DOCUMENT 5 Rural Residential and Village Growth Strategy 1.0 the Rural Area About 90% of Ottawa's Land Mass Is in the Rural A

DOCUMENT 5

Rural Residential and Village Growth Strategy

1.0 The Rural Area About 90% of Ottawa’s land mass is in the rural area. It is an area rich in resources of all kinds: farmland; mineral deposits; and large wetlands, woodlands and other natural features. It is also a location for rural industries, recreation facilities and other activities that support the rural economy. There are also 26 villages of varying sizes, each with its own history, character and potential. Outside the villages, individual homes sit back on large country lots or line up along country roads or cluster around new cul-de-sacs.

The rural area is part of Ottawa’s history and culture. Many Ottawa residents have deep roots here or choose to move here as newcomers to the rural lifestyle. The Official Plan sets no target for residential development in the rural area and does not limit residential development, although historically about 9% of Ottawa’s growth has occurred in rural villages and country lots.

The City needs to balance interest in rural housing against other, competing uses for the land. These include:  Ongoing agriculture operations  Sustainable use of resources, such that deposits of aggregates are not sterilized by nearby development that limits or precludes extraction  Rural businesses that require large sites and locations outside villages  Conservation of natural areas

As the city grows, it needs to consider how much growth it can support in low-density rural housing. Several villages have some level of municipal water or wastewater services and future growth likely depends on increasing these. However, the public cost of servicing the rural area as well as providing other municipal services such as solid waste collection and road maintenance needs to be considered in the context of the City’s overall budget and affordability guidelines. At a time when the City is promoting higher densities and increased use of transit in the urban area, to off-set some of the costs associated with population growth, rural residential development is low-density and relies on private automobiles.

The Official Plan states new housing in the rural area is to be limited and not preclude other kinds of development on adjacent land. The Plan says that at least half of rural residential development is to be accommodated in villages, where community and commercial services can be provided efficiently and there is potential for a variety of housing. However, only about 40% of residential development between 1975 and 2010 has occurred in villages. A similar amount (31%) has occurred in subdivisions of country lots outside villages and the remaining lots have been created through individual severances, including farm-related severances. 1

1 City of Ottawa. Rural Residential Land Survey 2009-2010 Update. Rural Residential Land Survey | City of Ottawa. See Table A1, Appendix A Rural Lot Creation, 1975-2010.

Lot creation is the lever that controls future growth in the rural area. New lots can be created outside villages in country lot subdivisions or created through severance (dividing one lot into two or more lots). New lots are created by both methods inside villages.

How the City manages lot creation in the rural area lies at the crux of the Rural Residential and Village Growth Strategy, and is the focus of this paper.

Proposed Directions

The new, proposed policies on rural growth continue to focus growth in villages. These policies are the final phase of the City’s Village Review that saw community visioning and updates to all the village plans in 2012. Revisions to the Zoning By-law early in 2013 made it easier to develop lots in villages and operate home-based businesses.

Most growth is proposed for the three largest villages because they have the most potential for developing into complete communities. These villages potentially can accommodate more employment, community facilities, and a variety of housing types suitable for families, retirees and seniors. Policies will also be proposed to guide the amount of employment land needed in villages to support jobs and economic development. Growth in some of the mid- size villages will also be supported. The 14 smallest villages would continue to fill out their boundaries, but most residents would likely work, shop and access community services elsewhere.

The rate of village development depends in part on availability of water and wastewater servicing. The Rural Servicing Study is reviewing the feasibility of extending municipal water and wastewater to different villages or providing these services through communal services operated by the City. The costs of different options for increasing rural servicing will also be estimated. The larger questions of affordability, risk to the municipality, and impacts on long-term sustainability and growth management will be addressed in policy proposals on rural servicing.

Subdivisions of country lots compete with villages in the provision of large lots and single- detached homes, and reduce the City’s effectiveness at achieving its objective for villages. The proposal is to discontinue country lot subdivisions in order to focus growth in villages, as well as to preserve the rural area for agriculture, mineral resource development, and other rural economic activities that are not appropriate for village locations. This proposal also safeguards valuable natural environment areas from further fragmentation and other negative impacts.

To complement these policies, the number of lots that can be created through severance is proposed to increase to two lots from the current one lot (in addition to the original or “retained” parcel). This proposal allows for a modest increase in the creation of country lots and ongoing opportunities for this rural lifestyle, but with fewer of the impacts associated with country lot subdivisions. Going forward, modest additions of severed lots plus the current large supply of vacant or pending lots in subdivisions will assist with a transition to the proposed rural residential policies. The proposed policies create a comprehensive 2 approach to managing lot creation in the rural area and should be considered as a whole. Any changes to individual proposals would need to be assessed for their effect on the larger strategy.

