Ottawa's Official Plan Update

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I'm surprised that parcel at the SW corner of Barrhaven made it in. I thought it was left out in the past because of proximity to the Trail Rd dump. I hope whoever buys a house there enjoys spending lots of time inside.

They seem to have identified land across the Queensway from the Carp dump as well.

You should Google the Navan Dump; houses on Knotridge literally have the landfill as their backyard neighbour.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

They seem to have identified land across the Queensway from the Carp dump as well.

You should Google the Navan Dump; houses on Knotridge literally have the landfill as their backyard neighbour.

The section near stittsville near the carp dump is already somewhat developed as industrial land so I assume most of it going to remain light industrial land

[J.OT13]

Debating the urban boundary today.

• Video Link

Jon Willing and Kate Porter are live tweeting the meeting.

https://twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC

[J.OT13]

Closeup of the Boweville area expansion.


https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/st...20790026489858

[J.OT13]

Land assessed, but not recommended.


https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/st...21761213407233

Three potential new communities to make up the shortfall of phase 1 land expansion, including the Algonquins of Ontario lands.


https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/st...22901179064321

[J.OT13]

A closer look at the Algonquins of Ontario Lands, "Tewin". A spokesperson for the Algonquin Peoples spoke at the meeting to argue the inclusion of the entire parcel of land.


https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/st...37940090941444

Kate Porter
@KatePorterCBC

City staff cited "very high" costs to take water, sewer servicing to Tewin. Sensitive marine clays would mean all housing would be on sump pumps, etc.

Algonquins of Ontario: we have a team of engineers, dispute #ottcity staff conclusions about whether we're ready for development

11:40 AM · Jan 25, 2021·Twitter Web App

https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/st...44516684132353

[Ottawa Champ]

The NIMBY-ing has begun


https://www.reddit.com/r/ottawa/comm...eb2x&context=3

[rocketphish]

Developers, including Algonquins of Ontario, urge councillors to include their lands inside new urban boundary

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: Jan 25, 2021 • 21 hours ago • 3 minute read

The Algonquins of Ontario told city councillors Monday that the politicians should be compelled to approve 500 hectares of rural-east land as suitable for imminent development as part of reconciliation with Indigenous communities.

“We are building a nation within this nation of Canada,” Lynn Clouthier, the Algonquins of Ontario negotiation representative for Ottawa, told councillors during a key planning meeting on future development inside Ottawa’s urban boundary.

“We need that. It’s a confidence boost, if you like. That’s part of being accepted and included.”

The Algonquins of Ontario, which represents 10 communities on a land claim settlement with the provincial and federal governments, has teamed up with Taggart Investments on a massive development plan it calls Tewin on a huge expanse of land southwest of Carlsbad Springs.

However, the city hasn’t included the land inside a proposed urban boundary shift because it didn’t meet the minimum requirements during a site-scoring process.

A joint meeting of the planning committee and agriculture and rural affairs committee will recommend to council which properties should be included inside an expanded urban boundary.

City planners have identified 1,101 hectares of land around the suburbs that should be brought inside the urban boundary based on a scoring system that put emphasis on proximity to public transit and other municipal infrastructure.

The city must identify an additional 270 hectares by late 2026 to satisfy a council-approved urban boundary expansion and accommodate population growth over 25 years under a new official plan.

There are three options to identify the 270 hectares: consider lands that just didn’t make the grade, examine the potential for three new communities outside of suburban borders, or focus studies on one of those communities.

(To understand the size of 270 hectares, Blackburn Hamlet in old Gloucester and the Glen Cairn community in Kanata are both 250 hectares, city planners said.)

The land owned by the Algonquins of Ontario is one of the three areas the city sees potential for as a new community, but the organization wants 500 hectares of its land to be included inside the urban boundary now, even if it means other high-ranking development lands owned by other developers are cut.

“The Algonquins have waited long enough,” said Janet Stavinga, executive director of the Algonquins of Ontario, building on Clouthier’s observation that the Algonquins have “taken a backseat for hundreds of years.”

Councillors were already trying to wrap their heads around their duty to responsibly plot development in the city, while respecting reconciliation with Algonquin communities. The City of Ottawa has had a reconciliation action plan since 2018.

