Hemson Regional Growth Forecast

GROWTH FORECAST AND LAND NEEDS ANALYSIS

United Counties of Prescott and Russell

FINAL REPORT

HEMSON C o n s u l t i n g L t d.

December 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION ...... 1 A. PURPOSE OF STUDY ...... 1 B. FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS ...... 2 C. STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT ...... 4 II GROWTH OUTLOOK ...... 5 A. COUNTY’S FUTURE ROLE WITHIN BROADER ECONOMIC REGION IS KEY FORECASTING ISSUE ...... 5 B. OUTLOOK IS FOR MODEST GROWTH OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS ...... 8 C. GROWTH DISTRIBUTED LOCALLY BASED ON PLANNING POLICY AND MARKET DEMAND FACTORS ...... 14 III LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS ...... 17 A. ANALYSIS OF LAND SUPPLY INDICATES SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY TO ACCOMODATE GROWTH ...... 17 B. SOME LOCALIZED SHORTAGES IN THE RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY ARE INDICATED ...... 21 C. EXCESS COUNTY-WIDE SUPPLY MEANS NO OVERALL ADDITION TO THE LAND SUPPLY IS JUSTIFIED ...... 22 IV SETTLEMENT AREA BOUNDARY ASSESSMENTS ...... 24 A. A NUMBER OF SETTLEMENT AREA REVISIONS ARE CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED ...... 24 B. AN ITERATIVE AND CONSULTATIVE APPROACH SHOULD BE TAKEN TO RATIONALIZE THE BOUNDARIES ...... 26 C. RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS GIVE RISE TO A NUMBER OF POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 28 APPENDIX ...... 30 Detailed Results for the Land Supply Capacity Analysis Settlement Area Boundary Mapping Detailed Forecast Results Official Plan Tables for Projected Population, Housing and Employment 1

I INTRODUCTION

The United Counties of Prescott and Russell (UCPR) is beginning a process to review and update the county official plan. One of the key components of the review is an update of the long-range growth outlook and associated urban land requirements for the County.

In the past, the County has relied on existing forecasts or simplified approaches that could be produced in-house as a basis for its long-range planning. In recent years however, the Province has taken on a more direct role in growth management and the public has become more interested and more demanding of the justification for major planning decisions, in particular those related to urban boundaries and the expansion of settlement areas.

A comprehensive review and examination of the long-term growth outlook and future urban land needs in the UCPR is required to address Provincial interests in growth management, as well as those of the public and other key stakeholders. It is also required to help align the interests of the local municipalities and establish a common vision for the community’s future. This report is part of the foundation for establishing that vision.

A. PURPOSE OF STUDY

The primary purpose of the study is undertake the analysis necessary to update the County’s long term growth outlook and determine the appropriateness of the current settlement area boundaries to accommodate anticipated population and employment growth. The analysis is undertaken in three steps:

• The first step is to establish the demand outlook by preparing a set of updated population, housing and employment forecasts over the period to 2036. A low, medium and high forecast scenario is prepared for population and employment to provide a range on the future growth outlook;

HEMSON

• Next, the capacity of the designated land supply to accommodate future demand is estimated, with a focus on the supply of designated urban and community policy area lands within the County. The capacity of the land supply is estimated by applying a range of density factors to land areas measured from the County’s Geographic Information System (GIS);

• Finally, based on a comparison of supply and demand, conclusions are reached on the appropriateness of current settlement area boundaries as input to recommended changes to settlement area boundaries as part of the updated official plan.

Arising out of the first step of the analysis, overall population forecasts and housing unit allocations for the local municipalities within the County are being provided as input to the new official plan. More detailed forecast results are also being provided, including an age structure forecast to assist the County and the local municipalities in decision-making for financial and service delivery planning.

B. FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

In order to understand the conclusions of the study, particularly those related to the proposed settlement areas, it is important to understand the framework for analysis. The analysis is undertaken within the context of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), particularly Section 1.0 Building Strong Communities which provides direction on the time horizon for designating growth areas and the requirements to allow for settlement area expansions. In particular, Section 1.1.3.9 indicates that:

A planning authority may identify a settlement area or allow the expansion of a settlement area boundary only at the time of a comprehensive review and only where it has been demonstrated that:

a) sufficient opportunities for growth are not available through intensification, redevelopment and designated growth areas to accommodate the projected needs over the identified planning horizon;

b) the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available are suitable for the development over the long term and protect public health and safety;

c) in prime agricultural areas:

HEMSON

1. the lands do not comprise specialty crop areas;

2. there are no reasonable alternatives which avoid prime agricultural areas; and

3. there are no reasonable alternatives on lower priority agricultural lands in prime agricultural areas; and

d) impacts from new or expanding settlement areas on agricultural operations which are adjacent or close to the settlement area are mitigated to the extent feasible.

In determining the most appropriate direction for expansions to the boundaries of settlement areas or the identification of a settlement area by a planning authority, a planning authority shall apply the policies of Section 2: Wise Use and Management of Resources and Section 3: Protecting Public Health and Safety.

The overall objective of the PPS policies is to direct growth to designated settlement areas and prevent the over-designation of new urban development lands to accommodate growth. As such, this policy direction has a clear application to large rapidly growing urban areas, particularly those in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) as well as some rapidly growing communities beyond the GTHA such as the County of Simcoe and Region of Waterloo. Although it does not apply to the County, the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the Growth Plan) reinforces the PPS policies, particularly with respect to encouraging a more compact urban form, the protection of the natural environment and the requirement for settlement area expansions to be justified through a comprehensive review.

