt Boundary”. (Doc 4)

10.143 Page A-13, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

Amend Preston (Northern terminus to Scott), with a 23m r-o-w, to Preston (Proposed Lebreton Boulevard to Wellington) with a 26m r-o-w.

10.144 Page A-13, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

Amend Preston (Scott to Carling) to replace reference to “~~Scott~~” with “Wellington”.

10.145 Page A – 15 Annex 1, Table 1 - Urban Arterial Roads

10.146 Page A – 15 Annex 1, Table 1 - Urban Arterial Roads

Add in a new segment St. Joseph, Edgar Brault to Gabriel, 26 metres, to reflect recent studies for the future development of St. Joseph Boulevard. (Doc 20)

10.147 Page A – 15, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial Roads

10.148 Page A-16, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

Delete Woodroffe (West Hunt Club to South Urban Community - north limit) and replace “~~South Urban Community - north limit~~” with “Fallowfield”. (Doc 4)

10.149 Page A-16, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

Change Woodroffe (South Urban Community - north limit to Longfields) to Woodroffe (Fallowfield to Greenbelt Boundary). (Doc 4)

10.150 Page A-16, Annex 1, Table 1 – Urban Arterial – Existing

Change Woodroffe (Longfields to Strandherd) to Woodroffe (Greenbelt Boundary to Strandherd) and drop note. (Doc 4)

10.151 Page A-18, Annex 1, Table 2 – Urban Arterials (Proposed)

Amend Lebreton reference to add after “Lebreton” the words “proposed new boulevard”

10.152 Page A – 28 Annex 1, Table 5 – Major Collectors and Collectors, Former City of Gloucester

10.153 Page A-29, Annex 1, Table 6 – Collector – Former Township of Goulbourn

On Abbott Street East (Main Street to Sweetnam Drive) replace reference to Sweetnam Drive with “Iber Road”. (Doc 4)

10.154 Page A-29, Annex 1, Table 6 – Collector – Former Township of Goulbourn

On Iber Road (Harry Douglas Drive to Hazeldean Road) replace reference to Harry Douglas Drive with “Abbot Street East”. (Doc 4)

10.155 Page A-38, Annex 1, Table 10 – Major Collector and Collector, Former City of Ottawa

Add Bayswater/Bayview from Scott to Somerset with a right-of-way to be protected of 23 metres. (Doc 4)

10.156 Page A – 42, Annex 1, Table 13 – Collector, Former Township of West Carleton

Change the reference in the segment of Upper Dwyer Hill between Herrick and Richie to Future Highway 417 and Richie, to reflect that the new Highway 417 work truncates this roadway. (Doc 20)

10.157 Annex 1 - Road Classification and Rights-of-way

Page A-9, Annex 1, Table 1 - Urban Arterial Roads

Amend Jeanne d'Arc (St. Joseph to Innes) to change "~~St. Joseph~~" to "Highway 174".

Annex 2A

10.158 Amend Annex 2A Central Area Key Views and View Sequences of the Parliament Buildings and other National Symbols by inserting a title page and a table that identifies the locations of the numbered viewpoints shown on Annex 2A, as attached as Document 25.

Annex 3 - Central Area Gateways, Nodes and Distinctive Streets

10.159 Amend the lower box on the map by replacing the word "~~deleted~~" between "to be" and "upon relocation" with "added" so that the revised sentence in the box reads " Gateway to be added upon relocation of the Ottawa River Parkway".

Annex 6 – Urban – Areas Subject to a Community Design Plan or Policy Plan approved by Ottawa City Council

10.160 Amend Annex 6, which is provided for information purposes only, by adding the following note: “Annex 6 represents areas subject to a community design plan or policy plan at the time of printing. Periodic updating of Annex 6 does not require an Official Plan Amendment.” (Doc 20)

Schedules

Schedule A – Rural Policy Plan

10.161 Amend Schedule A to add a Provincially Significant Wetland at the Highway 7 and 417 interchange as shown on Document 21, to correct an omission from the Schedule. (Doc 20)

10.162 Amend Schedule A to add the boundary of the Special Study Area east of the future alignment of Terry Fox Drive, as shown on Attachment 1, to reflect that the boundary in this location is subject to further study. (Doc 20)

10.163 Amend Schedule A, adjacent to Stittsville, south of Abbot and between Shea and Caribou to change a small area from General Rural Area to Natural Environment Area as shown in Document 27.

10.164 Amend Schedule A to change the boundary of the Village of Greely to reflect Amendment 40 to the Osgoode Official Plan as shown in Document 26.

