Official Plan Update

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

What all municipalities must learn from this is if you plan within a sprawl paradigm, you will get sprawl.

The sprawl paradigm unfortunately is a provincially legislated requirement and is (one of the reasons) why Council lost their position of trying to have less expansion. The only way municipalities can plan for a non-sprawl paradigm is if the market makes significant abrupt changes that alter housing demand. The municipality can then say housing demand is this and we should plan thusly. The "build it and they will come" mantra only works if "they" want it.

I think more accurately Council should be mindful of making significant last minute changes to a plan that has been endorsed through a committee after a lengthy public process.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Ottawa takes a beating at Ontario Municipal Board

OMB orders council to reinstate 2007 plan that would see Ottawa’s boundaries expand by 850 hectares over the next 20 years

BY KELLY PATTERSON, THE OTTAWA CITIZEN JUNE 5, 2011 9:42 PM BE THE FIRST TO POST A COMMENT

[...]

While the developers lost their bid for an expansion of 2,500 hectares, the OMB ruled that the city could not tear up the plan that was made in 2007 after lengthy and comprehensive consultations, and suggested council had been trying “to avoid results of an extensive planning exercise.”

Since when has any of that ever made a difference to the OMB? Didn't the OMB tear up the previous OP that had been made under similar conditions, ultimately leaving a couple of rural enclaves within the urban boundary that the recent Council decision on the OP went about correcting?

On the flip side, perhaps Council has accidentally found a way to limit expansion to what its staff recommend: by voting for less than what planning staff recommend. What we learnt in 2003 was that if Council votes according to what staff recommend, we end up with more than what staff recommend, but this time around by voting for less than what staff recommended we end up with what staff recommended. If you can't get all that, don't worry, Bernard Woolley would.

[adam-machiavelli]

Originally Posted by Dr.Z

The sprawl paradigm unfortunately is a provincially legislated requirement and is (one of the reasons) why Council lost their position of trying to have less expansion. The only way municipalities can plan for a non-sprawl paradigm is if the market makes significant abrupt changes that alter housing demand. The municipality can then say housing demand is this and we should plan thusly. The "build it and they will come" mantra only works if "they" want it.

I think more accurately Council should be mindful of making significant last minute changes to a plan that has been endorsed through a committee after a lengthy public process.

I agree with you entirely. This OMB decision may be a setback but all hope is not lost. When the City was forced to permit development between Kanata and Stittsville, they made damned sure the density was high and roads were narrower. The City should do that with all new greenfield development.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

When the City was forced to permit development between Kanata and Stittsville, they made damned sure the density was high and roads were narrower. The City should do that with all new greenfield development.

I think the updated Official Plan has minimum densities to that effect.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by reidjr

As for local residents object then the plan can't go a head the issue with that is you may have a hand full aginst it and the majority want it so your going aginst the will of the people.If you have 60% that are aginst it then its a bit different i still don't like the idea of letting citizens having that much power.

Why should developers be allowed to override the opinions of a majority of local residents?

At the same time though, if they put up a good proposal that involves land currently listed as outside the boundary and landowners generally support it, they should not be shot down by downtown-based interest groups. Density requirements should be scrapped, since that would otherwise send more development to Gatineau or (more likely) neighbouring municipalities which would jump at the opportunity to start booming.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Density requirements should be scrapped, since that would otherwise send more development to Gatineau or (more likely) neighbouring municipalities which would jump at the opportunity to start booming.

Time of (commuting) travel is a far more significant determinant of a consumer choosing a house in community A vs community B than the density levels that Ottawa is requiring. This is a pattern that can be seen along most of the 400 series highways. Realistic subdivision density requirements has never left a subdivision unpurchased; if one family doesn't like it, as Mattamy likes to say to line-ups on opening day, "please step aside and make room for someone else".

[waterloowarrior]

decision text
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions...un-03-2011.pdf

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Dado

Since when has any of that ever made a difference to the OMB? Didn't the OMB tear up the previous OP that had been made under similar conditions, ultimately leaving a couple of rural enclaves within the urban boundary that the recent Council decision on the OP went about correcting?

On the flip side, perhaps Council has accidentally found a way to limit expansion to what its staff recommend: by voting for less than what planning staff recommend. What we learnt in 2003 was that if Council votes according to what staff recommend, we end up with more than what staff recommend, but this time around by voting for less than what staff recommended we end up with what staff recommended. If you can't get all that, don't worry, Bernard Woolley would.

IIRC the Del-Brookfield hearing was based on the 1997 PPS and former Regional and Township OPs, not the 2003 OP... but they used the very optimistic 2003 population projections in the hearing.