The application of the PPS policies regarding settlement area expansions outside of GTHA, however, is somewhat less clear, particularly in slower growing communities that already have a large supply of land designated to accommodate growth. In accordance with the PPS, the presence of a large land supply does not mean that growth should be stopped: new development can still proceed where the land is already designated and for which servicing has already been approved and allocated. Decisions regarding settlement area expansions, however, must still meet Provincial planning objectives to focus growth within designated settlement areas and prevent the over-designation of new urban lands.

HEMSON

C. STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT

Consistent with the structure of the analysis, the remainder of this report is organized into four sections. The following section describes the growth forecast, including the high, low and reference scenarios for population and employment. Next is a section describing the land supply and capacity analysis, including the estimated unit potential for each of the local municipalities. Based upon the results of the demand and land supply analysis, recommendations for settlement area boundary revisions are then made in the next section. This is followed by a final section setting out our overall conclusions as well as the inputs and recommendations for consideration by County staff as input to the updated official plan.

HEMSON

II GROWTH OUTLOOK

This chapter describes the growth outlook for the UCPR, in particular the population, housing and employment forecast for the period to 2036. The forecast of the amount, type and location of growth will form the basis for the analysis of the land supply presented in the next chapter.

A. COUNTY’S FUTURE ROLE WITHIN BROADER ECONOMIC REGION IS KEY FORECASTING ISSUE

The most important factor driving the overall growth forecast is the economic and urban structural relationship between the County and broader regional economy centred on the City of Ottawa and, to a lesser extent, Montreal. Much of the growth that has occurred in recent years in the County as well as the current distribution of population within the County can be explained by these relationships, which are illustrated in Table 1 and shown graphically on the following page.

Over the past 25 years, population growth in Canada has become increasingly concentrated in only a few major urban areas. Within Ontario, growth is primarily concentrated within the metropolitan region centered on the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) and to a lesser extent the City of Ottawa, and the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge area in the Region of Waterloo. Population in most other communities is growing more slowly or declining. Within this context, one of the most important considerations with respect to the growth forecast for the County is the economic and urban structural relationship between the County and the broader regional economy centred on the City of Ottawa-Gatineau.

It is this relationship that has explained much of the overall level of growth that has occurred overall in the UCPR in the past as well as its distribution within the County. The regional relationships can be seen from the commuting data in the following table, which has been aggregated for the Western, Central and Eastern areas of the County. As shown, overall, the UCPR is an exporter of labour: only 52.8% of the total resident employed labour force actually lives and works within the community, with the share dropping to 32.2% in the western area.

HEMSON

UCPR – 2006 Commuting Patterns

ORIGIN DESTINATION

GtiGatineau AtilArgenteuil 150 1,090 Ottawa Gatineau 1,075 Argenteuil 840 Ottawa 310 14,750

UCPR UCPR 37,615 23,645

Montreal 440 Montreal SDG 55 750

SDG 1,015

NET COMMUTING

Gatineau Argenteuil Ottawa -690 780 -13, 675

UCPR -13, 970

Montreal -385

SDG 265 7

Table 1 Commuting Behaviour of the UCPR Resident Employed Labour Force 2006 Census Information Portion of County (see note 1) Total County Western Central Eastern

Resident Employed Labour Force with a Usual Place 16,790 10,800 10,130 37,720 of Work (See Note 2)

Working within the UCPR 5,405 5,860 8,365 19,630 Share of Employed Residents 32.2% 54.3% 82.5% 52.8%

Working Outside the UCPR 11,385 4,940 1,765 18,090

Share to other parts of Ontario (mainly 94.2% 90.7% 46.5% 88.6% Ottawa) 5.8% 9.3% 53.5% 11.4% Share to Quebec (mainly Montreal area in the east, Gatineau in the west)

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. based on Statistics Canada 2006 Census data.

Notes: Western portion is Clarence-Rockland and Russell. Central portion is The Nation, Casselman and Alfred- Plantagenet. Eastern portion is Hawkesbury, Champlain and East Hawkesbury. The approximately 800 persons living in the UCPR with “no fixed place of work” are not included.

As can be seen from the table and the graphic, overall, the County is an exporter of labour with just over 50% of the total resident employed labour force living and working in the community. The eastern areas of the County enjoy a fairly high ratio which evens out in the central parts of the County. The ratio drops, however, to just over 30% in the western parts of the County, the result of commuting to job opportunities concentrated in the City of Ottawa. This commuting relationship is leading to increased development pressures in the western part of the County, in particular communities of Russell, the Nation, and Clarence-Rockland and is anticipated to have a strong effect on both the amount of and distribution of growth, particularly related to demand for commuter-related housing. The outlook for employment is also tied, in part, to the County’s relationship to the broader economic region, in particular the outlook for the Township of Russell. The health and diversity of the County’s economy and broader regional economy will all exert an influence on the housing outlook by location and choice of housing type and, as a result, the local distribution of growth.

HEMSON

B. OUTLOOK IS FOR MODEST GROWTH OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS

On a County-wide basis, population is forecast to grow to a total of 116,800 by 2036, representing fairly modest growth. Employment is forecast to remain relatively stable, growing by roughly 3,800 jobs or roughly 13% over the 2036 horizon. The modest level of employment growth is largely a result of the aging of the population and continued out-migration from the County although this does not mean that no new development will occur. The modest growth overall is likely to be balanced by growth in specific locations and sectors, such as goods movement and distribution.

The population forecast is translated into a forecast of housing units, as input to the land supply and capacity analysis presented in the next chapter. The forecast method and results are described in more detail below. The detailed technical outputs are provided under separate cover.