Direction for a Strategy

The Rural Residential and Village Growth Strategy responds to Council directions arising from the 2009 Official Plan Review. In 2007 the City began a consultation with rural communities on their major issues: village development, development outside villages, groundwater resources, and agricultural lands. At the end of this process in 2009, much of the strategy in the Official Plan for managing growth in rural Ottawa was retained.

However, in 2009 Council requested a further review of country lot subdivisions and established a moratorium on subdivision approvals outside villages. The moratorium would run for up to five years, to 2014, when the review would be complete. During the moratorium, staff was to review a growth management approach that clustered rural subdivisions in specific areas

Other questions arose:

 The Province asked the City to consider how much residential development should be permitted overall in the rural area, and the number of lots that should be allowed in country lot subdivisions if the City continued to permit them. The Provincial Policy Statement, which outlines the provincial policies that municipalities need to follow in Official Plans, states development in the rural area outside of villages should be “limited”. However, “limited” is not defined and Official Plans of other municipalities in the Province show a variety of approaches.  Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee asked staff to consider a new approach to severances, one that would permit creation of up to three new lots by severance instead of the one new lot that is now permitted.  Rural Councillors requested policies to support development in villages and asked when the City would be considering the need for more village land and the expansion of village boundaries. A review of village plans was completed in 2012, followed by updates to the village zoning in 2013. Development (building within the Opportunities for local business were increased existing village boundaries) and through the zoning changes and severances in Growth (expansion of village boundaries) represent both villages became more affordable. The review of challenges and opportunities for village boundaries is included in the current Villages. Official Plan review.

The balance of this paper is presented in four sections:

 A framework for a growth strategy for the rural area, describing current policies, the pattern of rural residential development, and the lot potential of rural lands  A proposed strategy for villages 3

 Proposed policies for residential severances  Approaches to managing country lot subdivisions

2.0 A Framework for a Growth Strategy for the Rural Area

The policies proposed for the rural area are framed within the current Official Plan policies and the pattern of residential development that has evolved in the rural area and in Villages since 1975. The capacity of village and rural lands to accommodate additional lot creation also needs to be considered in developing new directions.

2.1. Current Official Plan Policy

Village policies permit commercial and employment uses and various forms of housing, and support provision of the municipal services and facilities that help create complete communities. Only some villages have municipal water or wastewater services and, as a result, lot sizes and the intensity and diversity of land uses in many villages is limited to levels that can be supported by private wells and septic systems.

The Official Plan allows for a 10-year supply of land in villages. The Official Plan treats all villages the same although they vary with respect to their size, community services and facilities, and development potential.

The need to add new land to villages is determined through a review of land supplies in all villages collectively, as part of an Official Plan review or in response to a proposal to expand a village boundary. If new village land is required, all potential locations in all villages are considered. If the need for new village land is justified and a location selected, development there will be guided by a community design plan.

Outside villages, residential development on private wells and septic systems is permitted by plan of subdivision and by severance. Development is permitted in the General Rural Area and in Rural Natural Features, the latter subject to an assessment of impacts on environmental features. Residential lots must be at least 0.8ha in size, in order to reduce the risk of servicing issues, and results in a different development pattern in rural areas compared with villages. Creation of one new residential lot is permitted by severance provided that the remaining parcel has a minimum area of 10 ha. Subdivisions of more than 40 lots can be proposed as one development but registration of the lots is phased in groups of up to 40 lots to allow progressive assessment of the performance of private wells and septic systems.

The location of new residential lots is restricted through various policies in the Plan, including policies that separate new lots from incompatible land uses. Since 2003 country lot subdivisions have been prohibited within 1 km of urban or village boundaries in order to not restrict future growth of these areas.

Housing demand increases with proximity to the urban area, access to good roads, the presence of forests and other attractive natural features, and the ability to support private well and septic services. 4

2.2 The General Pattern of Rural Development

While the Official Plan accommodates at least 50% of new housing in villages, only about 40% of new residential lots created since 1975 have been created in villages. Country lot subdivisions have contributed 31% of the new residential lots and the balance has been created as farm-related severances (e.g. to sever a lot and farmhouse which has become surplus through farm consolidation) or as scattered residential severances. Figure 1 below shows the variation in lot creation in villages, subdivisions and in severances since the former Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton began keeping records in 1975. The share of lots in country lot subdivisions has increased over the last 10 years, accounting for 38% of lots created in the decade while village lots remained at 40%.

Fig. 1 Trends in Rural Lot Creation 900

800

700 Villages

600

500 CLS

400

Lots Registered Lots Rural & Farm 300

200

100

0 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 Year of Registration

Source: City of Ottawa Rural Residential Land Survey

Building data prior to municipal amalgamation in 2001 do not consistently record new dwellings by their location, in either a village or rural area. Figure 2 shows that between 2001 and 2011, 46% of building permits were issued in villages and 54% were issued in the rural area. Only in 2011 has the number of building permits issued in villages exceeded those issued in the rural area. Statistics for 2012 are not available at this time to show whether this shift has been sustained.