[Mille Sabords]

I would say, as has been mentioned above, that this is far from a "setback" but maybe in an accidental way... Developers ask for a ridiculous amount 2,500), city staff says 850, then Council votes 200-some. Then the OMB rules "in the middle" and the developers feel "vindicated", and councillors like Bloess make it sound in the media like the city took a shitkicking, just to make things more "diplomatic". I dunno, if you ask me, sounds like prettty standard negotiations. Good to see the city has learned how to!!

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

Developers ask for a ridiculous amount 2,500), city staff says 850, then Council votes 200-some.

Except I think after reading the decision the middle-ground conclusion is a bit of a coincidence. Council's lower number was thrown out on a procedural and non-PPS compliance basis. The staff 850 number was preferred due to a defensible method and witness credibility. Its a bit of an apples vs oranges comparison.

Actually, the party represented by Paul Johanis argued for no expansion and I believe the Board then referenced this stance as thus representing the logical extents for expansion. So perhaps there is something to the 850 as a good middle ground.

[McC]

as usual, the only ones who won are they lawyers.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

I would say, as has been mentioned above, that this is far from a "setback" but maybe in an accidental way... Developers ask for a ridiculous amount 2,500), city staff says 850, then Council votes 200-some. Then the OMB rules "in the middle" and the developers feel "vindicated", and councillors like Bloess make it sound in the media like the city took a shitkicking, just to make things more "diplomatic". I dunno, if you ask me, sounds like prettty standard negotiations. Good to see the city has learned how to!!

I would have set it at zero (and removed all land currently set aside), then let the developers make plans and approve (or reject) as warranted.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

I would say, as has been mentioned above, that this is far from a "setback" but maybe in an accidental way... Developers ask for a ridiculous amount 2,500), city staff says 850, then Council votes 200-some. Then the OMB rules "in the middle" and the developers feel "vindicated", and councillors like Bloess make it sound in the media like the city took a shitkicking, just to make things more "diplomatic". I dunno, if you ask me, sounds like prettty standard negotiations. Good to see the city has learned how to!!

I would have set it at zero (and removed all land currently set aside), then let the developers make plans and have City Council after local hearings with local residents approve (or reject) as warranted.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Dr.Z

Except I think after reading the decision the middle-ground conclusion is a bit of a coincidence. Council's lower number was thrown out on a procedural and non-PPS compliance basis.

That's just the OMB's opinion, not fact. The OMB wants the City to set land supplies to equal its planning horizon (of 2031) but there is nothing in the PPS that actually requires that - it just chose to interpret the PPS that way. The minimums that the PPS does require would have been maintained with Council's plan.

The Board also made no note of where Council's number came from... I guess that's hardly surprising since the OMB in its infinite wisdom left behind some rural pockets in a previous decision. Council was just fixing an OMB-made mess, but that's something that the OMB is not going to own up to.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by Dado

That's just the OMB's opinion, not fact.

Bit of semantics here. It's a decision by a quasi-judicial tribunal that can be relied upon as case-law. The OMB also has the legal jurisdiction to make interpretations on Planning legislation and documents including the PPS. That's getting pretty close to fact but I see where you are coming from.

Originally Posted by Dado

The OMB wants the City to set land supplies to equal its planning horizon (of 2031) but there is nothing in the PPS that actually requires that - it just chose to interpret the PPS that way.

Slight correction: the OMB interpreted the PPS so that a residential (or one particular land use) time horizon can not be different from other land use time horizons. In other words the time horizons for all land uses must be the same. Using the same "sword" one cannot then say that "nothing in the PPS that actually requires that" - that is your interpretation as well. Not saying I agree or disagree but that its not clear cut. If you are saying the Board is only making interpretations, then your observations of the PPS must be interpretations as well.

Originally Posted by Dado

The Board also made no note of where Council's number came from... I guess that's hardly surprising since the OMB in its infinite wisdom left behind some rural pockets in a previous decision.

My sense is that the 230ha completes the Fernbank community and perhaps a few other slivers along the current boundary, which was subsequently passed through OPA 77 anyways. I think the Board hints at this through its OPA 77 reference but agree that it does not draw it out for the reader.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Dr.Z

Slight correction: the OMB interpreted the PPS so that a residential (or one particular land use) time horizon can not be different from other land use time horizons. In other words the time horizons for all land uses must be the same. Using the same "sword" one cannot then say that "nothing in the PPS that actually requires that" - that is your interpretation as well. Not saying I agree or disagree but that its not clear cut. If you are saying the Board is only making interpretations, then your observations of the PPS must be interpretations as well.

I guess it comes down to whether one reads the PPS in a bureaucratic mindset or a flexible one. The OMB goes for the bureaucratic, and arguably so too did our planning staff.

