Rural Issues Advisory Committee
Comité consultatif sur les questions rurales
Present/Présents : R. Fraser (Chair/Président), B. Tupper (Vice Chair/Vice-président), D. Anderson, S. Cannon, S. Dolan, B. Hudson, S. McKee, D. Stephenson, A. Warda
Absent/Absents : Councillor G. Brooks, G. Chancey, B. Cox (Conservation Authorities), R. Dessaint, Councillor E. El-Chantiry, T. Otto, N. Tilgner, B. Webster
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No declarations of interest were filed.
Confirmation of minutes
ratification des procès-verbaux
Minutes 3 of 18 July 2006 were confirmed.
POINTS À L’ORDRE DU JOUR
1. ELECTION OF CHAIR (AND VICE CHAIR IF NECESSARY)
As a result of Mr. McKinley’s resignation, the Committee Coordinator called for nominations to the position of Chair of the Rural Issues Advisory Committee.
Moved by B. Tupper
That Richard Fraser be elected Chair of the Rural Issues Advisory Committee to serve until 31 December 2006.
Member Fraser accepted and no other nominations were received. Therefore, he was acclaimed to the position.
As a result of Mr. Fraser’s appointment as Chair, the Committee Coordinator called for nominations to the position of Vice Chair of the Rural Issues Advisory Committee.
Moved by D. Stephenson
That Bill Tupper be elected Vice Chair of the Rural Issues Advisory Committee to serve until 31 December 2006.
Member Tupper hesitated to accept the nomination, advising that he had no intention of continuing to serve past the expiry of his current term.
Member S. Dolan indicated she had no objections to Member Tupper accepting the nomination and serving until the expiry of his term. Other members concurred, therefore Member Tupper accepted the nomination. No other nominations were received and Member Tupper was acclaimed to the position.
2. NORTH GOWER COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN – PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
Ms. R. Kung, Planner, provided a detailed presentation on the draft North Gower Community Design Plan and responded to members’ questions on same. A copy of her PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the Committee Coordinator.
Mr. C. Gruchy, resident of North Gower and member of the Design Group, indicated the Community Design Plan, as drafted by City staff, did not meet the community’s expectations. He referenced some of the issues on which there was disagreement; village boundaries, sewer services, pathway prominence and water supply for fire services. In closing, he expressed the Design Group’s willingness to revisit some of these matters with staff.
Committee members posed questions to staff and discussed the draft document. Their comments focused on such areas as: the community’s contribution to the draft document; the Village’s boundaries, natural environment and heritage; development projections; sewer servicing; water; and the eventual status of the Community Design Plan.
Moved by D. Stephenson
WHEREAS the Community Design Group and City staff disagree on a number of points such as Village boundaries, development reserve designation and other issues;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City staff be asked to:
1. Meet further with the Community Design Group to discuss these matters and come up with an agreement on the issues on which there currently is disagreement between the City and the Community; and
2. Report back to the RIAC with a revised Draft Community Design Plan prior to proceeding to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee for approval.
3. PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT, SECTION 2.3, AGRICULTURE - DISCUSSION
Mr. M. Mahon, Planner, distributed a hand-out with respect to the above-noted subject and provided a presentation on same. A copy of his submission is held on file with the Committee Coordinator.
Mr. J. MacMaster, Ontario Landowners’ Association, provided a brief overview of his organization’s size, status and function and expressed their opposition to the Provincial Policy Statement. He submitted that the PPS was developed by urban centres for urban centres and he noted the lack of consistency with which it was applied from one jurisdiction to the next. He advised that his organization was arranging a meeting with the Rural Caucus, at which time it would recommend changes to the PPS.
Committee members posed questions of staff with respect to the Land Evaluation and Area Review (LEAR) designation methodology and the opportunities for landowner driven reviews or appeals.
Vice Chair Tupper assumed the Chair in order that Chair Fraser could introduce the following Motion:
Moved by R. Fraser
That City staff be open to reviewing applications from landowners for boundary adjustments where circumstances and/or evidence support it.
Following the Committee’s vote on his motion, Chair Fraser resumed the Chair and proceeded to the next agenda item.
4. RIAC 2006 WORKPLAN – DISCUSSION AND PRIORITY-SETTING
Members discussed this matter briefly and agreed to have a more fulsome discussion at the September meeting.
