[waterloowarrior]

http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/index_en-1.jpg
The Official Plan is being reviewed in 2008 as part of the Beyond Ottawa 20/20 initiative. The Official Plan is reviewed every five years as directed by Ontario’s Planning Act.

Two supporting documents, the Transportation Master Plan and the Infrastructure Master Plan are included in the review.

City Website (http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/index_en.html)

Preliminary Proposals (http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2008/04-22/ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0098.htm)


Key Aspects of the Official Plan

This review is an update of the Plans and not a return to first principles.

Unlike the creation of the 2003 Official Plan, land-use designations are not changing to any great extent so few individuals properties are affected. Many proposed changes arise from a need to be consistent with the recent Provincial Policy Statement and these requirements have been known and discussed for some time. Staff have identified three matters in the Official Plan that will require significant consideration.

1. Urban Intensification: The proposal includes a definition of intensification and the need to establish an intensification target citywide and by area. But, more importantly, it sets out a strategy for the successful implementation of intensification. Communities, Councillors, staff, and developers all must make a commitment to resolving the conflict that accompanies intensification proposals.

2. Urban Boundary: The preliminary proposal suggests that the City establish a “performance-based” urban boundary. The Official Plan would identify Future Urban Areas and require that various criteria be met before these lands are developed. One of the key criteria would be achievement of a citywide intensification target. During consultation the criteria would be refined. Over the summer, various locations for Future Urban Areas would be assessed and the outcome would be provided to Planning and Environment Committee in September. The proposal also indicates that some additional urban land will be required to be added to the urban boundary to meet the requirements of the planning period to 2031.

3. Amount of Rural Development: Various Working Groups examined specific topics as part of the Rural Settlement Strategy. No group looked at the big picture with respect to rural development. The Official Plan says that rural development will focus on villages but, in fact, 60 per cent of rural growth has occurred outside of villages. The Provincial Policy Statement indicates that a limited amount of development may occur in the rural area (outside of villages). The rural community, through Working Groups and workshops, has expressed the full range of desires regarding future rural development – its location and amount. Consultation on this issue will focus on a clear assessment of the options and an attempt to build consensus or express a majority view.

Infrastructure Master Plan

Some aspects of the Infrastructure Master Plan impact on Official Plan policies and some are more procedural. In the Official Plan report there is a section on Capacity Management related to providing piped infrastructure capacity to support intensification. This will be reviewed as part of the intensification consultation. There is also a section on Protection of Groundwater in support of rural development, which will be reviewed as part of the rural consultation. The Infrastructure Master Plan proposals provide more detail on the Capacity Management Strategy.

[waterloowarrior]

City needs backbone: head of planning committee
Patrick Dare
Ottawa Citizen
Tuesday, April 22, 2008

City council lacks the political will to live up to the commitments of its own official plan for development, says planning committee chairman Peter Hume.

Such plans, especially in Ottawa, have since the 1980s described the future of the city as a green community where people can find affordable housing, there are lots of cultural and recreation facilities and suburban sprawl is curtailed. By law, the plan must be re-examined and updated every few years, a process the city is beginning now. It will take many months, require long meetings and produce stacks of reports.

At a committee meeting Tuesday, Mr. Hume said there's nothing wrong with the city's overall plan for the future, but the city falls down when it comes to specific policies to make it more livable. For instance, if a developer seeks to construct tall buildings, the neighbourhood needs to see some concrete benefit, such as a park. Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes said the plans have "lovely statements" but "I can't get one cent into a park in my ward."

She said residents of Centretown spent a lot of time participating on planning exercises only to find that zoning rules are not respected.

She said that while tall buildings are allowed, there are no other amenities brought in, such as green space and schools. Ms. Holmes said residents are laughing now when the city talks about the official plan. She contrasted Ottawa with Vancouver, where tall buildings have been allowed but they are surrounded by attractive townhouses, parks and new schools in downtown areas.

Capital Ward Councillor Clive Doucet said cities such as Ottawa are spending billions of dollars to pay for services into far suburbia and the rural areas, so the fine words about livable urban space is just talk.

Kanata South Councillor Peggy Feltmate said: "We have an official plan but we often don't follow it."

Knoxdale-Merivale Councillor Gord Hunter said the last official plan document talked about intensification or infill: building more housing on less land, especially within the Greenbelt, and close to transit.

But he said that one of the major intensification projects in his ward, off Prince of Wales Drive, is poorly served by transit. And Mr. Hunter said one of the policies of the official plan, enforcing a strict urban boundary, is making housing unaffordable because land prices are going too high.


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=2dc294d7-4bf3-4692-b589-2fa16d7b336d&k=99076

[waterloowarrior]

Developers slam urban boundary plan
1,200-acre expansion over 20 years not enough, will drive up house costs, homebuilders say
Mohammed AdamOttawa Citizen
Wednesday, July 30, 2008

OTTAWA -- The City of Ottawa is looking to expand its urban boundary by 1,200 acres - about the size of Leitrim in the rural south - over the next 20 years, but developers say homebuyers will pay dearly for keeping the expansion that small.

The boundary, a line around the outside edge of the city beyond which development is not meant to sprawl, is a key way to force developers to construct more buildings in existing neighbourhoods.

John Moser, the city's director of planning, told the Citizen editorial board

Wednesday that while intensification is here to stay, in the next version of its official plan for development, the city plans to expand the boundary to meet long-term housing needs. He said the expansion will not eat up agricultural land or encroach on new communities, but will be limited to areas where opportunities exist to take advantage of services or finish existing development.

"We are talking about the frame of this official plan, which is up to 2031, so there's probably a need for some expansion. We are looking at this on a very limited basis," Mr. Moser said. "The city will continue to grow, certainly, and we are looking at 500 hectares - 1,235 acres."

But John Herbert, executive director of the Ottawa Homebuilders Association, said the city's proposal is not nearly enough, and having a "bunch of naive bureaucrats" decide where houses should be built is a huge mistake that will cost new homebuyers money.


"We are asking for 10,000 acres because the city doesn't have nearly enough land in the urban boundary. What they are proposing is a huge mistake and it is going to drive housing prices higher," Mr. Herbert said. "It is government interference in the private market and they are creating a huge problem for new homebuyers."

For years, the extension of the urban boundary has been a source of great controversy, leading to battles at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). At the heart of the issue is whether the city has enough urban land inside the Greenbelt to satisfy demand for new homes. While the city usually maintains it has more than enough, developers disagree. The latest controversy comes as the city reviews the 2003 official plan, revising it to look ahead as far as 2031.

According to the latest land survey, the city had 6,800 net acres of vacant urban residential land at the end of 2006 - spread across the city, but most of it in the suburbs. The land is enough to last 23 years at projected 2007 consumption levels and well above the 10-year supply required by the provincial government, the city says.

The survey also showed that based on average demand over the last five years, the supply of land already serviced with trunk sewers and watermains is enough to last 12 years. However, based on projected consumption, the supply will last 15 years.

The survey said that in 2006, about 330 acres of vacant urban land were developed, up from 289 acres the year before. But the consumption rate was below 370 acres, the average of the previous five years.

The land survey also found that 10 major landowners, among them Richcraft, Urbandale, Brookfield, KNL Developments and Minto, owned 54 per cent of the vacant urban land in 2006. Richcraft and Urbandale together own a little more than 30 per cent of the land.

The homebuilders' association disputes the city's projections, saying Ottawa actually has enough land for about eight years' worth of new construction. Mr. Herbert says the city's argument is undermined by the fact that in the last five years, several small- and medium-size builders have left the city for lack of urban land. Big builders that used to sell some of the land to smaller operators are now holding onto it because of the shortage, he says.

The OMB, a provincial agency, can overrule city planning decisions, and in the past, developers often won appeals on urban expansion.

Under recent legislation that gives city governments more control over urban growth, the OMB cannot overturn an urban boundary drawn up by a council, says Mr. Moser.

Mr. Herbert says by restricting the supply of urban land, the city is creating an artificial shortage that increases the price of serviced land. He acknowledges that once the city sets the boundary, there is very little homebuilders can do except pass on costs to buyers.

"To see a bunch of naive bureaucrats artificially driving up the price of land needlessly is extremely frustrating," he said.

Supply of vacant land, by district, as of 2006
Kanata-Stittsville 34%
Riverside South 21%
South Nepean 19%
Orléans 18%
Leitrim 5%
Inside the Greenbelt 3%

© Ottawa Citizen 2008
'naive bureaucrat's? maybe the homebuilders should just adapt to the new paradigms in planning... look at all the suburban developers in Toronto that have started building condos since Places to Grow

[kwoldtimer]

:previous: So developers want more land to develop. This is news? They say they are upset that the city's plans could raise the price of land that they already own? My heart bleeds. Missing from the article is any indication whether the named companies already own land that would be beyond the suggested boundary. Just wondering.....

[c_speed3108]

I personally I am not against allow developers to build further out provided the developers are willing pay to get infrastructure out to these places. For example you want to building in a certain area - pay to build a transitway or train (city makes the choice not the developers) out that way. Oh and the infrastructure should be installed and ready to go when the people start moving in...not 10 years later.

Look at Riverside South. They build this area out that way and all the sudden the city is stuck with this enormous bill for infrastructure. The need to build transit, roads, everything out that way.

I say let them build, but development charges really need to reflect costs....and this should go for everywhere. Downtown's sewer system (for example) badly needs to be updated removing the combined design. An increase in development fees could pay for this type of thing.

[waterloowarrior]

It's good to make the developers pay, but of course they will just pass on the prices to homebuyers... not that that is a bad thing, since the market will better reflect the true cost of these suburban developments.

But the more greenfield land is available, the less the incentive to intensify and have new greenfield communities at higher density levels. If we restrict the amount of land available developers will adapt and start building more infill developments. As I mentioned earlier, the GTA is a great example. Fernbrook, Aspen Ridge, Empire are all suburban homebuilders now launching and building many new projects since Places to Grow.... developers who in Ottawa develop almost entirely low rise are shifting to highrise in the GTA, including Monarch and Minto

[waterloowarrior]

Official plan review heads to the finish line

Since October 2007, Planning staff have worked on revisions to the city’s official plan in consultation with community groups, government agencies, business and other stakeholder groups. This review is not a return to first principles; rather a refresh of the existing policies in light of the provincial policy statement requiring a review of the official plan every five years.

The review has undergone extensive public consultation through the development of white papers and rural discussion papers, and the preliminary proposals for changes to the official plan and the infrastructure master plan.

As required by Section 26 of the Planning Act, the City of Ottawa will hold special meetings in November to discuss the revisions that may be required to the Official Plan and the Infrastructure Master Plan.

New rules apply for 2009 Official Plan Review

Since we determined the date for the Special Meeting at Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) for the official plan review, residents have been asking questions about how to make formal submissions. This information summarizes how the upcoming Special Meetings in November fit with the entire Official Plan review process.

It is important to remember that a resident must:
Make an oral submission at the Official Public Meeting on March 24, 2009 or
Submit a written submission before the April 2009 Council meeting to safeguard his or her ability to appeal all or part of the Official Plan Amendment.

Official Plan Review process takes several steps
For the Official Plan Review, the proposed timing and purpose of events is shown below.

The timeline for the Infrastructure Master Plan (IMP) is the same, however the IMP only requires approval of City Council.

Special Meeting:
November 24, 2008 Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) and November 27, 2008 Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC). These meetings will provide comprehensive information to Councillors and the public on the proposed changes to the Official Plan. Emphasis will be placed on rural issues at the November 27 meeting. The committees shall have regard to any written submissions about what revisions may be required and shall give any person who attends this special meeting an opportunity to be heard on that subject. However, this is not the “official” public meeting and it is not necessary to make a submission at this time.

Tabling of Official Plan Amendment: January 27, 2009 at PEC.
Staff will table the proposed changes to initiate the Official Plan amendment process and provide instructions explaining how residents may register to receive notice of Council’s decision in April 2009.

Public Open House

Staff will hold at least one open house between January 27, 2009 and February 27, 2009 to give residents an opportunity to review the proposed changes and ask questions about the information and material made available at PEC on January 27, 2009.

Official Public Meeting: March 24, 2009 at PEC

Every person who attends this meeting will have an opportunity to make representations in respect of the proposed official plan amendment. PEC will recommend an Official Plan Amendment to Council based on what is submitted by staff, heard at the Official Public Meeting or received from residents by written submissions before April 2009.

Adoption of Plan by City Council: April 2009
The date for adoption will be determined once the Official Public Meeting on March 24 is completed. Council will consider the recommendations of PEC and make a decision on what to accept or change. Submissions by residents on the Amendment will not be accepted at this meeting of Council.Once Council adopts an Official Plan Amendment, it is submitted to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval. Council will also give notice of its decision to each person or public body that filed with the clerk of the City a written request to be notified if the plan is adopted. Instructions on how to make this request will be available when the draft Official Plan Amendment is tabled in January.

Decision of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: Estimated arrival -end of 2009

The Minister may approve, modify and approve as modified, or refuse to approve the Official Plan Amendment. The decision of the Minister will be provided to the municipality and to each person or public body that made a written request to be notified of the decision.

Appeal Period

Once the Minister issues a decision, residents have 20 days within which they
may appeal all or part of that decision. In order to do so, the appellant must have made:
an oral submission at the Official Public Meeting on March 24, 2009 or
a written submission some time before the April 2009 Council meeting
Committee reports are available on the City’s website seven days in advance of the meeting. Reports can also be mailed to residents upon request.

Residents registered for our e-newsletters will be kept informed of each step of the official plan review process.

https://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/index_en.html

Upcoming Events
Notice of Special Meetings
Official Plan Review

Planning and Environment Committee
November 24, 2008

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
November 27, 2008

9:30 a.m.
Champlain Room
Ottawa City Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West

[waterloowarrior]

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2008/11-24/ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0231.htm

looks like the growth target is 40% of new urban units through intensification...
for suburban development - 26 units per net ha single detached, 32 units per net hectare overall
too bad they are recommending not to ban county lot subdivisions...

residential land strategy

Establish the following density targets, expressed in
people and jobs per gross hectare:
· The Central Area........................................ 500
· Major Mixed-Use Centres .............................. 250
· Target Arterial Mainstreets ...................120 to 200
· Mixed-Use Centres at Transfer Stations............. 200
· Emerging Mixed-Use Centres.......................... 120
· Town Centres............................................ 120


current densities - central area, 395; billings bridge, 130; tunneys, 207; blair-174, 106

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/Ottawa2031density.jpg

[Kitchissippi]

So 20+ years from now we could see streetcars on St.Laurent, Bank, Montreal Road and Merivale Clyde :) I've always thought it would be interesting to have light rail run on Merivale-Clyde then down the escarpment to Churchill Avenue to connect with Carling and farther on to Scott.

