Official Plan Update

[waterloowarrior]

Council has adopted the 5 year OP Review

[waterloowarrior]

here is the text of the adopted OPA
http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/planni...-official-plan

[waterloowarrior]

Calling all Ottawa developers, lawyers and planners... start your engines! OPA 150 (five year review) was approved by the province and all appeals must be in by May 20, 2014.
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-Ext...gz&language=en

[waterloowarrior]

list of appellants... 32 appeals
http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc...nts/opa150.pdf

OMB site
https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDe...spx?n=PL140495

[waterloowarrior]

prehearing April 2015

[rocketphish]

Outskirts added to city’s urban transit boundary

By Emma Jackson, Mar 2, 2015
Kanata Kourier-Standard

As Ottawa councillors try to balance rising transit fares, city council has added a swath of new lands that will from now on pay urban transit levies come tax season.

Council unanimously passed the urban transit area boundary revisions on Feb. 25, adding 850 hectares of development lands in the city’s outskirts to Ottawa’s urban transit area.

The lands near Kanata, Stittsville, Barrhaven, Findlay Creek, Navan and Cardinal Creek were all deemed part of the urban area in the city’s 2012 Official Plan amendment #76, and are in various stages of planning and development for residential, commercial and mixed-used projects.

The boundary change, retroactive to January 1 of this year, is meant to keep pace with the expansion of the urban boundary, according to a staff report. Once those areas are developed, home owners will pay the urban, rather than rural, transit levy – about $589 per $355,000 home if the city’s 2015 draft budget is approved.

That’s compared to $177 for a rural home worth the same amount.

Transit commission chairman Coun. Stephen Blais said the city only expects to receive about $70,000 in extra revenue from the newly-added lands this year, since most of the properties are currently vacant.

He said it’s unclear how that revenue will rise once the areas start to build out, because most developers who own the properties haven’t yet defined their plans.

“Until the specific property owners present plans on what they intend to build, it’s really tough to say,” Blais said.

As part of the urban transit area, new home owners can usually expect transit services fairly quickly, whether it’s provided by the city or the builder, Blais said. He said developers often provide shuttle buses or even pay for OC Transpo services into the new subdivisions until the areas are built out enough to justify regular transit services.

There’s potential to have some transit service in the newly added regions within the next three to five years, the report said.

The city’s aim is to provide transit within a five-minute walking distance for 95 per cent of urban residents in peak hours, and within 10 minutes of walking during off times.

The following areas were added to the urban transit area:

* Lands in West Carleton-March located northwest of Old Carp Road/Maxwell Bridge Road, west of Terry Fox Drive and south of the CN railway;

* Lands in Rideau-Goulbourn northeast of Carp Road and Rothbourne Road and located in the Stittsville Main Street, Hartsmere Drive and Shea Road area;

* Lands in Rideau-Goulbourn and Barrhaven east of Cedarview Road and north of Barnsdale Road;

* Lands in Osgoode and Gloucester-South Nepean southeast of Bank Street and Analdea Drive;

* Lands in Osgoode south of Findlay Creek and west of Bank;

* Lands in Innes and Cumberland located in the Navan, Renaud, Mer Bleue and Tenth Line roads area;

* Lands in Cumberland south of Highway 174 and east of Cardinal Creek;

* Residential development in Gloucester-South Nepean ward (3699 and 3701 Jockvale Rd. and 3760 Prince of Wales Dr.);

* A proposed hotel and office development in Barrhaven ward (4401 Fallowfield Rd.).

http://www.ottawacommunitynews.com/n...nsit-boundary/

[MoreTrains]

Wow, I believe that expanding the 'urban' city will cost more than it will bring in. Plus, most of these lands are far from Urban anyways, really, the 'Urban' city to me, is bounded by the Rideau River, 417 and Trillium Line... which to me, means everything outside that is Sub-Urb and anything outside the Greenbelt should be considered Rural. With the exception perhaps of 2Km around the transit stations of Place, Barrhaven Centre and Terry Fox. But you know thats clearly a bad idea if we want to maximize our Urban fabric to increase service and 'bang for the buck'. All this does is encourage sprawl even more and provide less service to the current areas for when the areas are developed.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

Wow, I believe that expanding the 'urban' city will cost more than it will bring in. Plus, most of these lands are far from Urban anyways, really, the 'Urban' city to me, is bounded by the Rideau River, 417 and Trillium Line... which to me, means everything outside that is Sub-Urb and anything outside the Greenbelt should be considered Rural. With the exception perhaps of 2Km around the transit stations of Place, Barrhaven Centre and Terry Fox. But you know thats clearly a bad idea if we want to maximize our Urban fabric to increase service and 'bang for the buck'. All this does is encourage sprawl even more and provide less service to the current areas for when the areas are developed.

So places like Vanier, Hintonburg, West Wellington, are "Suburban"?