Fig 2. Building Permits / Permis de construire 600

500 Village 400

300construire

200 Rural Area

/Zonage Building Permits / Permis de de Permis/ Permits Building 100 rurales

Year

Source: City of Ottawa Building Permit Records

The pattern of rural development can be seen on Figure 3 below which shows residential severances as individual lots or clusters of small red dots along rural roads. Overlaid on these is the pattern of approved subdivisions as larger red areas and pending subdivisions or draft approved subdivisions as orange. The 26 villages are identified in yellow. As can be seen from the map, many of the subdivisions have been created in large clusters such as those west of the Village of Greely, south and east of the Village of Cumberland and north of urban Kanata. Some of these residential clusters occupy more rural land than even the larger villages.

Figure 3 The Pattern of Rural Development

A considerable amount of severance and subdivision activity has occurred over time in areas now identified as part of Ottawa’s Natural Heritage System in the Official Plan. New lots in natural areas threaten Ottawa’s biodiversity and the landscapes valued by so many residents. Efforts are made during the development review process to reduce or eliminate the impacts of each development as it is proposed. Over time, however, the cumulative impacts of many developments can be considerable.

Development severs linkages within natural landscapes, creating smaller and more isolated fragments of habitat areas that support fewer animals. It also results in the loss of habitat in the forest interior, an area that can support unique and rare plants, birds, and other wildlife. When roads and building lots are cleared inside the forest, this interior forest habitat is lost and common, invasive species can take hold. Overall, there is a loss of biodiversity.

Development proposals that encroach on the habitat of endangered and threatened species is especially of concern.

2.3 The Pattern of Village Development

Each of the 26 villages shown in the Official Plan has a distinct history and character. Some were established before the turn of the 19th century as service centres for a larger farming community or as stops on major transportation routes. Others, like Greely, are newer communities. Some have a steady rate of growth and others are losing population.

Figure 4 Village Population and Village Categories

Population

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

0 0

Marionville, 46 Burritt’s Rapids, 64 Ashton, 111 Galetta, 163 5 Carlsbad Springs, 235 Kinburn, 281 Dunrobin, 304 Kenmore, 310 Fallowfield, 366 10 Sarsfield, 453 Notre -Dame - des -Champs, 481 Vernon, 643 Kars, 646 Fitzroy Harbour, 675 15 Vars, 1092 Munster, 1357 Carp, 1429 Navan, 1725 North Gower, 1775 20 Cumberland , 1825 Metcalfe, 2186 Constance Bay, 2439 Osgoode, 2883 Richmond, 4741 25 Greely, 5342 Manotick, 5759

Cat 1 30 Category 2 Category 3

Figure 4 shows three categories of villages. Most of the smallest villages, with fewer than 1000 residents, are located on the periphery of Ottawa. Many are home to an aging population and are decreasing in size. The second category of villages, with 1000 to 3000 residents, usually contains schools and commercial areas. Over the last five years, the population of most of these villages has been stable. The largest three villages—Richmond, Greely and Manotick—are continuing to grow and have large supplies of vacant land. Growth areas in Richmond and Manotick have been approved for development on municipal services. The three villages have schools, commercial districts, employment uses, and restaurants, and an evolving mixture of housing and municipal services.

These categories can be used to develop policies on village development and a framework for determining future growth opportunities that reflects differences among the 26 villages.

2.4 Estimated Capacity for Residential Development in the Rural Area Villages

The future requirement for village land is based on Official Plan policies and the historic share of growth that has occurred in the rural area. Since amalgamation in 2001, the rural area has accounted for about 9% of the city’s building permits. Census data for household growth before amalgamation show a similar pattern, with the rural area accounting for an average of 9.1% of Ottawa’s household growth since 1971. The Residential Land Strategy for Ottawa 2006 – 2031 allocates 9% of the city’s new dwellings to the rural area, for a total of 13,278 units between 2006 and 2031.

The Official Plan indicates that at least half of rural growth will be accommodated in villages, and that the land supply in villages will be sufficient to meet the 10-year requirement for housing and all other purposes. With about 5500 new units projected for the rural area between 2011 and 2021, villages need to have sufficient land for at least 2750 units if the minimum target of 50% is to be achieved.

Table 1.2.3 shows the number of occupied units in each village in 2011 and an estimate of the potential number of units that could be accommodated on available land. The estimate is conservative and is based on the developable land supply, recent development patterns, and known opportunities and constraints to development. Appendix B provides more information about the estimate.