[waterloowarrior]

When south meets west
Developer's plan will see suburbs continue to sprawl

Randall Denley
The Ottawa Citizen

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Yesterday, city councillors got their staff's pitch for intensification and limited new suburban growth, but a major Calgary-based development company is already lobbying for a big new suburban expansion that would include much of the land between Stittsville and Barrhaven, sweeping as far south as the village of Richmond.

The proposal to expand the city's southwestern suburbs isn't intended to get immediate approval from council, Walton Development and Management vice-president Paul Mondell says, but he wants to get the idea out for discussion to see if it fits with the city's long-term plans.

The company has already bought about 1,300 hectares of the 6,000 hectares of land in the area it is proposing for development. Most of that is far in the future, but Walton wants 413 hectares of land included for development in the revised official plan councillors will soon approve. The land is located between Shea Road and Terry Fox Road, immediately south of Fernbank Road.

Walton staff have been meeting with city councillors and have hired consultant Walter Robinson, the mayor's former chief of staff, to help ease the way.

If one looks at a map, Walton's proposal makes a certain amount of sense. The suburbs have spread west in the area between Kanata and Stittsville, while Barrhaven continues to expand to the south. There is a large wedge of rural land between the two development areas that has good access to Highway 416 and is potentially easy to serve with transit and major roads.

Walton is a big new player on the Ottawa development scene. The company has 1,500 employees and 30 years in the business.

It has developments planned or under way in Edmonton and Calgary and operates in several other countries.

The company is not a house-builder, but assembles land, plans development and provides services so that small contractors can build. The opportunity for small builders is a point in Walton's favour. A diversity of builders would lead to development that is less predictable than the standard industrialized product we see now.

The case for including Walton's 413 hectares in the modest expansion of development land the city will allow in the next five years would certainly be strengthened if councillors buy into the idea of the much larger development Walton is suggesting. Staff are proposing that 850 hectares of land be added to the urban area, and will recommend which parcels should be included in January. Home builders say far more development land is needed.

Walton's plan compares favourably with the city's already-approved suburban expansion in the far south, which is driving people farther and farther from our main roads to the downtown. The fact is, this city has an east-west orientation and that's what our transit and road system is based on. Development in the far south is difficult and costly to serve. Walton sensibly proposes a Transitway route through the development that would connect already-planned transit lines in Stittsville and Barrhaven.

That said, the Walton plan has drawbacks. The area proposed for development is rural, consisting primarily of flat, fertile fields. It's exactly the type of farmland that politicians always tell you they want to preserve, until someone wants to develop it. Farmers, those noted stewards of the land, are usually quick to take a developer's cheque, as several in this zone already have. With the dollars involved, it's difficult to blame them.

I should tell you that my own little community, Fallowfield Village, makes up one tiny corner of the master plan. What Walton is proposing wouldn't directly alter that neighbourhood, although it would change the feel from rural to suburban.

The Walton proposal contains all the usual buzzwords. This would be a "live, work, play" community. When was the last time a new development was described any other way? To have value, the "work, play" part has to mean real jobs in the community, real things to walk to and do. It can't mean that there will be a few strip malls and some soccer fields.

Walton also talks about "sustainable design" and "cutting-edge technologies" to assist it. Natural and "cultural heritage areas" will be protected, of course. I always grit my teeth when I hear developers talk about protecting a natural area by surrounding it with a subdivision. Farmers' fields never qualify as a natural area, apparently.

Councillors will not be easily convinced that the large urban expansion Walton proposes is really justified by demand. Peter Hume, chairman of council's planning committee, is skeptical and he won't be alone.

What Walton is proposing would change the orientation of new suburban development from the south to the south-west. Councillors should think about all the costs involved in the inexorable march of the suburbs to Manotick before they say no to alternative ideas, but Walton has a long way to go to make this plan seem like more than a sell to justify developing its 413 hectares now.

Contact Randall Denley at 613-596-3756 or by e-mail, rdenley@thecitizen.canwest.com.

© The Ottawa Citizen 200

[waterloowarrior]

employment lands strategy phase 1
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/01-27/ACS2009-PTE-ECO-0003%20IPD.htm

[waterloowarrior]

here's the tabling of the draft OP... epic staff report (http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2009/02-02/ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0029%20ENGLISH.htm)

not all the PDFs are up at this point

[Mille Sabords]

Kinda nice to see some private-sector numbers tell the story...
========================================

Ottawa's downtown pays while suburbs ride free, study finds
By Jake Rupert, The Ottawa Citizen
February 2, 2009 2:02 PM

OTTAWA — Ottawa households inside the Greenbelt pay about $1,000 more in taxes than they receive in services from the city, according to a study done for the city government.

The study, done for the city by Hemson Consulting as part of the municipality’s official land-use plan revamp, found that on average, residents living outside the Greenbelt pay less taxes than it costs to provide them the services they get.

The study found an average household inside the Greenbelt pays about $3,434 in property taxes per year while it costs the city $2,398 to provide services to that household. An average suburban homeowners pays $3,323 in property taxes, and it costs the city $3,393 to provide services.

Homeowners in rural villages pay $3,227 and it costs $3,729 for the city to provide services to them. Residents scattered in the rural areas pay $3,467 in tax while it costs $3,628 for their services.

On a per-capita basis, the numbers are closer but similar. On average, individuals inside the Greenbelt pay $452 more per year in taxes than they consume. People in the suburbs pay $25 less, rural village dwellers pay $173 less, and people living in scattered rural areas pay $56 less each than they consume.

John Hughes, of Hemson Consulting, said the calculations take into account different service levels provided in different parts of the city and the things people are taxed for, or not, depending on where they live. He said the calculation are “high-level” and can’t be applied to all areas, but that it “gives a big picture of the costs” for various types of development in the city.

The study was done as part of the city’s official land-use plan revamp. Among other things, the plan calls for increasing population and employment densities in existing parts of the city and limited new development in suburban areas.

The plan is designed to work hand-in-hand with the city’s new mass transit plan by focusing residential growth and jobs along future light-rail lines inside the Greenbelt.

[waterloowarrior]

this should be the link for the hemson report...
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2009/02-02/Document%205.pdf

[waterloowarrior]

intensification: a sound investment (video) (http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/intensvideo_en.html)
some sweet plane shots of ottawa... don't have sound on this comp so I'm not sure what they are saying..

[waterloowarrior]

Learn more by attending a public information session
The staff presentation will begin at 6:30 p.m. and will be followed by a question and answer period. Copies of the proposed amendment will be available at the meetings.

February 19 - Rural policies
Confederation High School,
1645 Woodroffe Ave, Room 126
6:30 to 8:30 p.m.

February 24 - Urban Policies
City Hall, main floor, Festival Control Room
110 Laurier Avenue West
6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Registration is not required to attend these meetings. If you have questions, please E-mail plan@ottawa.ca.



edit: also, here's a list of questions and answers (faq) about key parts of the plan (http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/qanda_en.html)

[Kitchissippi]

intensification: a sound investment (video) (http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/intensvideo_en.html)
some sweet plane shots of ottawa... don't have sound on this comp so I'm not sure what they are saying..

Really good narrative in that video. It says all the right things.

[waterloowarrior]

links work...

possible areas to expand urban boundary
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2009/02-02/ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0029%20ENGLISH_files/image002.jpg

[highdensitysprawl]

this should be the link for the hemson report...
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2009/02-02/Document%205.pdf

Thanks for the link Waterloowarrior...btw just wanted to say a thanks for all the great City links you put up on this forum. The development applications are great to read before I even think they may be posted.

For the Hemson report, about 10+ years ago, the former Cities and RMOC had the opportunity to purchase a development costing software (infrastructure costing) from a local consultant and they didn't want to know about it and the consultant ended up selling the software in other parts of Canada and the USA. This software looked at hard, tangible costs and not so much the hard to pin down costs (i.e what is your time worth if you spend a long time commutting or ferrying your kids around in the car to activities.).

[waterloowarrior]

No problem, I enjoy finding them and keeping up with what's happening in Ottawa.... It's great that they created the whole online application system, I haven't yet found another municipality in Ontario which has something comparable.

Bigger suburbs inevitable

City staff propose huge expansion

BY RANDALL DENLEY, THE OTTAWA CITIZENFEBRUARY 3, 2009 11:01 AM


Ever since the new city of Ottawa was formed, councillors have been telling us that the urban boundary is sacrosanct. By sheer political will and the magic of intensification, they would hold the line on the boundary and stop the suburbs' inexorable march to the horizon.

Based on the suburban sprawl plan city staff presented yesterday, you can kiss that concept goodbye. The only holding of the line proposed here is what's required to pick it up and move it. What is being presented as a kind of artful tweaking of the urban boundary is actually the second-largest expansion of the urban area in the last 20 years. Naturally, developers say it's not enough.

As part of a five-year review of the city's official plan, city staff are proposing to add 850 hectares of land to the urban zone, an expansion about half the size of Stittsville. While the land is rural, it is mostly not high-quality agricultural land. Expansions of growth areas in Orléans, Kanata and south Nepean are contemplated. Only slow-developing Riverside South is shut out. At the current rate of building, there is enough land in that suburb to last 57 years.

It's not that city planners are madly in love with the suburbs. Their main focus is actually on increasing intensification inside the Greenbelt. They say the extra suburban land is required because of what they believe will be a continued strong demand for new single-family houses. That kind of house has made up about 42 per cent of new construction in the last five years. The city foresees the single-family demand moderating slightly to 40 per cent. Developers say the city has greatly underestimated the number of single-family homes required, predicting that demand will increase so that 47 per cent of all new homes are single-family. Because of that anticipated demand, developers say the city should add 2,000 hectares.

This official plan amendment is critical to the developers because of new provincial rules. When the plan is reviewed again in five years, the city won't be able to add new development land unless it has met a target for intensification.

That sounds good, but what it really means is that 38 per cent of new construction will have to be inside-the-Greenbelt redevelopment, up from 36 per cent today.

That doesn't seem like a monumental barrier, but city councillors and the public are conflicted about the merits of intensification. Increasing the population inside the Greenbelt will increasingly rely on taller buildings, but many on council oppose height every chance they get. People in existing neighborhoods often take the same stance. Staff are hoping to concentrate development around future light-rail stations and on main streets where it will be more acceptable.

The suburban expansion that staff are recommending is intended to round out today's suburbs and rely as much as possible on the pipes and roads that have already been constructed. That isn't entirely feasible, staff concede, but they haven't yet put a price on what enabling the extra development will cost the public. Much of the cost will be borne by new homeowners in the form of development charges.

Whether councillors like it or not, the fight to use the urban boundary to constrain the growth of the suburbs has been lost. Now that city staff have taken a public position that 850 extra hectares are needed to accommodate single-family homes, councillors are risking defeat at the Ontario Municipal Board if they recommend a smaller number. Developers would be lined up to have the board hear applications to meet the housing demand the city's own staff have forecast. In fact, the 850-hectare expansion is proposed to give the city a defensible position when developers do ask for more.

Freezing the urban boundary was always somewhat of a fiction. Councillors have not willingly approved any new urban land since the new city was formed, but there was so much land already zoned for development that there really wasn't any need.

The core business of most large Ottawa developers is building subdivisions. For those developers, the issue isn't necessarily how much vacant land is available in total, but how much they own. It's a model that guarantees continuous pressure to expand outward.

To be fair to the developers, that pressure to expand reflects market demand. People choose to live in suburbs because they want a house that's affordable and a neighborhood that has sports fields and parks for their children.

Some councillors will fight the proposed suburban expansion, but since even the most optimistic intensification scenario says most future growth will be outside the Greenbelt, their time would be more productively spent figuring out how to build a better suburb. The better issue is the quality of our suburbs, not their quantity.

Contact Randall Denley at 613-596-3756 or by e-mail at rdenley@thecitizen.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Acajack]

links work...

possible areas to expand urban boundary
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2009/02-02/ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0029%20ENGLISH_files/image002.jpg

I think that image tells it all. Look at all the open space already inside the urban boundary! I realize that much of the open space shown here is Greenbelt land, but by no means is all of it Greenbelt. There is still plenty of space inside the boundary.

[waterloowarrior]

Inside Greenbelt: pay more, cost less

Official plan study tallies taxes versus services in sprawling city

BY JAKE RUPERT, THE OTTAWA CITIZENFEBRUARY 3, 2009


Ottawa households inside the Greenbelt pay about $1,000 more in property taxes than they receive in services, according to a study done for the city.

The study by Hemson Consulting, which is part of the municipality's update of the official land-use plan, found that, on average, residents living outside the Greenbelt pay less in taxes than it costs to provide them the services they get, a result that prompted one urban councillor to say the continued construction of single-family dwellings in the suburbs needs to stop.

Yet, because of a provincial policy requiring a steady supply of open residential land, the plan still calls for 850 more hectares of undeveloped land, mostly owned by large builders, to become subdivisions, and pushes an expansion of rural villages.

John Hughes of Hemson Consulting said the calculations take into account different service levels provided in different parts of the city and the things people are taxed for, or not, depending on where they live. They are "high-level" and can't be applied precisely to all areas, but give "a big picture of the costs" for various types of development in the city, he said.

The study is intended to help elected officials decide where to direct growth over the next 22 years.

These decisions will be made by city council over the coming months after public input.

The official plan calls for increasing population and employment densities in existing parts of the city, mostly inside the Greenbelt, and limited new development in suburban and rural areas.

Promoting intensification is partly in recognition of the cost to the city of development outside the Greenbelt, but it's also aimed at turning the city into a more compact, environmentally sustainable municipality built around public transit as the dominant form of transportation over private vehicles and an expanding road system. That's the goal of the city's planning department, and it was validated by a panel of international experts last year.

