[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.