New subdivision developments - Page 16

Cre47 · #**301** Posted **Aug 19, 2009, 6:55 PM**

This forum has recent photos from Late spring-early summer progression of the Kanata West/ Mattamy (near Maple Grove and I think Johnwoods Drive) subdivision (Page 4)

http://www.buildinghomes.ca/community/forums/showthread.php?t=10237&page=4

Cre47 · #**302** Posted **Sep 8, 2009, 10:56 PM**

Carp River area update

Quote:

Committee OKs delay on building on Carp River basin

By Patrick Dare , The Ottawa CitizenSeptember 8, 2009 6:34 PM

OTTAWA — A brief moratorium on building near the Carp River passed city council’s planning and environment committee Tuesday but even the head of the committee said the action was little more than a gesture.

City councillors and staff have been struggling to react decisively on flood-risk issues since July 24, when an intense rainstorm flooded 1,200 west-end homes, some for the third time in 13 years.

Kanata South Councillor Peggy Feltmate initially proposed a general moratorium on building on lands that are drained by the Carp River or its creeks. Feltmate's ward includes the Glen Cairn subdivision that was hardest hit by floods this summer.

By Tuesday, her motion was limited to a five-week delay in building until city engineers have had a chance to examine the storm model for future development with the latest data from the July storm. That modeling report is expected by Oct. 13.

Councillors were told the building delay might affect a couple of residential subdivisions, especially 100 homes to be built by Mattamy Homes. The motion goes to city council in two weeks.

Peter Hume, chairman of the committee, said he had misgivings about a motion that seemed largely symbolic.

But Feltmate said at least it was some action from the city for a part of town where people have lost faith in the city administration. She said the municipal changes to drainage in the Kanata area, coupled with climate change and a lot of development in nearby places like Stittsville, helped create the Kanata flood conditions.

Feltmate’s west-end council colleagues, Shad Qadri and Marianne Wilkinson, broke ranks with her, opposing the pause in development approvals. Wilkinson said the Carp River wasn’t responsible for the July flooding, so there’s no reason to stop development on land near it.

However, the city’s senior engineer in these matters, Dixon Weir, said stormwater in places like nearby Stittsville did contribute to the flooding problems of Kanata.

Feltmate said her colleagues are under a lot of pressure from landowners to get projects approved by the city.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

waterloowarrior · #**303** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 2:39 PM**

Richardson Ridge (Regional Group + Uniform)
Future Terry Fox @ Richardson Side Road

Riverside South Phase 5 (application page)

To create 29 local streets, the extension of Spratt Road to the LRT corrider, 508 lots for single detached dwellings, 36 blocks for street townhomes, one institutional block, 2 park blocks and one block for an elementary school

Click to enlarge plan of subdivision

waterloowarrior · #**304** Posted **Sep 22, 2009, 7:20 PM**

Minto seeks to build up Barrhaven
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Minto+seeks+build+Barrhaven/2017728/story.html
Courts committee approval for multi-storey office, residential buildings

By Patrick Dare, The Ottawa CitizenSeptember 22, 2009

OTTAWA — Minto intends to put a little bit of downtown into South Nepean with a town centre project that will start construction by next year.

The plans, which go to the planning and environment committee Oct. 27, call for moderately dense development on 12.6 hectares of the Chapman Mills town centre lands.

That Minto property, south and east of the Riocan Marketplace big-box stores in Barrhaven, would see four-storey residential buildings with units of 1,000 or 1,200 square feet. The plans also include four-storey office buildings now, and perhaps taller office buildings later; 12-storey residential buildings would be built later.

“This is really bringing the urban to the suburban,” said Marcel Denomme, director of land development at Minto.

Plans for a Barrhaven town centre have been talked about since the days of Ben Franklin, the late mayor of Nepean. In the 1990s, he planned for that section of South Nepean to be a more lively, walkable and densely built neighbourhood than the rest of Barrhaven.

The Minto project requires minor zoning changes to permit office buildings of four storeys, rather than six, and a residential tower of 12 storeys rather than six.

One thing that’s making this more dense development possible is the $52.6-million extension of the Southwest Transitway from Fallowfield Station south to the Chapman Mills town centre.

Denomme says that expansion of bus-transit service means that Minto will be able to build homes with one parking space, rather than two, because bus travel will be so convenient.

There would be about 1,200 residential units in this phase of the town centre.