1. Forecasts Prepared Using Well-Established Models

The population forecast for the County is prepared using the well-established cohort survival model which accounts for: births by age of mother, deaths by age and sex, and migration by its seven components, each also by age and sex, at both Provincial and sub-provincial geographies. The forecast takes into account information from the 2006 Census and the available data from the 2011 Census of Canada: population and population by age and sex.

The cohort survival model operates by taking a five year age group (e.g. 20 to 24 in 2011), ages them by five years (they become 24 to 29 in 2016), deducts deaths in that age group (the “natural increase”) and, finally, adds net migration for that age group. Births during the five year period produced by this age group are then added to the 0 to 4 year age group. A sub-provincial forecast is then prepared for the GGH, GTHA and rest of Ontario including the County using the same method, including a forecast of migration by component and age structure.

The employment forecast is driven by the population forecast, prepared by applying age-specific labour force participation rates to the population forecast and adjusting for unemployment and commuting patterns. In most locations in Ontario, commuting (both in and out from a municipality) has been increasing faster than the rate of employment overall. Within Ontario, the GTHA is forecast to remain in a positive net in-commuting position throughout the forecast period. Negative net in- commuting (or net out-commuting) is anticipated to increase steadily throughout most communities in the rest of Ontario, including the County.

HEMSON

A low, high and reference forecast is prepared for population, employment and households. The reference forecast represents the most likely growth outlook and is the most appropriate basis for the County’s planning purposes. The high and low forecasts are prepared by incorporating deliberately optimistic and pessimistic assumptions, mainly related to the amount and growth of in-migration from Ottawa and Montreal.

The reference, low and high forecasts provide a range on the future growth outlook:

• Reference Forecast: the most likely scenario based on continued high levels of in-migration from the Ottawa-centred economic region;

• Low Forecast: based on more pessimistic expectations about the level of migration to the UCPR; and

• High Forecast: based on more optimistic expectations about the level of migration to the UCPR.

2. Population is Forecast to Grow to Nearly 117,000 by 2036

As shown in Table 2 on the following page, under the Hemson reference scenario, the total population of the County is forecast to grow to approximately 116,800 by 2036. The figures shown are for “total” population including a net-under coverage factor of approximately 4%. This is different than the figures shown in the UCPR official plan, which are Census figures not including the undercount; however the overall growth increment is similar.

The “reference” forecast is considered to be the “most likely” scenario and is driven by an increased level of in-migration from the economic region centred on Ottawa- Gatineau and Montreal. The high forecast reflects more optimistic expectations about the level of in migration while the low forecast, for illustration purposes, is the forecast prepared by the Ministry of Finance which anticipates a much more modest level of growth for the County.

HEMSON

Table 2 Forecast Total Population United Counties of Prescott and Russell

Hemson Forecast Range

Census Year Low Reference High

2001 79,500 2006 83,000 2011 86,700 88,700 88,700

2016 90,200 93,500 93,700 2021 94,200 99,000 100,500 2026 97,800 105,300 109,000 2031 100,600 111,500 118,000 2036 104,200 116,800 126,400 Growth 2011 – 2031 14,100 22,800 29,400 Growth 2011 - 2036 15,600 28,200 37,800

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. 2012. Figures Rounded.

The reference population forecast is shown graphically below and in Table 3 on the following page, along with the existing official plan forecasts and the Ministry of Finance forecasts. As can be seen, the forecasts on which the current County official plan are based anticipated a population range of 104,000 to 111,500 for the low and high 2026 projections which correspond generally with the Hemson reference 2026 and 2031 forecasts of 105,000 to 111,000.

HISTORIC AND FORECAST TOTAL POPULATION UCPR, 2001 - 2036 (000s) 130 OP Low OP High MOF 115 Hemson

100

70 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. Note: The UCPR OP Low and High 2031 and 2036 figure s have been extrapolated from 2026.

HEMSON

Unlike the official plan or Hemson reference forecast, the Ministry of Finance anticipates more limited growth in population. As shown, the 2011 Census population in the Hemson reference forecast is between 4,000 and 6,000 less than was anticipated by the current County official plan.

Table 3 Comparison of Forecast Total Population United Counties of Prescott and Russell

Forecast Comparison

County Official Plan 2012 Ministry 2012 Hemson of Finance (Reference) Census Year Low High

2001 79,500 2006 83,000 2011 92,700 94,500 86,500 88,700 2016 96,700 100,200 90,200 93,500 2021 100,600 106,000 94,200 99,000 2026 104,000 111,500 97,800 105,300 2031 n/a n/a 100,600 111,500 2036 n/a n/a 102,500 116,800 Growth 2011 – 2026 11,300 17,000 11,300 16,700 Growth 2011 – 2031 n/a n/a 14,100 22,800 Growth 2011- 2036 n/a n/a 16,000 28,200

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd, 2012; United Counties of Prescott and Russell, 2006. Sources: Statistics Canada estimates, 2011, and Ontario Ministry of Finance projections.

Note: County Official Plan population adjusted to include a 4% undercount.

The Hemson reference forecast for 2026 is approximately 105,300, which compares to official plan forecast range of between 104,000 and 111,500 (a census range of between 100,000 and 107,204 adjusted to include a 4% undercount). The Hemson reference forecast for 2031 is nearly the same as the current high forecast in the County plan for 2026.

Although the Ministry of Finance (MOF) is forecasting more modest growth in population to 2036, this forecast is based on a continuation of recent trends and likely underestimates future growth potential. In particular the forecast does not take into account the anticipated increase in levels of in-migration from the Ottawa and Montreal areas. Compared to the Ministry of Finance forecast, the Hemson reference forecast is considered to be a reasonable and appropriate basis for land use planning in the County.

