SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=258)
-   -   Official Plan Update (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=149869)

waterloowarrior Apr 23, 2008 3:13 AM

Official Plan Update
 
http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_co...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

Preliminary Proposals

Quote:

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 Apr 23, 2008 3:15 AM

Quote:

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/...7b336d&k=99076

waterloowarrior Jul 31, 2008 5:38 AM

Quote:

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 Jul 31, 2008 4:46 PM

: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 Jul 31, 2008 5:01 PM

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 Jul 31, 2008 5:52 PM

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 Nov 11, 2008 11:26 PM

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_c.../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 Nov 17, 2008 11:35 PM

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...S-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 Nov 18, 2008 12:21 AM

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 Nov 25, 2008 5:31 PM

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 Jan 20, 2009 4:48 PM

employment lands strategy phase 1
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...0003%20IPD.htm

waterloowarrior Feb 2, 2009 8:42 PM

here's the tabling of the draft OP... epic staff report

not all the PDFs are up at this point

Mille Sabords Feb 2, 2009 8:46 PM

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 Feb 2, 2009 8:56 PM

this should be the link for the hemson report...
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa...cument%205.pdf

waterloowarrior Feb 2, 2009 9:29 PM

intensification: a sound investment (video)
some sweet plane shots of ottawa... don't have sound on this comp so I'm not sure what they are saying..

waterloowarrior Feb 2, 2009 10:59 PM

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

Kitchissippi Feb 2, 2009 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior (Post 4063172)
intensification: a sound investment (video)
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 Feb 3, 2009 5:30 PM

links work...

possible areas to expand urban boundary
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa...s/image002.jpg

highdensitysprawl Feb 3, 2009 5:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior (Post 4063093)
this should be the link for the hemson report...
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa...cument%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 Feb 3, 2009 5:56 PM

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.

Quote:

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.