Table 1.2.3 Residential Land Supply Estimates by Village and Category1

Category Village Occupied units 2011 Total potential lots Small villages Ashton 36 2 Burritt's Rapids 23 2 Carlsbad Springs 80 1 Dunrobin 112 14 Fallowfield 123 18 Fitzroy Harbour 228 64 Galetta 58 7 Kars 244 40 Kenmore 106 21 Kinburn 100 0 Marionville 16 26 Notre-Dame-des-Champs 163 38 Sarsfield 155 8 Vernon 222 30 subtotal small villages 1,666 270 Mid-sized Carp 621 705 villages Constance Bay 903 115 North Gower 623 591 Cumberland 608 126 Osgoode 942 117 Munster 438 02 Navan 485 141 Metcalfe 751 160 Vars 370 126 subtotal 5,741 2,081 Large Villages Greely 1,952 921 Manotick 1,811 1694 Richmond 1,711 1763 subtotal 5,544 4,378 total all villages 12,881 6,730

The villages have an estimated potential of 6730 new housing units, well above the 10-year requirement of at least 2750 units between 2011 and 2021 and also above the 20-year

2 The potential number of units in Munster is under review. The City owns potentially developable land there and some of it could be declared surplus and sold in the future. However, municipal water and wastewater services in Munster have a capacity to serve a population of 1300 or 438 units, and the village may already be built out.

10 requirement of 5160. There is no need to add additional village land to meet future requirements.

No single village has sufficient supply to meet the 10-year requirement. However, the large villages and the mid-size villages combined have more than enough land to meet the requirement. The small villages together do not have enough land to contribute significantly to future needs.

Country Lot Subdivisions and Severances

The moratorium on country lot subdivisions began at the end of 2009, creating a grace period before it came into effect that saw completion of the application process for several new proposals and the reactivation of applications that had been idle for many years. Combined, these applications contain over 1600 future lots. In addition, in mid-2012 there were over 1200 approved lots1 in the rural area that were still vacant. The supply of vacant and pending lots totals 2800 in mid-2012, or about a 10-year supply based on past consumption rates.

Since 2003, an average of 50 lots has been created by severance each year. The City has no data on vacant severed lots but like subdivision lots, it is expected that some are vacant. The supply of lots that are eligible for severance (that is, lots over 10.8 ha in area, with road frontage, and designated General Rural or Rural Natural Features) has an estimated potential to yield 1140 new lots2 or a 20-year supply. This does not take into consideration severances permitted as infill situations identified in the Official Plan.

Total Rural Residential Land Supply

There is a sufficient supply of land in the rural area to meet residential requirements there to 2031. However, as shown below, it would require a change in residential development patterns in the rural area over the next 20 years, with a shift towards village development.

Balance Sheet

Projected number of new units 2012 to 2031 – 10,450 100%

Village lots (build-out of vacant lots and developable residential land) – 6730 lots– 63% Country lot subdivisions (build-out of vacant lots and pending lots) - 2800 lots - 26% Severances (potential yield from lots eligible for severance) – 1140 – 11% Total lot potential = 10,670 lots 3.0 A Proposed Strategy for Villages

Several core principles are proposed for development and growth in villages:

1 Source: Rural Residential Land Survey - City of Ottawa 2 Estimated by city staff using GIS analysis of lots over 10.8 ha in area, with road frontage and designated General Rural or Rural Natural Features. At 50 lots per year by severance, this is a potential supply for 22 years. This estimate does not include infill severances where up to two lots can be created.

 Future development have the primary goal of creating complete, liveable Village communities  Villages should be a distinct form of community in the city – the style and form of development will be different from urban development  Growth must be consistent with the village vision as described in the Official Plan or the village’s Community Design Plan  Where growth is proposed, villagers should participate in determining how growth should occur

The proposed policies on village development are based on the three categories described previously. The proposed policies seek to:  Support complete communities in the largest villages;  Encourage development in mid-sized villages to achieve their potential;  Foster development in the smallest villages to maintain their population and preserve the stores, services and community facilities that they have now.

Complete communities in the largest villages

Richmond, Manotick and Greely are the largest, most complete and liveable communities in the rural area. Collectively these villages account for two-thirds of the developable land supply in villages. Each village has schools, servicing, business, employment, and commercial activity and community facilities such as arenas, libraries and community centres. Each village also has some level of municipal water and wastewater servicing.

The proposed policies for the three largest villages are that:  a supply residential, commercial and employment will be maintained in each village;  the land supply in the three villages will accommodate about two-thirds of the total village growth anticipated in the Official Plan , although the supply may not be distributed equally among the three;  a minimum of a 10-year supply of land will be maintained with no less than a 5-year supply of in any individual village;  Where possible, development will occur on available municipal water and wastewater services;  infill on private services will be permitted where access to public services is not possible;  when considering future village expansion, preference will be given to land that can be developed on public services.