HEMSON

3. Employment is Forecast to Grow Modestly

The employment forecast is shown on Table 4, and includes the usual “place of work” employment, “no fixed place of work” and “work at home” components. It is important to note that, although employment is forecast to grow modestly, this does not mean that no new building activity will take place. New investment will continue to occur in the form of retail and related services associated with new population and housing growth. Some new industrial-type development can also be anticipated to occur, particularly in locations with good transportation access.

Table 4 Forecast of Total Employment United Counties of Prescott and Russell

Hemson Forecast Range

Census Year Low Reference High

2001 28,000 2006 28,100 2011 29,700 29,700 29,700

2016 30,300 31,000 31,100 2021 30,100 31,600 32,100 2031 28,800 32,200 34,700 2036 28,900 33,500 37,000 Growth 2011 – 2031 -900 2,600 5,000 Growth 2011- 2036 -700 3,800 7,400

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. 2012. Figures Rounded.

Under the reference forecast, employment is forecast to grow by 3,800 jobs, or roughly 13% from 2011 to 2036. The majority of future employment growth will be one of two major types:

• Approximately 1,700 jobs will be “Population-related” employment, which are jobs that grow to serve growth in the resident population, including retail and “work at home” employment; and

• Approximately 1,700 jobs will be “Employment Land” employment, or the range of uses typically occupying industrial-type buildings. The balance of employment growth, approximately 400 jobs, would be other rural-based employment.

HEMSON

4. Housing Forecast Prepared as Input to the Land Capacity Analysis

Growth in housing units is of most relevance for the land capacity analysis because this forms the basis of determining a local basis, as the case may be, for settlement area expansions to accommodate anticipated growth in population. As shown in Table 5 below, the Hemson reference population forecast translates into growth of approximately 8,700 additional housing units to 2031 and approximately 10,000 units to 2036. This forecast is slightly in excess of the high unit requirement shown over the period to 2026 in the County official plan.

Housing preference is anticipated to remain overwhelmingly for single and semi- detached units, again driven primarily by demand for commuter-related housing from Ottawa and Montreal. Demand for medium and higher density forms is anticipated to be more limited, but higher than most other similar communities in eastern Ontario. Growth in housing units and particularly lower density single and semi- detached units is of most relevance for this analysis because it is required to compare to the capacity of the land supply.

Table 5 Hemson Reference Forecast Total Housing Units United Counties of Prescott and Russell

Unit County OP Census Years Total Housing Units Growth Unit Growth

2001 27,700 2006 30,200 2,500 2011 33,100 2,900 2,210 2016 35,500 2,400 2,090 2021 38,000 2,500 2,140 2026 40,100 2,100 2,050 2031 41,800 1,700 n/a 2036 43,100 1,300 n/a Growth 2011 – 2031 8,700 n/a Growth 2011 - 2036 10,000 n/a

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. 2012. Figures Rounded.

HEMSON

C. GROWTH DISTRIBUTED LOCALLY BASED ON PLANNING POLICY AND MARKET DEMAND FACTORS

In order to provide the necessary input for the land capacity analysis, the overall County forecast must be distributed to the local municipalities. The first step is the distribution of growth to the local municipalities, based mainly upon the anticipated pattern of in-migration from Ottawa and Montreal. Next, growth is distributed to the settlement areas within the local municipalities based on observed patterns of market demand and planning policy factors.

1. Growth is Distributed to the Local Municipalities Based on Commuting Patterns

The distribution of County-wide growth to the local municipalities is based on historic building permits from Statistics Canada, adjusted for expected shifts in the pattern of growth arising from migration patterns. It is anticipated that migration from the City of Ottawa will continue to be a key driver of growth both in terms of the overall amount and its distribution within the County.

Current planning initiatives to limit the amount of new urban lands to accommodate growth in City of Ottawa may further increase development pressure in the surrounding regional market area, in particular in the western portion of the County. While the County overall is somewhat “behind” current planning expectations for population growth, communities in the west are either at or ahead of expectations: Clarence Rockland, Russell, Casselman, Alfred-Plantagenet and The Nation. The remaining communities in the east are for the most part falling behind and as a result are forecast to grow more slowly given their greater distance from the influence of growth in the Ottawa metropolitan area.

The local municipal housing forecast reflects the anticipation that Ottawa- commuter based development pressure will continue in coming decades. The results are shown in Table 6.

HEMSON

Table 6 Distribution of Hemson Reference Household Forecast to Local Municipalities within the County

Total Occupied Households

2011 2031 Growth 2036 Growth Municipality 2011-2031 2011 – 2036

Russell 5,280 7,510 2,230 7,870 2,590 Casselman 1,430 1,890 460 1,970 540 The Nation 4,270 5,310 1,040 5,430 1,170 Clarence-Rockland 8,640 11,550 2,910 11,980 3,340 Alfred-Plantagenet 3,700 4,530 800 4,650 920 Champlain 3,520 3,880 360 3,940 420 Hawkesbury 4,940 5,600 660 5,710 770 East Hawkesbury 1,310 1,510 200 1,540 230

County Total 33,120 41,780 8,660 43,100 9,980 Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. 2012. Figures Rounded.

2. Growth is Distributed to the Settlement Areas Based on a Combination of Planning Policy and Market Demand Factors

Next, the local municipal housing forecast is distributed to settlement areas based on the following key considerations:

• The County Official Plan, which sets as a minimum the direction of 70% or more of future growth to the Urban and Community Policy Areas and 30% or less to rural areas;

• For the western portion of the County, including Casselman and Wendover, 85% of the housing unit growth is allocated to the Urban and Community Policy Areas, reflecting a policy interest in directing mainly Ottawa-based suburban housing development to existing settlement areas. For the remainder of the County, 70% of the housing unit growth is directed to the urban and community policy areas; and

• Similar to the distribution of growth within the County, the historic pattern of market demand, as measured by building permit information provided by County staff and local municipalities. The resulting housing forecast is then translated into a population forecast, which is shown in Table 7.