The land-use plan is meant to work with the city's new mass-transit plan by focusing residential growth and jobs along future light-rail lines, and especially around future transit stations inside the Greenbelt.

Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes, whose downtown ward residents pay a disproportionately high tax bill compared to the services they consume, says the city has no choice but to reach its planning goals.

"What we have been doing in the suburbs and the rural areas is not financially sustainable, and it has to stop. Downtown areas are subsidizing suburban and rural areas, and it's largely because those areas are dominated by single-family homes.

"Although many people will want a single detached home, we can't keep building them any more because it makes no financial sense, and people need to realize this. We can't afford the American dream of a single detached home for everybody. These areas need apartments, townhouses, and other, denser buildings."

Osgoode Councillor Doug Thompson says the municipality needs to recognize where, and how, people want to live. He said growth in rural areas, like the one he represents, has benefits to the city as a whole that are not included in the study of who pays for and receives what.

He said he's not disputing the study results, but he's going to look at them in depth and add his own analysis. He added that he thinks whether to grow in suburban and rural areas at all will be the main debate as city council deals with the plan in the coming weeks.

"That's going to be the big argument. Why do we want growth in these areas when it is more expensive? Myself and the other rural councillors will have to put forward a good argument for continued rural growth."

In all, 850 hectares is about twice the size of the Central Experimental Farm, or three times the size of the Nepean National Equestrian Park.

The city is still studying precisely which parcels could be opened to development, but has identified several likely locations:

- Kanata north of Klondike Road

- Between Kanata and Stittsville

- South Barrhaven

- Leitrim

- Southern and Eastern Orléans

Alta Vista Councillor Peter Hume, who chairs council's planning committee, said the study will help shape debate on the plan, but he said when it comes to setting aside at least some room for subdivisions, the city's hands are tied.

He said a provincial planning policy requires municipalities to set aside a portion of land for single-family homes, and the 850-hectare expansion of Ottawa's urban-growth boundary is the "bare minimum" the city needs to add in this review. He said in 2003 the city set aside too little land and ended up losing an expensive Ontario Municipal Board case that saw a developer win the right to develop a large tract of land.

(Representatives of Ottawa's local development industry are already on record saying the 850-hectare expansion of the urban boundary is not enough to keep up with demand for suburban housing.)

Mr. Hume said the gap between what residents pay inside the Greenbelt and what they get is a growing concern as property values in the core rise faster than the average across the city, meaning the gap gets bigger.

"It absolutely concerns us, and that's why we are trying to focus the growth inside the Greenbelt," he said. "But in some fundamental ways, we have to follow provincial policy even though the financial argument for the city is not good because if we don't, it ends up costing us again."

The revised land-use plan also includes new policies to ensure that intensification in existing areas is compatible with the surrounding community, and protection of wetlands.

"The official plan is the blueprint for shaping the city's future from the communities we live in to our transit service to where people will work," said Mayor Larry O'Brien. "We strongly encourage residents to attend the upcoming open house information sessions and provide their feedback."

- - -

Inside Versus Outside

Location Pays in Tax gets in Services

Urban inside the Greenbelt $3,434 $2,398

Urban outside the Greenbelt $3,323 $3,393

Rural, inside villages $3,227 $3,729

Rural, outside villages $3,467 $3,628

- - -

How to Have Your Say

Two open houses have been scheduled to present the proposed changes to residents. The first open house, focusing on rural policies, is at Confederation High School on Feb. 19. The second open house, scheduled for city hall on Feb. 24, will centre on urban policies.

On March 31, anybody can make formal submissions to city council's planning and environment committee at a meeting scheduled for the council chamber at city hall at 9:30 a.m. City council will deal with the plan some time after that.

Once council signs off, it will be submitted to Ontario's minister of municipal affairs and housing for approval, which is expected before the end of 2009.

Mayor Larry O'Brien said anybody who wants a hand in determining the future of the city should make their voice heard.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[waterloowarrior]

Province set to help curb urban sprawl, McGuinty says

City’s plan to set aside 850 hectares for new development raises concerns

BY LEE GREENBERG, THE OTTAWA CITIZENFEBRUARY 4, 2009 9:01 AM


TORONTO — The province is willing to help the City of Ottawa curb sprawl, especially if Ontario laws are getting in the way of that goal, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Tuesday.

“If there are specific concerns there, we would be only too pleased to look at those,” Mr. McGuinty said, following the release Monday of the city’s proposed changes to its official land-use plan.

The plan looks 22 years ahead and is reviewed every five.

As part of the land-use planning process, the city intends to set aside 850 hectares for new development. Construction on the land is expected to consist of a number of single-family homes in low-density subdivisions.

At the same time, the municipality is attempting to boost population density as a means of stemming sprawl and improving the efficiency of the public-transit system. Several provisions in the plan, and an associated transportation plan that emphasizes light rail, aim to promote intensification in areas that have already been developed. Some councillors, however, have said an 850-hectare expansion of the city’s growth boundaries will undermine that end.

But Councillor Peter Hume, the chair of the planning committee, said Monday that space for low-density projects is required by the “provincial policy statement,” a declaration under Ontario’s Planning Act that sets the ground rules for local land-use plans.

When Ottawa set aside too little land for the same purpose in 2003, it ended up having to modify its plan after an expensive hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr. McGuinty says if the province is getting in the way, he’d like to know about it, “especially if you’re telling me that somehow we have something perverse in there that doesn’t allow (Ottawa) to do the kind of things that are good for the environment.”

He wouldn’t say, however, whether the province would consider a tailor-made policy for Ottawa, as it has for southern Ontario municipalities surrounding Toronto. Those regional plans set minimum density targets.

“We’re more than prepared to talk to folks at the city, but I’m not sure where their concerns are in that regard,” Mr. McGuinty said.

Barry Wellar, an urban-planning expert and adjunct professor at the University of Ottawa, says city officials shouldn’t look elsewhere for help. He says local politicians and planners suffer from a lack of imagination.

“The city’s not being forced to do anything. That’s just a crock,” Mr. Wellar said in a telephone interview. “The province is not going to stand in the way of the City of Ottawa having an intelligent approach to combining land use with transportation. The province is neither that perverse nor is it that stupid.”

Mr. Wellar says the city’s current approach treats development and public transit with two separate plans. He says the municipality should integrate those two plans as it moves forward.

Other experts agree.

André Sorensen, a professor at the University of Toronto, says the city doesn’t have to banish suburban development to become more densely populated.

“You can’t entirely change the trajectory of how cities get developed,” Mr. Sorensen said in an interview. “What we want to do is shift to a higher and higher percentage of new housing units being built as intensification.”

The key challenge facing municipal planners and developers is how to develop high-density, mixed-use town centres in subdivisions, Mr. Sorensen says.

Ottawa’s planning history is a checkered one.

The city’s Greenbelt was created in the 1950s as a means to contain growth.

Municipal officials, however, allowed development to simply leapfrog the protected land, leading to costly infrastructure expenditures and long commutes.

Workers in the Ottawa-Gatineau region travel an average 8.1 kilometres each way, the sixth-longest commutes in the country. Four of the top five are municipalities are in the Golden Horseshoe, while Calgarians have the fifth-longest commutes.

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/1251950.bin

[waterloowarrior]

the way part the PPS is worded doesnt' explicitly require a long term supply of low density homes, it puts redevelopment first. But it requires a range of housing types, and the projected residents requirements as seen in the land budget would still require a lot of SF homes, which sort of waters down that 'if necessary' bit

1.4.1 To provide for an appropriate range of housing types and densities required to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area identified in policy 1.4.3, planning authorities shall:


maintain at all times the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 10 years through residential intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, lands which are designated and available for residential development; and
maintain at all times where new development is to occur, land with servicing capacity sufficient to provide at least a 3 year supply of residential units available through lands suitably zoned to facilitate residential intensification and redevelopment, and land in draft approved and registered plans.


1.4.3 Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area by:

establishing and implementing minimum targets for the provision of housing which is affordable to low and moderate income households. However, where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with the lower-tier municipalities may identify a higher target(s) which shall represent the minimum target(s) for these lower-tier municipalities;
permitting and facilitating:
1. all forms of housing required to meet the social, health and well-being requirements of current and future residents, including special needs requirements; and
2. all forms of residential intensification and redevelopment in accordance with policy 1.1.3.3;
directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to support current and projected needs;
promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of alternative transportation modes and public transit in areas where it exists or is to be developed; and
establishing development standards for residential intensification, redevelopment and new residential development which minimize the cost of housing and facilitate compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety.

[highdensitysprawl]

Province set to help curb urban sprawl, McGuinty says

Barry Wellar, an urban-planning expert and adjunct professor at the University of Ottawa, says city officials shouldn’t look elsewhere for help.

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/1251950.bin

With the greatest respect to Barry Wellar has he ever worked outside of academia and has he ever been anything other than grumpy, cynical or suspicious of anything that the private sector has created in terms of housing. To me, he is the ultimate back seat driver.

As well, isn't on the candidate sites in Stittsville already in the urban boundary based on the mapping...the site that is the furthest to the NE in Stittsville.

[waterloowarrior]

ok here's the background from what I can tell

The areas just east of Stittsville are outside the current urban boundary but were included in the Fernbank CDP (http://www.fernbankcdp.com/)study (phase 3 and 4 of Fernbank). They are adjacent to the Del-Brookfield/Westpark (http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl030622_%232092.pdf) lands (big OMB case). The Del-Brookfield/Westpark lands (phase 1 and two of Fernbank) are part of the current OPA (http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_OP%20Amendment%20Application_Image%20Reference_Draft_Official_Plan_Amendment_D01-01-08-0013.PDF)for Fernbank CDP implementation (future urban area, but the other lands are not.

http://www.fernbankcdp.com/dmdocuments/Fernbank_Community_study_ar.gif

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2009/02-02/ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0029%20ENGLISH_files/image010.jpg

5a is Richcraft (partially?), Monarch owns the Westpark lands, Brookfield = Toronto developer, Del = ?? (land development company?), Tartan and Cardel own some land too



http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/fernbankdemonplan.jpg

[waterloowarrior]

from Today's disposition...


DIRECTION TO STAFF:

Planning staff to provide the interpretation of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and explain its constraints regarding urban boundary expansion.




also, here's the proposed OPA (http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2009/02-02/OP%20Amendment%202009.htm) (scroll near the bottom for changes since the previous version)

[waterloowarrior]

here's another map of the current urban designations. The future urban area has an OPA (http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_OP%20Amendment%20Application_Image%20Reference_Draft_Official_Plan_Amendment_D01-01-08-0013.PDF)


http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/kanatittsville.jpg

[waterloowarrior]

Stopping suburbs is no solution


BY RANDALL DENLEY, THE OTTAWA CITIZENFEBRUARY 5, 2009


Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty will have his chance to be the man who stopped suburban sprawl in Ottawa. McGuinty expressed concern and apparent surprise earlier this week about the way that his government's planning rules encourage the continuous expansion of the suburbs.

Councillor Peter Hume, chairman of city council's planning committee, is jumping on that opportunity. Hume said yesterday that he will ask for a written exemption from those rules, so councillors can stop the sprawl without fearing repercussions at the Ontario Municipal Board. He wants an answer by the end of March.

When McGuinty looks into this further, he will discover that the provincial Planning Act virtually guarantees suburban sprawl. McGuinty wondered if there was "something perverse" in the rules that is preventing Ottawa councillors from doing the best thing for the environment. What's in play isn't some unanticipated glitch, it's the very premise of the Planning Act.

That act compels municipalities to approve a minimum supply of residential growth land and that growth land must be able to accommodate a mix of single-family homes, townhouses and apartments. As the residential land fills up, the city has to add more even if it doesn't want to.

The province's new target of 40 per cent of growth being accommodated through intensification sounds good, but turn it around and the province is really saying that 60 per cent of the growth has to go somewhere else. In Ottawa, that means the suburbs.

That said, city council could choose to delay the approval of more suburban growth land.

The province's rules say there must be at least a 10-year supply of residential building land.

At the end of 2007, there were 2,550 hectares of vacant urban land within the city's existing boundaries, enough to meet demand for about 20 years. City staff's proposal to add another 850 hectares would add three-and-a-half years' capacity at anticipated rates of building.

While the provincial rules speak of a land supply that would last up to 20 years, they only compel the city to provide for 10.

If councillors were to let the land supply shrink, however, they would open themselves to OMB appeals by developers arguing that there was insufficient land to meet the demand for single-family homes, which are typically built in the suburbs.

The city has already lost one major OMB appeal on the point. That's why Hume is asking for an exemption from the policy and protection from the OMB.

Stopping suburban expansion sounds like a popular thing to do, but would it really make sense?

As the city continues to grow, new residents will obviously need some place to live. About 36 per cent of growth is being absorbed in the existing urban area now and the city is aiming to boost that number to 44 per cent, to achieve the overall 40-per-cent average over the life of the plan. Not all of that will occur inside the Greenbelt, but a lot of it will. How many new people do we think we can accommodate in the existing built-up area? Not everyone, surely.

If McGuinty were to let councillors ignore the requirement to provide more suburban housing land, it would only be a temporary holiday from reality. Unless population growth stops altogether, it's difficult to imagine a scenario in which no suburban expansion is necessary. One could argue that we should all be doing our bit to make the city dense by living in apartment buildings or townhouses. As long as people have free choice and money, though, it's not going to happen. It's certainly not something government should dictate.

City staff argue that it makes sense to keep the housing plan in sync with their other plans to expand roads, sewers and transit. All those have 20-year horizons. Without knowing where the housing would go, it would obviously be difficult to plan services.

It's easy to adopt the idea that the suburbs of today are evil wasters of land, while the suburbs of yesterday are good because they are closer to the core. The Glebe, Westboro and Alta Vista were on the fringes in their day and no doubt some pretty fine land was sacrificed to their construction.

There is nothing wrong with building new neighbourhoods. It's how we build them that matters. The city is taking a good step by increasing the minimum suburban density by 10 per cent. At the same time, it is encouraging more density inside the Greenbelt and planning to use light rail to make urban living more attractive. It's a plan that balances the desire for a denser, more urban city with the need for suburban expansion to handle a big portion of our growth.

