chapter 1 -webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/all_image referencing_op amendment... · 2013-11-01 · 1.4 the...

October 2013

Prepared by:

FOTENN Consultants Inc. 223 McLeod StreetOttawa, ON K1Y 0T1

613-730-5709fotenn.com

Prepared for:

Barnsdale Landowners Groupc/o Cavian3894 Prince of Wales BoulevardOttawa, ON K2C 3H2

Prepared by FOTENN Consultants Inc. 1

Contents SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW ....................................................................... 2 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Requested Amendment .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Supporting Studies & Reports ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 The Subject Lands ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.5 The Proposed Development ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.6 City’s Official Plan Review and LEAR Review ......................................................................................................................... 5

SECTION 2: REGULATORY & POLICY CONTEXT ............................................................ 7 2.1 Ontario Planning Act .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Provincial Policy Statement ............................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.3 City of Ottawa Official Plan ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.1 City of Ottawa Zoning By-law (No. 2008-250) .................................................................................................. 20

SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF SUPPORTING STUDIES & REPORTS ............................ 23 3.1 Agricultural Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................................................ 23

SECTION 4: CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 26 4.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 4.2 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 26


SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW

1.1 Introduction This Planning Rationale is submitted in support of the Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) applications, which accompany this Report, proposing a re-designation of approximately 116 ha of land within the City of Ottawa from an ‘Agricultural Resource Area’ designation to a ‘General Rural Area’ designation and to rezone the lands from the current ‘Agricultural Zone – Subzone 2 (AG2)’, ‘Agricultural Zone – Subzone 3 (AG3)’, ‘Mineral Aggregate Resource Zone’, and ‘Mineral Aggregate Resource Zone – Subzone 1 (MR1)’, to appropriate ‘Rural Countryside (RU) Zones’. The Rationale has been prepared in accordance with the City of Ottawa’s requirements for an OPA and ZBA applications. The purpose of the rationale is to assess the appropriateness of the proposed re-designation in the context of the:

1) Provincial Policy Statement; 2) City of Ottawa Official Plan; and, 3) findings of the required technical studies, namely

an Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA)

1.2 Requested Amendment The requested amendments would change the land use designation as illustrated on Schedule ‘A’ of the City of Ottawa Official Plan, from “Agricultural Resource Area” to “General Rural Area” and to change the zoning on the lands from AG2, AG3, MR, and MR1 to appropriate RU Zones on lands legally described being part of Lots 6 and 7, Concession 2RF, Geographic Township of Nepean, County of Carlton (now City of Ottawa)

1.3 Supporting Studies & Reports In support of this OPA and ZBA, the following are submitted to the City in addition to the planning application and associated fees. These studies and reports are summarized in this Planning Rationale and confirm that the proposed applications are based on the principles of good planning. These items were identified by the City on June 8, 2013, as a requirement of a complete application and are comprised of:

1) Agricultural Impact Assessment; and, 2) Survey Plan.

While the Agricultural Impact Assessment accompanies this report, the Survey Plan as requested is currently being completed and will be forthcoming.

1.4 The Subject Lands The lands are comprised of eleven (11) discrete parcels located at the periphery of the City’s South Urban Community of Barrhaven and total approximately 116 ha. The parcels are bisected by the City’s Urban Boundary (see Figures 1 and 2) which extends into the parcels west of Greenbank Road and are generally bounded by:

North – a primarily residential area of the South Urban Community of Barrhaven and lands designated ‘General Urban Area’. These lands include associated institutional and parkland uses and are in various states of the development process along with two open pit aggregate operations (the Drummond Pit and Brazeau Pit);

East – Prince of Wales Boulevard (a designated ‘Arterial Road’) and the nearby Community of Manotick, which at its closest point is approximately 725 m from the lands. This area additionally contains lands designated


Figure 1: Site Map


Figure 2: Area Map


‘Major Open Space’ and include Beryl Gaffney Park, David Bartlett Park, and Maple Hill Park;

South – Barnsdale Road (a designated ‘Local Road’), beyond which are lands designated ‘Agricultural Resource Area’ and are used for agricultural purposes (primarily cash cropping) and associated residential and ancillary uses.

West – Cederview Road (a designated ‘Collector Road’), beyond which is Highway 416 (a designated Provincial Highway). On the western side of the 416 is the Burnside Sand & Gravel Pit, and the Trail Road Landfill.

As noted the lands are comprised of eleven parcels. They are occupied by eight single detached dwellings (all on separate lots) with associated accessory buildings. One lot is occupied by a commercial office building (currently occupied by Star Group International at 3971 Greenbank Road). The lands have been traditionally used for agricultural purposes are in various states use (i.e. fallow to actively farmed).

1.5 The Proposed Development At this time the applicants are seeking to have the lands re-designated and rezoned to facilitate the use of the lands for: ‘General Rural Area’ uses. While no specific uses are currently being proposed, Section 3.7.2 of the Official Plan outlines a number of permitted uses which include:

Agricultural uses, forestry and conservation, and natural resource management activities;

Residential uses on existing lots of record and on new lots created by severance as provided for by this Plan;

Animal boarding, breeding, and training facilities, including stables;

Bed and breakfast establishments;

Open space;

Cemeteries;

Industrial and commercial uses, such as farm equipment and supply centres, machine and truck repair shops, building products yards, landscape contractors, and nurseries;

Uses that are noxious by virtue of their noise, odour, dust or other emissions or that have potential for impact on air quality or surface water or groundwater, such as salvage or recycling yards, composting or transfer facilities; concrete plants; the treatment of aggregate products; and abattoirs;

Recreational commercial and non-profit uses, such as golf courses, driving ranges, mini putt operations, campgrounds, outdoor theme parks, sports fields;

Sand and gravel pits and underground mining for any mineral resources;

Other non-residential uses that would not be better located within a Village and which are in keeping with the rural character or those uses that meet the needs of the travelling public, such as a restaurant, gas station, motel, retail (of up to 1,000 m² gross leasable area) or similar use;

Institutional uses such as places of worship and schools

The applicants are seeking this re-designation and rezoning in recognition of that the lands are no longer comprised of a ‘Prime Agricultural Area’ nor are the lands suited, in the long term, to continue to be used for agricultural purpose, but are more appropriately designated and used for other rural uses reflective of the characteristics of the land, and the area.