HEMSON

Table 7 Distribution of Hemson Reference Population Forecast to Local Municipalities within the County

Total Population Including the Undercount

2011 2031 Growth 2036 Growth Municipality 2011-2031 2011 -2036

Russell 15,810 22,230 6,420 23,660 7,850 Casselman 3,800 4,920 1,120 5,200 1,400 The Nation 12,170 14,880 2,710 15,280 3,110 Clarence-Rockland 24,120 31,470 7,350 33,210 9,090 Alfred-Plantagenet 9,540 11,550 2,010 12,040 2,500 Champlain 8,840 9,720 880 10,010 1,170 Hawkesbury 10,890 12,860 1,970 13,390 2,500 East Hawkesbury 3,490 3,860 370 4,000 510

County Total 88,700 111,500 22,800 116,800 28,200

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. 2012. Figures Rounded.

As shown, the County is forecast to accommodate steady growth in population over the period to 2036. The growth is mainly focussed in the municipalities closest to the City of Ottawa, notably Clarence-Rockland, Russell and the Nation. Population in other municipalities is forecast to grow somewhat more modestly. New households, however, will continue to be added over the period, largely as a result of declining household size and the aging of the population.

Although employment overall is forecast to grow moderately, new building activity will take place in the form of retail and related services associated with new population and housing growth as well as in new industrial-type development, particularly in locations with good road transportation access.

The forecast growth by community within each of the local municipalities is then compared to the land supply capacity to reach preliminary conclusions on the appropriateness of current settlement area boundaries. The results of this analysis are discussed in the following chapter.

HEMSON

III LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS

This chapter sets out the results of the land supply and capacity analysis. The approach and main conclusions are summarized below. The detailed results are provided in the appendix to this report.

A. ANALYSIS OF LAND SUPPLY INDICATES SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY TO ACCOMODATE GROWTH

Given the PPS as framework for this analysis, as well as a key purpose of the study being to determine the appropriateness of settlement area boundaries, the focus of the land supply analysis is on vacant developable lands within the designated settlement areas of the County.

1. Land Supply Identified Through GIS

The first step in the analysis is to measure the vacant residential and non-residential land supply. The land supply is based on GIS information provided by UCPR and is shown in Table 8 on the following page. The land areas shown are gross or “developable” land supply, excluding only non-developable features.

2. Capacity Estimated Using Density Factors

The next step in the analysis is to estimate the capacity of the land supply. The capacity of the residential land supply is estimated by applying a range of gross densities to the vacant land area to reflect observed densities in urban and rural settings. A density range of between 5 and 12 units per gross ha is used to estimate the unit capacity for a range of rural and urban -type development as follows:

• A range of between 7 and 12 units per gross ha is applied to the western portion of the County; and

• A range of between 5 and 9 units per gross ha is applied to the remaining communities.

HEMSON

Table 8 Vacant Developable Land Supply United Counties of Prescott and Russell (Gross ha)

Urban and Community Policy Areas Trade and Industry Municipality Commercial / Policy Total Residential Mixed Use Employment Areas

Russell 470 0 10 155 635 Casselman 110 0 35 0 145 The Nation 410 5 0 95 510 Clarence-Rockland 1,480 5 45 0 1,530 Alfred-Plantagenet 790 15 0 5 810 Champlain 310 15 0 250 575 Hawkesbury* 110 10 30 0 180 East Hawkesbury 380 5 0 0 385

County Total 4,060 55 120 505 4,770

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. Based on data provided by County.

*Note: Hawkesbury ‘Trade and Industry Policy Area’ is contained within the Urban Policy Area boundary and as such is counted as ‘Employment’ for the purpose of this analysis.

Generally the densities used are lower than the maximum permitted in the County Official Plan and local zoning by-laws, as they are based on typical on-the-ground densities for residential development within rural and urban settlement areas across the County. In our view the maximum densities permitted are unlikely to be achieved on a County-wide basis.

3. Results Indicate Significant Growth Potential

As shown in Table 9 below, applying the density range noted above to the vacant residential land areas shown in Table 8 generates a potential to accommodate between roughly 26,000 and 46,000 units, significantly in excess of the forecast housing unit growth over the period to 2036. Table 10 illustrates the potential surplus in the residential land supply at varied density ranges at the municipal and County-wide level.

HEMSON

Table 9 Estimated Residential Capacity of Urban and Community Policy Areas United Counties of Prescott and Russell

Unit Capacity at Municipality Residential Housing Density Range Land Supply Unit Growth (gross ha) 2011 - 2036 Low Medium High

Russell 470 2,200 3,300 4,200 5,600 Casselman 110 540 800 1,000 1,300 The Nation 410 990 2,900 3,700 4,900 Clarence-Rockland 1,480 2,840 10,400 13,300 17,800 Alfred-Plantagenet 790 780 5,500 7,100 9,500 Champlain 310 290 1,600 2,200 2,800 Hawkesbury 110 770 500 700 900 East Hawkesbury 380 160 1,900 2,700 3,500

County Total 4,060 8,580 26,900 34,900 46,300

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. Based on data provided by County. Figures Rounded.

Note: Housing unit growth is less than the total of 9,980 units as result of the allocation of either 70% or 85% of units to urban and community policy areas.