If politicians want to choke off the suburban part of the plan, they had better have a compelling alternative.

Contact Randall Denley at 613-596-3756 or by e-mail, rdenley@thecitizen.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[waterloowarrior]

latest city report with areas recommended for expansion
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/03-31/1-ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0064%20-%20OP%20Review%20-%20Amendment.htm

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/03-31/1-ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0064%20-%20OP%20Review%20-%20Amendment_files/image002.jpg

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/03-31/1-ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0064%20-%20OP%20Review%20-%20Amendment_files/image004.jpg

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/03-31/1-ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0064%20-%20OP%20Review%20-%20Amendment_files/image006.jpg

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/03-31/1-ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0064%20-%20OP%20Review%20-%20Amendment_files/image008.jpg

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/03-31/1-ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0064%20-%20OP%20Review%20-%20Amendment_files/image010.jpg

[waterloowarrior]

Planners propose gradual increase in urban redevelopment

Huge, fast shift from single-family homes ‘not realistic,’ experts say
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Planners+propose+gradual+increase+urban+redevelopment/1423997/story.html

BY PATRICK DARE, THE OTTAWA CITIZENMARCH 24, 2009 11:02 PM


OTTAWA-Ottawa’s planners are proposing a gradual increase in the amount of urban redevelopment in the city because they say a wholesale move from single-family homes in the suburbs is not realistic.

The planners say the city will become a somewhat more densely developed community between now and 2031. Today, 36 per cent of new housing in the urban area is “intensification” development, which means building new housing in established neighbourhoods.

That more environmentally-friendly style of development is a priority for both the city and the provincial government because it uses less land and makes cities more capable of supporting services such as public transit.

But the city’s goal in its current official plan discussions is only to raise the “intensification” development to an average of 40 per cent of new housing over the next two decades. The city is also proposing to add about 850 hectares of land to the urban area for development. Almost all of the single-family detached homes will be built in the suburbs outside the Greenbelt, the city says.

At a briefing session Tuesday, Councillor Jacques Legendre asked whether the city was being aggressive enough about making development more sustainable.

Planner Lesley Paterson said it is “not realistic” to expect a huge shift in development from single-family homes in the suburbs to apartments. She said if the city were to simply hold the line on the urban boundary, and not allow any expansion, developers would almost certainly wage a successful fight at the Ontario Municipal Board.

Paterson and planner Alain Miguelez said the demand for housing that uses less land is growing as the population ages and people want to be in neighbourhoods with good services. They hope that Ottawa will be at 44 per cent of new housing in the urban area being redevelopment of neighbourhoods by 2031.

Miguelez said those targets may be surpassed if the city strongly supports intensification and the public likes the more high density housing offered. He said the key to this more dense style of urban development will be the city’s new public transit system, featuring light-rail commuter trains, a tunnel downtown and an expanded bus system. The city is awaiting approval from the provincial government on its new transit plan.

He noted that the greater the number of residents living and working along the transit route, the better the quality of transit that can be supported.

A public meeting on the official plan proposals will be held on March 31 at 9:30 a.m. in council chambers at City Hall.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[highdensitysprawl]

Planners propose gradual increase in urban redevelopment

Paterson and planner Alain Miguelez said the demand for housing that uses less land is growing as the population ages and people want to be in neighbourhoods with good services. They hope that Ottawa will be at 44 per cent of new housing in the urban area being redevelopment of neighbourhoods by 2031.

Miguelez said those targets may be surpassed if the city strongly supports intensification and the public likes the more high density housing offered. He said the key to this more dense style of urban development will be the city’s new public transit system, featuring light-rail commuter trains, a tunnel downtown and an expanded bus system. The city is awaiting approval from the provincial government on its new transit plan.


Wow this Miguelez guy seems to know his stuff

[harls]

As the city continues to grow, new residents will obviously need some place to live.

No mention of people hopping across the river? Surely this must work into the equation.

[Acajack]

Wow this Miguelez guy seems to know his stuff

And he's never seen a microphone he didn't like! ;)

[waterloowarrior]

Anti-sprawl plan is doomed social engineering, builders' group says


see the updated article below

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Pardon my language, but what a crock of shit. We have a tonne of room in this city.

[waterloowarrior]

for a comparison... 2000 hectares is about the size of Alta Vista Ward or Orleans Ward... or twice the size of Capital Ward.

[eternallyme]

What do the people want though? I don't agree with forcing high density down throats if they don't want it. Doing that would just create leapfrog sprawl in surrounding counties.

[waterloowarrior]

on the other side


Ecology Ottawa Takes on Urban Sprawl (http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/bulldog/archive/2009/03/31/ecology-ottawa-takes-on-urban-sprawl.aspx)

By KENNETH_GRAY 03-31-2009 COMMENTS(2) THE BULLDOG

Filed under: City of Ottawa, Ottawa City Council, Greenbelt, urban sprawl, Ecology Ottawa
Ecology Ottawa is showing the same kind of concern about expanding the urban boundary that a number of planning critics have pointed out.

The ongoing review of the City of Ottawa official plan calls for limited expansion of the urban boundary for development. The urban boundary is a line around built-up areas of the city beyond which development cannot occur. It is meant to encourage dense development within the urban area while keeping rural areas rural.

The revised official plan would contribute to sprawl, the volunteer organization said in a release.

“To say that this plan is one step forward and two steps back would be an understatement,” said Trevor Haché, a member of Ecology Ottawa in the release. “What city planners have proposed — and councillors seem set to endorse — is the second largest expansion of Ottawa’s urban boundary in the last two decades. The climate crisis demands swift movement in the opposite direction.”

“The ever-expanding, car-dependent suburbs of the 20th century have no place in a carbon constrained future,” said Matthew Paterson, a University of Ottawa professor and volunteer for Ecology Ottawa in the release. “Political leadership is required to ensure our city makes a clean break away from the failed planning of the past, which saw the leapfrogging of the Greenbelt and increasing vehicle-related smog and greenhouse gas emissions.”

Ecology Ottawa is expected to make a presentation to the city planning and environment and agricultural and rural affairs committee this afternoon. The revised official plan is expected to be approved in May.


here's their presentation (http://www.ecologyottawa.ca/webyep-system/program/download.php?FILENAME=2-at-Upload_File_Here_1.pdf&ORG_FILENAME=EcologyOttawa_OfficialPlan_submission_31March2009.pdf)

[waterloowarrior]

City's proposed land-use plan pleases no one

Builders want more suburban land, others demand higher density in core

BY JAKE RUPERT, THE OTTAWA CITIZENMARCH 31, 2009 11:26 PM
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/City+proposed+land+plan+pleases/1449606/story.html

Ottawa's proposed new land-use plan, which calls for more density and less sprawl in the coming decades, took a beating from all sides Tuesday as members of the public, community groups and business interests made submissions to elected officials on a city committee.

The official land-use plan was developed in conjunction with the city’s new rapid-transit network. The idea is to build a more compact city built around public transit that will see more use of existing infrastructure, which would save the municipal government money and cut the city’s environmental impact.

Still, the plan calls for 800 hectares of vacant land connected to existing suburbs to be designated for new single-family homes, along with higher population and employment densities everywhere, especially inside the Greenbelt, to limit sprawl.

City staff say that during the development of the plan, which governs what can be built where, they tried to balance several interests. But if they were looking for consensus, they didn’t get it Tuesday, and city council will now have to sort out what to do when final debates on the plan take place later this year.

In their submissions, the local homebuilders’ association said the plan represents an unprecedented exercise in social engineering doomed to failure that needs to be rethought to give them more green fields to develop into single-family homes.

Christina Heydorn of Malone Given Parsons Ltd., speaking on behalf of the association, said the density targets in the plan can’t be reached for a number of reasons.

These included a submission that there simply isn’t enough land in existing areas to build the residential and commercial structures needed to meet the density targets.

The city plan is for 40 per cent of all new construction to happen in existing areas, mainly within the greenbelt, by 2031. The current rate is 26 per cent.

Heydorn said a continued 26-per-cent target is more realistic and the plan to limit suburban sprawl to 800 hectares needs to be reconsidered.

She said because the city will grow and people and jobs can’t be accommodated in existing areas, the city needs to expand the urban boundary by more than 2,000 hectares.

More than 65 groups, businesses and individuals signed up to speak to the committee. City planning staff are to provide responses to each submission. This information is to be available in early May when the committee is scheduled to debate motions to change the plan. Final council debates on the plan come after that.

Many presenters argued that the city should set even higher density targets, allow less or no land for suburban expansion, and rethink its growth projections.

Several of these groups and individuals noted Montreal is geographically smaller than the part of Ottawa inside the Greenbelt, but has a million more people living in it. They also noted a recent city study shows the municipality spends more providing city services like snowplowing, garbage collection, road maintenance, sewers and water to each residence in the suburbs than it collects in property taxes. On the flip side, the city charges about $1,000 more per year to each residence inside the Greenbelt than the people who live in them consume in city services.

“To say that this plan is one step forward and two steps back would be an understatement,” said Trevor Haché of Ecology Ottawa.

Haché urged the city to allow no suburban expansion. But planning committee chair Peter Hume said provincial policy guidelines require some land be put aside for this purpose, and that municipal leaders didn’t want a repeat of the 2003 decision to not allow any suburban expansion, which ended in the city’s losing an expensive legal battle.

Still, Dr. Judy Makin made an impassioned plea for the city to limit sprawl. She said she’s worries that the developers’ lobbying campaign will be too much for councillors to withstand, and urged elected officials to effect the changes contained in the heart of the plan that are supposed to result in a more financially and environmentally sustainable city.

“It’s time for clear thinking,” she said. “It’s time to draw a line in the sand, and stop what we’ve been doing.”

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[waterloowarrior]

Federation of Citizens' Associations of Ottawa-Carleton submission (http://fca-fac.ca/views/OP090331.pdf)

[Mille Sabords]

Federation of Citizens' Associations of Ottawa-Carleton submission (http://fca-fac.ca/views/OP090331.pdf)

That is an excellent, well researched and thought-out submission. :tup:

[eternallyme]

Their plan is unrealistic, as it would just create sprawl in surrounding municipalities who would love the extra tax base.

40 units per hectare? That is forcing everyone to live in apartments. While definitely along key transit corridors there should be intensification, it does not make sense to force it citywide.

[waterloowarrior]

40 units per hectare would be similar to new suburban home development in the UK.

[eternallyme]

40 units per hectare would be similar to new suburban home development in the UK.

This isn't Europe though.

[waterloowarrior]

This isn't Europe though.

It's higher than we're used to for new suburbs, but my point is that it's not 'forcing everyone to live in apartments'.

BTW for developing communities the proposed OP requires minimum overall suburban densities of 32 units per hectare and a minimum of 25 units per hectare for SF homes

[waterloowarrior]

our discussion was mentioned on Ken Gray's blog
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/bulldog/archive/2009/04/06/skyscraperpage-forum-discusses-sprawl.aspx

[waterloowarrior]

a summary on the stittsville situation
http://www.yourstittsville.com/StittsvilleNews/article/11712

Who’s in and who’s not
Planners put forth recommendations
April 03, 2009
BY JOHN CURRY
What a difference a few weeks can make.
A February report, albeit preliminary, about candidate sites to be included in an expanded urban area boundary for the city of Ottawa included five Stittsville area sites in the 21 sites that scored the highest in the preliminary assessment process.

Now, in a March 20 report and following more detailed examination of the sites, four, not five, Stittsville area sites are identified as among the preferred sites for inclusion in the expanded urban area boundary, giving them potential for development.

However, only three of the sites are the same as in the earlier report. Two other sites have been downgraded, leaving them beyond the 850 hectare threshold that the city planners say is the acreage needed to take the city forward until the next Official Plan review in five years’ time. But while these two sites, both south of the West Wind Farms/Hartsmere Drive area of Stittsville, have been downgraded, one other Stittsville area site which had previously missed the cut has now been included within the recommended areas for inclusion in the urban boundary. Another Stittsville area which had earlier been excluded still has not been recommended.

So, who’s in and who’s not.

The highest scoring area, with 77 points out of a possible 83 points, is the Craig farm site along Hazeldean Road just west of the Carp River. This site has 105 hectares of developable land and is surrounded by the Fernbank Community Design Plan lands which have already been approved for urban development.

Another site in a similar situation is a 57 hectare parcel along the west side of Shea Road south of the Goulbourn Recreation Complex. It abuts the Fernbank Community Design Plan lands to the east of the Shea Road.

Also included in the recommended areas to be included in the expanded urban boundary of the city is the Davidson homestead, a 26 hectare parcel south of Fernbank Road and west of Shea Road and immediately east of the West Wind Farms subdivision.

Making the cut this time is a 79 hectare parcel north of the unopened Maple Grove Road allowance, west of the Kanata West development area and east of Lloydalex Crescent. It is right at the cutoff point among the recommended sites.

Missing the cut in this final report which is now going to an Ottawa city council committee meeting on Tuesday, March 31 for presentation and public comment are a 38 hectare parcel immediately west of the existing Timbermere subdivision and two smaller areas, one 12.3 hectares and one 19.8 hectares which are located immediately south and adjacent to the West Wind Farms/Hartsmere Drive area of Stittsville. The 19.8 hectare parcel abuts a country estate lot subdivision to the south.

At a recent public meeting in Stittsville about the proposed expansion of the urban boundary, particularly in the Stittsville area, there was much comment and input from the public about this 19.8 hectare site and the possible adverse impacts of its development on the country estate lot development to the south. However, in the rating criteria, location adjacent to a country estate lot development is only worth a couple of points.

Much more the reason for the downgrading of this area and the 12.3 hectare parcel immediately east of it would seem to be difficulty in servicing the areas with piped water. Because of an identified very weak piped water supply for these two areas, their development would require a major upgrade to a future Stittsville pumping station and also would require installation of a new water main on Stittsville Main Street, running all the way from the Hazeldean Road.

The recommendations now being made changed from those in the preliminary report because consultants working for the city did a more in-depth analysis of the servicing requirements for the various proposed development sites. In addition, city planning staff reconsidered their preliminary findings after receiving public comments about the criteria used and also the weight given to the various criteria. City planning staff also reviewed the information again before putting out this report with revised recommendations of areas which should be included in the city’s expanded urban area.