1.6 City’s Official Plan Review and LEAR Review Currently the City of Ottawa is undertaking their statutory Five Year Review of the Official Plan. As part of this review the City committed to undertaking a new LEAR


Analysis to review the City’s agricultural and rural land base. A Land Evaluation and Area Review or LEAR Analysis is a provincially-developed land use planning tool to assist municipalities identifying and protecting ‘Prime Agricultural Areas’ in the Official Plan. It essentially involves evaluating and scoring a parcel’s soil / agricultural capability (Land Evaluation) and the context of the parcel (Area Review) to determine whether the lands should be protected for agricultural uses or whether other (rural) uses can be contemplated on the lands. The ‘Agricultural Resource Area’ and ‘General Rural Area’ designations in the current Official Plan were identified through a LEAR Analysis developed in 1997. Since that time, Provincial guidelines for LEAR Analyses have changed and new soils and land use information has become available. As such, the City committed to reviewing and revising the 1997 analysis, which involved establishing revised evaluation criteria and a revised scoring system. This process began in 2010 with the expectation that the new system and soils data would lead to additions and deletions to the ‘Agricultural Resource Area’ established in the Official Plan. In the process of conducting this review City staff have raised concerns regarding new provincial soils data provided to the City. These concerns subsequently led staff to the opinion that the LEAR Analysis could not continue as part of the City’s Official Plan Review until such time as the data issues with Province have been resolved. A March 15, 2013 Staff Report accepted by Planning Committee advised that “the project may be delayed until the next Term of Council Work Plan” and would need to proceed by way of an independent official plan amendment to be incorporated into the Official Plan. The Staff Report recommended that “staff to complete the Land Evaluation and Area Review (LEAR) once concerns with Provincial soils data are resolved, and to prepare an Official Plan amendment to implement any changes to policies and Agriculture Resource Areas arising from the review”.

At this time, there is no definitive timeline as to when the revised LEAR Analysis will be completed, and no definitive timeline as to when the discrete OPA will proceed to incorporate the results of the LEAR Analysis into the Official Plan. In the absence of definitive timelines it is not premature for the City to consider individual applications to amend the Official Plan to contemplate re-designations from ‘Agricultural Resource Area’ to ‘General Rural Area’ in situations where the applicant has undertaken an independent LEAR Analysis in accordance with provincial and municipal guidelines.


SECTION 2: REGULATORY & POLICY CONTEXT The following section outlines the regulatory and policy context of the proposed development. It is organized by summarizing the relevant regulation and / or policy and providing a “response” explaining how the proposed development complies with the regulation or policy.

2.1 Ontario Planning Act The Planning Act sets the regulatory framework for planning in Ontario. It regulates local planning administration, the development, approval and amendment of official plans, community improvement, and zoning by-laws along with various other statutory planning tools. It also establishes the process for the subdivision of land. It’s regulations detail application procedures, notice requirements, and public participation requirements among other matters. Response: The application for an Official Plan Amendment has been submitted in accordance, and in compliance with, Section 22 and Ontario Regulation 198/96 of the Ontario Planning Act. The application for a Zoning By-law Amendment has been submitted in accordance, and in compliance with, Section 34 and Ontario Regulation 545/06 of the Ontario Planning Act.

2.2 Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), issued under the authority of Section 3 of the Planning Act and in effect since March 1st, 2005, provides direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The Planning Act requires that decisions

affecting planning matters “shall be consistent with” such policy statements issued under the Act. It seeks to strike a balance between the province’s economic, social and environmental interests.

2.2.1 Healthy, Liveable, Safe Communities

Section 1.1.1 outlines the Province’s directions as they relate to achieving efficient development patterns. The relevant policies related to this proposal are outlined below. Policy 1.1.1. reads that “Healthy, livable and safe communities are sustained by: a) Promoting efficient development and land use

patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term;

Response: The proposed development will permit rural land uses as stipulated in the Official Plan, that are intended to be sustained by rural servicing levels and will not result in land use patterns that negatively impact the financial well-being of the Province or the City. b) Accommodating appropriate range and mix of

uses to meet long-term needs; Response: The proposed development will contribute to, and accommodate, a mix of land uses and accommodate a range of uses suitable to the existing context and capability of the lands over the planning horizon.

c) Avoiding development and land use patterns which

may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns;

Response: No uses which may cause environmental, public health, safety concerns are proposed for the lands. Commercial, industrial or institutional uses will be subject


to the City’s Site Plan Control By-law to ensure any such concerns are mitigated.

2.2.2 Rural Areas

Policy 1.1.4 outlines the policies as they relate to ‘rural areas’ in municipalities. ‘Rural areas’ are defined by the PPS as “lands in the rural area which are located outside settlement areas and which are outside prime agricultural areas”. In ‘rural areas’ located in municipalities:

a) permitted uses and activities shall relate to the management or use of resources, resource-based recreational activities, limited residential development and other rural land uses;

Response: The proposed development will comply with the City’s ‘permitted uses’ in the ‘General Rural Area’ designation. These uses have been determined by the City to be appropriate for the ‘rural area’ and in compliance with the PPS. No additional uses or exemptions are being sought.

b) development shall be appropriate to the infrastructure which is planned or available, and avoid the need for the unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion of this infrastructure;

Response: As noted previously the proposed development will permit rural land uses as stipulated in the Official Plan, that are intended to be sustained by rural servicing levels. These uses will not result in the need for unjustified and / or uneconomical expansions of infrastructure. These land uses will be required to comply with Section 2.3 of the Official Plan ensuring that the development of the lands is supported by rural servicing levels.

c) new land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities, shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae;