10.165 Amend Schedule A – Rural Policy Plan to change the designation for the Richmond Conservation Area from Major Open Space to Natural Environment Area in keeping with Section 3.2.2 Natural Environment Areas as well as the designation in Volume 2-C Village Plans for Richmond.

10.166 Amend Schedule A – Rural Policy Plan to adopt contrasting colour codes for the land use designations to avoid the current difficulty in distinguishing between colours for such designations as General Rural Area and Urban Area.

Schedule B – Urban Policy Plan

10.167 Amend Schedule B to delete the Employment Area designation south of Strandherd Drive and west of the Town Centre, and add a General Urban Area designation, as shown on Attachment 2, to reflect the current designation in the Official Plan for the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton. (Doc 20)

10.168 Amend Schedule B by deleting the Mainstreet designation on Bronson Avenue north of Gloucester Street at the boundary of the Central Area, to ensure a consistent approach to terminating Mainstreet designations at the boundary of the Central Area, where all streets function as Mainstreets. (Doc 20)

10.169 Amend Schedule B with respect to the public lands along the East Shore of the Rideau River accessed from Rhea Place (off River Road) from Natural Environment Area to Urban Natural Feature as shown in Document 28.

10.170 Amend Schedule B with respect to the intermittent creek corridor south of Leitrim, between River Road and Limebank, from Major Open Space to Employment Area as shown in Document 28.

10.171 Amend Schedule B with respect to Gloucester Glen / Boyd Farm Area from Natural Environment Area and Greenbelt Rural designation to General Urban Area as shown in Document 28.

10.172 Amend Schedule B at the mouth of Mosquito Creek at River and Leitrim Roads from Natural Environment Area to Urban Natural Feature as shown in Document 28.

10.173 Whereas the Secondary Plan for the Hunt Club Community takes precedence over the policies in Volume 1:

Amend Schedule B to designate a Major Open Space between Riverside Drive (to the west) and the rail corridor (to the east) to reflect exactly the designation found in Schedule I of the Hunt Club Secondary Plan and found in Volume 2A of the Official Plan.

10.174 Whereas concerns relating to the possible development of lands known as the Woodroffe-Merivale Corridor adjacent to the Crestview Community have been identified.

Therefore be it resolved that Schedule B be amended to designate the lands as Major Open space

Be it further resolved that the city owned lands adjacent to Nepean Creek, except for the playing fields, be designated as Urban Natural Feature.

Schedule C – Primary Urban Cycling Transportation Network

10.175 Amend Schedule C – Primary Urban Cycling Transportation Network to include the:

10.176 Amend Schedule C to add in as an on-road cycling route the following road segments: North River Road in between Montréal Road and McArthur Avenue, Montréal Road/Rideau Street in between North River Road and Cobourg Street, all of Cobourg Street, Stewart Street west of Cobourg Street and Ogilvie Road north of Montréal Road.

Schedule D – Primary Transit Network

10.177 Amend Note 3, in reference to ROW protection for future rapid transit corridors, by adding after “40 metres” the words “or a lesser width if determined to be suitable by the City.”

Schedule E – Urban Road Network

10.178 Amend Schedule E to indicate that the bridge at Armstrong Road in the South Urban Community is “Proposed” rather than “~~Existing~~”. (Doc 20)

10.179 Amend Schedule E to indicate that the portion of Cummings Avenue in between Ogilvie Road and Cyrville Road is classified as an arterial road and not a major collector. (Doc 20)

10.180 Amend Schedule E to indicate that the portion of Cyrville Road in between St. Laurent Boulevard and Cumming Avenue is classified as a local road and not an arterial road. (Doc 20)

10.181 That the Official Plan be amended by redesignating in Schedule E the following roads as local and not collectors:

· Acacia between Corona/Rideau Terrace to Beechwood

· Lisgar between Maple Lane and Princess

· Princess between Lisgar and Rockcliffe Parkway (Doc 20)

10.182 Amend Schedule E to indicate that Labelle Street between Michael Street and Cumming Avenue is classified as a major collector.

10.183 Amend Schedule E to indicate that Jeanne D’Arc Blvd between St. Joseph Blvd. and Regional Road 174 is classified as an arterial and not as a major collector.

10.184 Amend Schedule E to indicate that Scala between Provence and Esprit Drive is classified as a collector road.

10.185 Amend Schedule E to indicate that Aquaview between Portobello Blvd and the Proposed Blackburn Hamlet By-Pass is classified as a collector road.

10.186 Amend Schedule E to indicate that Lakepointe Drive between Tenth Line Road and Aquaview is classified as a collector road.

10.187 Amend Schedule E to indicate that a portion of Old Carp Road between Second Line and March Road is classified as a local and not a collector road.