This week is one of the last chances for developers who own lands outside of the newly proposed urban boundary to convince councillors their properties should be inside the border.

Nearly 50 public delegates were signed up to make statements during the meeting, which is expected to continue on Tuesday.

Councillors heard from developers who alleged the city’s scoring wasn’t correct and that the city’s analyses didn’t properly assess their sites.

Community groups urged councillors to be smart about suburban sprawl.

Paul Johanis, chair of Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital, said the city in determining where to add another 270 hectares of development land should consider a fourth alternative: increasing residential intensification in existing communities.

The city has set an intensification goal of constructing more than half of all new homes in built-up areas. The intensification rate will increase to 60 per cent between 2041 and 2046.

Joanis said “it just seems to be due diligence” to compare the impacts of more intensification with development sprawl.

Recommendations from the joint committee will be considered by council on Feb. 10.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...urban-boundary

[rocketphish]

Ottawa city planners firmly stuck in the past
Prohibiting development with a new natural "Gold" belt would do exactly what the Greenbelt has done: push growth farther from the centre.

Randall Denley
Publishing date: Jan 26, 2021 • 1 hour ago • 3 minute read



If there is one lesson Ottawa planners should have learned from the mistakes of the last 50 years, it is that a Greenbelt can’t stop the spread of development, even if you choose to call it a Gold Belt. And yet, surprisingly, yet another greenbelt is proposed as a key feature in the city’s plan to control growth for the next 25 years.

The new rural ring city staff have suddenly come up with would do even more, defining the limits of urban growth until the end of the century. It’s quite a feat of foresight. Meanwhile back in 2021, new trends in the way we work and live make this new city official plan seem old before it’s even passed.

Let’s start with Greenbelt 2, the so-called Gold Belt. The existing Greenbelt is the prime reason Ottawa’s new suburban development has occurred far from the city centre for decades. That is the problem that planners are now trying to work around. They think it can be done by repeating a 70-year-old mistake. Prohibiting development with a new natural belt would do exactly what the Greenbelt has done, push growth farther from the centre. This time, instead of Kanata, Barrhaven or Orléans, new development would migrate to towns such as Kemptville, Arnprior and Carleton Place.

The proposed Gold Belt is better than the existing greenbelt in one respect. The city doesn’t plan to buy the land, which it could never afford, and argues that it is just putting a label on a ring of rural land that is already protected from development. OK, but if so, why do they need to do it? Worse, it will tie the hands of future councils if the city’s ambitious intensification plan doesn’t deliver. “Protect The Gold Belt” groups will certainly arise, even though one-third of the city’s urban area is already given over to the original Greenbelt.

Planners’ inability to learn from the past is baffling, but their ability to ignore the present is even more so. Working from home has become a huge thing during the pandemic. Some people hate it, but plenty like it and it cuts costs for employers. Don’t expect it to go away when the COVID-19 virus does. Shopify has already declared itself permanently a “work from home” business. When a forward-looking company like that endorses the concept, plenty of others will follow.

Just that one change will have a huge impact on the city’s future development. We have already seen it as more people are seeking suburban space and tiny condos downtown no longer seem like such a hot idea. If your home is also your office, your needs and expectations change. City planners need to take that into account.

Working from home could also have a devastating effect on public transit and critically alter the role the city sees it playing in development. The city would like new development to be close to its LRT system. The thing is, the LRT is mostly designed to take people into the core to work downtown. If significantly fewer of them are working downtown, that stops making sense.

City planners are also talking about the “15-minute neighbourhood,” which is a relabelling of the “live, work, play” communities planners have proposed for decades. The new twist is even more micro. You are supposed to be able to walk or cycle to most things you need in 15 minutes. Why walk 15 minutes when so much of what we need can be delivered to our door and so many of our transactions can be done online?

Reducing the costly burden of taking large numbers of workers downtown ought to be exciting for the city, freeing up money to make neighbourhoods better. Instead, our planners and city politicians are stuck in the past and have somehow concluded that it’s the future.