Response: The AIA submitted in conjunction with the applications analysed the lands as they relate to Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae I and concluded that the lands are only impacted by one livestock facility which is noted as being “old and may not be suitable for housing livestock”. MDS compliance is a requirement of the Zoning By-law and all new used proposed for the lands, and no exemptions are being sought in this regard.

d) development that is compatible with the rural landscape and can be sustained by rural service levels should be promoted;

Response: Commercial, industrial and institutional uses are subject to the City’s Site Plan Control By-law and Policy 3.7.2.6 e) of the Official Plan which requires development that “is in keeping with the surrounding rural character and landscape”. Additionally as previously noted, the lands will be required to comply with Section 2.3 of the Official Plan to ensure that the development of the lands is supported by rural servicing levels.

e) locally-important agricultural and resource areas should be designated and protected by directing non-related development to areas where it will not constrain these uses;

Response: The City of Ottawa Official Plan identifies ‘agricultural resource areas’, ‘limestone resource areas’, ‘sand and gravel resource areas’, ‘silica sand deposits’ and contains policies to ensure their protection against incompatible development. Uses will be required to meet the policies of the Official Plan as they relate to the protection of these resources and no exemption is being sought from these provisions.


f) opportunities should be retained to locate new or expanding land uses that require separation from other uses; and

Response: The Official Plan permits ‘noxious uses’ within the ‘General Rural Area’ designation. These are uses that would be subject to compatibility tests and separation distances. It is recognized however, that it is unlikely uses requiring separation distances would be able to be accommodated on the lands given their proximity to sensitive lands uses in the immediate area (i.e. residential and open space uses).

g) recreational, tourism and other economic opportunities should be promoted.

Response: The Official Plan permits a range of commercial, industrial, and recreational land uses in the ‘General Rural Area’ designation that would assist in contributing to employment and assessment opportunities for the City.

2.2.3 Sewage and Water

Section 1.6.4.4 states that individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services shall be used for new development of five or less lots where municipal services or private communal services are not provided, and where site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services. Response: Currently the lands are not serviced by either municipal water or sanitary sewer connections and no such servicing is being sought for the lands. As the lands are outside the Urban Boundary, private servicing will continue to be the appropriate form of servicing for the long-term. Additionally, permitted uses in the ‘General Rural Area’ are uses intended to be serviced by private servicing.

2.2.5 Protecting the Natural Environment

Sections 2.1 and 2.2 outline the Province’s policies as they relate to Natural Heritage and Water. Generally, site alteration and development is either prohibited within a Natural Heritage Feature or only permitted when it is a demonstrated that the proposed development “will have no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions”. Additionally, development and site alteration is restricted in or near sensitive surface water and ground water features to ensure their “hydrologic functions will be protected, improved or restored”. Response: The lands are not identified as part of the ‘Natural Heritage System’ on Schedule ‘L3’ of the Official Plan, nor does the lands contain any ‘Environmental Constraints’ as identified on Schedule ‘K’ of the Official Plan. Regardless, it is recognized that this does not necessarily preclude its existence. At this time there are no specific development plans identified for the lands. Once a final use for the lands have been determined and applied for, it will be appropriate to determine what if any reports or studies are required to assess the proposed development against the natural heritage system and its features.

2.2.6 Agriculture

Section 2.3.1 states that, “Prime Agricultural Areas shall be protected for long-term use for agriculture”. ‘Prime Agricultural Areas’ are defined as: “areas where prime agricultural lands predominate. This includes: areas of prime agricultural lands and associated Canada Land Inventory Class 4-7 soils; and additional areas where there is a local concentration of farms which exhibit characteristics of ongoing agriculture.” It further notes that these areas may be identified by Province, or may


also be identified through an alternative agricultural land evaluation system approved by the Province. Response: The definition of “Prime Agricultural Areas” is two part:

1) it is an area where prime agricultural lands predominate; and,

2) areas where there is a local concentration of farms which exhibit characteristics of ongoing agriculture.

These areas also include associated non-prime agricultural lands. To assess this, among other matters, the applicant has retained a qualified professional to complete an AIA. This report was completed in consultation with City Staff using provincially-approved evaluation criteria (a more extensive summary of this report and its findings is found in Section 3 of this Rationale). A copy of this report is issued under a separate cover. The Report concludes that the lands “should not be considered part of the prime agricultural area as the majority of the lands do not consist of prime agricultural lands (i.e., CLI Classes 1-3)” noting that “approximately 75.7% of the Subject Lands are comprised of CLI Classes 4 and 5 lands.” Further the report also concludes that “the lands are not located within a significant agricultural area” given the proximity to the Barrhaven urban boundary and Manotick village boundary, and additionally the aggregate and waste management facilities located to the west of the lands.

2.2.7 Removal of Lands from Prime Agricultural Areas

Section 2.3.5 outlines the policies as they relate to the removal of land from prime agricultural areas and notes

that planning authorities may only exclude lands from prime agricultural areas for:

a) expansions of or identification of settlement areas in accordance with policy 1.1.3.9;

Response: The lands are not the subject of a settlement area expansion.

b) extraction of minerals, petroleum resources and mineral aggregate resources, in accordance with policies 2.4 and 2.5; and

Response: The lands are not identified as an area of mineral, petroleum or aggregate resource and subsequently it is not the intent of this OPA for the lands be used for this purpose.

c) limited non-residential uses, provided that: Response: It is proposed that the lands be designated ‘General Rural Area’ to facilitate their use for ‘limited non-residential purposes’. While the PPS does not provide a definition of what constitutes ‘limited non-residential use’ this is interpreted as meaning non-residential uses which are not large-scale or of an urban density. The permitted uses and policies of the ‘General Rural Area’ designation fulfill this requirement by limiting development to non-residential uses that can be sustained by rural servicing levels.

i) the land does not comprise a specialty crop area;

Response: The lands have not been identified as a specialty crop area.

ii) there is a demonstrated need within the planning horizon provided for in policy 1.1.2 for


additional land to be designated to accommodate the proposed use;