Encourage development in mid-sized villages

Mid-size villages are villages with many of the elements of complete, livable communities. With investment by the city or private developers, these villages could benefit substantially from future development and growth. Collectively these villages account for about 30% of the land supply in rural villages. Three of these villages--Carp, Munster and Vars--have public water and or wastewater services and provide a greater variety of housing and other land uses compared with other mid-sized villages. 12

Each village has elements of complete communities: schools, commercial establishments, community facilities and employment. The proposed village policies allocate about one- third of village development to these villages, but at a lower rate than the larger villages. A minimum of a 10-year supply of residential land would be maintained in these villages.

When considering adding land to mid-size villages to increase the supply of residential land, several criteria are proposed for consideration. These include priority to villages with capacity in existing public services or with potential to provide or increase capacity to support development. Other considerations include the number and variety of services and facilities within the village and the extent to which it functions as a complete community. Village expansions would also need to consider the availability of suitable adjacent land and whether there would be impacts on agricultural operations or mineral resources, or on the natural environment.

Development within the remaining villages is proposed to continue on private water and wastewater services. More employment and commercial and retail services would help balance jobs and housing in the villages and potentially reduce the need to commute to work elsewhere. Directing non-residential development to the village core, rather than the periphery, could help reinforce the village character. Changes to the Zoning By-law in 2013 broaden the range of permitted home-based businesses.

Foster development in small villages

The 14 small villages have about 700 or fewer residents and, unlike larger villages, have few of the elements of complete communities. The residential land supply in these villages collectively represents less than 5% of the total for all villages in the city. These villages are not expected to grow without substantial public investment in water and wastewater services, which in turn would disrupt the distinctive character of these villages. The proposed policy is to maintain the current boundaries of these villages and their small community, rural character in the long term. It is expected that residents of these villages would continue to access employment, commercial and larger community services (such as arenas) in other nearby areas – as they do now. While development will continue in these villages on the basis of private water and wastewater services future expansion of these villages is not proposed. As well, land within these villages will not be considered as part of the village land supply.

Summary

There is sufficient land within the large and the medium-sized villages to accommodate the 10-year demand for new housing in villages and at least 50% of rural growth. As a consequence no village expansions are proposed during this Official Plan Review. The draft amendment to the Official Plan will include policies that identify the differences among villages, as described here, and prioritize the groups of villages for future growth through allocation of the village land supply. The proposals will give the largest three villages priority for village growth and development, and will set criteria for evaluating the mid-size villages for their development potential. 13

4.0 Review of Policies for Residential Severances

The Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee has requested a review of the City’s policies on the creation of rural lots by severance, especially with respect to ‘large lot severances’. The committee received a policy proposal that would permit the creation of up to three severed lots in addition to the retained lot. The lots proposed were to be larger (2 ha to 9 ha) than the minimum .8 ha currently permitted by the City. As one option under this model, a 9 ha lot could be severed into four lots (three severed and one retained) of about 2 ha each.

Large lot severances were presented as an alternative to subdividing large land holdings. However, under the current policies, large lots (2 ha to 9 ha) are already possible provided the retained lot contains a minimum area of 10 ha. The main difference between the current policies, which allow one lot to be created through severance, and the proposed policy is that the proposal increases to three the number of lots that could be created through severance.

The creation of large rural lots rather than small lots raises issues related to the protection and use of land. The creation of larger lots reduces the area potentially available for rural recreation, tourism and other economic opportunities which the PPS and the Official Plan envision for the rural area. It also has the potential to fragment the ownership of natural features and impact their natural functions.

‘Limited’ residential development

The Provincial Policy Statement refers to “limited” rural residential development, but it is up to individual municipalities to interpret the policy. The Province has prepared several plans that include rural areas: the Greenbelt Plan, Niagara Escarpment Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Plan. The plans contained various policies to limit rural lot creation:  lots are to be for commercial, industrial, institutional recreation and tourism uses;  lots are only allowed on original township lots that previously had not been severed;  creation of three or more lots is not allowed by severance;  allowing creation of only one new lot 0.8 ha in size.

The City generally requires a subdivision application for creation of three or more new lots rather than a severance application in order to provide a more comprehensive review of the development. The creation of three new lots (three severed lots, one retained), as proposed in the large lot severance proposal, raises the question of whether the development would benefit from a plan of subdivision so that issues related parkland dedication and servicing (water, septic and road) could be reviewed from a broader perspective.