Table 10 Estimated Surplus Residential Land Supply of Urban and Community Policy Areas United Counties of Prescott and Russell

Land Need Potential Surplus or Shortage Municipality Residential at Density Range at Density Range Land Supply (gross ha to 2036) (gross ha at 2036) (gross ha) Low Medium High Low Medium High

Russell 470 315 245 185 150 225 285 Casselman 110 80 60 45 30 50 65 The Nation 410 140 110 85 270 300 330 Clarence-Rockland 1,480 405 315 235 1,075 1,170 1,245 Alfred- Plantagenet 790 110 90 65 680 700 725 Champlain 310 60 40 30 255 270 280 Hawkesbury 110 155 110 85 - 50 - 4 20 East Hawkesbury 380 30 25 20 350 360 365

County Total 4,060 1,295 995 750 2,760 3,070 3,315

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. Based on data provided by County. Figures Rounded.

HEMSON

As shown, the residential unit capacity exceeds forecast demand for the Urban and Community Policy Areas at the County-wide and municipal level. At a County-wide basis, the supply of non-residential land also appears to be sufficient to accommodate future growth:

• At a density of approximately 60 jobs per net ha, growth of 1,700 population-related jobs (mainly retail at 25% coverage and 40 m2 per employee) would require under 30 net ha or 37 gross ha of commercial- type lands. On a County-wide basis, the supply of commercial and mixed use lands (55 gross ha) would be sufficient to accommodate this demand, particularly considering that a portion of future retail needs will be provided as part of new residential communities; and

• At a density of 20 jobs per net ha (typical standard industrial-type development) growth of 1,700 employment land jobs would require approximately 85 net ha or 105 gross ha of industrial or business park-type lands. As shown in Table 10, on a County-wide basis, the current supply is more than sufficient to accommodate anticipated demand.

Table 11 Estimated Capacity of Trade and Industry and Employment Land Supply United Counties of Prescott and Russell

Land Need @ Municipality Employment Density Range Trade & Potential Land (20 jobs / net ha) Industry and Surplus or Employment Employment Shortage Growth Net ha Gross ha Land Supply at 2036 2011-2036 (gross ha)

Russell 300 15 ha 19 ha 165 ha 145 ha Casselman 250 13 ha 16 ha 35 ha 20 ha The Nation 170 8 ha 11 ha 95 ha 85 ha Clarence-Rockland 340 17 ha 21 ha 45 ha 25 ha Alfred-Plantagenet 250 13 ha 16 ha 5 ha - 11 ha Champlain 80 4 ha 5 ha 250 ha 245 ha Hawkesbury 200 10 ha 13 ha 30 ha 15 ha East Hawkesbury 80 4 ha 5 ha 0 ha - 5 ha

County Total 1,680 85 ha 105 ha 625 ha 520 ha Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. Based on data provided by County. Some figures rounded. Note: Although a small shortage is suggested for East Hawkesbury, given the nature of the data, the amount of growth forecast, and the long planning horizon this does not constitute a local justification for new urban employment land designations. This potential demand could also be readily accommodated to the west where a substantial land supply is designated, particularly in Hawkesbury and Champlain.

HEMSON

B. SOME LOCALIZED SHORTAGES IN THE RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY ARE INDICATED

At a County-wide and municipal level, a fairly substantial capacity to accommodate residential growth is indicated. However, as shown in the detailed land capacity analysis tables in the Appendix to this report, some localized shortages are shown at the settlement area level with respect to residential land. Expansions to the boundaries in these cases may be appropriate to accommodate the growth forecast and community development objectives. While the unit capacity at the County and municipal level is more than sufficient to accommodate forecast growth, there are some local shortages of residential land supply:

• A relatively small shortage is shown for Wendover in Alfred and Plantagenet (up to 20 gross ha) and Russell in Russell Township (up to 25 gross ha) at the low end of the density range;

• A somewhat larger potential shortage is shown for the municipality of Hawkesbury (up to 50 gross ha) at the low end of the range; and

• A more substantial shortage is shown for the urban area of Rockland in the City of Clarence-Rockland (up to 135 ha) and Limoges in The Nation (up to 85 ha) both at the low end of the density range.

Most other communities are shown to have a surplus of land supply to accommodate growth to 2036. The supply of non-residential lands appears to be sufficient to accommodate growth on a County-wide basis, but similar to the residential component, some local expansions may be warranted. Potential minor shortages in the designated supply of employment land have been identified for Alfred- Plantagenet (up to 11 gross ha) and East Hawkesbury (up to 5 gross ha), although it is noted that the slight excess demand in East Hawkesbury could be readily accommodated within the surplus supply identified in Hawkesbury and Champlain.

Sound planning rationale may exist for adding to the County’s base of the designated Trade and Industry Policy Area supply in order to achieve economic development objectives and promote employment growth in areas with adequate servicing capacity and good transportation access. Such expansions may be appropriate where an interest has been expressed by the local municipalities, specific development proposals have been advanced, or where major economic development and

HEMSON

infrastructure investments have been made, such as in the Townships of Russell and the Nation. However, as discussed in the next section any changes to the settlement area boundaries need to be considered within the context of a land supply that exceeds the current growth forecast.

C. EXCESS COUNTY-WIDE SUPPLY MEANS NO OVERALL ADDITION TO THE LAND SUPPLY IS JUSTIFIED

Given that a surplus of residential and non-residential land supply is indicated by the analysis, no overall addition to the land supply is justified. However, this does not mean that no changes should be made to the designated land supply. From a County perspective, there are number of sound planning reasons for revising settlement area boundaries, including:

• The correction of mapping errors and other housekeeping;

• Expansions to accommodate growth where demand is focussed, particularly in the western parts of the County driven by Ottawa-based demand for commuter housing;

• Expansions to better align development potential with existing or planned servicing capacity; or

• Expansions to support the County and local employment growth and economic development objectives.