Response: The LEAR Analysis currently awaiting resolution with the Province is intended to demonstrate need by identifying parcels suitable to accommodate agricultural uses, and parcels suitable to accommodate other rural uses. Need being established through a demonstration of capability / suitability. In this case, the submitted Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA), concludes that the vast majority of the lands (approximately¾75%) are not prime agricultural lands, and further that the lands are not located within a ‘significant agricultural area’. These conclusions establish that the lands do not constitute a ‘prime agricultural area’ as defined by the PPS. As they are not the subject of an urban boundary expansion, nor have they been identified for mineral, petroleum, or aggregate use, they are appropriately recognized as a ‘rural area’ and provided with the corresponding ‘General Rural Area’ designation.

iii) there are no reasonable alternative locations which avoid prime agricultural areas; and

Response: As stated previously, in accordance with the conclusions of the submitted AIA, the lands do not constitute a ‘prime agricultural area’ as defined by the PPS and as such, prime agricultural areas are avoided.

iv) there are no reasonable alternative locations in prime agricultural areas with lower priority agricultural lands.

Response: As stated previously, in accordance with the conclusions of the submitted AIA, the lands do not constitute ‘prime agricultural area’ as defined by the PPS and as such, represent a reasonable alternative to locating in prime agricultural areas.

Section 2.3.5.2 of the PPS requires that when considering a conversion, “Impacts from any new or expanding non-agricultural uses on surrounding agricultural operations and lands should be mitigated to the extent feasible”. Response: With regard the impacts from new or expanding non-agricultural uses, the submitted AIA, concludes that a re-designation to ‘General Rural Area’ will not introduce new uses to the area or have a greater potential impact than what already exists or is proposed by the expansion of the urban area southwards to Barnsdale Road”. Additionally the report concludes that the “need for mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts will be minimal due to the low potential for impact. However, once a concept plan has been developed for the Subject Lands, the need for mitigation measures should be addressed further”. As such it is demonstrated that the proposed re-designation will have little impact on surrounding agricultural uses, and would not preclude the re-designation of the lands. It is also noted that, the City is conducting a Class Environmental Assessment for the realignment of Greenbank Road and southwest transit expansion through the subject lands (Figure 3). As noted in the AIA, this “will potentially have a greater impact on agriculture than a redesignation of the Subject Lands to General Rural Area” further fragmenting the lands substantially increasing traffic.

2.2.8 Protecting Mineral Aggregate Resources

Section 2.5.4.2 of the PPS requires that mineral aggregate resources be protected from development that “would preclude or hinder their expansion or continued use or which would be incompatible for reasons of public health, public safety or environmental impact”.


Figure 3: Proposed Greenbank Re-alignments

Subject Lands


Response: None of the lands are designated as mineral aggregate resources in the City’s Official Plan, nor have they been identified in the City’s “Draft Mineral Aggregate Policy and Mapping Proposals 2013”. It is recognized that the lands lie adjacent to, and in close proximity to, existing mineral aggregate operations, namely within 300 m of these operations. Sections 3.7.4.10, 3.7.4.11, and 3.7.4.12 of the City’s Official Plan contain policies to protect mineral aggregate operations from incompatible development. While no specific development is being proposed at this time, any specific development proposals will be subject to these policies.

2.3 City of Ottawa Official Plan The City of Ottawa Official Plan was approved in November 2003, and “provides a vision of the future growth of the city and a policy framework to guide its physical development to the year 2031. It is a legal document that addresses matters of provincial interest defined by the Provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act”. Beyond this, the Plan serves as a basis, or provides guidance on, for a wide range of municipal activities. In the City of Ottawa Official Plan, the lands are designated “Agriculture Resource Area” on Schedule ‘A’ (see Figure 4).

2.3.1 Growth Management

While Section 2.2 seeks to direct the vast majority of growth within the urban boundary the Plan also recognizes that the balance of growth will occur in the rural area as a mix of uses in villages and as a range of “rural-related uses and limited residential development elsewhere”. Response: The Growth Management Section of the Official Plan recognizes that some limited rural-related

development is appropriate outside of the City’s urban and village boundaries and does not preclude its establishment. The Plan directs that these uses be “low density and small in size”. At this time there is no specific development proposal for the lands, however the range of uses provided for in the Official Plan and RU Zoning restricts the lands uses to uses with these characteristics.

2.3.2 Water & Wastewater Services

Section 2.3.2.9 of the Plan requires that all development outside of ‘public service areas’ be developed on the basis of private services essentially meaning individual on-site septic systems and individual on-site wells. Response: The proposed re-designation and rezoning will occur outside of the urban boundary and outside of a public service area. No extension of water and sewer services to the land is being requested as a result of the proposed applications. Development will occur on individual on-site septic systems and individual on-site wells.

2.3.3 Natural Features & Functions

Section 2.4.2 recognizes the importance of the natural heritage system and identifies this system and its features on Schedules L1 to L3 in the Plan. It further states that Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) will be required for development within or adjacent to the natural heritage system regardless of whether that system has been identified on the noted Schedules. Development will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated through an EIS that there will be “no negative impact on the feature or its ecological functions”. Response: The lands are not identified as part of the ‘Natural Heritage System’ on Schedule ‘L3’, nor does the lands contain any ‘Environmental Constraints’ as identified


on Schedule ‘K’ of the Official Plan. Regardless, it is recognized that this does not negate their existence. At this time, the City is not requiring an EIS to be submitted as part of these applications and this is appropriate as no specific development is being proposed at this time and potential impacts can only be assessed once a final use has been determined. Any commercial, industrial, and institutional development would be the subject of both a rezoning and site plan control which provides the City the authority to require an EIS once a final use has been determined.

2.3.4 General Rural Area

Section 3.7.2, the ‘General Rural Area’ designation, applies to lands located outside the City’s urban and villages boundaries and that are not otherwise designated as a ‘resource area’ (i.e. agricultural, limestone, or sand and gravel) or as part of the natural heritage system. The purpose of this designation is to provide:

a location for agriculture and for those non-agricultural uses that, due to their land requirements or the nature of their operations, would not be more appropriately located within urban or village locations; and

for a limited amount of residential and other rural and tourist service uses that do not conflict with the above.