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by silvergate

So places like Vanier, Hintonburg, West Wellington, are "Suburban"?

Well... they are streetcar suburbs.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by silvergate

So places like Vanier, Hintonburg, West Wellington, are "Suburban"?

In my mind, yeah.

[waterloowarrior]

The Ontario government will be introducing legislation that could have major effect on planning/OP review process... increasing 5 year reviews to 10 years, reducing what can be appealed, freezing appeals, increasing OP timelines etc. Interesting to learn what this "community permit planning system" is.
http://news.ontario.ca/mah/en/2015/0...n-ontario.html

[Richard Eade]

Wow, this could be quite significant.

The idea of an official Plan update every 10 years instead of every five years will, I hope, come with a defined minimum planning horizon. I think that the City of Ottawa has coasted with the current 2031 limit (which is essentially the 2021 horizon pushed back 10 years as they realized that their growth projections were way out of whack) for far too long. A long-range vision of only 15 years isn't very long range at all.

I wonder if the clarification of ‘Minor Variances’ on zoning will prevent episodes like the EY Centre? As I have heard it, the property was zoned for a hotel with an integrated meeting space – with a ‘minor variance’ eliminating the need for the hotel portion. A blatant abuse of the process.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

Wow, I believe that expanding the 'urban' city will cost more than it will bring in. Plus, most of these lands are far from Urban anyways, really, the 'Urban' city to me, is bounded by the Rideau River, 417 and Trillium Line... which to me, means everything outside that is Sub-Urb and anything outside the Greenbelt should be considered Rural. With the exception perhaps of 2Km around the transit stations of Place, Barrhaven Centre and Terry Fox. But you know thats clearly a bad idea if we want to maximize our Urban fabric to increase service and 'bang for the buck'. All this does is encourage sprawl even more and provide less service to the current areas for when the areas are developed.

You are correct in that it costs more to service/provide infrastrucutre outlying suburban areas and the City has been trying to promote intensification, amongst other reasons, to help reduce these costs. But its not that clear cut. You may be new to the OPA 76 process as I haven't seen your name on the thread before but the expansion lands are a result of an urban boundary expansion from the 2009 review, an expansion that is mandated by the Province. How much was the question. The city sought no expansion and the developers sought up to 3,000 ha. But the OMB decided that 0 ha is not consistent with Provincial Policy and a little over 1,000 ha was added.

On the cost front, the DC legislation does not allow full recovery of infrastructure for intensification projects b/c the existing immediate/adjacent population benefits from those infrastructure upgrades as well and the mantra of the DC legislation is that development pays for development, no more. In greenfield areas there is no existing population so its clear that those developments pay almost all of the costs of infrastructure. They represent 2 different financing models requiring different sources to pay for infrastructure; the former will have to dip into city-wide DCs and property taxes so that we all pay a portion of the intensification infrastructure. But the surrounding population does receive some benefits from the new infrastrucutre. So lower cost yes but how its paid for comes out of city-wide accounts.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Wow, this could be quite significant.

The idea of an official Plan update every 10 years instead of every five years will, I hope, come with a defined minimum planning horizon. I think that the City of Ottawa has coasted with the current 2031 limit (which is essentially the 2021 horizon pushed back 10 years as they realized that their growth projections were way out of whack) for far too long. A long-range vision of only 15 years isn't very long range at all.

The minimum planning horizon is there in terms of 10-year minimum supply of residential lands, +5 years for the review process. Combined with the maximuim allowed horizon, de jure the planning horizon in Ontario is 15-20 years. I think a better question is whether the horizon itself needs revisions.

The current 2031 limit is not an additional 10 years from the 2002 Plan. Those projections were out of whack b/c of the method used, which was economy based and Ottawa was booming in 99/00 when the projections were prepared. The current 2031 projetions use a more standard survival-cohort method and have been tested and approved at the OMB.

[waterloowarrior]

The details of the legislation were released earlier this month..
http://woodbull.ca/docs/default-sour...endments).pdf?

http://www.woodbull.ca/resources/woo...e-planning-act

The 10 year review period is only for new Official Plans. It goes back to 5 years after that. So Ottawa would have been able to skip the 2008/2009 review if this legislation had been in place.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by Dr.Z

You are correct in that it costs more to service/provide infrastrucutre outlying suburban areas and the City has been trying to promote intensification, amongst other reasons, to help reduce these costs. But its not that clear cut. You may be new to the OPA 76 process as I haven't seen your name on the thread before but the expansion lands are a result of an urban boundary expansion from the 2009 review, an expansion that is mandated by the Province. How much was the question. The city sought no expansion and the developers sought up to 3,000 ha. But the OMB decided that 0 ha is not consistent with Provincial Policy and a little over 1,000 ha was added.