Personally, I don't see why land supply today has to be equal to the required land base at the planning horizon; all that should be required is the minimum prescribed land supply (i.e. 10 years). It's one thing to say that we'll need to add 850 ha to the urban land base by 2031 so as to accommodate projected growth; it's quite another to say we have to add the full 850 ha to the land base today when we don't actually know whether we'll need the full 850 ha or not.

Could we plan for a 30 year planning horizon without having to add 30 years' supply of land to the urban land base today? The PPS says a land supply can be identified for a planning horizon "up to 20 years" so one might suppose that so long as you were covered out to 20 years you'd be in the clear to have a planning horizon (as distinct from a land supply) beyond that but given the ruling who knows how it would be interpreted. An example of why you might want a distant planning horizon is to anticipate large-scale infrastructure projects (say, a downtown tunnel for transit or siting a new major bridge or expansions to water treatment plants and major trunk lines) based on future population growth without necessarily knowing exactly where that growth will be realized. Locking land supply to planning horizon seems to institutionalize further inflexibility while potentially saddling the city with excess development land in the event of unrealized population growth.

My sense is that the 230ha completes the Fernbank community and perhaps a few other slivers along the current boundary, which was subsequently passed through OPA 77 anyways. I think the Board hints at this through its OPA 77 reference but agree that it does not draw it out for the reader.

Yes, the reader would have no idea that Council added the 230 ha for the sole purpose of closing off stranded rural pockets within the urban boundary, pockets that had been created by an earlier OMB decision. That decision, frankly, puts the lie to any claim that the OMB bases its decisions on "planning principles" because no planner worth his salt would ever come up with a proposal to leave stranded rural pockets within the urban boundary for no apparent reason.

[Dr.Z]

I hear where you are coming from but I don't think "bearucratic" is the right word.

There are other mechanisms that can be used to show where future growth will go without making those lands fully designated and available today. But with a short 15-20 year window (or 620ha difference in Ottawa) I don't think it greatly increases risk of oversupply. The density risk is really controlled through minimum requirements that the developers were looking to have lower (and they lost that issue too). Ironically by not designating the 15-20 year growth you would be less flexibile to market changes and because you cannot designate less than 15 years residential, to be flexible one should designate a bit more. So why not just goto 20 years and line-up everything nice and neat?

Designated and available only recognizes one step and that there are other planning approvals required with their own associated timeframes before occupancy. Agreed though that for infrastructure planning 20 years is too short.

Unfortunately the "up to 20 years" is a maximum that has been upheld by other decisions and a stance that other municipalities have taken (see the Halton reference in this decision) and the Province as well so it is consistently regarded as a ceiling to planning in Ontario.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Dado

Yes, the reader would have no idea that Council added the 230 ha for the sole purpose of closing off stranded rural pockets within the urban boundary, pockets that had been created by an earlier OMB decision. That decision, frankly, puts the lie to any claim that the OMB bases its decisions on "planning principles" because no planner worth his salt would ever come up with a proposal to leave stranded rural pockets within the urban boundary for no apparent reason.

This shouldn't be able to happen again because as mentioned in the decision, since then Planning Act reforms have eliminated the right to appeal a decision to refuse to expand the urban boundary (outside of OP reviews).

[waterloowarrior]

staff report on OMB boundary outcome
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...0Phase%201.htm

and on phase 2
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...0Phase%202.htm

(IIRC committee voted to keep the same land parcels as in the original staff recommendation for OPA 76)

[waterloowarrior]

recommended Council position on urban boundary expansion @ OMB
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...20Boundary.htm

The top ranked areas that cumulatively add to 850 gross developable hectares are those parcels that will form the City’s position on what lands are to be added to the urban area at the Phase 2 hearing. Based on the evaluation of new information, the only change to what staff recommended in 2009 for lands to be added to the urban area is to include a small parcel (1bE) at the north end of Kanata and to exclude an adjacent parcel (1cW). That has the effect of increasing the recommended land area from the 842.6 hectares recommended in 2009 to 851.9 hectares in this report, an additional 9.3 hectares. Although the recommended addition is 1.9 hectares above the figure named in the OMB decision it is not considered significant, especially given that the estimates of developable land in each parcel did not take account of required setbacks from the edge of slopes watercourses and the like. When more detailed planning is undertaken, the actual amount of developable land will be less than 850 gross hectares.

The 851.9 hectares include 163 hectares in the Fernbank area added by OPA 77 (candidate areas 5a and 5b) and 67 hectares south of Fernbank (parcels 6a, 6b and 6c), which together are the 230 hectares Council adopted as the OPA 76 urban expansion on June 10, 2009.