The Section outlines the permitted uses of the ‘General Rural Area’ along with conditional uses that can be determined as appropriate to locate in the designation. Response: The subject OPA is seeking a re-designation of the lands to ‘General Rural Area’ recognizing the limitations of the lands to be used for agricultural purposes in the long term. No exceptions or additional permitted uses are being sought beyond those listed in Sections 3.7.2.4 and 3.7.2.5 and any specific development

proposal would be subject all the requirements of this Section. Section 3.7.2.2 requires the submission of an Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for development within or adjacent to the natural heritage system regardless of whether that system has been identified on the relevant Schedules. Response: At this time, the City is not requiring an EIS to be submitted as part of these applications, and this is appropriate, as no specific development is being proposed at this time and potential impacts can only be assessed once a final use has been determined. Any commercial, industrial, and institutional development would be the subject of both a rezoning and site plan control which provides the City the authority to require an EIS once a final use has been determined. Sections 3.7.2.7 and 3.7.2.8 outline the assessment requirements to subdivide lands for rural commercial and rural industrial purposes. Response: At this time, no specific development is being proposed. At the time of a specific proposal the noted sections will apply and no exemptions are being sought from these requirements. Any future proposal will require site plan approval in conformity with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Sections 3.7.2.9 and 3.7.2.10 outline the ‘General Rural Area’ policies are they relate to country lot subdivisions, and specifically the moratorium on country lot subdivisions. Response: The proposed re-designation and rezoning would respect the existing moratorium on country lot development and no exceptions from this moratorium are being sought.


Figure 4: Official Plan Schedule ‘A’


Section 3.7.2.13 outlines the policies are they relate to the severance of single lots for residential purposes. Response: At this time, no specific development is being proposed. At the time of a specific proposal the noted section will apply and no exemptions are being sought from these requirements. Section 3.7.2.15 requires that development within 1 km of an urban or village boundary be assessed to ensure that the proposed development will not “adversely limit the potential expansion of the boundary ... or create a long-term demand for the extension of municipal services”. Response: The lands lie within 1 km of both the urban boundary, and the village boundary of the Manotick. No exemptions are being sought from this requirement and specific development proposals, when submitted, will be subject to this analysis. Section 3.7.2.17 requires that all new farm and non-farm development comply with the Province’s MDS Formulae. Response: As MDS Formulae is incorporated into the City’s Zoning By-law all new development must comply with MDS in order to meet the requirements of the Zoning By-law. As noted in the submitted AIA, only one area of the lands is noted as being impacted by an MDS I setback. It is recommended in the report that sensitive land uses be restricted in this until the subject barn is either removed or demonstrated that it is not capable of housing livestock. Section 3.7.2.18 to 2.7.3.23 outlines the City’s policies as they relate to infilling lots within and outside of, historical settlements. Response: No historical settlement has been identified as being located on the lands and those policies related to historical settlements do not apply. With regards to infilling outside of historical settlements, the policies

require that any proposed lot is located between two dwellings that are no more than 250 m apart, and that the proposed lot must be at least 0.8 ha in size. Given the existing parcel fabric of the subject lands, no such situation exists in which an ‘infilling lot’ could be created.

2.3.5 Agricultural Resource Area

Section 3.7.3 of the Official Plan outlines the City’s policies as they relate to development within the ‘Agricultural Resource Area’ designation. As noted in the preamble the ‘Agricultural Resource Designation’ is composed of lands identified “based on the Ottawa-Carleton Land Evaluation and Area Review (LEAR) evaluation system”, which was completed in 1997. Response: As noted, the ‘Agricultural Resource Area’ designation is composed of lands identified as suitable for agricultural purposes based on the Region’s 1997 LEAR Analysis. This analysis served as the basis for the designation of these lands. The City is currently undertaking a revised LEAR Analysis to update the findings, and subsequently the ‘Agricultural Resource Area’ designations within the Official Plan. However, this Analysis is currently on-hold pending the resolution of outstanding data issues with the Province. In the absence of this City-wide analysis the applicant has undertaken a LEAR Analysis of the lands, using updated criteria approved by the City. The result of this analysis has indicated that the lands fall below (scoring 118.24 points) the 130 point threshold value required to be considered potential agricultural resource area. As such it is appropriate to consider the lands for an alternative designation reflective of the potential use of the lands.

2.3.6 Mineral Resources

Section 3.7.4 of the Official Plan outlines the City’s policies as they relate to mineral, aggregate, and limestone


resources and Schedule ‘A’ designates lands as a ‘Limestone Resource Area’ or ‘Sand and Gravel Resource Area’. The lands are impacted by the policies as they relate to development restrictions within 300 m of such designations (Policies 3.7.4.10, 3.7.4.11, and 3.7.4.12). Response: None of the lands are designated as mineral aggregate resources in the City’s Official Plan, nor have they been identified in the City’s “Draft Mineral Aggregate Policy and Mapping Proposals 2013”. The policies of this Section seek to limit / mitigate against conflicting lands uses that would potentially inhibit the operation or expansion of resource facilities. Portions of the lands to the west and north fall within the 300 m impact zone (see Figure 5). Once a specific development proposal is made for those portions of the lands that fall within the impact zone, an impact assessment study (as per Policy 3.7.4.11) will be required as a condition of development. No exemption from these requirements is being sought.

2.3.7 Solid Waste Disposal Sites

Section 3.8 of the Official Plan outlines the City’s policies are they relate to the development of solid waste disposal sites and development within 500 m of a solid waste disposal site (Policies 3.8.5 to 3.8.9). Response: The policies of this Section seek to limit / mitigate against conflicting lands uses that would potentially inhibit the operation or expansion of waste disposal facility or that potentially create adverse impacts for adjacent development. Lands within 500 m (or within an alternative distance as determined additional study) fall within an ‘influence area’ of the site. The western portion of the lands falls within this influence area (see Figure 5). Once a specific development proposal is made for the portion of the lands that fall within the influence area, a study as outlined in policies 3.8.6 and 3.8.7 will be required as a condition of development. No exemption from this requirement is being sought.