10.188 Amend Schedule E to indicate that a portion of Herzberg Road from Sandhill Road to approximately 500 metres south of Sandhill Road is classified as a local road and not a major collector.

10.189 Amend Schedule E to indicate that a portion of Fourth Line Road from Sandhill Road to approximately 500 metres north of Sandhill Road is classified as a local road and not a collector road.

10.190 That the appropriate Schedules and Base Maps be amended:

Schedule F – Central Area/Inner City Road Network

10.191 Amend Schedule F by deleting the Bronson-Portage Link. (Doc 20)

10.192 Amend Schedule F by changing Commissioner Street from an Arterial to a local street.

10.193 Amend Schedule F to indicate that Preston Street north of Scott Street is a “Proposed” rather than “Existing” arterial, and connect it with LeBreton Boulevard. (Doc 20)

10.194 Amend Schedule F to indicate that the portion of Dalhousie Street in between Murray and St. Patrick is classified as a collector road and not an arterial road. (Doc 20)

10.195 Amend Schedule F to indicate that the portion of Fleet Street east of Booth Street is classified as a local road and not an arterial road. (Doc 20)

Schedule G – Rural Road Network

10.196 Amend Schedule G to indicate that Montague Boundary Road is classified as a collector road and not an arterial road. (Doc 20)

10.197 Amend Schedule G to indicate that Upper Dwyer Hill Road from City of Ottawa boundary to new Highway 417 is classified as a local road and not a collector road. (Doc 20)

10.198 Amend Schedule G to indicate that the portion of Frank Kenny from Highway 417 to approximately 500 metres north of Highway 417 is classified as a local road and not an arterial road.

10.199 Amend Schedule G to indicate that the portion of Upper Dwyer Hill Road from the Ottawa City Limits to Highway 417 is classified as a local road and not a collector road.

10.200 Amend Schedule G to indicate that a portion of Upper Dwyer Hill Road be realigned between Galetta Side Road and the southwest portion of the new Highway 417/City of Ottawa Road 29 interchange.

10.201 Amend Schedule G to indicate that a portion of Highway 17 between Highway 417 and Breezy Heights Road is classified as a local road and not a collector road.

10.202 Amend Schedule G to indicate that the intersection of Grainger Park Road and Breezy Heights Road be located southwest of Highway 417.Amend Schedule G to indicate that the intersection of Highway 17 and Grants Side Road be located northeast of Highway 417.

10.203 Amend Schedule G to indicate that a portion of Old Carp Road between Second Line and March Road is classified as a local road and not a collector road.

10.204 Amend Schedule G – Rural Road Network to reflect Crawford Road from Dwyer Hill east to Ondrovic Gate and Canadian Drive to Links Drive South are currently unopened roads within Country Club Village.

Note: These are roughed in roads through the last phase of the subdivision and will not be opened until the developer launches the phase. They are not plowed nor maintained by the city.

Schedule I – Major Recreational Pathways and Scenic-Entry Routes

10.205 Amend Schedule I to add the Walker Trail as a Major Recreational Pathway along the western boundary of Stittsville from Hazeldean Road south to the Trans Canada Trail.

Schedule K - Environmental Constraints

10.206 Correct the Legend in Schedule K:

Delete “~~Airport Vicinity Development Zone~~” and replace it with “Ottawa Airport Operating Influence Zone”

Delete “~~Ottawa Airport Operating Influence Zone~~” and replace it with “Airport Vicinity Development Zone”

Volume 2

10.207 Revised Document 24 – Secondary Plan for Rockcliffe Park

1. Section 3.2 should read “Heritage easement/agreements”

2. Section 2.3.2.1, Sentence #1, should read “..anticipated demand for housing in the former Village of Rockcliffe Park.”

3. Section 2.4.2.2 – the subheadings should read 1 through 7, not 9 through 16

4. Section 3.0 – line #1, replace “~~Village Council~~” by “the City”.

5. In the Table of Contents; Add: “Section 2.3.4 Maintenance and Occupancy Standards”

6. Section 4.8.2 should read: “Drainage and stormwater control”

10.208 WHEREAS on October 24, 2000 the Council of the former City of Ottawa approved Official Plan Amendment 42 – Alta Vista/Faircrest Heights/Riverview Park (Key Principles);

AND WHEREAS these Key Principles were derived from the Alta Vista Visioning Study, a City of Ottawa funded and community driven community consultation effort;

AND WHEREAS the Key Principles contained in OPA 42 are not carried forward in the new City of Ottawa Official Plan;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Official Plan Amendment 42 – Alta Vista/Faircrest Heights/Riverview Park(Key Principles) be reinstated into Volume 2-A Secondary Plans of the new Official Plan.