However, to the extent that such local changes would result in an overall addition to the County-wide land supply, they would need to be balanced by compensating reductions in other parts of the County in order to ensure consistency with Provincial policy; in particular PPS policies that seek to limit the over-designation of new urban development lands to accommodate growth.

In particular, the proposed boundary changes would need to be adjusted on a County-wide basis to achieve a “no net change” result. Or in other words, the sum of all boundary changes at the County level would need to approach zero. This approach to rationalizing settlement area boundaries can help to achieve a healthy growth outlook by ensuring that lands are not over-designated while at the same time ensuring that development potential is provided at appropriate locations,

HEMSON

encouraging the efficient use of the urban land supply. This approach satisfies the PPS objective of preventing the over designation of lands for urban development while ensuring that local municipalities can remain responsive to their growth and development needs and priorities.

HEMSON

IV SETTLEMENT AREA BOUNDARY ASSESSMENTS

The ‘no net change’ approach also provides the framework for the assessment of settlement area boundary changes as the updated growth outlook and land supply analysis indicates a fairly substantial capacity to accommodate growth. Nevertheless, a number of changes to the Urban and Community Policy Area and Trade and Industry Policy Area boundaries may be considered for a variety of sound planning reasons. Collectively, however, to justify any proposed changes they would need to be rationalized on the basis of a County-wide ‘net zero addition’ to the urban developable land supply.

A. A NUMBER OF SETTLEMENT AREA REVISIONS ARE CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED

The review and update of the UCPR Official Plan provides an important opportunity for the County and local municipalities to clarify policy objectives and establish a clear and consistent vision for the future of the community. A number of changes to settlement area boundaries are currently being considered by the local municipalities as input to this process, mostly to accommodate residential growth pressure and economic development goals.

1. Revisions to Accommodate Residential Growth Pressure

The revisions being considered to accommodate residential growth pressure are focussed in the western County and along the major transportation routes providing access to employment opportunities in the Ottawa area:

• The municipality of Clarence-Rockland is considering an expansion to the settlement area boundary of the Urban Policy Area of the City of Clarence- Rockland though Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 22 which has been appealed by the Province to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). According to OPA 22, a total area of approximately 215 ha is proposed to be added to the settlement area, of which approximately 172 ha are developable urban lands.

HEMSON

In our view, an expansion of this scale is somewhat generous based on the results of the land capacity analysis. As shown in the Appendix to this report, an expansion of up to 135 ha for residential purposes is indicated. There also does not appear to be a strong local justification for additional employment lands. According to the GIS information provided by UCPR, the urban area of the City of Clarence-Rockland has roughly 26 ha of vacant employment land, contained within the City’s industrial park. As shown in Table 10, this amount represents over half of the total municipal supply of employment lands and would be sufficient to accommodate the entire municipal demand over the period to 2036.

2. Trade and Industry Policy Area Expansions to Encourage Economic Development

The revisions being considered to accommodate encourage economic development are in the form of proposed expansion to the Trade and Industry Policy Areas in the west of the County and locations with good transportation access:

• The Township of Russell has proposed the addition of a 52 ha Trade and Industry Policy Area located adjacent to the community of Embrun between Embrun and Russell. The expansion was recommended in 2009 and is shown in Schedule A1 of the Russell Official Plan.1 The proposed uses include commercial, office and open space uses intended to support economic development and provide a balance of employment for anticipated population growth within the Township.

• The communities of Embrun and Russell together account of over 90% of anticipated growth in the municipality. The provision of additional capacity for population-related and employment land employment recognizes a local priority to focus future growth and development within these communities.

1 For details, see the report Vacant Land Analysis: Villages of Embrun, Russell, Limoges, and Marionville and Highway 417 Industrial Park, undertaken by FoTenn Planning and Urban Design, October 2009. The report identified a need for additional employment land designations in proximity to the villages of Embrun and Russell to provide for employment-related uses in closer proximity to the major settlement areas. The study further concludes that, although there is a significant supply of vacant employment lands in the Highway 417 Industrial Park, these lands are not serviced with municipal water and sewer and therefore cannot currently accommodate a full range of employment uses.

HEMSON

3. Minor Adjustments to Rural Supply and Urban Area Boundaries

A number of other minor adjustments to the rural supply are being proposed, along with some minor adjustments to the urban area boundaries which do not represent settlement area expansions within the meaning of the PPS.

• The Township of Russell is proposing a minor boundary revision through their updated official plan. An adjustment to the settlement of Embrun is proposed which removes a parcel of land adjacent to existing quarry operation from the settlement area and provides for a more appropriately parcel in lieu. Both parcels are the same size and result in no net change to the designated size of the designated settlement area.

B. AN ITERATIVE AND CONSULTATIVE APPROACH SHOULD BE TAKEN TO RATIONALIZE THE BOUNDARIES

While many of the proposed boundary changes can be justified based on localized shortages in the land supply or broader economic development reasons, collectively they would represent a potential over-designation of supply within the meaning of the PPS. Although this does not mean that no change should be permitted, given the excess supply on County-wide basis, in our view the changes should not result in significant net additions to the overall developable land supply. There are a number of options to achieve this result, including:

• Reductions in the urban or community policy areas where significant surplus of land supply is shown;

• Declassification of community policy area where very limited growth is anticipated over the period; or

• Phasing of development in urban or community policy areas where a surplus of land supply is shown and only limited growth is anticipated over the period to 2036.