2.3.8 Walking, Cycling, Transit, Roads and Parking Lots

Section 4.3.5 requires that a Community Transportation Study (CTS) be submitted where the City determines that the development may have an impact on the transportation network in the surrounding area and outlines the terms of reference for the completion of a CTS. Response: The City has not required the submission of a CTS for this application. Once a specific development proposal is made for the lands and the scale and traffic impacts can be quantified, a CTS can be required as a condition of development. No exemption from these requirements is being sought.

2.3.9 Private Water and Wastewater Servicing

Section 4.4.2 outlines the City’s policies as they primarily relate to the review of development on private servicing in the rural area and requires that sufficient information be made available to the City to confirm that an adequate supply of potable water exists to service the proposed development and that septic systems will not impair groundwater. Response: Being located outside a public service area, it is recognized that development on the lands will proceed by way of private servicing. At the time a specific development proposal is submitted, and the type and scale of systems is identified, the applicant will complete the required studies to demonstrate an adequate supply of water exists and that proposed septic systems will not impair groundwater.


Figure 5: Official Plan Setbacks


2.3.10 Cultural Heritage Resources

Section 4.6 of the Official Plan outlines the City’s policies related to development review involving cultural heritage resources including built and archaeological resources. The sections outlines the requirements to undertake cultural heritage impact statements and archaeological assessments when development involves / impacts these resources. Response: No cultural heritage resources on the lands or adjacent to the lands were identified by the City, and the City has not required the submission of an archaeological assessment as a part of this application. At the time of a specific development proposal is submitted, and the extent of development is known, the applicant will complete an archaeological assessment as required by the Official Plan and provincial policy. No exemption from this requirement is being sought.

2.3.11 Environmental Protection

Section 4.7 outlines the City’s policies as they relate to the natural heritage system, its features and functions. These policies are intended to assist in maintaining, improving, protecting, and managing the City’s natural heritage system including protection of vegetative cover, protection of endangered and threatened species, and the protection of groundwater resources. Response: The lands are not identified as part of the ‘Natural Heritage System’ on Schedule ‘L3’, nor does the lands contain any ‘Environmental Constraints’ as identified on Schedule ‘K’ of the Official Plan. As noted previously, at this time, the City is not requiring an EIS to be submitted as part of these applications, and this is appropriate, as no specific development is being proposed at this time and potential impacts can only be assessed

once a final use has been determined. Any commercial, industrial, and institutional development would be the subject of both a rezoning and site plan control which provides the City the authority to require an EIS once a final use has been determined.

2.3.12 Protection of Health and Safety

Section 4.8 of the Official Plan outlines the City’s policies as they relate to environmental conditions, both natural and human-made, that can result in hazards to human life or health and damage or loss of value to property. These include floodplain, organic soils, mining hazards and contaminated sites. Response: None of the lands are designated as being impacted by environmental constraints as designated on Schedule ‘K’ of the Official Plan.

2.3.12 Contaminated Sites

Section 4.8.4 outlines the City’s policies as they relate to contaminated and potentially contaminated sites. These policies outline the requirements as they relate to the investigation, remediation, and risk management and detail the requirements for the filing of a Record of Site Condition (RSC) with the Province. Specifically, policy 4.8.4.1 requires that “applicants to document uses of a property or properties that are subject of a development application ... in order to assist in the determination of the potential for site contamination. Response: There is no known contamination on the lands however the Official Plan requires this to be confirmed through an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). At this time, the City is not requiring an ESA to be submitted as part of these applications, and this is appropriate, as no specific development is being proposed at this time. Any


commercial, industrial, and institutional development would be the subject of both a rezoning and site plan control which provides the City the authority to require an EIS once a final use has been determined. Additionally the development of sensitive land uses on contaminated, and potentially contaminated, sites is governed by the Environmental Protection Act.

2.3.13 Environmental Noise Controls

Section 4.8.7 outlines the City’s policies as they relate to development in close proximity to noise and vibration sources such as rail lines and highways. These policies seek to identify and assess noise and vibration sources, and to mitigate potential negative impacts (such as nuisance) when developing certain types of sensitive uses (such as residential or institutional development). Response: The lands are located within 500 m of a designated provincial highway (Highway 416) and a designated arterial road (Prince of Wales Boulevard) and therefore may be required to complete a noise study to address potential negative impacts (see Figure 5). At this time, the City is not requiring a noise study to be submitted as part of these applications, and this is appropriate, as no specific development is being proposed at this time and potential impacts can only be assessed once a final use and the scale of use has been determined. Any commercial, industrial, and institutional development would be the subject of both a rezoning and site plan control which provides the City the authority to require a noise study once a final use has been determined.

2.3.1 City of Ottawa Zoning By-law (No. 2008-250)

The City of Ottawa Zoning By-law (No. 2008-250) constitutes the Comprehensive Zoning By-law of the City of Ottawa. It is intended to implement the policies of the City’s Official Plan with the goals of focusing growth

within the urban part of the City; promoting increased transit ridership; emphasizing good urban design; preserving environmental integrity; conserving resource areas; focusing rural growth within villages; and achieving compact mixed-use communities.