There are advantages and disadvantages to severances, regardless of the number permitted. The advantages of severances include: • Creates development opportunity for landowners • Provides an attractive housing choice in the rural area; distinct from country lot subdivisions and villages

• Is an inexpensive and expedient method of creating lots compared with the subdivision process

The disadvantages of severances include: • Allowing severances beyond a ‘limited’ amount is contrary to the intent of the PPS and the Official Plan. The intent of the General Rural Designation is to encourage land uses that are appropriate for the rural location and limit residential development so that continued agricultural and non-residential uses would not be precluded. • More severances along municipal roads create strip development and change the rural character; greater setbacks from the road are more expensive and have potentially greater impacts on the natural environment. • An increasing amount of residential development may limit nearby agricultural activities • Scattered development is more difficult to service with municipal services or school bus services • Increased lot creation has the potential to fragment ecological links and natural heritage systems since multiple owners may not work together to consider cumulative environmental impacts • A dispersed pattern of lot creation through severances does not contribute to development of complete, sustainable rural communities

Proposed policy direction

The policies on severances are proposed to be amended to permit a maximum of two severances from a lot as it existed on 13 May 2003 provided that the retained land has a minimum of 10 ha and the severed lots each have a minimum of 0.8 ha. This will provide the opportunity for owners of larger lots to create a modest number of additional residential lots.

In order to qualify for two lots, the original parcel would be required to have a minimum area of 11.6 ha. The large retained parcel and prohibition on further severances insures that further fragmentation of the smaller parcels does not occur. This allows for its potential development for other uses which require large land areas. A lot with an area of 10.8 ha would still be permitted one severance. It is also proposed that lots where one severance has already been permitted under the existing policies be allowed one further severance, provided the severed lot is a minimum area of 0.8 ha and the retained parcel is 10 ha. The other severance criteria remain unchanged, allowing for further severances in the rural area which maintains the current minimum criteria for development.

This proposal better meets the intent of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan to limit rural residential development. It allows for modest increases in the supply of scattered rural lots, and continues to support a housing option on country lots if subdivisions are no longer permitted. However, it avoids the potential impacts of larger development areas on agriculture and rural resource development, as well fragmentation of the natural environment. The large retained parcel will help maintain and protect ecological and links.

The creation of two lots by severance is also an appropriate number to consider without the more detailed analyses now required for plans of subdivision.

In addition, in the policies on infill outside of historic settlements, the term “residential lots” will be better defined and “infill” will be clarified with respect to is relation to adjacent lots and the relationship of the new lots with the road.

5.0 Managing Country Lot Subdivisions

One purpose of the moratorium on rural residential subdivisions was to provide time to review a different model for subdivisions. Council requested that a clustering model be reviewed as a potentially more sustainable model for development. The “clustering” approach confines development to specific locations that may already contain subdivisions or that may be vacant land. The limits of the cluster would be defined and new subdivisions would only be permitted in those locations and not elsewhere. The total number of potential lots that could be created would be limited by the size and number of the clusters.

Many of the municipalities adjacent to Ottawa currently use the clustering approach. The number and size of the clusters varies depending on the pressure for growth in the municipality as well as the other settlement areas promoted by the municipality. North Grenville identifies only a limited number of clusters and focuses growth in the expanded urban area around the Town of Kemptville.

Clustering has already occurred in some area of Ottawa, as shown in the rural development pattern on Map 3.

Would clustering country lot subdivisions achieve the City’s and the Province’s objectives?

The Official Plan policies focus rural residential growth in villages, where community facilities, commercial services, and a variety of housing can be provided. Development in country lot subdivisions competes with village development and reduces Council’s ability to achieve its objectives.

The Provincial Policy Statement refers to “limited residential development” as a permitted rural land use and states that municipalities should focus development in settlement areas identified as urban areas, towns, villages or hamlets. This provincial objective has been addressed differently by municipalities across Ontario as follows: 1. Total prohibition on new country lot subdivisions outside of established settlement areas, an approach primarily used in Southern Ontario; 2. Country lot subdivisions occur so infrequently that they require a site-specific Official Plan amendment; 3. New subdivisions occur with some frequency but are directed to specific areas or “clusters” of vacant or partially subdivided land that may be treated as settlement areas.

Clustering can be consistent with Provincial objectives for rural communities, depending upon the scale of development. However, Ottawa is not a rural municipality; unlike the 16 adjacent municipalities, Ottawa has a large urban area and a rural area with 26 villages. Its country lot subdivisions are not candidates to become settlement areas because they lack almost all of the attributes of rural villages, which are the established settlement areas.

Is the clustering a more sustainable approach to rural development? Would it lead to more complete communities?

Sustainable, complete communities include a mix of uses such that residents can meet many of their daily needs locally. Stores, commercial services and community facilities are conveniently found within walking or cycling distance from homes. A variety of housing types supports a diverse mix of households and income groups. The key premise of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan is the wise use of land – the reduction in the amount of land used for development and the reduction in the dependence on private car use.