On the cost front, the DC legislation does not allow full recovery of infrastructure for intensification projects b/c the existing immediate/adjacent population benefits from those infrastructure upgrades as well and the mantra of the DC legislation is that development pays for development, no more. In greenfield areas there is no existing population so its clear that those developments pay almost all of the costs of infrastructure. They represent 2 different financing models requiring different sources to pay for infrastructure; the former will have to dip into city-wide DCs and property taxes so that we all pay a portion of the intensification infrastructure. But the surrounding population does receive some benefits from the new infrastrucutre. So lower cost yes but how its paid for comes out of city-wide accounts.

Yeah, I am new, and poorly versed.

So provincial mandates require municipal expansions to go along with the official plan updates? Seems like a stupid thing to do. Why expand prior to critical mass? I mean, Toronto that might makes sense, but in Ottawa, there is so much land there is no way we reach a critical mass in 5-10 years. Seems to me there should be a minimum density rating prior to the expansions.

And there might be development fees that come from greenfield development, but if there is low density those fees only go so far. It is pretty shortsighted, to me at least, to rely on a one time development fee instead of municipal tax collection, that is better in denser areas. Plus, density decreases infrastructure, and less infrastructure means people pay less taxes, because the requirements are spaced out better.

Ill have too read into the OPA 76 process. Perhaps I will answer my own questions. But it still seems to me, that all of the population in Ottawa that lives outside the Greenbelt, could easily live within the Greenbelt, creating a better city perhaps, but I am quite into fantasy evidently...

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by Dr.Z

The minimum planning horizon is there in terms of 10-year minimum supply of residential lands, +5 years for the review process. Combined with the maximuim allowed horizon, de jure the planning horizon in Ontario is 15-20 years. I think a better question is whether the horizon itself needs revisions.

The current 2031 limit is not an additional 10 years from the 2002 Plan. Those projections were out of whack b/c of the method used, which was economy based and Ottawa was booming in 99/00 when the projections were prepared. The current 2031 projetions use a more standard survival-cohort method and have been tested and approved at the OMB.

I'm curious what the current reasoning is behind why a city needs to always have potential development lands open. I mean, the Liberal government is supposedly all about going green and such, and this just flies in the face of that logic... Hopefully the new laws will eventually lead to municipalities, not the province, deciding what is best for themselves.

[waterloowarrior]

The planning horizon comes from the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Under the Planning Act, any decision of Council, the OMB, or other planning bodies must be consistent with the PPS.

Sections 1.1.3 and 1.4 are key in terms of the housing targets. Like Dr. Z said:
-The City needs to have a minimum 10 year supply of lands designated for growth at all times (Section 1.4.1 a. of the PPS)
-There is a general 20 year maximum planning period (1.1.2, with some exceptions for infrastructure and employment lands)
-There is a five year review period to make sure the Official Plan is still consistent with the PPS (Section 26.1 of the Planning Act)
-This gives you a 15-20 year planning horizon

There is lots of wording in the PPS about intensification targets, only allowing expansion when there isn't room through intensification, only developing in greenfield (designated growth areas) if necessary, and using infrastructure efficiently.. but the municipality is also required to provide "a range of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents." So a lot of major OMB hearings on Official Plan reviews come down to arguments between experts about population and dwelling type forecasts. How many people will Ottawa have in 20 years? What will be the makeup of households? What types of housing will be chosen? How much land is available to accommodate the various types of growth, and how much additional land will be needed? etc.

Municipalities like Waterloo who have argued that less land will be needed for single family homes in the future because of a shift to more apartment-based living have lost at the OMB after an extensive hearing (the Region is still fighting this)
http://smartgrowthwaterloo.ca/whats-...sion-pl110080/
http://www.environment.uwaterloo.ca/...B_Response.pdf

This happened to Ottawa in 2005, where the OMB preferred the developer's scenario that we would run out of land for single family homes by 2017, so the Fernbank lands were added to the boundary in order to meet demand
http://greenspace-alliance.ca/files/...d_Westpark.pdf

Overall the intention from the Province is to make sure that cities don't freeze development (including intensification), certain types of housing don't get too expensive because of a lack of land or overall availability, and that municipalities are engaged in proper long-term planning for both current and future residents. But it can be frustrating for municipalities who went through an extensive process based on what they thought were reasonable assumptions, only to be over-turned at the OMB based on what the municipality perceives as a status quo scenario brought forward by the developer's experts.

On the other hand, the developers might argue that the City is not meeting provincial requirements based on the analysis of their (also highly qualified) experts, the City's assumptions on things like housing preference are faulty, the density targets are unrealistic etc. You can read through those two OMB decisions to get an idea of what the developer arguments are, or if that's a bit dry check out http://www.buildingottawa.ca/ - no affiliation with BulldogOttawa

[1overcosc]

Isn't most of the rural land in Waterloo region part of the Toronto greenbelt?

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Isn't most of the rural land in Waterloo region part of the Toronto greenbelt?

It's covered by the Growth Plan, but only a small part west of Cambridge is in the Greenbelt. http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page10882.aspx