Revisions to Key Principles – Volume 2 Ottawa Official Plan

Alta Vista/Faircrest Heights/Riverview Park – former City of Ottawa

Text language to be updated	Changed to	Page
(Map 3 of the Official Plan)	(delete)	1
Notwithstanding Policies 3.6.2 f) and i) of the Primary Plan,	(delete)	3
Appendix 11 of Volume III: Appendices of the Official Plan,	Appendix II (attached)	3
in accordance with Policy 3.6.2 d) of the Primary Plan,	(delete)	3
In addition to the factors outlined in Policy 3.6.2 of the Primary Plan,	(delete)	3
in accordance with Policy 6.2.2 of the Primary Plan	(delete)	3
In accordance with Policy 9.2.2 of the Primary Plan, Appendix 11 of Volume III: Appendices of the Official Plan identifies the existing parks containing Leisure Facilities in Alta Vista/Faircrest Heights/Riverview Park, which are in addition to the Leisure Facilities shown on Schedule A – Land Use of the Official Plan.	(delete)	4
in accordance with Policy 10.2.2 of the Primary Plan.	(delete)	4
in accordance with Policy 6.9.2 a) of the Primary Plan.	(delete)	4
the policies and objectives of Section 13.25 of the Primary Plan,	Ottawa Official Plan, Section 5.2.3	4

10.209 Amend in Volume 2 A - Secondary Plans, Volume 2 B Site - Specific Policies and Volume 2 C - Village Plans by deleting selected tables showing the revisions to the plans and policies and adding revised tables, shown in Document 23. (Doc 20)

10.210 Amend Volume 2 A – Secondary Plans by adding the Official Plan of the former Village of Rockcliffe Park as a Secondary Plan, shown in Document 24. (Doc 20)

10.211 Volume 2 C – Village Plans - Replace Schedule A - Map 2 - Village of Greely with a revised Schedule which incorporates OPA 40 to the Osgoode OP (error).

Glossary (Document 3)

10.212 Amend the definition Rapid Transit Facility to replace the words “~~The whole~~ of” with “The components of”

10.213 Amend wildlife habitat to include a definition of wildlife so the definition reads: “Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat: Wildlife refers to flora and fauna. Wildlife habitat means areas where plants, animals…”

10.214 Whereas a glossary of terms has been included in the draft op,

Therefore be it recommended that the following definitions be revised as follows:

1. Farm – for other farm types, such a market gardening greenhouse operations would exist”

2. Private individual services – “one individual, autonomous water supply and wastewater disposal system, normally a well and septic system, owned and maintained by the property owners(s).

Add the following definitions:

10.215 Significant (when applied to natural features and functions)

10.216 Wetlands

10.217 Natural Features

10.218 Natural Functions

At the conclusion of the matter, Vice-Chair Stavinga acknowledged the professionalism, dedication and commitment that all the staff have shown throughout the process; and, the front line individuals were present who endured the public hearings and Committee deliberations, but she also recognized there were so many toiling behind the scenes for every request put forward to the Team. On behalf of the Committee, she thanked all the staff for the energy, passion and soul put into the process whether at these meetings or throughout the process in the community.

Chair Hunter echoed and thanked Vice-Chair Stavinga’s for her comments and could not have said it better. He also thanked the many community representatives and personally thanked Barbara Barr, who was present, and the thousands of others. There was a tremendous amount of participation in the process. Lastly, he thanked the Committee who persevered through the process and shown a tremendous level of collegiality and cooperation; and, the best he had seen throughout three major Official Plan Reviews he participated. Although there were significant differences of opinion on significant issues, those were expressed with respect and smiles after the vote. While there were issues that as individuals, Committee members were not happy, he anticipated the Official Plan would be submitted to Council supported unanimously.

The Official Plan CARRIED as amended on the following vote: (UNANIMOUSLY)

YEAS (8): Councillors Harder, Munter, Stavinga, Cullen, Bellemare, Arnold, Hume, Hunter

NAYS (0):

ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.

Committee Coordinator Chair

Minutes 49 / Procès-verbal 49

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Barbara Barr provided a written copy of her presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Andrea Peart, Coordinator, Campaign for Pesticide Reduction, provided a written copy of her presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk.

Section 2.0 Strategic Directions

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this matter be also reviewed in the context of the Draft Infrastructure Master Plan.

Section 3.0 Designations and Land Use

3.6.3. Main Streets

Annex 2A

Annex 3 - Central Area Gateways, Nodes and Distinctive Streets

Schedules

Schedule A – Rural Policy Plan

Schedule B – Urban Policy Plan

Schedule D – Primary Transit Network

Schedule E – Urban Road Network

Schedule F – Central Area/Inner City Road Network

Schedule G – Rural Road Network