Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement
23 December 2011/le
23 décembre 2011
Submitted by/Soumis par : M.Rick
O'Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor/
Greffier et Chef du
contentieux
And John Moser, General Manager, Planning & Growth Management/
Directeur Général, Urbanisme & gestion de la croissance
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Timothy Marc
Senior
Legal Counsel/Conseiller juridique principal
Legal
Services/Services juridiques
(613) 580-2424 x21444, timothy.marc@ottawa.ca
Ian Cross, Prg Mgr, Research &
Forecasting/GP, Recherche & Prévisions
Planning
& Growth Management/Urbanisme et
Gestion de la croissance
|
Ref N°: ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0026 |
SUBJECT:
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
déclarations des témoins au sujet des
limites de la zone urbaine |
That the Planning Committee
and Council receive report for information.
Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et le Conseil prennent
connaissance du présent rapport.
BACKGROUND
As part of the amendments made by Bill 51 to the Planning
Act provisions were inserted into the Planning Act to ensure that any possible new evidence, subsequent
to Council’s consideration of an Official Plan or zoning by-law amendment, are
brought to the attention of Council prior to the conclusion of any hearing on
such amendment. This is to ensure that Council has the opportunity to consider
any evidence that the Board will itself consider in reaching its decision.
As noted in the report concerning the Urban
Boundary Phase 1 hearing, it has been the long-standing practice of the Board
to require the exchange of witness statements in advance of complex hearings so
that each party is aware of the cases that the other parties will present to
the Board. The exchange of these witness statements also permits a review to be
done to determine if there is any new information or evidence that should be
brought to Council in order to allow for a review of its previous decision on
the matter.
This report and accompanying attachments and links
fulfill the Planning Act direction to present any possible new evidence before
Council. However, as outlined in the Legal Implications section of this report,
the City’s Legal Department recommends no change to Council’s previous decision
on this matter.
URBAN BOUNDARY – PHASE 2A HEARING
Several hearings with respect to Official Plan
Amendment No. 76 have already taken place. Regarding the Urban Boundary,
the Phase 1 hearing decided that 850 gross residential hectares of land should
be added to the urban area to provide for needs up to 2031. Phase 2 of the
hearing has been separated into two parts. Phase 2A will decide whether the
City used appropriate methodology to evaluate candidate lands for expansion.
Phase 2B will decide whether the methodology was applied appropriately to the
evaluation of candidate parcels.
The Urban Boundary Phase 2A hearing will commence
on January 30, 2012, scheduled for five weeks. Witness statements were
exchanged on December 9, 2011. A link to all statements is attached at the end
of this report. Planning staff have reviewed the witness statements provided
by all parties with a view to summarizing for Committee and Council those which
may contain information or evidence that may not have been before Council
at the time that Official Plan Amendment No. 76 was adopted in June 2009.
Accompanying each summary of information provided through the witness statements
exchanged on December 9, 2011, is a staff response.
The
expert witnesses for the appellants are as follows:
·
Nancy Meloshe is a planner called by 4840 Bank
Street Limited;
·
David
Hatton is a transportation engineer called by 4840 Bank Street Limited;
· Martin Callsen
is a manager in the Department of Human Resource and Skills Development Canada
called by Friends of Greenspace Alliance;
·
James
Maxwell is a landowner in north Kanata (south part of parcel 1f);
·
Tony
Sroka is a planner called by James Maxwell;
·
David
Charlton and David Hodgson are agrologists called by Mattamy Homes;
·
Christopher
Gordon is a transportation engineer called by Mattamy Homes;
·
Michael
Goldberg is a planner called by Mattamy Homes; and
· Peter Smith is a
planner called by Minto Communities Inc.
In addition to the above, the following witnesses representing other landowners are appearing in support of the City’s position at the hearing:
· Greg Winters is
a planner called by Kanata Research Park Corporation, J.G. Rivard Ltd.