2.4.1 Current Zoning

The lands are currently zoned a combination of:

“Agricultural Zone – Subzone 2 (AG2)”;

“Agricultural Zone – Subzone 3 (AG3)”;

“Mineral Aggregate Resource Zone (MR)”;

“Mineral Aggregate Resource Zone – Subzone 1 (MR1)”; and

“Development Reserve Zone (DR)” in the City’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law. The AG2 and AG3 Zones comply with the underlying ‘Agricultural Resource Area’ land use designation. The MR and MR1 Zoning is intended for lands designated ‘Sand and Gravel Resource Area’ or ‘Limestone Resource Area’ and the DR Zone which is intended for lands designated ‘General Urban Area’ or ‘Developing Communities’. As previously noted, none of the lands are designated as mineral aggregate resources in the City’s Official Plan, nor have they been identified in the City’s “Draft Mineral Aggregate Policy and Mapping Proposals 2013”. It is understood that the existing MR and MR1 Zones resulted from previous designations that were removed from the Official Plan as the result of an ‘Aggregates Resource Designated Lands Study (February 2006)’ that was completed in support of the Barrhaven South Community Design Plan (CDP), and as noted in the CDP, confirmed “that the resource existing within this area is not of sufficient quality and quantity to justify the continued designation of these lands”. The rezoning of these lands to an appropriate RU Zoning would reflect that these lands are not intended to be used for mineral aggregate extraction as directed by the Official Plan.


As required by the City, and in order to maintain conformity with the proposed ‘General Rural Area’ official plan designation, the applicant is seeking to have the lands rezoned to an appropriate “Rural Countryside (RU) Zones” to facilitate their use for rural land uses.

2.4.2 Proposed “Rural Countryside (RU) Zones”

The RU Zone is intended to accommodate “agricultural, forestry, country residential lots created by severance and other land uses characteristic of Ottawa’s countryside”. This zoning contains development standards and subzones that are reflective of rural servicing levels and requirements and are designed to ensure that development respects rural character and landscape. Response: The proposed rezoning of the lands is illustrated in the Figure 6 of this report. Of the eleven separate parcels it is proposed that:

Two parcels be zoned RU1

One parcel be zoned RU2

Eight parcels be zoned RU This zoning would generally recognize the existing lot and building configurations. The existing DR Zoning on a portion of the lands is proposed to remain. Existing agricultural and residential uses would be conforming uses under the RU, RU1, and RU2 Zones. One parcel known municipally as 3971 Greenbank Road is currently used as commercial office space (occupied by Star Group International) and is non-conforming. This use is not recognized in the existing zoning and it is not proposed that the use be recognized in the proposed zoning of the lands. It is proposed any that existing non-conforming uses and non-complying buildings not be recognized and that any legal status they may have would remain.


Figure 6: Proposed Zoning


SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF SUPPORTING STUDIES & REPORTS The following outlines a summary of the supporting studies and reports, namely an Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA), accompanying the subject applications. It is organized by summarizing the conclusions of the study / report and providing a “response” explaining how the study / report support the proposed development.

3.1 Agricultural Impact Assessment An AIA dated September 20, 2013 was completed by Colville Consulting Inc. and accompanies the applications. The purpose of this Assessment was to “assess the agricultural resources on and adjacent to the Subject lands to determine whether the lands are appropriately designated and to determine the level of potential impact resulting from a change in land use designation”. As requested by the City, the AIA was completed following the terms of references established for the Regional Municipality of Halton’s Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment Guidelines (2011). Based on the study’s findings, the main conclusions reached are as follows:

1. The Subject Lands should not be considered part of the prime agricultural area as the majority of these lands do not consist of prime agricultural

lands (i.e., CLI Classes 1‐3). Approximately 75.7% of

the Subject Lands are comprised on CLI Classes 4 and 5 lands.

Response: This conclusion supports the proposed applications by demonstrating that the lands are not predominately composed of ‘prime agricultural land’ a key test of what constitutes a ‘prime agricultural area’ in the PPS. Additionally the PPS seeks “locations in ‘prime

agricultural areas’ with lower priority lands” when considering conversion to other uses. Mirroring the PPS, the City’s Official Plan seeks to protect prime agricultural lands while recognizing that rural uses are appropriate uses on lands that are not classified as a prime agricultural lands / areas.

2. A LEAR assessment was completed using methods

consistent with the 1997 Ottawa‐Carleton LEAR.

The analysis produced a LEAR score of 118.24 which is below the 130 point threshold value required to be considered potential Agricultural Resource Area. The LEAR analysis confirmed that these lands should not be considered part of the City’s prime agricultural area.

Response: This conclusion supports the proposed applications by demonstrating that the parcels are not suitable to accommodate agricultural uses in the long term. The LEAR Study completed by the City in 1997, and currently awaiting resolution, establishes need through a demonstration of capability / suitability. In other words if the lands cannot demonstrate they are capable or suitable for agricultural purposes, the need to consider the lands for another uses has been established. As the lands fall below the LEAR threshold value it confirms the need to contemplate other uses of the lands.

3. Re-designating the Subject Lands to General Rural Area will not result in the retirement of an existing farm operation or a loss of investments in agricultural infrastructure and land improvements. A former livestock operation is located on the Subject Lands, however this farm is now retired and appears to be in poor condition and not suitable for housing livestock.

Response: This conclusion supports the proposed applications by demonstrating that the re-designation of the lands to ‘General Rural Area’ will not result in the loss


of agricultural investments and infrastructure and as such will not negatively impact surrounding agricultural operations as required by the PPS (Policy 2.3.5.2) and the City’s Official Plan (Policy 3.7.2.6 d)

4. The lands north of Barnsdale Road have a lower agricultural priority than the lands to the south of Barnsdale Road due to the lower agricultural capability of the soils and the lack of investment in agricultural infrastructure and land improvements. In sharp contrast to the lands to the north of Barnsdale Road, the lands to the south generally have a higher agricultural capability, there are higher levels of investment in agricultural infrastructure and land improvements, there is a greater level of agricultural activity and the extent

of non‐farm land uses is much smaller. Therefore

the lands to the south have a higher agricultural priority than the lands to the north.

Response: This conclusion supports the proposed applications by demonstrating that the lands constitute a reasonable alternative to the conversion of higher priority lands as required by PPS (Policy 2.3.5.1 c) 4.).

5. The Subject Lands are not located within a significant agricultural area. They are located in close proximity to the City of Ottawa’s urban boundary (South Barrhaven) and the village of Manotick. Significant portions of the Subject Lands already immediately abut the existing urban boundary. The potential for conflict between

agricultural and non‐agricultural uses has already

been introduced to this area. Re-designating the Subject Lands to General Rural Area will not introduce new uses to the area or have a greater potential impact than what already exists or is proposed by the expansion of the urban area southwards to Barnsdale Road.