Mr. D. Moodie, Rural Affairs Officer, indicated he would revise the suggestion list attached to the agenda to reword some of the items and add a ranking in terms of the responses he had received from Committee members for priority-setting.
Action : The Rural Affairs Officer to provide a revised suggestion list prior to the September RIAC meeting.
5. SUB-COMMITTEES AND INFORMAL MEETINGS – DISCUSSION ON SET UP AND FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS
After discussing this matter briefly, the Committee agreed to hold its next meeting on September 19th with no an informal or sub-committee meetings in the interim.
6. BILL 51 – DISCUSSION AND POSITION
Mr. R. O’Connor, City Solicitor, accompanied by Ms. S. Ferrara of Legal Services and Ms. L. Paterson, of Planning and Growth Management, provided a presentation on Bill 51. In particular, Mr. O’Connor discussed the timelines associated with the tabling, review and enactment of the legislation, the amendments the Bill would bring to the Planning Act and the Conservation Land Act and the implications of these changes.
Mr. B. McKinley discussed the purpose of Bill 51 and expressed his concerns with respect to the amendments the Bill would bring to the Planning Act and the Conservation Land Act and the implications of these changes. He submitted that the proposed amendments would remove citizens’ opportunities for a fair fight in terms of appealing Council decisions to the Ontario Municipal Board or Conservation Authorities’ decisions with respect to easements. In closing, Mr. McKinley proposed recommendations, which the RIAC could consider forwarding to Standing Committee with respect to process, exemptions and easements.
Committee members posed a variety of questions with respect to the implications of Bill 51 and received responses from Mr. O’Connor and Mr. McKinley.
In closing, the Committee considered the following motions:
Moved by D. Anderson
That the Chairs of the Planning and Environment Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee be asked to convene a joint meeting of their Committees on August 22nd to deal with Bill 51 in order that members of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee might have an equal opportunity to discuss the matter and have input into recommendations going forward to Council on August 23rd with respect to City of Ottawa comments and/or concerns on the Bill, to be submitted to the Province prior to the August 28th deadline.
Moved by D. Anderson
That the City recommend to the Province that not-for-profit corporations be exempted from amendments to the Planning Act.
Moved by D. Anderson
That the City ask the Ministry of Natural Resources to retain rights of appeal with respect to conservation easements and to require that covenants only be entered into with the consent of the property owner.
7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEM – PRESENTATION ON
8. OTTAWA FORESTS AND GREENSPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE LIAISON WITH THE RURAL ISSUES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Ms. I. Price, Chair of the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee indicated she had intended to introduce the OFGAC’s liaison representative to the RIAC; Mr. Pieter Leenhouts. Unfortunately, Mr. Leenhouts had left because of the late hour.
9. RURAL PATHWAYS PROJECT
Vice Chair Tupper referenced the sub-committee report presented at the previous meeting and advised he had hoped the RIAC would be more pro-active on this issue.
The Committee heard from Mr. M. O’Neil and Mr. N. Norenius, members of the Manotick Community Association, who referenced their organization’s initial presentation to RIAC on this matter and expressed frustration with the time it was taking to obtain the Committee’s endorsement of the document and to move forward.
Members discussed the Rural Pathways Plan Report, expressing general support for the project. In particular, they discussed some of the concerns expressed previously as well as strategies for moving forward.
Moved by B. Tupper
That the Rural Issues Advisory Committee recommend that the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee:
1. Endorse the Rural Pathways Plan Report as a planning tool; and
2. Direct the Rural Affairs Office to develop a strategy that would:
a) Be community driven;
b) Respect private property; and
c) Provide next steps for rural pathways development.
Demandes de renseignements
Member S. Dolan referenced recent media coverage with respect to dead fish along the Ottawa River and the resulting advisories issued in the Renfrew and Arnprior areas. She noted that dead fish were also being found in Ottawa and she wondered about the City’s actions in that regard.
The Committee Coordinator indicated she would submit and inquiry to the appropriate staff on the Committee’s behalf.
Action: Committee Coordinator to submit a written inquiry to the appropriate staff on the RIAC’s behalf.
The Committee adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Original signed by Original signed by
D. Blais R. Fraser
Committee Coordinator Chair