(Valecraft), 6095186 Canada Inc. (Brigil), 7089121 Canada Inc.
(Junic/Multivesco), and Grace Bell, Ross Bradley and 1384321 Ontario Ltd.
· Lloyd Phillips
is a planner called by Metcalfe Realty Company Ltd.
· Demetrius
Yannoulopoulos is an engineer called by Metcalfe Realty Company Ltd.
· Wendy Nott is a
planner called by the Taggart Group of Companies
Having reviewed the witness statements provided by
all parties to the Urban Boundary Phase 2A hearing, it continues to be the
position of staff that the methodology used to evaluate candidate parcels for
urban expansion is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and
represents good land use planning. Consequently, City planning staff do
not recommend any change to the methodology in light of the information and
evidence provided through the witness statements.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
The recommendations contained in this report are part of the process to establish which lands are redesignated from the rural area to the urban area. The process will conclude with a decision on the Phase 2B hearing scheduled for the summer of 2012.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Consultation on the City’s position for the Phase
2A hearing was conducted in July and August 2011 and public delegations were heard
by Planning Committee at its meeting of September 13, 2011. Two pre-hearings
were also held with respect to the hearing at which interested persons, who had
made submissions with respect to the Amendment or who could otherwise provide a
justification, could seek to be added as a party or participant to the hearing.
COMMENTS BY WARD COUNCILLOR
N/A
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
In order to avoid a dispute at the upcoming hearing
as to what in the witness statements constitutes new information or evidence, a
link is provided in this report to all of the witness statements that have been
distributed by any party for the upcoming hearing.
A significant thrust of the witness statements
filed on behalf of two of the appellants, Mattamy and Minto, is the suggestion
that the City did not give proper consideration to the possibility of
redesignating lands presently designated Agricultural Resource Area as urban
land. This is summarized in greater detail in Document 1 to this report.
In what is a new direction, if not new evidence, is
the case advanced by the witnesses for Mattamy that the City is being
inconsistent in its protection of agricultural areas in the infrastructure,
municipal and education facilities that have been permitted over the years.
Through its reply witness statements, the City has responded to these allegations. It is the opinion of Legal Services that the approach by the City has continued to be consistent with the obligation of the City towards agricultural areas
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Phase 2A hearing will be conducted within staff resources. A written transcript is being kept for this hearing and a significant number of documents are being produced, whose cost is split between the parties. The City’s share of the cost of the transcript is anticipated to be in the range of $6,000 to $10,000 while the City’s share of the cost of the books of documents is expected to be approximately $10,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
The Official Plan of the City of Ottawa, as
proposed to be modified by Official Plan Amendment No. 76, implements the
environmental objectives of the Provincial Policy Statement.
TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS
N/A
ACCESSIBILITY IMPACT
There are no accessibility considerations associated with this report.
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
The Urban Boundary, as amended through Official
Plan Amendment No. 76, reflects the following elements of the City’s Strategic
Plan.
Planning and Growth Management
1.
Become leading edge in community and urban design
2.
Ensuring new growth is integrated seamlessly with established
communities
3.
Encourage the development of existing employment lands to promote job
creation and minimize infrastructure costs
4.
Ensure that City infrastructure required for new growth is built or
improved as needed to serve the growth.
Sustainable Finances
1.
Make growth pay for itself.
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
N/A
DISPOSITION
The City’s legal representatives will advance the
position of Council before the Ontario Municipal Board.
DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 – Witness Statement Summary and Response
Witness Statements – Issued separately and held on file with
the City Clerk
WITNESS STATEMENT SUMMARY AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT 1
Nancy Meloshe
Responds to Issues 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 20
·
There
should be a criterion and weighting given to lands that can be developed within
the next five years. (Issue also raised by Tony Sroka.)
Staff Response (Issue
13)
Additions are being
made to the urban area to provide land for approximately 20 years of
residential development. Whether some lands can be developed within five years
does not warrant additional consideration.