While the Minto plans show blocks of residential and commercial buildings at Chapman Mills town centre, the plan also calls for a large civic square with fountains and a winter rink, and perhaps a city building.

Steve Desroches, the councillor for Gloucester-South Nepean, says this is part of South Nepean “picking up the pieces” from the cancellation of the north-south light-rail project.

He says recent growth in the suburbs has used less land and this is another significant step toward being wiser in urban development.

“There’s a recognition out there that we do need to build smarter communities,” said Desroches. “I like what I see. I think we’re on the right track.”

There will be an open house on the town centre project tonight from 5 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Walter Baker Sports Centre in Barrhaven.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Plans are on the previous page of this thread

Cre47 · #**305** Posted **Sep 24, 2009, 9:11 PM**

Kanata West update

Quote:

Development moratorium nixed

By Patrick Dare, The Ottawa CitizenSeptember 24, 2009

An attempt to place a three-week moratorium on development near the Carp River failed at city council on Wednesday.

Councillors voted 10-6 against the measure, which Kanata South Councillor Peggy Feltmate wanted as an initial pause in building in an area that has experienced flooding and controversy over development approvals.

The moratorium would have halted development in the Kanata West area, where land drains to the Carp River or its creeks. It would also have delayed construction of some houses in Kanata West.

The moratorium would have been brief, only lasting until Oct. 13, when a report on the latest flood data is to be received by the city.

Feltmate is concerned about not only the Glen Cairn neighbourhood in her ward, where 800 homes were flooded with sewage after a huge July 24 rainstorm, but also other lands near the Carp River that might be in floodplain.

One-third of a new road being built by the city -- the Terry Fox Drive extension -- is being constructed through floodplain.

Feltmate said her residents no longer trusted City Hall staff or developers in the Kanata area.

After the meeting, Feltmate said she would like to see the Ontario Ministry of the Environment brought in to assess the engineering issues.

Most city councillors weren't buying the notion that the moratorium would make any difference.

Kanata North Councillor Marianne Wilkinson said it appeared that development along the Carp River was not strictly responsible for the flooding in July. She did say, however, that development around Glen Cairn almost certainly was a cause of the flooding since that neighbourhood did not have such flooding many years ago.

The city is working at finding solutions to flooding issues in Kanata. A consulting engineers' report in 2003 warned some streets in Glen Cairn were especially low-lying and prone to flooding.

Towers approved

A neighbourhood redevelopment involving three mid-rise towers was approved by city council Wednesday. Residents and neighbours of the Redwood community -- bounded by Baseline Road, Morrison Drive and Draper Avenue -- were upset about the development, which originally had a tower of 20 storeys. The Regional Group brought the buildings down to 12-, eight- and six-storey buildings. The 334 condominiums will replace 84 townhouses.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

waterloowarrior · #**306** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 2:46 PM**

Citiplace neighbourhood

Cre47 · #**307** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 8:42 PM**

With the new Street View feature I might try eventually to post links to new development areas. I'm just quite busy for the next little while.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8...1iF3tGnDWD03532ow&cbp=12,260.47,,0,-1.64

waterloowarrior · #**308** Posted **Oct 9, 2009, 2:48 AM**

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/City+goes+court+fight+Manotick+expansion/2081949/story.html
Municipalities’ power at stake in OMB case
Judges set to review Manotick decision under provisions of Planning Act
Kate Jaimet, The Ottawa CitizenOctober 9, 2009 12:02 AM
OTTAWA — The city went to court Thursday in a bid to rein in the power of the Ontario Municipal Board to approve developments that city council has voted down.

The city asked a panel of three divisional court judges to overturn a recent OMB ruling that allows Minto Communities to build 1,400 new houses on the outskirts of Manotick. The proposed development was supported by city staff but voted down by council after objections by Manotick residents.

“What’s important here at the heart of it is: Who gets to decide the public interest of the City of Ottawa?” said Paul Webber, a lawyer for the city.

But Minto’s lawyer Bob Doumani urged the judges to let the OMB ruling stand, and said the board has the right to decide if a city council’s decision on
development is right or wrong. “If the application (for development) demonstrably has merit … then I suppose those who didn’t think it had merit were wrong,”
Doumani said.

The case — which, if decided in the city’s favour, could give Ontario municipal councils greater powers to control development — will focus on interpretation of changes to the provincial Planning Act, brought in by the McGuinty government in 2007.

The city’s lawyer argued that prior to the changes, the OMB was an independent decision-making body that could override the will of municipal councils. But the province amended the Planning Act to change that situation, Webber argued.