When viewed through a sustainable community lens, clustering does not improve the sustainability of country lot subdivisions. Country lot subdivisions are extremely land intensive, consuming more than twice the amount of land as the same number of village units and five times the amount of land as the same number of urban units. The subdivisions accommodate single-detached dwellings that are affordable to only a small portion of the population. All access for these communities is by car and there are no services or facilities.

Would clustering cause problems with groundwater?

Much of rural Ottawa has a good supply of groundwater, although issues with water quality or quantity occur in some locations. Public water or wastewater services (or both) have been provided to some villages or to areas adjacent to the urban area to address contamination of groundwater resources or other issues. The standard rural lot size of 0.8 ha and the technical analysis required to support applications for plans of subdivision help avoid many issues with private servicing. However, the cumulative impacts of a large number of subdivisions in close proximity to one another, as in a cluster, are difficult to predict and manage. A master servicing study of the larger area could be required, but the City would likely be responsible for completing it. Regardless of the authorship of the study, the City would be called on to address any public health issues arising from servicing in the future.

Would clustering create the need for communal systems? And what is the cost to tax payers for the provision of services?

Communal systems are very expensive. In order to recover installation and ongoing operating costs, a developer needs to consider building at higher densities and creating smaller lots and a diversity of housing forms. Such a development is no longer a typical country lot subdivision.

In Ontario, communal water and wastewater systems for residential development are treated as municipal systems by the Province regardless of whether they are constructed and operated by the City. When communal services are proposed, the developer is required to enter into a responsibility agreement whereby the municipality undertakes to own and 17 manage the system if the developer defaults. These agreements usually include a financial security which adds to the cost of the system and thus to the cost of housing.

Clustering of country lots is unlikely to reduce the cost of scattered development. Communal servicing, if proposed as a part of a clustering approach, would likely increase costs significantly and necessitate higher densities and smaller lots. The City’s first priority when considering servicing rural areas should be the existing villages.

The Rural Servicing Strategy is evaluating options for servicing villages and will provide more information on costs and other considerations.

Would the location of clusters of country lot subdivisions at the edge of the urban boundary affect urban expansion?

Land close to villages or the urban area (and the opportunities they offer) are attractive locations for country lot subdivisions. For this reason, the Official Plan does not permit country lot subdivisions within 1 km of the urban area or village boundaries. This policy was designed to avoid obstacles to the efficient expansion of settlement areas in the future. Country lot subdivisions now abut the urban boundary in many locations, removing much of the potential for future expansion in these areas. As a result, it becomes more difficult to protect agriculture land from urban expansion pressures. Permitting clusters of country lots close to the urban area or villages would only make this situation more difficult.

Urban development can also impact private well water supplies in the rural area and lead to the extension of public services by the City.

What would be the impact of clusters on the character of rural Ottawa?

Rural character is difficult to define because it means many things to many people. Strip development along rural roads and cul-de-sacs of large homes in country lot subdivisions reduce the sense of open space and affect residents’ perception of the rural area.

Clustering can limit this impact by limiting development to specific areas and ultimately, by setting a cap on future development. Focusing development in villages does the same thing, but more efficiently.

Proposed policy direction

Clustering country lots subdivisions does not address the potential negative impacts of country lot subdivisions generally, in terms of impacts on the natural environment, agriculture and mineral resources and loss of opportunity for rural economic development. Moreover, whatever benefits could be achieved through clustering or directing subdivisions to certain locations can be achieved more efficiently in villages. Also, ongoing subdivisions of country lots compete with villages in the provision of large lots and single-detached homes, and reduce the City’s effectiveness at achieving its objective for villages.

The proposed policy is to no longer permit country lot subdivisions in the rural area outside villages, as part of a more comprehensive strategy to manage rural residential growth.

APPENDIX A RURAL LOT CREATION, 1975-2010

Table A1: City of Ottawa, Total Rural Lots Created, 1975-2010 YEAR 75-79 80-84 85-89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04-05 06 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL

VILLAGE SEVERANCE 157 94 136 18 12 27 26 25 8 28 5 11 9 40 15 0 14 12 6 7 7 15 12 684 SUBDIVISION 580 903 1,884 149 195 231 109 115 142 123 83 32 36 11 358 321 111 107 218 67 53 88 140 6,056 SUBTOTAL 737 997 2,020 167 207 258 135 140 150 151 88 43 45 51 373 321 125 119 224 74 60 103 152 6,740

COUNTRY LOT SEVERANCE 197 498 645 94 64 49 77 62 35 44 78 29 41 163 107 104 60 152 38 25 35 33 55 2,685 SUBDIVISION 360 739 1,337 177 88 298 170 201 49 44 54 18 161 53 100 148 193 503 136 249 31 41 103 5,253 SUBTOTAL 557 1,237 1,982 271 152 347 247 263 84 88 132 47 202 216 207 252 253 655 174 274 66 74 158 7,938