City planners have taken the approach of adding small amounts of land to the urban boundary in a number of locations across the city, using residual capacity in existing infrastructure where possible and recommending areas which provide the highest probability of integration with the existing community.

City planners assessed each parcel based on a number of evaluation criteria and judged against an expected absorption rate in various areas of the city.

Out of 2,035 hectares identified as candidate areas, city planners are recommending that 795 hectares be included in the urban boundary. To provide some perspective, the Fernbank lands between Stittsville and Kanata which the Ontario Municipal Board ruled as urban area are 470 hectares in size. The Kanata West development area around Scotiabank Place is 685 hectares in size.

City planners evaluated each candidate area based on the criteria of servicing, transportation, community facilities, potential land conflicts, physical characteristics and the demand for development land in an area. Servicing or serviceability deals with water, sewer and storm water facilities. Transportation involves road capacity and availability of public transit. Other things rated were accessibility to existing or planned retail/commercial areas, the ability to work in the community, accessibility to community facilities, availability of existing or planned emergency services, conflicting land uses such as adjacent agricultural land or country estate lot development, soil constraints and depth to bedrock and the absorption rate for development land in the area.

The report states that the recommended area north of the unopened Maple Grove Road allowance and east of Lloydalex Crescent will require no upgrading to piped water facilities and will be able to be served by waste water sewers from the Kanata West development area to the east.

With regard to the area immediately west of the Timbermere subdivision which has not been recommended for inclusion in the urban area in the report, servicing the area with piped water would require a minor expansion of the future Stittsville pumping station and also would require some piping upgrades to the system. Sanitary sewer service would be provided by extension of the system from the area east of Lloydalex Crescent.

The report also points to possible challenges with regard to storm water drainage of this area. The area drains to Feedmill Creek but there are challenges to this because of constraints to such drainage created by the existing Timbermere subdivision east of this site.

john.curry@metroland.com

[eternallyme]

our discussion was mentioned on Ken Gray's blog
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/bulldog/archive/2009/04/06/skyscraperpage-forum-discusses-sprawl.aspx

Excellent mention there...it is definitely a good debate between the lower density types (like myself) and the higher density types (like you).

I think the highest densities should be near transit stations, including in redevelopment areas.

[waterloowarrior]

Density targets to add new dimension to OMB hearings: city lawyer
Homebuilders 'deeply concerned' with intensification ambitions
By Peter Kovessy, Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Wed, Apr 8, 2009 2:00 PM EST
http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/358169201439049.php

Ottawa's proposed residential intensification targets could be a new tool for developers and community groups battling over building densities at the Ontario Municipal Board, a city lawyer has said.

As part of Ottawa's five-year official plan review, city planners are recommending an average of 40 per cent of new homes in the city be built through intensification, namely infill and redevelopment projects, through to 2031.

This target is directed to occur in 10 per cent of the urban area and will be achieved by introducing minimum densities for new construction in the downtown, around major employment hubs and key transit transfer stations as well as suburban town centres.

During a technical briefing for councillors, staff and the media on the proposal late last month, senior legal counsel for the city Tim Marc said the targets could carry weight at the OMB, which hears appeals of municipal planning and development decisions.

In response to a question from Rideau-Rockcliffe Coun. Jacques Legendre, Mr. Marc said that if the city is not meeting its intensification targets, a developer could use that to argue for increasing the permitted density of a particular project.

But, he added, the same argument could also work in reverse.

"If we are achieving our goal, then we could use it to oppose a development," said Mr. Marc.

However, one municipal observer said the planned minimum densities, and accompanying zoning provisions, for specific areas of the city will introduce more predictability for developers and residents alike and prevent many of the battles over density.

"Everybody (will) know where (intensification) is going," said Bell Baker LLP partner Paul Webber, who specializes in land use planning.

"For the developer, it becomes much harder to argue for a highrise somewhere else. For the resident near those areas (targeted for intensification), it gets even harder to argue against it because the zoning is in place."

The province now requires municipalities to establish intensification targets and incorporate those targets into its official plan, according to a spokesperson for Ontario's Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Additionally, municipalities must look to intensification and redevelopment before expanding their boundaries to accommodate residential growth.

Along with its target of 40-per-cent intensification, the city is proposing to expand the urban boundary by 850 hectares, an amount deemed insufficient by Ottawa's home construction industry, which suggested 2,000 hectares is more appropriate.

John Herbert, the executive director of the Greater Ottawa Home Builders' Association, said his organization is "deeply concerned" that the province may not allow subsequent expansions of Ottawa's urban boundary because the city can not meet its own intensification targets.

He argued the city's goals are unachievable, in part because the downtown sites most conducive to intensification projects have already been developed.

Additionally, said Mr. Herbert, high-density suburban developments are unlikely to occur in the absence of mass transit, a position at odds with the city, which has argued suburban densities must come first to justify the expansion of costly transit lines.

"There will be no reason for people to buy or rent in a location that doesn't provide them with the transportation service they need," said Mr. Herbert.

[waterloowarrior]

re: "He argued the city's goals are unachievable, in part because the downtown sites most conducive to intensification projects have already been developed."

the Ottawa Project blog had an interesting map of surface parking lots in parts of the core. Here's a link to the post
http://ottawaproject.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/parking-space/

and here are the maps he came up with

north of somerset
http://ottawaproject.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/picture-11.png?w=612&h=396

market

http://ottawaproject.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/picture-121.png?w=429&h=344

Of course that's just parking lots... there are many other underdeveloped sites in the core and many other areas not pictured in those maps.

[O-Town Hockey]

I think two of the most under-used sites in the downtown core are those two surface lots on Somerset (O'Connor and Metcalfe). It's one of the city's designated pedestrian corridors with great sidewalks and beautiful buildings so it's a real shame to waste prime locations with ugly gravel parking lots when there could be great-looking mixed use buildings. You can mark two of those off the list because they included Mondrian and the EDC site on that map.

[Rathgrith]

Good luck forcing the federal government to do something about those parking spots.

[Mille Sabords]

Good luck forcing the federal government to do something about those parking spots.

The feds are a small part of the problem when it comes to parking lots, they own very few (the best one being the one behind the Lorne building). A bigger problem is that parking lots operate at a profit, so the land has to be purchased at a price that would give the owner better than current revenue. A further complication for parking lots that have been under mom-and-pop ownership for several decades (and there are several) is that the capital gains taxes that are triggered by the land sale are unaffordable to mom-and-pop operations.

So, whatever replaces those parking lots has to generate enough revenue to cover the land sale plus construction, marketing, and all the costs that go with.

If the zoning is so far below the building enveloppe needed to make redevelopment possible, chances are the parking lot will get passed over, unless a developer is in the mood for a jihad with Diane Holmes et.al.

And zoning doesn't necessarily have to imply supertall - it does have to imply some height and some urban-level lot coverage (FSI is a hindrance).

[highdensitysprawl]

If the zoning is so far below the building enveloppe needed to make redevelopment possible, chances are the parking lot will get passed over, unless a developer is in the mood for a jihad with Diane Holmes et.al.


That is one scary imagery.....I'm not sure which would aid in prolonging various activities...thinking of Golda Meir or Diane Holmes

[waterloowarrior]

Residents protest proposed urban boundary expansion
by Laura Cummings
View all articles from Laura Cummings
Article online since April 15th 2009, 13:36
Be the first to comment on this article
http://www.eastottawa.ca/article-326162-Residents-protest-proposed-urban-boundary-expansion.html


Dozens of rural residents came out to protest a proposed urban boundary extension last night, slamming the suggested move that would push the border further east.
Cumberland's Maple Hall literally overflowed with people – many waiting outside in line for entrance into the at-capacity room – a Tuesday, April 14 public meeting on the urban boundary extension, organized by the Cumberland Village Community Association (CVCA).

Though there are two areas in the east end up for inclusion in the revised urban boundary as part of the city's mandated, five-year Official Plan review, it's the section east of Cardinal Creek in Cumberland Ward – 337 gross hectares of general rural area land – that has raised the ire of residents. While concerns voiced at the meeting ranged from overburdened infrastructure to crowded roads to destruction of rural culture, the issue at the core was the potential future creation of an "Orléans-type" subdivision there.

"This represents about 28 per cent of the total (being considered for urban boundary extension) for the entire city of Ottawa," said Tamara Belle-Isle, the CVCA's city liaison and community development coordinator. "It looks like nothing to city councillors, but to us, we might recognize it as a beautiful stretch of land."

Her concerns lay with a preliminary proposal put forward by Tamarack Homes for a portion of the property at a March 31 city committee meeting, which she suggested calls for more than 4,000 homes and an additional 12,500 residents.

"It opens the floodgates to all kinds of development," Belle-Isle continued. "We can imagine what 12,500 additional (individuals) would do to the existing infrastructure. The implications are enormous."

But that documentation was "simply a vision" of what could be proposed in the future, stressed Cumberland Coun. Rob Jellett, not an official application for development. Both Jellett and city staff emphasized that the proposal given to them by Tamarack Homes was preliminary, and that numerous requirements would have to be satisfied before the land was even deemed suitable for development.

Future development is being directed to both set the groundwork for light rail and create targets that all future applications must meet, currently working with a two-decade timeframe, explained Lesley Paterson, a program manager in the city's planning and growth management branch, at the meeting.

"We try to be realistic about what can happen in 20 years," she continued, indicating their goal of creating a more urbanized, convenient network for residents, especially with an aging population.

Part of that, Paterson said, will be accommodating the demand for single-family dwellings. Intensification can only generally provide for new townhomes and apartments, she explained, creating the need for urban boundary expansion.

"We still have an unmet demand for single, detached houses," Paterson added, with the city trying to establish a framework to support intensification. "(But in the meantime) that demand cannot be met in the existing urban boundary."

For more on this story, please see the April 17 edition of the East Ottawa Star.

[eternallyme]

Residents protest proposed urban boundary expansion
by Laura Cummings
View all articles from Laura Cummings
Article online since April 15th 2009, 13:36
Be the first to comment on this article
http://www.eastottawa.ca/article-326162-Residents-protest-proposed-urban-boundary-expansion.html


Dozens of rural residents came out to protest a proposed urban boundary extension last night, slamming the suggested move that would push the border further east.
Cumberland's Maple Hall literally overflowed with people – many waiting outside in line for entrance into the at-capacity room – a Tuesday, April 14 public meeting on the urban boundary extension, organized by the Cumberland Village Community Association (CVCA).

Though there are two areas in the east end up for inclusion in the revised urban boundary as part of the city's mandated, five-year Official Plan review, it's the section east of Cardinal Creek in Cumberland Ward – 337 gross hectares of general rural area land – that has raised the ire of residents. While concerns voiced at the meeting ranged from overburdened infrastructure to crowded roads to destruction of rural culture, the issue at the core was the potential future creation of an "Orléans-type" subdivision there.

"This represents about 28 per cent of the total (being considered for urban boundary extension) for the entire city of Ottawa," said Tamara Belle-Isle, the CVCA's city liaison and community development coordinator. "It looks like nothing to city councillors, but to us, we might recognize it as a beautiful stretch of land."

Her concerns lay with a preliminary proposal put forward by Tamarack Homes for a portion of the property at a March 31 city committee meeting, which she suggested calls for more than 4,000 homes and an additional 12,500 residents.

"It opens the floodgates to all kinds of development," Belle-Isle continued. "We can imagine what 12,500 additional (individuals) would do to the existing infrastructure. The implications are enormous."

But that documentation was "simply a vision" of what could be proposed in the future, stressed Cumberland Coun. Rob Jellett, not an official application for development. Both Jellett and city staff emphasized that the proposal given to them by Tamarack Homes was preliminary, and that numerous requirements would have to be satisfied before the land was even deemed suitable for development.

Future development is being directed to both set the groundwork for light rail and create targets that all future applications must meet, currently working with a two-decade timeframe, explained Lesley Paterson, a program manager in the city's planning and growth management branch, at the meeting.

"We try to be realistic about what can happen in 20 years," she continued, indicating their goal of creating a more urbanized, convenient network for residents, especially with an aging population.

Part of that, Paterson said, will be accommodating the demand for single-family dwellings. Intensification can only generally provide for new townhomes and apartments, she explained, creating the need for urban boundary expansion.

"We still have an unmet demand for single, detached houses," Paterson added, with the city trying to establish a framework to support intensification. "(But in the meantime) that demand cannot be met in the existing urban boundary."

For more on this story, please see the April 17 edition of the East Ottawa Star.

The area east of Cardinal Creek as urban? Much of that is either environmentally sensitive (undevelopable) or exurban/rural subdivisions - good luck getting those landowners to sell the land en masse. I'd freeze the Orleans eastern boundary at Cardinal Creek.

If they need 337 extra hectares (over 840 acres) of new suburban development in Orleans, they should focus it along the Cumberland Transitway corridor, perhaps in the Millennium Park area and southeast of Chapel Hill.

Development within the Greenbelt is an option in certain areas, but the Greenbelt separating Orleans, for the most part, is environmentally sensitive and should be preserved no matter what. (The bulk of the developable Greenbelt is in the Airport and Hunt Club areas and near Bayshore and Bells Corners, IMO.)

[waterloowarrior]

this would be the area they are talking about.

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/03-31/1-ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0064%20-%20OP%20Review%20-%20Amendment_files/image008.jpg

[highdensitysprawl]

this would be the area they are talking about.

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/03-31/1-ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0064%20-%20OP%20Review%20-%20Amendment_files/image008.jpg

I went through a development application in Cumberland Village a year or so ago and the natives out there like their Status Quo (and I don't mean the 70's three chord band) just the way it is.

The rumour mill out there is pretty active and half truths easily get twisted.

[waterloowarrior]

I went through a development application in Cumberland Village a year or so ago and the natives out there like their Status Quo (and I don't mean the 70's three chord band) just the way it is.

The rumour mill out there is pretty active and half truths easily get twisted.

I took a look at an aerial of the area. Looks like the Manotick/Greeley of the East.

[highdensitysprawl]

I took a look at an aerial of the area. Looks like the Manotick/Greeley of the East.

That is a good analogy....the residents out there basically don't want any part of anything urban yet they complain about their high taxes for the services they get.