Now, he said, the OMB should only be able to overrule a council’s decision if the proper procedure was not followed, the decision was unreasonable, or the
decision was inconsistent with provincial policy or the city’s own official plan.

Webber argued the greater power that the province meant to confer on municipalities is expressed in the wording of the 2007 law, which states that the OMB “shall have regard to the decision of council” in deciding any case.

“The reform was exactly to make the decision of council meaningful,” Webber said.

But Minto’s lawyer argued that the 2007 amendments were merely tinkering by the provincial government and did not substantially change the power of the OMB to overturn decisions by municipal councils.

Doumani said that “have regard to” is a weak phrase, and that if the province had really meant to empower municipalities, it would have written stronger language into the law.

Minto’s vice-president of development, Jack Stirling, who attended the hearing, said that if the court agrees with the city, it will take away the rights of those who disagree with a city planning decision to make an argument to an independent body.

He said that the OMB has shown itself more likely to heed professional advice, as opposed to council, which can be swayed by the emotions of citizens. In the Manotick case, he pointed out, the city staff had recommended in favour of Minto’s proposal, before being overturned by council.

“They listened to a bunch of angry citizens who had no professional expertise and they turned it down,” Stirling said.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Dado · #**309** Posted **Oct 9, 2009, 4:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

City goes to court to fight Manotick expansion

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/City+goes+court+fight+Manotick+expansion/2081949/story.html

By Kate Jaimet , The Ottawa CitizenOctober 7, 2009

...

Webber argued the greater power that the province meant to confer on municipalities is expressed in the wording of the 2007 law, which states that the OMB “shall have regard to the decision of council” in deciding any case.

“The reform was exactly to make the decision of council meaningful,” Webber said.

But Minto’s lawyer argued that the 2007 amendments were merely tinkering by the provincial government, and did not substantially change the power of the OMB to overturn decisions by municipal councils.

Doumani said that “have regard to” is a weak phrase, and that if the province had really meant to empower municipalities, it would have written stronger language into the law.

“It does not counsel deference or obeisance,” he said.

Whoa... that's what Minto's lawyer is going to argue in court? That the Province didn't really mean to do anything, it just wanted to fool around a bit? I realize Lansdowne Live has been a distraction and all, but really.

I can see it now:

Webber [to witness]: "Were you the Minister of Municipal Affairs when the Planning Act was amended in 2007 to add the phrase 'shall have regard to' with respect to the powers of the OMB?"
Witness: "Yes, I was"
Webber: "And was the purpose of this amendment to confer greater authority on the municipalities of Ontario, or was it just to 'tinker' a bit"?
Witness: "The former, sir."
Doumani [under breath]: "Damn"

blackjagger · #**310** Posted **Oct 9, 2009, 12:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dado

Whoa... that's what Minto's lawyer is going to argue in court? That the Province didn't really mean to do anything, it just wanted to fool around a bit? I realize Lansdowne Live has been a distraction and all, but really.

I can see it now:

Webber [to witness]: "Were you the Minister of Municipal Affairs when the Planning Act was amended in 2007 to add the phrase 'shall have regard to' with respect to the powers of the OMB?"
Witness: "Yes, I was"
Webber: "And was the purpose of this amendment to confer greater authority on the municipalities of Ontario, or was it just to 'tinker' a bit"?
Witness: "The former, sir."
Doumani [under breath]: "Damn"

I have a feeling that they will argue the later part of the article.

"He said that the OMB has shown itself more likely to heed professional advice, as opposed to council, which can be swayed by the emotions of citizens. In the Manotick case, he pointed out, the city staff had recommended in favour of Minto’s proposal, before being overturned by council."

In that city staff recommended that proposal. As well the city has just increase services to Manotick which I'm sure won't help their case either.

Just as the article says these type of decisions are what the OMB is for, to overturn city councilors who let bias and reelection get in the way of making decisions.

On a side note I don't know if I support this development. I think that it will cause additional chaos in the south end due to lack of roads but we are talking about 10-20 years here, not tomorrow I start building and poof 1,400 houses are up. Though I’m still waiting for Barrhaven to have a downtown so maybe I’m not a good judge…lol.

Cheers,
Josh

Dado · #**311** Posted **Oct 9, 2009, 5:12 PM**

That part of the article wasn't there when I posted; WW added it later after a revised version appeared.