INFILL SEVERANCES 87 156 101 23 10 6 10 3 9 8 5 10 9 10 10 18 15 45 9 1 0 0 2 547

AREAS OF POOR LAND 0 0 0 5 3 6 1 3 1 7 2 3 1 18 13 5 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 78 TOTAL NON-FARM 1,381 2,390 4,103 466 372 617 393 409 244 254 227 103 257 295 603 596 399 823 407 349 126 177 312 15,303 RESIDENTIAL

FARM RELATED SEVERANCES SURPLUS BUILDING 33 48 67 12 1 7 10 10 5 15 13 22 14 13 11 2 8 10 7 0 10 10 18 346 RETIREMENT 155 120 261 47 33 32 23 35 17 25 13 9 7 34 13 5 4 17 3 0 0 1 0 854 FARM HELP 133 51 79 10 9 5 8 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 317 TOTAL FARM RELATED 321 219 407 69 43 44 41 56 33 40 26 31 21 47 24 7 12 27 10 0 10 11 18 1,517

TOTAL LOTS CREATED 1,702 2,619 4,510 535 415 661 434 465 277 294 253 134 278 342 627 603 411 850 417 349 136 188 330 16,830

SEVERANCE TOTAL 762 967 1,289 209 132 132 155 149 86 127 116 84 81 278 169 134 107 240 63 33 52 59 87 5,511 % 45% 37% 29% 39% 32% 20% 36% 32% 31% 43% 46% 63% 29% 81% 27% 22% 26% 28% 15% 9% 38% 31% 26% 33%

SUBDIVISION TOTAL 940 1,652 3,221 326 283 529 279 316 191 167 137 50 197 64 458 469 304 610 354 316 84 129 243 11,319 % 55% 63% 71% 61% 68% 80% 64% 68% 69% 57% 54% 37% 71% 19% 73% 78% 74% 72% 85% 91% 62% 69% 74% 67%

APPENDIX B ESTIMATING CAPACITY FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN VILLAGES

The existing capacity for residential development in villages has been conservatively estimated at 6730 units, as shown in the table below. The estimate was made through a four-step process.

1. The first step is to measure the gross developable area of each village. The gross area has been measured using a geographic information system and includes lands designated for residential development in the Official Plan, Community Design Plan or zoning. 2. The second step is to exclude area within the villages that have been identified as part of the City’s natural heritage system. 3. The third step is to use a recommended minimum lot size of 0.4 ha to estimate yields on lands to be serviced with private well and septic system. 4. The last step is to review the net lot figures and to provide a quantitative estimate of the potential for units to be developed.

The estimate of land supplies and lot yields in the table below is more reliable than the estimates currently used in the City’s Rural Residential Land Survey. The survey will adopt this estimate in subsequent reports.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

number of units based on Developable existing average Units based on .4 ha area in the density in the lots for private NHS removed with large Estimated. Total estimated Village village (ha) village services lots factor included Potential units units Ashton 1.86 8 5 5 50% 2 Burritt's Rapids 0.95 4 2 2 100% 2 Carlsbad Springs 0.45 2 1 1 100% 1 Carp 55.49 191 705 705 100% 7051 Constance Bay 99.02 204 204 115 100% 115 Cumberland 60.07 160 152 126 100% 126 Dunrobin 5.22 21 14 14 100% 14 Fallowfield 7.42 26 18 18 100% 18 Fitzroy Harbour 48.32 185 138 129 50% 64 Galetta 5.78 24 14 14 50% 7 Greely 319.76 1727 1161 921 100% 921 Kars 16.10 58 49 40 100% 40 Kenmore 17.58 73 44 41 50% 21 Kinburn 25.75 0 64 64 50% 02 Manotick 147.76 1851 1851 1,694 100% 1694 Marionville 20.40 85 51 51 50% 26 Metcalfe 156.45 494 374 321 50% 160 Munster 0.00 0 0 0 100% 0 Navan 74.77 299 175 141 100% 141 North Gower 239.80 1005 615 591 100% 591 Notre-Dame-des- Champs 9.21 38 38 38 100% 38 Osgoode 95.60 278 232 155 75% 117 Richmond 191.86 3182 2589 1,959 90% 1763 Sarsfield 5.01 21 13 11 75% 8 Vars 74.29 228 228 126 100% 126 Vernon 69.65 217 175 59 50% 30

Total 10381 8,913 7,342 6,730

The total of 6730 units is a conservative estimate. Removal of lots within the natural heritage system, for example, does not necessarily preclude the possibility that these lands may be developed in the future. Also, the estimate does not include the potential for infill within a village or increased density in areas with municipal water or wastewater services.

1 The unit count for Carp of 705 is based on expansion of wastewater services. 2 Kinburn has limited potential for lot creation because of issues with private servicing.