Official Plan Update

[highdensitysprawl]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

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). 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]

Originally Posted by 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). 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/s...pdate_en.shtml
http://www.ottawa.ca/city_services/s.../index_en.html

[eemy]

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

Generally, they aren't serviced.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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.

[eemy]

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.

[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/cit...S-PLA-0080.htm

the proposed OPA
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...ument%2013.htm

[waterloowarrior]

infrastructure master plan changes from previous draft
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...ument%2014.htm

[highdensitysprawl]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

infrastructure master plan changes from previous draft
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...ument%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/Ot...586/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/Busines...820/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]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

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

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.