Ottawa's Official Plan Update

[rocketphish]

City of Ottawa settles with developers over 'excessive' $1.8M fees
Settlement sees developers pay about one-sixth of what city originally charged

Kate Porter · CBC News
Posted: Jul 03, 2025 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 5 hours ago

It appears the City of Ottawa set its fees too high when it decided to charge $1.8 million to property owners wanting to apply for a one-off expansion of the urban boundary.

A hearing was set for June 2 at the Ontario Land Tribunal for an appeal by five home builders that want to convert rural land along March Road north of Kanata for urban development. CBC News has learned the city instead agreed to a settlement that sees the developers pay just one-sixth of the application fees the city had originally charged.

At least one other appeal over application fees was resolved at the same time. It had been filed by developers wanting to expand the Findlay Creek neighbourhood eastward.

Claridge Homes is involved in both cases. The company confirmed they were settled so the builders would pay $209,581 in fees to the city for a planning review, and another $106,000 to assess servicing lands with water and sewer pipes.

That's a fraction of the fees council approved last fall when it created the new type of application. It originally set fees that totalled $1.8 million, including a planning review fee at a hefty $1.4 million.

<more>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/land-tribunal-urban-expansion-fees-ottawa-1.7564991

[rocketphish]

Ottawa council set to refuse urban expansion proposals for 5,500 homes
Staff say infrastructure would cost city millions but Coun. Kavanagh sees irony after Tewin proposal approved

Kate Porter · CBC News
Posted: Nov 12, 2025 4:00 AM EST | Last Updated: 5 hours ago

City committees have refused applications by developers to expand Ottawa’s urban areas north of Kanata and north of Barrhaven to allow for about 5,500 new homes, and councillors are willing to stand by those decisions at the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Planning staff who reviewed the applications advised councillors against admitting two rural areas inside the urban boundary, saying they don't meet the city's criteria. They say the City of Ottawa has more than enough land already set aside to meet provincial requirements, and say upgrades to water infrastructure could total tens of millions and "are not cost-effective”.

Full city council will need to endorse that approach at its meeting Wednesday.

Developers applied for the expansions under a new system the City of Ottawa devised in fall 2024 after the Ontario government mandated that municipalities must accept applications for urban boundary changes at any time, and not only during periodic comprehensive reviews.

But city staff say they have begun the process of updating the city’s population projections and deciding if lands will be needed for future development, meaning it would be premature to allow these expansions before that work is done in 2027.

Staff told the city’s planning and housing committee that their opinion on applications was unlikely to change before then, so they would continue opposing urban expansions in their reports.

<more>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ot...sion-proposals-for-5-500-homes-9.6975196

[J.OT13]

Have we ever seen developers being this bold in trying to push through new housing outside the urban boundary? Obviously we can't accept these as they would set a bad precedent, but I can't help but think Tewin has already done that.

[Ottawacurious]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Have we ever seen developers being this bold in trying to push through new housing outside the urban boundary? Obviously we can't accept these as they would set a bad precedent, but I can't help but think Tewin has already done that.

The map here shows how close development is in the area. Lots of big country estate houses with big lots and also abutting the current new developments.
Devapps link: https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D01-01-24-0025/details

Planning doc with maps and owners of the land under review:
https://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image...ing%20Rationale%20-%20D01-01-24-0025.PDF

[rocketphish]

3-storey homes could be built in all Ottawa neighbourhoods as part of zoning update

By Josh Pringle, CTV News
Published: December 02, 2025 at 8:40AM EST

New homes and buildings in Ottawa neighbourhoods will be bigger and have more units in the future as the City of Ottawa looks to boost the housing supply.

The final draft of Ottawa’s new zoning bylaw recommends allowing three-storey buildings in all N1 and N2 neighbourhood zones across Ottawa’s urban and suburban areas.

The report for the Planning and Housing Committee and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meeting on Dec. 17 says the final draft of the new zoning bylaw calls for a maximum height of 11 metres in neighbourhood zones.

“A maximum height of three storeys in N1 and N2 Zones implements Official Plan policies that generally permit three storeys in neighbourhoods and allow up to four storeys ‘where appropriate,’ staff said.

“A maximum height of three storeys also supports the construction of larger, family-sized dwelling units in four- to six-unit buildings in N1 and N2 zones as a result of the additional floor area available within the third storey.”

The maximum height for buildings will remain at three storeys in the N3 and N4 H(11) zones.