Response: This conclusion supports the proposed applications by demonstrating that the lands are not located within a ‘significant agricultural area’. In addition to being primarily composed of prime agricultural land, being located in an area “where there is a local concentration of farms which exhibit characteristics of ongoing agriculture” is a key test of what constitutes a ‘prime agricultural area’. As noted in the AIA, the City is conducting a Class Environmental Assessment for the realignment of Greenbank Road and southwest transit expansion through the subject lands (see Figure 3). As a designated ‘Arterial Road’, this realignment will further fragment the subject lands substantially increase traffic. As noted in the AIA, this “will potentially have a greater impact on agriculture than a redesignation of the Subject Lands to General Rural Area”.

6. There will be no significant impacts to any agricultural operations within the Study Area [a 2 km radius around the lands] as there are only a few operations south of Barnsdale Road and most are well removed from the Subject Lands.

Response: This conclusion supports the proposed applications by demonstrating that impacts from new non-agricultural uses will have minimal effect on area agricultural operations (Policy 2.3.5.2).

7. The MDS I requirements for locating non‐farm land

uses in close proximity to livestock operations can be met for all but one former livestock facility. The

only potential non‐conformity with the MDS I is

related to what appears to be a retired farm operation located south of Barnsdale Road. The barn is old and may not be suitable for housing livestock. If it is structurally sound, the MDS I setback encroaches within approximately 195 m of Parcel C. No new development should occur within the MDS I setback requirement until the barn is


removed or it can be demonstrated that the barn is not suitable for housing livestock.

Response: This conclusion supports the proposed applications by demonstrating that compliance with MDS Formulae as required by Policy 1.1.4.1 c) of the PPS can be maintained should the lands be converted to the ‘General Rural Area’. This conclusion also demonstrates compliance with the 3.7.2.17 City’s Official Plan and the City’s Zoning By-law which both require compliance with MDS Formulae.

8. It is expected that the need for mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts will be minimal due to the low potential for impact. However, once a concept plan has been developed for the Subject Lands, the need for mitigation measures should be addressed further.

Response: This conclusion supports the proposed applications by demonstrating compliance with Section 2.3.5.2 of the PPS which requires negative impacts on agricultural operations to be mitigated during a conversion. It additionally supports Policy 3.7.2.6 d) of the Official Plan regarding the same.

9. The proposed land use change which would re-designate the lands north of Barnsdale Road will create a logical boundary between the

non‐agricultural (urban) lands to the north and the

agricultural lands to the south. The General Rural Area would then act as a buffer between the two incompatible land use designations (i.e., urban vs. agricultural). Barnsdale Road represents an established, logical boundary one that is easily identifiable feature and one that conforms to boundary delineation as recommended in the FLG [Ontario Foodland Guideline].

Response: This conclusion supports the proposed application by demonstrating compliance with the policy direction established in the preamble of Section 3.7.3

which seeks to protect farm operators from conflicting land uses.

10. There are no better alternative locations for the removal of lands from within a prime agricultural area within the Study Area [a 2 km radius around the lands] which would result in a lower impact on agricultural resources and agricultural operations. This assumes that there is a need for additional rural lands of at least a similar size (approximately 100 ha) as being proposed by the Barnsdale Road Development Group.

Response: This conclusion supports the proposed applications by demonstrating compliance with Section 2.3.5.1 c) 3 of the PPS that requires that conversions demonstrate that there are no reasonable alternative locations within ‘prime agricultural areas’ to convert lands for rural uses.


SECTION 4: CONCLUSION

4.1 Summary This Planning Rationale was intended to identify, summarize and demonstrate compliance with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and the City of Ottawa Official Plan as it relates to the proposed OPA to re-designate certain lands within the City of Ottawa from ‘Agricultural Resource Area’ to ‘General Rural Area’ and to rezone lands from a combination of AG2, AG3, MR, MR1, and DR Zones to the ‘Rural Countryside (RU) Zone’ to recognize that the capability of the lands as it relates to accommodating agricultural operations in the long term and to subsequently facilitate rural land uses on the lands. The Rationale and the accompanying Agricultural Impact Assessment demonstrates that:

The lands do not comprise a specialty crop area;

There is demonstrated need to re-designate the lands to accommodate other rural uses;

The lands no longer meet the PPS definition of ‘prime agricultural area’ and are no longer suited to accommodate agricultural uses in the long term;

That as the lands no longer constitute a ‘prime agricultural area’ they represent a reasonable alternative to ‘prime agricultural areas’ when considering conversion to other uses;

That the lands provide a reasonable alternative to the conversion of other ‘prime agricultural areas’ as almost ¾ of the lands do not constitute ‘prime agricultural land’.

The Rationale additionally demonstrates that the proposed RU Zoning for the lands is appropriate as it will ensure conformity with the Official Plan. The new designation would permit allow for rural related uses that would support the Agricultural Area to the south; village development within Manotick and would be more compatible with the urban uses found to the north of the lands.

4.2 Conclusion Based on the findings provided throughout this report, it is concluded that the proposed development (being an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment ) is appropriate as it is capable of addressing the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement and the City of Ottawa Official Plan. This conclusion is supported by the above analysis and the conclusions of the noted in the submitted AIA that has been required for submission. Based on the above analysis and conclusion, it is submitted that the proposed amendment to re-designate lands illustrated on Schedule ‘A’ of the Official Plan from “Agricultural Resource Area” to “General Rural Area” and the proposed amendment to rezone lands zoned AG2, AG3, MR, MR1 to “Rural Countryside (RU) Zone”:

Meets the requirements of the Planning Act;

Is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

Conforms to the Official Plan of the City of Ottawa; and

Constitutes good planning.

Pamela Sweet, FCIP, RPP

Paul Hicks, MCIP, RPP

chapter 1 -webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/all_image referencing_op amendment... · 2013-11-01 · 1.4 the...

Documents