Randall Denley is an Ottawa political commentator and author. Contact him at [email protected]

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/de...ck-in-the-past

[stolenottawa]

Originally Posted by Ottawa Champ

The NIMBY-ing has begun


https://www.reddit.com/r/ottawa/comm...eb2x&context=3

I listened in on the AVCA city meeting. The question period felt like the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In9oSjjltOs

[J.OT13]

Kate Porter is live Tweeting the meeting. Lots of debate on the Tewin Algonquins of Ontario land.

https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/st...39993619496965

[TransitZilla]

Interesting ongoing debate about adding Agricultural lands to Riverside South, rather than the parcel south of Rideau Rd.

Strong arguments on both sides. This is more fall-out of from the North-South LRT cancellation. The original corridor turned to head north of Earl Armstrong. By building the line south of Earl Armstrong, it became much closer to agricultural lands, increasing the pressure to add them in.

[J.OT13]

Meehan wants to swap the green land in RSS with some of the agricultural land in brown closer to the Trillium Line.


https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/st...21734706888706

Darouze supports this motion, one of the few times I agree with him, but Moffatt does not because somehow that sends the wrong (?) message that transit trumps agriculture. Seems good to me; invest millions in transit, some of that being developer money, then we should develop around transit.

https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/st...53255606112258

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Interesting ongoing debate about adding Agricultural lands to Riverside South, rather than the parcel south of Rideau Rd.

Strong arguments on both sides. This is more fall-out of from the North-South LRT cancellation. The original corridor turned to head north of Earl Armstrong. By building the line south of Earl Armstrong, it became much closer to agricultural lands, increasing the pressure to add them in.

They should have stuck with the original corridor, but the City decided to go off course because it was cheaper. Well, here we have the consequences of that; more agricultural lands could, and probably should, developed. Maybe those opposed today should have brought that up when they were debating the Trillium Line extension.

[J.OT13]

Land swap in RSS to keep development above Rideau Road and closer to the Trillium Line is approved. Good move IMO.

https://twitter.com/JonathanWilling/...56241606619136

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

They should have stuck with the original corridor, but the City decided to go off course because it was cheaper. Well, here we have the consequences of that; more agricultural lands could, and probably should, developed. Maybe those opposed today should have brought that up when they were debating the Trillium Line extension.

Was it just cost, or was it also related to the switch in technology from a more tram-like vehicle to heavier rail? The old alignment had a lot more curves but was more central to the already approved urban area.

For reference, here's the old alignment, showing how it curves to the north Earl Armstrong east of Limebank:

Darouze supports this motion, one of the few times I agree with him, but Moffatt does not because somehow that sends the wrong (?) message that transit trumps agriculture. Seems good to me; invest millions in transit, some of that being developer money, then we should develop around transit.

I thought Moffatt made a really compelling argument though I think I do agree with adding these lands in. Staff's position is that it's OK in this case because the line is under construction. But if LRT gets built out to Fernbank in the future, it's going to be really hard to say no to building on the agriculture lands across the street. Probably another reason to NOT build LRT that far out!

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Was it just cost, or was it also related to the switch in technology from a more tram-like vehicle to heavier rail? The old alignment had a lot more curves but was more central to the already approved urban area.

For reference, here's the old alignment, showing how it curves to the north Earl Armstrong east of Limebank:




I thought Moffatt made a really compelling argument though I think I do agree with adding these lands in. Staff's position is that it's OK in this case because the line is under construction. But if LRT gets built out to Fernbank in the future, it's going to be really hard to say no to building on the agriculture lands across the street. Probably another reason to NOT build LRT that far out!

I can't see the image you posted, unfortunately. Would you be able to re-post?

Here's the old and new alignments. At first, the City was following the existing corridor purchased for the N/S line. The goal of the new alignment was to get it to the town centre faster, seemingly due to developers request. Developers (i.e. future home buyers) will be funding half the 3 km extension to Limebank, with the Province funding the other half.


https://www.toronto.com/news-story/7...top-developer/

[J.OT13]

Kate Porter
@KatePorterCBC

Councillors vote 8 to 3 to NOT add 175 hectares in South March inside the urban boundary, which #ottcity staff scored high for development.

They instead redirect them to a future community by the Algonquins of Ontario in the south-east. #ottnews


3:32 PM · Jan 26, 2021·Twitter Web App

https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/st...65440226979840

[rocketphish]

Developers stunned by recommendation to remove lands from boundary expansion to help Algonquins project
Several developers who own land in the South March area were set to have their high-scoring properties brought into the new urban boundary, only to be rejected by councillors.