·
There
should be criteria and weighting for adjacency to the urban area. (Issue also
raised by Tony Sroka.)
Staff Response (Issue
14)
All parcels
selected for evaluation are either adjacent or in close proximity to the urban
area. There are five criteria that address proximity to services and facilities
within the urban area. The methodology adequately addresses adjacency.
·
The methodology for the Land Absorption criterion excludes
land absorption as a criterion in communities such as Leitrim. In the 2002-2011
period, 2,075 units were constructed in Leitrim. Assuming 400 units will be built
annually there is a seven year supply.
Staff Response (Issue 20)
The land absorption criterion was applied to all
communities, including Leitrim. During 2002-2011 there were approximately 1,550
units built annually, or about 180 units per year. There is no basis for
assuming 400 units per year in Leitrim. Based on recent demand and current land
supply there is approximately a 20 year land supply in the community.
David Hatton
Responds to Issues 15 and 17
·
The criterion for access to transit ignores factors
such as availability, reliability, speed and comfort of the transit service.
The methodology penalizes a development which is located away from rapid
transit or a park and ride lot.
Staff Response (Issue 15)
The methodology measures distance to existing or
planned rapid transit, which by definition is a reliable, fast and comfortable service.
The methodology appropriately favours parcels that are closer to the rapid
transit system or a park and ride lot.
Staff Response (Issue 17)
The methodology appropriately assigns more points
to parcels that directly access a greater number of major roads. There is
little if any correlation between the number of arterials and collectors and
the size of parcels evaluated.
Martin Callsen
Responds to Issues 1, 2 and 3.
Staff Response
The methodology did
not include an assessment of larger natural linkages at a watershed or
subwatershed scale (generally referred to as “landscape corridors”). However,
staff considers the City’s screening process to be consistent with the
Provincial Policy Statement since each candidate area was screened for natural
heritage features, including some potential linkages such as valleylands and
floodplains, and these were excluded from the calculation of gross developable area. An assessment of larger natural linkages would have
been impractical in 2009, and would still be impractical now, due to the lack
of comparable, consistent and up-to-date information on
landscape corridors. The Official Plan requires additional planning processes
for the candidate lands to facilitate the more detailed environmental review
that is required before development proceeds.
James Maxwell
Responds to Issues 8, 9 and 10.
No new material or issues have been identified in
the witness statement.
Tony Sroka
Responds to Issues 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14.
·
Where
no explicit policy exists, for example in the PPS, it is inappropriate to
summarily exclude parcels from the analysis of candidate sites because an
abutting landowner claims a conflict.
Staff Response (Issues 8 and 9)
Parcels were
entirely excluded from analysis if they were prime agricultural land (with a
few specific exceptions), comprised of land designated Natural Environment Area
or were affected by airport noise or the Trail Road landfill. Parcels also had
to be a logical extension of the existing urban area. Within candidate parcels land
was removed from the estimate of gross developable residential land if affected
by one or more identified development constraints. In some situations
constraints could apply to the entire area of the parcel. The methodology
appropriately took account of identified constraints to residential
development. Staff identified constraints based on the best information
available at the time. All of the constraints identified are supported in the
PPS. All constraints are supported in the PPS.
David Charlton
and David Hodgson
Responds to Issues 5, 6 and 7.
·
The City’s methodology did not re-examine
agricultural scores in the LEAR (Land Evaluation and Area Review, the system
used to identify lands designated Agricultural Resource Area) analysis to
reflect current agricultural conditions. The methodology did not take account
of the possibility that some lands not designated Agricultural Resource Area
(ARA) following the original 1995 evaluation might now have a higher score and would
qualify for ARA designation. The methodology also did not take account of the
possibility that some lands designated ARA might now have a lower score and would
not qualify for designation.