The "emotional citizens" argument is not much better than the "provincial tinkering" argument. Municipal councils exist to represent the will of the tax-paying populace, emotional or not. If the OMB is always going to rule in favour of the advice of professional staff then there is no point in having municipal councils, or, indeed, the public, involved in the planning process. And that would be wrong because the rationale for the involving the public through its elected representatives is that they bear the ongoing costs of development through taxation, increased environmental degradation and diminished quality of life.

Manotick is not a cut-and-dry case for either side. We have to remember it was Minto who requested a change to the status quo of the existing secondary plan; staff agreed with the change, Council didn't. For Minto to say that this is "overturning" is a bit of a stretch: staff has no statutory powers to decide anything of this sort so their advice can't be "overturned" - only accepted or ignored (suppose for example that it was a small township with no planning staff - Council would have to decide on its own with no advice to go on). Council nevertheless approved a change to the status quo, but not the change Minto wanted. Minto didn't like that, went to the OMB, which then agreed with Minto and "overturned" the Council decision. Then the City appealed that to the Courts on the basis that the OMB is not having regard to decisions of Council (arguably two decisions of Council - the previous Rideau Township decision creating the Secondary plan and the later Ottawa Council decision to alter it).

I recall looking at the OMB decision and it is certainly the case that they never even addressed the Council decision. I would say that "having regard to" does not necessarily mean being bound by it, but it does mean the OMB can't just go out and ignore it either, which is effectively what they've done.

In the end, I figure this will be tossed back to the OMB and they'll be instructed to rehear the case but this time to actually address the Council decision. If Minto has any sense they'll point out it was another decision of Council that extended services out to Manotick and that it is not self-financing. The OMB would then have to arbitrate between two decisions of Council. It's not hard to figure out which way that would go - but at least it would be the right decision for the right reasons rather than the right decision for the wrong reasons.

It would also mean that Council will have to be a lot more careful when it approves the extension of heavy municipal infrastructure - and a lot more careful about blindly accepting staff advice on the extension of such infrastructure. That's the irony in all this - we got to this point by Council following staff advice.

Cre47 · #**312** Posted **Oct 12, 2009, 1:06 AM**

waterloowarrior · #**313** Posted **Oct 13, 2009, 10:55 PM**

Thanks for the links Cre47!

Kanata West go ahead
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Kanata+West+development+gets+ahead/2097608/story.html

TransitZilla · #**314** Posted **Oct 14, 2009, 1:49 AM**

South Ottawa:

Findlay Creek (from Findlay Creek Dr & Bradwell Way)

Findlay Creek (Bank & Analdea)

New Rotary Home on Bank Street

Riverside South- new St Francis Xavier HS (Limebank & Spratt)

Riverside South- Earl Armstrong & Canyon Walk

Cre47 · #**315** Posted **Oct 16, 2009, 7:58 PM**

Proof Sheet · #**316** Posted **Oct 16, 2009, 8:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cre47

Part 2: Barrhaven

great links, but some of them are quite depressing. Just my opinion.

Cre47 · #**317** Posted **Oct 16, 2009, 9:33 PM**

Part 3: Kanata (unfortunately lots of areas were not visited by Google including Kanata North, Kanata West as well as all of Stittsville)

One thing noticeable in these areas (like Orleans and Barrhaven but surprisingly not Riverside South yeah sure Spratt Road is only a 5 minutes or less walking from every home) like many others is the lack of small commercial areas nearby

Fernbank near Eagleson

http://maps.google.ca/maps?client=firefo....276698,-75.865402&spn=0,359.991009&z=16

Goulbourn Forced Road & Kanata Avenue

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8...paC7IMMRdeC6kwT_Qg&cbp=12,252.78,,0,5.21

Terry Fox south of Richarson Side (future development)

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8...FrJHn2-iQ3M1v9FuEhctQ&cbp=12,285.34,,0,5

Note: I will be doing the Gatineau side next week

Cre47 · #**318** Posted **Oct 18, 2009, 1:09 PM**

Cre47 · #**319** Posted **Oct 18, 2009, 1:28 PM**

Proof Sheet · #**320** Posted **Oct 18, 2009, 5:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cre47

Part 4: Aylmer/Le Plateau

Near Front/Des Allumettieres
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8...Jx0eDy8_RR6RTtguJMuMyw&cbp=12,102.6,,0,5

Is this subdivision not finished yet or do the homes not come with a fully paved driveway.

btw cre47 great links to the edges of the NCR.