[waterloowarrior]

I think it's too bad that country lot subdivisions will still basically be permitted in this version of the OP (link to the rural settlement strategy (http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2009/02-02/Document%209b%20-%20Rural%20Settlement%20Strategy%20Rev%2009.pdf)). They are promoting Conservation Subdivisons as the alternative. Like we were talking about in the New Neighbourhoods thread, there is a large inventory of undeveloped rural subdivisons (both in Ottawa and the surrounding municipalities). With Highway 7 widening and commuter rail lines we are sure to see more. Just look on Google Maps in the West End and you can see how much land is taken up by these country estate lot developments. Our urban areas are getting closer and closer to these rural estate lot subdivisions.

If you look at plans like the Greenbelt, country subdivisions are generally not being permitted anymore. Development is being directed into urban areas, with some development in villages. Waterloo Region is also putting heavy restrictions on where these subdivisions can go, and is basically stopping expansion of rural settlement areas. In the 2003 OP process Staff recommended no longer permitting country lot subdivisions, but Council did not agree. Perhaps after this Minto decision some of the rural settlement policies will change.

[eternallyme]

I think it's too bad that country lot subdivisions will still basically be permitted in this version of the OP (link to the rural settlement strategy (http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2009/02-02/Document%209b%20-%20Rural%20Settlement%20Strategy%20Rev%2009.pdf)). They are promoting Conservation Subdivisons as the alternative. Like we were talking about in the New Neighbourhoods thread, there is a large inventory of undeveloped rural subdivisons (both in Ottawa and the surrounding municipalities). With Highway 7 widening and commuter rail lines we are sure to see more. Just look on Google Maps in the West End and you can see how much land is taken up by these country estate lot developments. Our urban areas are getting closer and closer to these rural estate lot subdivisions.

If you look at plans like the Greenbelt, country subdivisions are generally not being permitted anymore. Development is being directed into urban areas, with some development in villages. Waterloo Region is also putting heavy restrictions on where these subdivisions can go, and is basically stopping expansion of rural settlement areas. In the 2003 OP process Staff recommended no longer permitting country lot subdivisions, but Council did not agree. Perhaps after this Minto decision some of the rural settlement policies will change.

That wouldn't work very well, for the following reasons:

*There isn't a great deal of demand for them as they make up less than 5% of new houses, although intensifying the urban area may increase them somewhat.
*They are never built in environmentally unsustainable areas.
*A ban on such developments would make them sprout in surrounding areas outside the City of Ottawa (and surrounding townships would love the extra property tax revenue), and the even longer commutes would create greater problems with congestion and pollution
*Rural residents of Ottawa are quite conservative and protectionist about their land, and starting a battle with them would be a terrible idea.

[waterloowarrior]

I don't think the number of people or houses is the problem, it's more the land area that these developments take up. 60% of all residential land in the city is in rural areas, but that only includes 8.5% of units and 10% of the population. In 2006 alone rural residential development outside villages took up about 650 hectares (300 units, a bit less than half of those were in country lot subdivisons)

http://www.ottawa.ca/city_services/statistics/rural_land_survey/2006_update_en.shtml
http://www.ottawa.ca/city_services/statistics/counts/land_use/index_en.html

[jeremy_haak]

What is the status of servicing in these subdivisions?

I'm kind of surprised the City of Ottawa isn't taking a stronger stance against them considering the language of the PPS. Even in places like Bruce County, which I would hardly consider at the forefront of planning, it has become almost impossible to receive approval for these sorts of rural estate subdivisions (except in a few particular cases mainly related to seasonal residential uses).

[eternallyme]

What is the status of servicing in these subdivisions?

I'm kind of surprised the City of Ottawa isn't taking a stronger stance against them considering the language of the PPS. Even in places like Bruce County, which I would hardly consider at the forefront of planning, it has become almost impossible to receive approval for these sorts of rural estate subdivisions (except in a few particular cases mainly related to seasonal residential uses).

Generally, they aren't serviced.

[waterloowarrior]

What is the status of servicing in these subdivisions?

I'm kind of surprised the City of Ottawa isn't taking a stronger stance against them considering the language of the PPS. Even in places like Bruce County, which I would hardly consider at the forefront of planning, it has become almost impossible to receive approval for these sorts of rural estate subdivisions (except in a few particular cases mainly related to seasonal residential uses).

here's what they say

Second, the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) directs municipalities to permit “limited
residential development” in the rural area outside of villages. However, no indication is given as
to what is meant by “limited”. The City of Ottawa currently directs country lot subdivisions to
only two land-use designations: General Rural Area and Rural Natural Features (with
conditions). The priority at the City, consistent with the PPS, is to protect rural resources in
which little development is permitted. Based on our
best estimates, the rural population is distributed as
shown in Figure 3. About 56% of the rural population
lives outside villages on severed lots, in hamlets and in
country lot subdivisions and about 44 % live in
Villages. So a snap shot of the rural area shows 19% of
the rural population or less than 2% of the City’s total
population lives in Country lots subdivisions. should
not be characterized as “limited”?

Finally, to make matters more complex, the Terms of Settlement, accepted by the Ontario
Municipal Board for an appeal to the 2003 Official Plan requires the City of Ottawa to consider
the ‘no country lot subdivision option’ in this Official Plan review.



Growth management is discussed in more detail within the Village section and the General Rural
Area section below. However, some key conclusions are included here and culminate in a
recommendation to continue with current development policies.
The development of a Rural Settlement Strategy was a community-based process. The emphasis
was on workshops, intensive working group meetings and proposals written by the residents.
Staff took the position that if the residents’ recommendations were consistent with the PPS, staff
would likely support them. The residents said that they do not want to prohibit country lot
subdivisions but that they had some specific concerns. In particular, concern was expressed
about the potential cumulative effect on groundwater and the loss of wooded areas. These are
addressed later in the report.
Taken as a package, it is felt that the proposed rural policies are consistent with the PPS. They
allow country lot subdivisions to continue to locate in General Rural Areas and in Rural Natural
Features provided an Environmental Impact Statement is provided. Policies are proposed to
support community-based planning in villages and mechanisms to support a slower, more rural
pace of growth as well.


What about the direction to consider the “no country lot development option”? In the end, the
following factors contributed to its rejection:
􀂃 Less than 2% of people are demanding or choosing this lifestyle option
􀂃 There is no documentation of issues that are peculiar to country lot subdivisions. Some
participants identified them as unsustainable. But, the same issues exist for most villages.
These are :
- potential cumulative effect on groundwater;
- contribution to climate change through the high level of commuting by private
automobile to the urban area for work and shopping and other activities;
- loss of rural landscape
- negative impact on resource-based activities such as agriculture
􀂃 Policies exist or will be introduced to address the largest concerns:
Existing policies
- All important resource areas are protected from development including
agriculture, mineral aggregate, natural resource areas
- Separation distance from villages and urban areas
- Separation distance from natural environment areas
- Large lots to assist in the safe operation of wells and septic systems
- Minimum distance separation from agricultural operations
Proposed policies
- Proposed conservation subdivision to address the protection of wooded areas
- Improved groundwater monitoring and hydrogeology studies
􀂃 No appetite exists to launch a battle with rural residents on this matter unless clear
evidence exists of negative impacts of country lot subdivisions as compared with
villages.

[Acajack]

I don't think the number of people or houses is the problem, it's more the land area that these developments take up. 60% of all residential land in the city is in rural areas, but that only includes 8.5% of units and 10% of the population. In 2006 alone rural residential development outside villages took up about 650 hectares (300 units, a bit less than half of those were in country lot subdivisons)



Excellent point. And the future problem is that once these areas fairly close to the city are built up as estate lots, the land can almost never be densified even when the city eventually grows out that far and a denser contiguous urban habitat might be extended into them. (That’s how European cities grow, BTW.) By then it’s too late: what’s there is there and people don’t want that to change. One can hardly blame them.

The problem doesn’t so much come from the fact that people living on estate lots don’t want more density in their area, it’s the fact that huge expanses of homes on estate lots (virtually impossible to densify after the fact, even if the neighbours agreed) were allowed to be put there in the first place.

[jeremy_haak]

I guess my interpretation of limited residential development does not include subdivisions. I'm not opposed to rural lot creation; however, I don't believe subdivision development is appropriate.

[waterloowarrior]

Great points Acajack!

I made some quick maps of country lot areas that are near the city (there are many beyond these areas and I probably missed a few)... The 'east' map also includes some 'village' area.

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/countrylot_west.jpg
http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/countrylot_south.jpg
http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/countrylot_east.jpg

[waterloowarrior]

found this in the centretown CA agenda

Rally for a Sustainable Ottawa: No more urban sprawl
Tell City Council that expanding the Urban Growth Line is a bad idea

Monday, May 11 at 12:15. The Human Rights Monument.

The public is also welcome throughout the day as the committee deliberates on Ottawa's Official Plan
at City Hall.

Urban sprawl is the one of the biggest problems facing our community. Expanding the boundary for
urban growth in Ottawa, and creating new developments over 850 hectares outside established villages
on the periphery, as is being proposed, will damage Ottawa economically, socially and
environmentally. On May 11, we have a final opportunity to influence City Councillors as they meet to
determine the plan for the future of Ottawa. They are being lobbied intensely by developers who want
to keep on making new housing projects on the outskirts of town at our common expense. The time
has come to express the only position that is rational with a view to developing a sustainable, livable
community: that there should be no more urban sprawl.

Our City is about half as dense as Montreal and we must develop inside the Urban Growth Line, as it currently lies.
Only in this way can we put less strain on the environment, on water usage, on roadways and on our property taxes.
Come and let those representing us at City Hall know how you feel. There are many ways to help.
Attend the rally. Meet the Councillors; some will be in attendance. Write and call your own
Councillor. Sign the petition. Spend some time watching your representatives in action. Your
participation will send the very clear message that there is a smarter way to grow:
NO MORE URBAN SPRAWL

[Richard Eade]

I notice that the item:

"Official Plan Amendment - Urban Boundary, south to Wall Road between Trim Road and Mer Bleue Road"

has been withdrawn from Tuesday's Planning and Environment Committee meeting.

[waterloowarrior]

here's the latest epic report... lots of submissions
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/05-11/ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0080.htm

the proposed OPA
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/05-11/Document%2013.htm

[waterloowarrior]

infrastructure master plan changes from previous draft
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/05-11/Document%2014.htm

[highdensitysprawl]

infrastructure master plan changes from previous draft
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/05-11/Document%2014.htm

Thanks....are the sections in a grey tone a change from the previous version.

[waterloowarrior]

not sure what the grey means..


Official Plan tests the limits
By SUSAN SHERRING
Last Updated: 11th May 2009, 4:17am

Everything you wanted to know about the city's Official Plan will be at the forefront this week at City Hall -- regardless of whether you're interested.

While the plan isn't on the radar for all citizens, for some it's a highly emotional issue.

Go figure.

In truth, the issues being dealt with do impact us all, and it's an important debate that guides the future of the city.

In simple terms, the plan dictates how all lands in the city can be used, where suburbs will expand and where they can't, touching on everything from parkland to malls to transit to development on agricultural lands.

Expect tempers to flare -- and to hear some heart-tugging presentations about quality of life.

You might even hear some dire warnings about the future of our food supply, just to give you an idea of how important the urban boundary is for some people.

Kanata South Coun. Peggy Feltmate plans on taking part in a protest against expanding the urban boundary, which would encroach on lands now designated rural.

The rally, organized by the Coalition for a Sustainable Ottawa, will take place tomorrow at noon at the Human Rights Monument outside City Hall.

"I certainly have concerns. I don't know that they've thought it through well enough, about city services," she said.

Feltmate said it's important to emphasize intensification of current developments, where city services already exist.

And that goes hand-in-hand with the transit system.

"Our developments are supposed to support light rail," she said.

"It seems to be emotional, I guess it's about livelihood. It's like winning the lottery, for developers or for people with small parcels now designated rural. In a way, it's frightening, I don't know if that's the right word, but you realize how much it affects a lot of lives," she said.

John Moser, the city's general manager of planning and growth management, will be on the hot seat this week as he defends staff's decisions on the urban boundary, which recommend some movement outside the present line.

"I think it's an important issue," he said. "It's again how we build the city, in terms of us being able to provide choice, the housing people want. We recognize a continued demand for single family housing. We're trying to acknowledge that, trying to have intensification targets.

"We're moving with our intensification from the core outward. We have areas where we want more intensification, where we need to mirror where we're going with our transit network, transit areas, marrying land use. We have to tie it all together, going to work in tandem with infrastructure and transit," he said.

Intensification is definitely key, but city councillors haven't always walked the walk. While they support the idea in principle, the not-in-my-backyard syndrome has gotten in the way more than once.

Walton Development and Management Inc. is just one developer that made representations to city officials hoping to convince them the city should expand into rural properties the company owns between Kanata and Stittsville.

NOT THIS TIME

The company wasn't successful this time around. Staff decided not to designate their rural lands for development.

Paul Mondell is Walton's vice-president for Ontario.

"We put forward what we believe to be a rather comprehensive vision, which basically focuses on the southwest area of Ottawa, a very detailed and comprehensive look at where we think there are some potential longer-term opportunities," he said.

"To be clear, we're disappointed with where staff are at this stage," he said.

Will they fight the decision at another level?

"Anybody can challenge what the city is doing. I'm not suggesting that is what we're going to do.

"We're obviously disappointed with the ultimate direction they're taking. We still believe we're giving a lot of value into the city."

[waterloowarrior]

Ottawa's official plan update underway
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ottawa+official+plan+update+underway/1584586/story.html
BY JAKE RUPERT, THE OTTAWA CITIZENMAY 11, 2009COMMENTS (2)


OTTAWA — The last round of public hearings on changes to the city land-use policy got under way at city hall Monday morning with an update from municipal planning staff.

The official plan determines what people can do with individual properties. It is reviewed and amended every five years, and the current review has turned into a battle between those who want to stop suburban sprawl and those who say a continued expansion of suburbs simply reflects how and where people want to live.

After an exhaustive review of potential expansion lands, planning staff recommend setting aside 850 hectares of land to allow for suburban expansion until 2031, which would increase the size of the developed city by 2.4 per cent.