Staff Response
The
methodology reviewed whether an agricultural (ARA) designation was still
warranted in cases where owners had requested their land be reviewed. It was
not practical to undertake a comprehensive updating of the LEAR analysis during
the Official Plan review but it is very unlikely that land that did not qualify
in 1997 for ARA designation would now qualify.
Staff reviewed the LEAR scores for land owned by
Mattamy Homes and found no basis for changing the current ARA designation.
·
An Agricultural Resource Area (ARA) designation does
not protect agricultural land from degradation over time. There are several
examples of transportation, stormwater and other facilities intruding onto
agricultural land near the existing urban boundary. Because of this the
agricultural capability of these lands has been compromised, which (presumably)
means some parcels would no longer qualify for ARA designation.
Staff Response
Staff reviewed
all the intrusions onto agricultural land cited in this witness statement and
in those of Christopher Gordon and Michael Goldberg. In situations where
infrastructure or facilities did exist on agricultural land, most were approved
by an Environmental Assessment or, in one case, an Official Plan amendment or
they were temporary works. In some of the situations cited there was no
intrusion onto agricultural land.
It is the case that agricultural land at the edge of the urban boundary may be subject to intrusions of infrastructure
due to their proximity to the urban area. However, including these lands in the
urban area, as appears to be suggested by the witness statements, would only
move such intrusions out to the next band of agricultural land.
Christopher Gordon
Responds to Issue 5.
·
The witness statement cited several examples of
transportation projects which in his view negatively impacted Agricultural
lands.
Staff Response
See previous response
to intrusions on agricultural land.
Michael Goldberg
Responds to Issues 5, 6 and 7.
·
Agricultural lands should be considered as
candidate areas for urban expansion. Some agricultural lands were recommended
by the City for inclusion but not others.
Staff Response
The PPS does
not permit agricultural lands to be made urban if there are “reasonable
alternatives”. There is an ample supply of reasonable alternatives that are not
agricultural land. A small amount of land designated ARA is recommended for
inclusion because those lands no longer meet the criteria for an agricultural
designation.
Peter Smith
Responds to Issues 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 14 and 15.
·
Agricultural lands should be considered as
candidate areas for urban expansion. There are no “reasonable alternatives”
within the meaning of the PPS.
Staff Response
(Issues 5, 6, and 7)
As noted in
the response to Michael Goldberg, staff do not agree that considering
agricultural land in the context of the analysis to add urban land under OPA 76
is consistent with the PPS and do not agree there are no reasonable
alternatives.
·
Criteria for “completion of existing communities”
and ‘establishment of logical boundaries” should have been included to add more
weight to land use planning factors, as opposed to servicing and transportation
factors. The two new criteria should each have a maximum of 10 points,
equivalent to Access to Rapid Transit, the highest-scored criteria in the
City’s methodology.
Staff Response
All the parcels
evaluated contribute to completing existing communities, therefore the proposed
criteria does not appear helpful in establishing a ranking. The advantages
cited by Mr. Smith for adding this criterion are already addressed in the
City’s methodology. The proposed “logical boundaries” criteria seems overly
subjective and also does not appear helpful (every landowner can argue their
parcel is logical, either by “squaring off” the existing urban boundary, taking
advantage of frontage on a road, using existing servicing capacity, or some
other perceived advantage).
Greg Winters
Responds to all Issues.
·
Mr. Winters supports the City’s position on every
issue. In particular he supports excluding agricultural land from the
evaluation on the basis of consistency with the PPS.
Lloyd Phillips
Responds to all Issues.
·
Mr. Phillips supports the City’s position on every
issue. In particular he supports the City excluding agricultural lands from the
evaluation on the basis of consistency with the PPS.
Demetrius Yannoulopoulos
·
The witness statement supports the City’s
methodology for Servicability criteria. These are not among the issues in the
Phase 2A hearing.
Wendy Nott
Responds to Issues 1 through 10.
·
Ms Nott supports the City’s position on all
identified issues. In particular she supports excluding
agricultural land from the evaluation on the basis of consistency with the PPS.