Other changes to the zoning bylaw include:

• Increasing the maximum height for a high-rise building from 27 storeys to 30 storeys
• Reducing the separation distance for the tower portion of the building from 30 metres to 25 metres
• Limiting the height of high-rise buildings to 18 storeys in the suburbs when it is located farther than 600 metres from an existing or planned transit station
• A minimum parking space rate of one parking space per dwelling in Village Residential Zones

Planning committee chair Jeff Leiper says the zoning bylaw will result in “several big changes’ to Kitchissippi Ward.

“Including allowing more units on lots, an across-the-board three-storey limit instead of the current two that’s now in some of our neighbourhoods, the elimination of minimum parking regulations, and mid-rise buildings on our main corridors. In some areas very close to transit, tall towers will be allowed to be a little taller,” Leiper said in a post on Facebook.

“The new rules will allow more housing in Kitchissippi, helping more people live in this transit, services and amenity-rich ward. As our city grows by hundreds of thousands of people in the next 25 years, opening our neighbourhood to more people will help ensure an affordable and sustainable future for Ottawa. I’m excited to see how we grow.”

The zoning bylaw review is intended to form a key component of the comprehensive strategy to address housing affordability and supply in Ottawa. The city is required to build 151,000 new homes from 2021 to 2031.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/3-...neighbourhoods-as-part-of-zoning-update/

[Williamoforange]

NCC changing zoning on lands alongside the cherry as part of draft 3 changes. As long as space is kept for high speed rail then this looks like a good change.

Though excuse the blogspam as I can't find much reference elsewhere
https://www.osean.org/blog/rezoning-greenspace

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

NCC changing zoning on lands alongside the cherry as part of draft 3 changes. As long as space is kept for high speed rail then this looks like a good change.

Though excuse the blogspam as I can't find much reference elsewhere
https://www.osean.org/blog/rezoning-greenspace

Yeah, it looks like the current IL (light industrial lands) along the south side of the tracks are being rezoned to either DR Development Reserve (for future consideration for a broader range of uses, namely residential). The EP (Environmental Protection Zone) lands stay as EP lands. The current L1 lands also get changed to DR lands.

Should also note that other than a bit of the change to the boundaries of one part of the DR (that was formerly in the Light Industrial Lands), this was all part of Draft 2 of the New Zoning Bylaw.

[J.OT13]

Funny how people are losing their minds over land that was never meant to be permanent green space. They should count themselves lucky they didn't get the O-Train rail yard that was once proposed. Most will still be kept as green space anyway it seems.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Funny how people are losing their minds over land that was never meant to be permanent green space. They should count themselves lucky they didn't get the O-Train rail yard that was once proposed. Most will still be kept as green space anyway it seems.

Or a new highway.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

Or a new highway.

Oh, was that a Greber era plan for that land?

[zzptichka]

Why do they keep calling this "forest"?

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Why do they keep calling this "forest"?

No idea. Just thinking of other precedent examples where Open Space zoned green space is being contemplated to be turned into highway corridor.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Why do they keep calling this "forest"?

It sounds more dramatic. But yeah, this is just a fields with some trees. I always prefer redeveloping vacant land over existing buildings.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Why do they keep calling this "forest"?

Same reason people called a strip reserved for possible future highway construction near Lees Avenue "The People's Park".

[Uhuniau]

How is it supposed to interact with the adjacent neighbourhood, when the existing built area is all lollipops?

[vtecyo]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Why do they keep calling this "forest"?

To be fair - that's quite an old photo - the trees have grown quite a lot. If you look at something up to date you can see it's much more forested now.


https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3503229,..._ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Although it should still be converted to high density housing, hopefully with a nice buffer zone park between it and nearby homes.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by vtecyo

Although it should still be converted to high density housing, hopefully with a nice buffer zone park between it and nearby homes.

Why should there be a buffer, other than to soothe the fee-fees of those neighbouring property owners?

[rocketphish]

There are large areas of forest, for sure, but a lot of what looks like forest from above is actually just scrub. This does have value as bird and other animal habitat, but it shouldn't be equated to a forest. You can sort of see this on Google's 3D view.



https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.3430508,-...I1MTIwOC4wIKXMDSoKLDEwMDc5MjA3M0gBUAM%3D

[ponyboycurtis]

The area abutting McCarthy rd. is fairly dense tree cover. Walking down the rail corridor exiting Walkley yard there is just about zero indication you are in the city in both sound and sight. Saw a wild turkey there last summer. The first graphic on that linked OSEAN page is pretty accurate for what you would consider appreciable tree cover.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by vtecyo

To be fair - that's quite an old photo - the trees have grown quite a lot. If you look at something up to date you can see it's much more forested now.


https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3503229,..._ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Although it should still be converted to high density housing, hopefully with a nice buffer zone park between it and nearby homes.

Looks like a lot of the denser treed areas will be preserved.