Suburban development companies would like even more land set aside for subdivisions consisting mostly of single-family homes. However, many people and groups are urging council to set a side no land for suburban expansion and instead focus new development within the existing built-up areas of the city.

They argue that suburban expansion is unsustainable environmentally and financially.

Groups and individuals from both sides of the debate, and some individual land owners, are scheduled to make submissions to city councillors in a joint rural affairs and planning committee meeting this week.

City council is scheduled to make final decisions on the changes next month.

After staff’s presentation to the committee, councillors were given a chance to ask questions. Councillors representing urban areas of the city are generally opposed to expanding the suburban boundary while councillors representing suburban wards generally support expansion.

Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes said residents of her downtown ward are getting angry with continued suburban expansion. Driving that anger is the fact that a recent city-commissioned study showed people with downtown properties, on average, pay $1,000 more in yearly property taxes than the city services they consume while suburban and rural residents pay less than the cost of city services they consume.

“Allowing ourselves to continue down the dreamland land path to oblivion is not what I want see in this official plan,” she said. “If we want to go over the cliff with all the other lemmings, I guess we can, but what we’ve been doing is not sustainable.”

On the other side of the coin are councillors like Barrhaven’s Jan Harder, who said there needs to be enough land to build more single-detached houses because that’s what people, especially young families, want.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[waterloowarrior]

Tuesday protest to call for end of city sprawl

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Business/Tuesday+protest+call+city+sprawl/1584820/story.html
BY PATRICK DARE, THE OTTAWA CITIZENMAY 11, 2009COMMENTS (9)


OTTAWA — A group of citizens concerned about urban sprawl in Ottawa will hold a demonstration next to City Hall on Tuesday, urging city council to hold the line on the urban boundary.

The Coalition for a Sustainable Ottawa will hold a noon-hour rally at the Human Rights Monument on Elgin Street at Lisgar Street.

Will Murray, an Ottawa lawyer and former provincial election candidate for the NDP, said he was motivated to organize the event after dropping in on a recent meeting at city hall about the official plan. The city is revising its development plan, as required by the Ontario government, and staff have proposed adding 842 hectares to the city’s urban area.

Murray said that the people attending the meeting were people with vested interests: landowners and developers. He became concerned that the greater public wasn’t aware of what was going on.

Murray says city councillors should keep the urban boundary where it is to begin to counter the effects of development that is sprawling into the Eastern Ontario countryside. He said distant suburbs not only have an environmental cost; they are difficult and costly to maintain with services such as public transit.

The group is advocating a mix of housing development but Murray says this doesn’t mean building 30-storey apartment buildings. He noted that Montreal is about twice as dense in residential development than Ottawa by allowing a mix of housing.

The group says that four city councillors have agreed to make an appearance at the Tuesday rally. Murray hopes that citizens will also attend the planning meeting where the official plan is being discussed.

City planning staff on Monday told councillors that the city could opt for no urban expansion. This would result in fewer single detached houses being built but there’d still be a large supply of townhouses and apartments.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[waterloowarrior]

Anyone listening to the online stream this morning? night and day difference in opinions between the suburban and urban councillors...

[highdensitysprawl]

Anyone listening to the online stream this morning? night and day difference in opinions between the suburban and urban councillors...

Let me guess....Holmes, Doucet, Legendre and Bedard firmly in favour of more sprawl, Thompson, Eli, Harder, Bloess firmly against any more expansions:banana:

I saw a bit of Talk Ottawa this evening.....Thompson remains to be convinced about not adding more lands and Hume against it other than allowing the 'Fernbank' lands to be allowed in the boundary in order to do comprehensive planning etc....hmm, I wonder who got to him on that one.

[Dado]

I saw a bit of Talk Ottawa this evening.....Thompson remains to be convinced about not adding more lands and Hume against it other than allowing the 'Fernbank' lands to be allowed in the boundary in order to do comprehensive planning etc....hmm, I wonder who got to him on that one.

Actually, Hume's position makes a lot of sense. There are a couple of pockets or islands of rural land that were not part of the OMB Fernbank decision (different owner). These plots are surrounded on 3 or 4 sides by urban-designated land and basically have no commercial value as agricultural land (though perhaps as community gardens, but that'll never happen). No one needs to have got to him other than asking him to look at the map:

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2009/02-02/ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0029%20ENGLISH_files/image002.jpg

[highdensitysprawl]

Anyone listening to the online stream this morning? night and day difference in opinions between the suburban and urban councillors...

Hands up, I'm a saddo...I am listening online while doing other work....I am now listening to the fellow from the Cardinal Creek Community Association making friends on council....not.

He is now demanding butternut trees to be planted.

Watch for this guy running for Council soon.

[waterloowarrior]

Tuesday protest to call for end of city sprawl

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Business/Tuesday+protest+call+city+sprawl/1584820/story.html
BY PATRICK DARE, THE OTTAWA CITIZENMAY 11, 2009COMMENTS (9)


OTTAWA — A group of citizens concerned about urban sprawl in Ottawa will hold a demonstration next to City Hall on Tuesday, urging city council to hold the line on the urban boundary.

The Coalition for a Sustainable Ottawa will hold a noon-hour rally at the Human Rights Monument on Elgin Street at Lisgar Street.
n

I stopped by to watch the protest today... there was a pretty good turnout. They sung about 'Holding the Line' (ie the urban boundary) or something like that. Councillors Legendre, Cullen, Holmes, Feltmate, and Doucet spoke and Councillor Jellet was also up there. There's a clip on the CTV website with a Doucet interview
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/#2

Metro article (http://www.metronews.ca/ottawa/local/article/227871--citizens-rally-to-urge-ottawa-no-more-sprawl)

[highdensitysprawl]

I stopped by to watch the protest today... there was a pretty good turnout. They sung about 'Holding the Line' (ie the urban boundary) or something like that. Councillors Legendre, Cullen, Holmes, Feltmate, and Doucet spoke and Councillor Jellet was also up there. There's a clip on the CTV website with a Doucet interview
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/#2

Metro article (http://www.metronews.ca/ottawa/local/article/227871--citizens-rally-to-urge-ottawa-no-more-sprawl)

I'm surprised Jellet was there as his ward is pretty sprawly. I get the sense that Councillor Feltmate is seeing the impacts of sprawl on her ward and is trying to rein it in.

Phil Brown, who is quoted in the Metro article, is a very articulate man and the head of the Committee of Adjustment panel that deals with the inner core.

[waterloowarrior]

Jellett was apparently also on CFRA stating his opposition to the expansion
http://www.cfra.com/?cat=1&nid=65102#

Councillors line up against sprawl
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Councillors+line+against+sprawl/1589683/story.html
Hundreds at rally urge city to stop suburban expansion

BY PATRICK DARE, THE OTTAWA CITIZENMAY 12, 2009 10:23 PM


STORYPHOTOS ( 1 )
http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/councillors+line+against+sprawl/1589683/1589690.bin


Musician Victor Nesrallah performs at a rally outside Ottawa City Hall to get councillors to freeze the urban boundary and stop the city from expanding out of control.
Photograph by: Chris Mikula, The Ottawa Citizen

OTTAWA — Ottawa council could avoid a series of fights at the Ontario Municipal Board by holding the line on its urban boundary, according to its top planning lawyer.

Tim Marc says changes to the provincial Planning Act since 2003 have strengthened the city’s hand in controlling development. If any urbanexpansion in the official plan is permitted, the revised plan can be appealed to the provincial board, which has the power to overrule city land-use decisions. However, if no expansion is approved, no appeals can be made to the board.

City council is considering the revision of its official plan, the document that guides all residential and commercial development. Planning staff recommended an expansion of 842 hectares.

But Bay Councillor Alex Cullen said Tuesday that council could end up with even more than the 842 hectares added to the city’s urban area if the municipal board agrees with developers on expanding the urban area even farther.

“It opens the door. We have to be very careful here,” said the councillor.

Cullen was one of six city councillors who attended a noon-hour rally Tuesday, organized by lawyer Will Murray, aimed at getting councillors to stop urban sprawl by keeping the urban boundary where it is.

The crowd of close to 200 residents was told that the city’s urban expansion to date — which is heavy on single-family houses that use a lot of land for relatively few people — is spreading the city’s finances too thin and taking a heavy toll on the environment. Services cost more to provide on the outskirts of town and low population densities produce relatively little tax revenue for the city to pay for them.

“We aren’t against growth. We just want growth that makes sense,” said Murray.

“We break this line, we don’t have one,” said Capital Councillor Clive Doucet of the urban boundary in the city’s current official plan.

“No more sprawl!” shouted Cullen, calling it “a plague” on the planet.

Later, Cullen said Ontario cities need to learn from the strict approach of cities in Europe, where firm urban boundaries have created highly successful cities.

Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes said Ottawa needs to change the way it develops to save farmland and a local food supply. She said the planners’ recommendation that 40 per cent of residential development be single-family homes is too much, due to their high consumption of land.

Councillors Jacques Legendre, of Rideau-Rockcliffe, Kanata South’s Peggy Feltmate and Cumberland’s Rob Jellett also attended the event.

A joint meeting of the planning and environment and rural and agricultural affairs committees is listening this week to public delegations on the official plan.

Developers, their lawyers and consultants argued Tuesday about how land they own should be included in the city’s urban area. Such approval would mean huge increases in the value of their holdings.

Some residents argued that additional new subdivisions allowed under urban expansion would overload existing services and make quiet rural areas into crowded suburban ones.

One addition to the urban area that’s generated a big reaction is a proposed Tamarack Homes subdivision on 315 hectares east of Cardinal Creek and the current urban boundary of Orléans. Nearby residents complained Tuesday that the forest on the land has already been chopped down and they say there are many other problems, such as road congestion on Highway 174. About 4,500 houses would be built.

Resident Valerie Yersh said Cumberland would lose its rural flavour if Ottawa’s urban area continues its march eastward with such a huge urban development.

The city councillor for the area, Jellett, said he does not support the proposed development or the other proposed expansions to the urban boundary.

“We have so much land within the urban boundary,” said Jellett, who is chairman of council’s rural and agricultural affairs committee. “We don’t need to expand.”

Councillor Peter Hume, chairman of the planning committee, said there’s nothing compelling the city to develop the 842 hectares. Hume said the city has an 18-year supply of land for residential development, which puts it within provincial rules. He noted the 842 hectares would create a 22-year supply of land for housing development, which would be more than the city needs.

Hume said one piece of property that could get the go-ahead for urban development is 163 hectares by the Fernbank community at Kanata, which has been planned as urban for many years and for which studies are complete. He said such a designation would only be an amendment to the existing development plan and could not be appealed to the Municipal Board.

Jellett said he would be willing to approve growth onto the Fernbank lands only if there is a written assurance that the move would not land the city in an appeal of the revised official plan.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[waterloowarrior]

Homebuilder makes case to expand east urban community
By Fred Sherwin
Orléans Online

Representatives from Tamarack Homes and the Taggart Group of Companies faced members of the community during a public meeting Monday night to explain why they want the city to expand the east urban boundary and allow them to go ahead with plans for a massive subdivision that will eventually grow to 4,500 homes over the next 15 years.

Close to 80 concerned residents sat through the presentation, including representatives from both the Cumberland Village Community Association and the Cardinal Creek Community Association which are opposed to the development.

Ted Phillips from Tamarack Homes made a thorough presentation of the company's plans which call for 4,500 homes to be built over the next 10 to 15 years in the area bordered by Innes Road to the south, Cardinal Creek to the west, the Ottawa River to the north and Ted Kelly Lane and Frank Kenny Rd. to the east.

During his presentation, Phillips tried to dispel the fear that the 4,500 homes would be built overnight. The reality is that Tamarack would likely build between 150 and 250 homes a year, depending on demand, with a probable peak of 400 homes a year.

To further alleviate peoples' fears and help quell the growing opposition to their plans, Tamarack has agreed to cap construction at 400 homes a year north of Old Montreal Rd. and not build any homes at all south of Old Montreal Rd. for at least 10 years. They've also agreed to maintain the rural designation on a large track of land at the far northeast corner of the development to act as a natural buffer with the community to the east.

"I don't think there will be any change of the rural character (of the area) for many years to come," said Phillips. "We're willing to integrate the existing woodlots into the development. We're willing to reforest some areas with butternut trees at an additional cost to us and we want to create a series of pathways from the community down to Petrie Island. We want to make this the nicest development in the city."

Phillips then asked the audience whether they would rather have 4,500 homes on city water and sewer services or 1,000 estate homes on well water, which is what the area can currently accommodate under the existing zoning.

That prompted one man who claimed he recently moved to Cumberland Village, to stand up and state he favoured the expansion of the east urban boundary and Tamarack's plans so long as it's "intelligent development" and addresses the concerns of residents.

Phillips also claimed that the average estate home requires $1,300 in city services, while an average single-detached home in a suburban subdivision costs taxpayers about $50 a year in services such as garbage collection and snowplowing. He also made assurances that the development would not contain any highrises or stacked townhomes, and that rumours claiming they planned to build a number of social housing units had no basis in truth whatsoever.

His final message to the audience was that Tamarack Homes and the Taggart Group of Companies was willing to do whatever it takes to consult with the community and build a development everyone can be proud of.

"What we're hoping to offer isn't doom and gloom. It's a well thought out development plan that we're hoping will generate some discussion. Nothing is cast in stone," said Phillips.

Sitting in the audience taking it all in was Cumberland Ward Coun. Rob Jellett who's been working on a plan to introduce a third category for sub-division approval in the city's Official Plan which would require developers to apply for an Official Plan amendment before the urban boundary is expanded.

Under his proposal, developers would have to go through an extensive public consultation process and undertake a series of studies that would be scrutinized by the city's planning department. Jellett believes the motion will pass with very little opposition.

If it does, Tamarack Homes is more than willing to follow the new process even though it would set back their plans two to three years.

"We bought the property with the intention to make it a flagship property for next the 20 years. If it takes another two or three years to get the community's support then so be it," said Phillips.

(This story was made possible thanks to the generous support of our local business partners.)

http://www.orleansonline.ca/pages/N2009051102.htm

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

That guy in the photo? Nesrallah? He's a teacher at Glebe Collegiate. Really cool guy, really nice and great musician.