HEMSON

Generally the phasing of development is not appropriate within the context of the relatively modest growth anticipated County-wide or at the local municipal level. Most of the boundary rationalization should be undertaken on the basis of increasing or decreasing settlement area size or through area declassification. For example:

• Based on the land capacity analysis, there is a fairly substantial surplus of designated land supply in the urban policy areas within the municipalities of Alfred and Plantagenet, Champlain and, to a lesser extent, Casselman and St. Isidore in the Nation. Reductions in the size of these urban policy areas could be considered to offset proposed expansions.

• Similarly, there is a surplus of designated land supply in the community policy areas for all municipalities, in particular the community of Fournier and Ste Rose de Prescott in the Nation and Chute a Blondeau and St.Eugene in East Hawkesbury. All six community policy areas in the municipality of Clarence-Rockland also have a significant surplus land supply. As appropriate, reductions to the size or declassification of these areas may also be considered.

Alternatively, changes could be made to currently proposed settlement area expansions within the context of the land capacity analysis described in this report. It is important to recognize, however, that any approach taken to adjusting settlement area boundaries to achieve a no-net-addition result will be contentious. This is because the stakes involved: property values, development rights, control of land use decisions, cost of development, quality of life, and community image; are high. Once implemented, the results of a settlement area boundary rationalization will commit local councils until the next 5-year review of the plan.

Given the range of local priorities, needs and aspirations for community growth and development, an iterative and consultative approach to rationalizing the boundaries should be undertaken. The first task should be for each municipality to examine opportunities within their own communities to rationalize settlement area boundaries while achieving a no-net-addition result.

HEMSON

C. RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS GIVE RISE TO A NUMBER OF POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

The forecast, land capacity analysis and assessment of settlement area boundaries give rise to a number of policy recommendations. These relate to the forecasts, promoting intensification and redevelopment and building consensus amongst the local municipalities through regular plan review.

1. Forecasts to be Incorporated into the County Official Plan

The reference forecasts for population, housing and employment that have been discussed in this report should be incorporated into the updated the County official plan. The specific tables recommended for inclusion in the updated official plan are summarized below and provided in the Appendix.

• Table 1 Projected Total Population - United Counties of Prescott and Russell

• Table 2 Reference Forecast Population Distributed by Municipality

• Table 3 Projected Housing Unit Requirements 2011 to 2036

• Table 4 Forecast of Total Employment - United Counties of Prescott and Russell

• Table 5 Reference Forecast Total Employment Distributed by Municipality

The allocation of growth to the settlement areas should be undertaken by the local municipalities, giving consideration to local planning objectives and the results of the detailed land capacity analysis provided in the Appendix to this report.

2. Provide Direction for Intensification and Redevelopment

As noted, the forecast housing preference in the County is anticipated to remain strongly focussed on demand for ground-related units, particularly single and semi- detached units. Demand for medium and higher density forms is anticipated to be more limited, although some local municipalities currently accommodate somewhat higher shares than might be expected for eastern Ontario. The municipalities of Hawkesbury and Casselman, for example, show relatively high shares of apartment units relative to other communities in the County.

HEMSON

For the most part, however, demand for new housing units will be driven mainly by ground-related units. As a result, the intensification and redevelopment of existing settlement areas will not play a major role in accommodating growth. Nevertheless, the County should consider putting policies in place to encourage intensification, in accordance with Provincial policy objectives, particularly in the larger urban communities where expansions are being contemplated.

3. Build Consensus through Consultation and Regular Review

Finally, the County should seek to build consensus amongst the local municipalities regarding the priority expansions for the current official plan update. County staff can assist in this process by undertaking a program of consultation with the local municipalities to build consensus on the priority expansions without adding to the overall designated land supply. This will help to ensure that the preferred option for rationalizing boundaries within the County and updating the County Official Plan represents a shared vision for the future growth and development of the local settlement areas, municipalities and the broader UCPR community.

The County may also wish to address the potential need for specific settlement area expansions that might arise during the next 5-year plan review but are not warranted based on the results of this assessment. In particular, the County may wish to include a special policy provision for the Township of Russell to reflect the expectation that the community will be nearly built out by out by 2031, and in a moderate shortage position by 2036. Given the community’s proximity to the Ottawa commuter shed and recent investments in servicing, there is the potential that future growth may be faster than the rates anticipated in our forecasts.

Overall, the County is forecast to accommodate relatively modest growth over the period to 2036, driven mainly by its commuting relationship with the broader regional economy centred on the City of Ottawa-Gatineau. The analysis of land supply indicates a substantial capacity to accommodate growth, although some localized shortages in the land supply are indicated. An iterative and consultative approach should be taken to rationalize the settlement area boundaries to a no-net- addition result, in order to implement local development priorities while ensuring consistency with Provincial policy objectives.

HEMSON

APPENDIX

HEMSON

Detailed Results for the Land Supply Capacity Analysis

Distribution of Housing Unit Growth and Land Capacity Analysis

Alfred-Plantagenet 2011 to 2036

Total Housing Unit Growth 922 Share Allocated to Urban and Community Policy Areas 85% Urban and Community Policy Area Housing Unit Growth 784

Gross ha Req't Based on Gross ha Gross ha Surplus or (Short) at Density Range UPGH Supply Density Range UPGH Settlement Areas Permits Share Permits Share Forecast Units 7 9 12 7912 Alfred 50 19% 19% 147 21 16 12 187 166 171 175 Plantagenet 19 7% 7% 56 8 6 5 330 322 323 325 Wendover 186 70% 70% 546 78 61 46 58 (20) (3) 12 Curran 6 2% 2% 18 3 2 1 89 87 87 88 Lefaivre 6 2% 2% 18 3 2 1 57 55 55 56 Pendleton 0 0% 0% - - - - 17 17 17 17 Treadwell 0 0% 0% - - - - 52 52 52 52 Total 267 100% 100% 784 112 87 65 790 678 703 724 - -