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: Jan 26, 2021 • 8 minutes ago • 3 minute read



Councillors blindsided four development companies on Tuesday by recommending the removal of high-scoring development land from inside a proposed urban boundary in the Kanata area so the Algonquins of Ontario can build a major residential community on low-scoring development land in the rural east.

A joint meeting of the planning and agriculture and rural affairs committee established which additional lands should be included in a shifted urban boundary to satisfy growth projections in a new official plan.

The city’s planning department used a scoring system to decide which lands should be included inside a new urban boundary.

Several developers who own land in the South March area were set to have their high-scoring properties brought into the new urban boundary, only to be rejected by councillors.

“It is incredibly surprising that in an unprecedented move that politics has taken over a prescribed scoring process and months of work by city staff and included a parcel of land with a zero score on servicing over lands which have some of highest scores and support the growth and maturation of an existing complete community where jobs, services and houses co-exist,” Claridge, Multivesco, Uniform and EQ Homes said in a statement.

“The joint committee has taken a step backwards in their supposed step into the future with a new official plan. It has taken one of the biggest employment nodes and one of the only true 15-minute communities out of the equation that these same politicians drew up to start the process.”

Instead, councillors took the roughly 175 hectares of land and packaged it with 270 hectares that still needed to be slotted into the urban boundary, ultimately assigning the 445 hectares of land to the “Tewin” project pursued by the Algonquins of Ontario and Taggart Investments west of Carlsbad Springs.

Councillors heard that the land owned by the Algonquins of Ontario scored at the lowest end of the scale because of its far-flung location not near public transit and other municipal infrastructure.

But an important variable emerged.

The Algonquins of Ontario told the joint committee this week that the city should bring its lands inside the urban boundary, in part, in the name of Indigenous reconciliation. The group said it needed 500 hectares brought into the urban boundary.

Janet Stavinga, executive director of the Algonquins of Ontario, said the organization should still be able to proceed with its project with the 445 hectares.

There was a pronged approach to get the Algonquin lands into the urban boundary on Tuesday.

Coun. Eli El-Chantiry convinced the majority of the joint committee to remove the South March lands, which he argued are unsuitable for development, even though the lands received acceptable scores from city staff.

Then Coun. Tim Tierney shifted his colleagues’ attention with a motion to include the Algonquin lands inside the urban boundary. He said the city should seize the chance to acknowledge reconciliation.

“This is a real opportunity where we can put ourselves on the map,” Tierney said.

Other councillors grappled with weighing a critical municipal planning decision with Indigenous reconciliation.

“It’s well worth considering very, very carefully,” Coun. Jeff Leiper said.

Leiper, along with Coun. Riley Brockington, was on the losing end of the vote to establish a new community with the Algonquin lands.

Even Stephen Willis, the city’s general manager of planning, wasn’t sure how to balance the priorities.

“We’re in new territory right now on this issue,” Willis said.

City planners came to the joint committee meeting this week asking for approval on a plan identifying their recommended new development lands.

There were 1,101 hectares of land that received top grades for getting into the urban boundary, but the city still needed to find 270 hectares of lower-graded lands to add. That’s where the Algonquin land came in.

In expanding the urban boundary, the city has to consider how much more money its would cost to provide municipal services in those outer communities. The cost for including the Algonquin lands wasn’t made clear during the meeting.

It wasn’t the only controversy.

Coun. Carol Anne Meehan won support to swap out staff-recommended land in Riverside South with nearby agricultural land to allow residential development closer to the new Trillium Line extension.

Meehan struggled with her own proposal, since she previously supported protecting agricultural land during the urban boundary expansion.

Coun. Scott Moffatt said Meehan’s motion worryingly sends a message that “transit trumps agriculture, but El-Chatiry, the chair of the agriculture committee who originally won council’s support to protect agriculture land, said the land swap provides a “one-time opportunity we shouldn’t miss” for public transit.

Council will vote on the recommended new lands inside the urban boundary on Feb. 10.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...ntario-project

[rocketphish]

This has "lawsuit against the City" written all over it.