[highdensitysprawl]

That guy in the photo? Nesrallah? He's a teacher at Glebe Collegiate. Really cool guy, really nice and great musician.

Is he related to Julie Nesrallah, musician and host on CBC R2?

[highdensitysprawl]

Homebuilder makes case to expand east urban community


Ted Phillips from Tamarack Homes made a thorough presentation of the company's plans which call for 4,500 homes to be built over the next 10 to 15 years in the area bordered by Innes Road to the south, Cardinal Creek to the west, the Ottawa River to the north and Ted Kelly Lane and Frank Kenny Rd. to the east.

To further alleviate peoples' fears and help quell the growing opposition to their plans, Tamarack has agreed to cap construction at 400 homes a year north of Old Montreal Rd. and not build any homes at all south of Old Montreal Rd. for at least 10 years. They've also agreed to maintain the rural designation on a large track of land at the far northeast corner of the development to act as a natural buffer with the community to the east.

"I don't think there will be any change of the rural character (of the area) for many years to come," said Phillips. "We're willing to integrate the existing woodlots into the development. We're willing to reforest some areas with butternut trees at an additional cost to us and we want to create a series of pathways from the community down to Petrie Island. We want to make this the nicest development in the city."

Phillips also claimed that the average estate home requires $1,300 in city services, while an average single-detached home in a suburban subdivision costs taxpayers about $50 a year in services such as garbage collection and snowplowing. He also made assurances that the development would not contain any highrises or stacked townhomes, and that rumours claiming they planned to build a number of social housing units had no basis in truth whatsoever.



Is that $50 versus $1300 quote really valid....personally, I can't believe there is that much of a difference and that the serviced cost is so low.

This development proposal has Manotick written all over it. I don't get the sense that there is any political will on council to approve this sort of thing.

If I were the landowner, I would change the public face associated with the project, especially for dealings with City Staff.

[jeremy_haak]

Is he related to Julie Nesrallah, musician and host on CBC R2?

I was wondering the same thing.

[Mille Sabords]

That guy in the photo? Nesrallah? He's a teacher at Glebe Collegiate. Really cool guy, really nice and great musician.

Oh yeah? Cool. I caught him playing in front of city hall the other day.

[waterloowarrior]

Urban boundary plan faces opposition
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Urban+boundary+plan+faces+opposition/1597612/story.html
Lawyer for developers vows to take fight to municipal board

BY PATRICK DARE, THE OTTAWA CITIZENMAY 14, 2009 10:15 PM


OTTAWA — A lawyer who represents developers at Ottawa City Hall put councillors on notice Thursday that the city is in for a fight over changes in the official plan for the urban area, even if it makes no changes to the urban boundary.

Michael Polowin told councillors that the new official plan could be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board even if no additions are made to the urban area, just because the possibility of expansions has been raised in a report requested by city council. The provincially appointed board has the power to overrule city decisions about planning and development.

“This will be decided at the OMB,” said Polowin afterward, in a brief interview with the Citizen.

The city is reviewing its official plan as it must every five years, and part of the process is deciding whether to open more land for construction on the outskirts of the city.

Land that gets designated for development typically increases dramatically in value, and the people who own property in the affected areas often fight hard to get their land approved.

City planners have proposed that the city expand its urban boundary to encompass 842 more hectares, but the city’s senior planning lawyer, Tim Marc, said earlier this week that council could avoid costly, lengthy appeals before the municipal board if it sticks with its current urban boundary, rather than allowing development in some areas, but not others. This is due to recent changes in provincial planning law that strengthened municipal authority.

Polowin, a lawyer specializing in development issues and an occasional Citizen columnist, told a joint meeting of city council’s planning and agricultural affairs committees that his clients’ land at Leitrim should be included within a revised urban boundary for Ottawa.

Polowin complained to councillors that planning staff have placed his clients’ Bank Street property both in and out of the revised urban area over that last three months, something he called “really strange.”

Lesley Paterson, the program manager for planning policy at the city who is leading the review, said the complicated point system used to rate the possible additions to the urban area has changed. She said the initial reports were drafts that the city wanted feedback on.

When people came forward with information, or an argument about how the evaluation should be changed, the city was willing to listen. She said the city’s planning work is an objective comparative analysis of potential urban areas picked by planners, not developers.

A combative Polowin refused to abide by a five-minute limit in his submissions to the joint committee and was permitted to go beyond the time limit.

Councillor Steve Desroches, who represents Gloucester-South Nepean, said there’s little interest in his ward among residents for adding that area, known as “Area 8A” in planning documents, to the urban area. But Desroches said he wasn’t interested in getting into an argument with Polowin, who has been highly critical of city council in his Citizen columns.

Polowin was one of about 60 people who have made submissions or are lobbying city councillors this week on changes to the urban boundary. Landowners and developers want inside the urban boundary. Many community groups and citizens want the city to hold the line and allow development in more central neighbourhoods.

The city’s planning experts, and a lot of environmental and community groups, say suburban communities have to grow with greater density — using less land than is commonly used for single-family houses — to make growth more financially and environmentally sustainable.

Councillors face a challenge May 26 when they will debate the official plan revisions at committee, and then have a final debate at full council.

Cumberland Councillor Rob Jellett, who chaired Thursday’s meeting, said he hopes councillors will agree to no expansion of the urban boundary or, at the very least, extremely limited expansion. He said the city can reopen the question in five years, but for now has an 18-year supply of land for single-family homes.

One developer, Ian Taggart, warned councillors Thursday that if the city doesn’t ensure a good supply of urban land for development, residents would lose the chance to own homes. Taggart, whose company wants to build a 4,500-unit subdivision east of the current Orléans urban boundary in a district called “Area 11,” said that a house downtown costs three times as much as one in the suburbs.

Jellett, who represents that area and opposes the Cardinal Village addition, said he has a lot of questions about how Area 11, which initially scored poorly on transportation, eventually managed to score reasonably well. The score changed because different traffic data were used and the assumption was made that drivers could use less busy roads. (Also, Paterson said, in some areas, such as Area 11, some natural spaces were deleted from the plan as the planners got a closer look at the land.)

But Jellett says he sees nothing but gridlock ahead if the 4,500 houses are built, bringing in 5,000 to 8,000 cars, almost all of them heading for heavily travelled roads such as Old Montreal Road, Trim Road and Highway 174.

The development proposal calls for expansion of the area’s roads, but Jellett says there’s no assurance any of those expansions will happen.

“I’m skeptical,” said Jellett. “The volume of traffic is going to be massive.”

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[waterloowarrior]

Citizen Editorial on the protests


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Sprawling+protests/1603373/story.html
Sprawling protests


THE OTTAWA CITIZENMAY 16, 2009


You'd think that getting Ottawans out to a public rally would be difficult, especially when the issue is a municipal (read: unsexy) one. Yet a couple of hundred people showed up at Ottawa City Hall this week to protest sprawl, which until recently was of interest mainly to professional urban planners and architects. It's gratifying to see that ordinary people, too, are starting to pay close attention to the way we live.

And how can we not? Urban sprawl means higher taxes, in order to pay the cost of extending municipal infrastructure to outlying areas. The people of Ottawa are beginning to recognize that the urban boundary, beyond which development is supposed to be prohibited, is a green, money-saving initiative.

The urban boundary is designed to promote the best, most efficient use of land inside it. Vacant lots or parking lots get developed rather than farmland on the fringes. This way, the city doesn't need to build new pipes and create services for suburbs. The municipality piggybacks on the services it already has inside the boundary.

As municipal budgets become ever more strained, and as the price of commuting becomes ever more onerous (as measured in dollars and environmental degradation), it becomes increasingly obvious that dense communities are healthier communities. And yet Ottawa's urban density is about the same as Toronto's suburbs. That's not good.

Everything is connected. Intensification fills in parking lots, and fewer lots downtown increases the cost of taking your car there -- which in turn helps promote rapid transit, and the greening of the community.

If you're going to get off the couch and protest something, urban sprawl is as good an issue as any.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[eternallyme]

No new single-family homes? That would mean a population explosion in Gatineau and in neighboring municipalities, since the market clearly demands such still. I'm sure North Grenville, Clarence-Rockland, Russell, Carleton Place, etc. would love the extra tax revenue. The even longer commutes (~40-50 km) and little or no public transit to those areas would create additional traffic and environmental issues as well.

[waterloowarrior]

Let me guess....Holmes, Doucet, Legendre and Bedard firmly in favour of more sprawl, Thompson, Eli, Harder, Bloess firmly against any more expansions:banana:

I saw a bit of Talk Ottawa this evening.....Thompson remains to be convinced about not adding more lands and Hume against it other than allowing the 'Fernbank' lands to be allowed in the boundary in order to do comprehensive planning etc....hmm, I wonder who got to him on that one.

:D

I saw the Talk Ottawa episode and Hume made a good point that the amount of time council is spending debating about the urban boundary is taking away from the focus on things like making better intensification policies and improving the design of new neighbourhoods, since now everyone and their uncle is trying to argue for their land to be included, and that's all we seem to be hearing about in the media.

edit: for example, there are a lot of interesting new policies on tall buildings, where they should be located, and how they should fit into neighbourhoods
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/05-11/OP%20Section%204-%20Review%20of%20Development%20Applications.htm

[Mille Sabords]

No new single-family homes? That would mean a population explosion in Gatineau and in neighboring municipalities, since the market clearly demands such still. I'm sure North Grenville, Clarence-Rockland, Russell, Carleton Place, etc. would love the extra tax revenue. The even longer commutes (~40-50 km) and little or no public transit to those areas would create additional traffic and environmental issues as well.

Even with the focus on density and intensification, the new plan calls for 40% of new homes to be single-family. Plus, there will be lots of single-family homes on the resale market from seniors wanting to move into condos (not all of them will, but a great number most definitely want to live without stairs). Isn't that enough in terms of choice for the marketplace?

[waterloowarrior]

Even with the focus on density and intensification, the new plan calls for 40% of new homes to be single-family. Plus, there will be lots of single-family homes on the resale market from seniors wanting to move into condos (not all of them will, but a great number most definitely want to live without stairs). Isn't that enough in terms of choice for the marketplace?

And it's not a huge change from what we have today. According to the latest census, 43.3% of existing homes in the city are single detached.

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/housingtype_ottawa.jpg

[waterloowarrior]

Denley on the urban boundary...


Drawing the line on urban expansion
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Randall+Denley+Drawing+line+urban+expansion/1604481/story.html
It's not enough to limit where we build, we have to look at what we build, too

BY RANDALL DENLEY, THE OTTAWA CITIZENMAY 17, 2009


A rally this week that attracted 200 people to City Hall to oppose urban expansion was an encouraging sign that people are waking up to this critical, city-shaping issue, but it's not as simple as where to draw the urban boundary line. Where we build is important, but what we build is even more so.

Every five years, city councillors review their official plan to make sure there is enough land available to meet housing needs for the next 15 years. Based on that provincial criterion, the city already has adequate development opportunities and doesn't need to add any land at all to its official plan. Developers don't buy that, and say that at least 2,000 hectares should be added. City planners have proposed an

842- hectare expansion in various locations on the urban fringe. Some councillors are prepared to limit the increase to a 163-hectare piece near Kanata that is already surrounded by urban land. Others would freeze expansion altogether.

The councillors who are prepared to put the brakes on growth still constitute a minority on council. Various suburban councillors want to add little pieces of land to the urban area in their wards. A major pressure campaign is also under way to approve land for 4,500 new homes east of Orléans.

Councillors have been told by their staff lawyer that freezing the urban boundary is a defensible policy at the Ontario Municipal Board, but if councillors approve multiple additions to the existing supply of urban land, they will trigger a series of appeals from other developers and landowners who will argue that their properties should have been approved instead. For example, the land east of Orléans is third on the city staff's priority list. If councillors add it, the owners of the land second on the list will argue they should be in, too.

If councillors do what they normally do, they will praise intensification, then start adding little pieces of land all around the fringes to please particular landowners. The ones who don't get lucky in the lottery will then appeal to the OMB, sucking up public money in defence of a mediocre decision. Councillors need to support what most say they believe in and put the brakes on.

This will not stop the expansion of the suburbs, of course. There is plenty of land for suburban growth already approved. What it will do is provide a bit of time for politicians, planners, developers and the public to have an intelligent discussion on what we want our city to be like. That's where we get into the how the city develops, instead of just the where.

Someone has to lead that process, and city councillor Peter Hume is stepping up. The chairman of the planning committee has prepared a motion that would limit urban land expansion to the block of land near Kanata that is already surrounded by urban land. This is an area where the city already lost an OMB battle that led to a big urban boundary expansion. What's left is not worth fighting over.

Along with that, Hume wants a greater focus on promoting intensification in areas such as main streets and lands close to rapid transit. We need to figure out how to build a better suburb, he says, and we also need to assess the impact of intensification in the downtown core.

"Having more people doesn't necessarily create a better community," Hume says.

That's a point of view shared by John Herbert, executive director of the Greater Ottawa Home Builders Association. Just using planning rules to make suburbs denser won't make them into good places to live, he says.

It's easy to see examples of the problem in the suburbs now as developers load marginal strips of land with townhouses. They boost the city's density numbers, but some of these areas lack all the things that make a community a community.

If we are going to build a better city, both City Hall and the major developers will have to do a better job. Now, the city collects development charges for parks and community buildings but hordes the money in a bank account for years before these essential community elements are actually built. That's not fair to home-buyers who pay big development charges. A new community should be more than a sea of houses with strip malls on the periphery. Developers shouldn't try to build like this, and the city shouldn't allow it.

Freezing the urban boundary now will not solve anything, in itself, but minimizing urban expansion would send a signal that it's not business as usual, and that we need to use land more intelligently. That's a message that can't come a moment too soon. When this issue goes to council later this month, councillors should see beyond their narrow ward concerns and follow Hume's lead on this issue. It's the first step towards building better communities.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Is he related to Julie Nesrallah, musician and host on CBC R2?

No idea. I'll have to ask him next time I see him. If I can remember that is. :P

[waterloowarrior]

a couple of stories about the practice of clearcutting forests just outside the urban boundary

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Technology/Allegation+rare+trees+harvested/1622561/story.html

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/practice+developers+should+think+twice+about+doing/1622601/story.html