Report to/Rapport au :

Joint Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and Planning and Environment Committee

Réunion conjointe des Comités de l'agriculture et des questions rurales et de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

20 March 2009 / le 20 mars 2009

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/

Directrice municipale adjointe,

Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability/

Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités

Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Lesley Paterson, Program Manager/Gestionnaire de programme, Community Planning and Design/Aménagement et conception communautaire, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424 x21611, lesley.paterson@ottawa.ca

City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

Ref N°: ACS2009-ICS-PLA-PLA-0064

SUBJECT:	COMPREHENSIVE OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW - DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT - PUBLIC MEETING
OBJET :	RÉVISION DÉTAILLÉE DU PLAN OFFICIEL - MODIFICATION PROVISOIRE AU PLAN OFFICIEL – RÉUNION PUBLIQUE

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the joint meeting of Planning and Environment Committee and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee:

1. Hold a Public Meeting on the draft Official Plan Amendment for the City of Ottawa arising out of the comprehensive five-year review;

2. Receive the proposed additions to the draft Official Plan Amendment (February 2, 2009) pertaining to Urban Expansion Areas as outlined in this report; and

3. Direct staff to review all written and oral submissions and directions from Committee and to provide:

a. feedback on all submissions received orally or in writing; and

b. recommended changes to the draft Official Plan Amendment; and

c. a revised draft Official Plan Amendment

for consideration when the joint public meeting of Planning and Environment Committee, and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, resumes on May 11, 2009.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement et le Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales :

1. tiennent une réunion publique sur la modification préliminaire du Plan officiel pour la Ville d’Ottawa dans le cadre de son examen quinquennal exhaustif;

2. prennent connaissance des ajouts proposés dans le cadre de la modification préliminaire du Plan officiel (le 2 février 2009) au sujet des zones d’étalement urbain telles que décrites dans le présent rapport;

3. demandent au personnel d’examiner toutes les demandes et les directives reçues à l’oral ou par écrit du Comité et de fournir :

a. une rétroaction sur toutes les demandes reçues à l’oral ou par écrit;

b. la recommandation de changements à la modification préliminaire du Plan officiel;

c. une version révisée de la modification préliminaire du Plan officiel;

aux fins d’examen lors de la prochaine réunion publique conjointe du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement et du Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales prévue le 11 mai 2009.

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the joint meeting of Planning and Environment Committee, and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee:

1. Hold a Public Meeting on the draft Official Plan Amendment for the City of Ottawa arising out of the comprehensive five-year review; and

2. Direct staff to review all written and oral submissions and directions from Committee and to provide:

a. feedback on all submissions received orally or in writing; and

b. recommended changes to the draft Official Plan Amendment; and

a revised draft Official Plan Amendment

for consideration when the joint public meeting of Planning and Environment Committee, and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, resumes on May 11, 2009.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

BACKGROUND

This is the Public Meeting required under the Planning Act for all Official Plan Amendments. The intention is that once all the presentations have been made, the public meeting will be adjourned for a few weeks to allow staff to respond to the submissions and revise the draft Official Plan Amendment as required. The public meeting will resume on May 11, 2009 with that additional material having been made available in advance. Committee will not make decisions on the draft Official Plan Amendment until the revised amendment is provided in May.

Also, by way of this report, staff is providing an important addition to the proposed comprehensive amendment related to urban expansion areas.

DISCUSSION

The draft Official Plan Amendment was tabled with a joint meeting of Planning and Environment Committee and Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee on February 2, 2009 (http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2009/02-02/jointagendaindex1.htm). It was placed on technical circulation on February 13 and public circulation on February 17, 2009. Preliminary proposed policies were available for review in April 2008 and revised policies in November 2008. Staff also held public information meetings on the proposed changes in various locations throughout the city as required by the Planning Act. To date, a number of written submissions have been made to the City and these have been made available to Councillors. They are also available in the City Clerk’s Office.

Staff have identified the need for an additional 850 gross hectares of urban residential land. At the time that the draft Official Plan Amendment was circulated, it did not contain specific policies or recommendations on the proposed urban expansion areas. The candidate areas had been identified and explained, and a preliminary review had been completed. Since that time:

· Consultants have done more in-depth analysis of the servicing requirements;

· Staff have received some comments on the proposed criteria and the weight given to the criteria that have resulted in their reconsideration; and

· Staff have done a careful review of the figures.

This work has led to a revision of the relative scores and recommendations for inclusion in the urban area.

The way in which these lands would be provided for in the Official Plan was not discussed previously. The primary interest of the City is that various works be undertaken and commitments made before urban status is placed on these lands. That is the basis of the proposed amendment attached as Document 1. The evaluation of candidate areas is attached as Document 2.

This proposed addition to the comprehensive amendment has been placed on circulation in order to meet the timeframe of the continuation of the public meeting on May 11, 2009.

CONSULTATION

The public meeting is a requirement of the Planning Act as part of the formal public consultation on the proposed Official Plan Amendment.

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

There are no legal/risk management implications with respect to this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications of holding a public meeting.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Proposed Addition to Draft Official Plan Amendment, Urban Expansion Areas

Document 2 Evaluation of Candidate Urban Expansion Areas.

DISPOSITION

Once Council has adopted the Official Plan Amendment, staff will prepare a “record” for submission to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, along with the request for approval.

PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT, URBAN

EXPANSION AREA DOCUMENT 1

A draft Official Plan Amendment resulting from a comprehensive five-year review was circulated on February 2, 2009. The Public Meeting required under the Planning Act has been scheduled in two parts. It will begin on March 31, 2009 and will resume again on May 11, 2009. This document is an addendum to the draft Official Plan Amendment circulated on February 2, 2009 and will also be circulated in order to provide for written and oral submissions by May 11, 2009.

The evaluation of candidate urban areas for expansion is found in Document 2.

The proposed additions to the draft Official Plan Amendment are as follows:

1. The areas wholly within the boundaries of the Fernbank Community Design Plan are designated “Future Urban Area” (consistent with the remainder of the Fernbank Community Design Plan lands) in order that they be recognized as Urban Area and part of the Community Design Plan process. These are the areas formerly known as candidate parcels 5a and 5b (see Schedule R35).

2. Various other areas are designated as “Developing Community (Expansion Area)” (see Schedules R34, R36, and R37).

3. A new Section 3.12 is added to the Official Plan:

3.12 – Developing Community (Expansion Area)

The designation of Developing Community (Expansion Area) on Schedule B and Urban on Schedule A allows for sufficient urban land to support the residential demands of the projected population. These lands, none of which is very large, will develop primarily for residential purposes, although minor, non-residential uses to meet the needs of a neighbourhood may also be located here.

1. Lands are designated on Schedule B as ‘Developing Community (Expansion Area)’ with the intent that these lands will be developed primarily for urban residential uses, once the policies of this section have been satisfied.

2. The type of study and development plan required to achieve the policies of this section will be agreed to in advance and may be a community design plan, a concept plan or a plan of subdivision.

3. Proponents of development will complete, to the satisfaction of the City, studies and a plan of sufficient detail to:

a. Identify the location, timing and cost of roads and transit facilities, water and wastewater services, public utilities, and stormwater management facilities, etc. required on-site and off-site to service the area; and

b. Identify the natural heritage system on the site independent of the potential developable area. Typically an environmental management plan as described in Section 2.4.2 will be prepared where a subwatershed study does not exist or does not provide sufficient guidance to identify the environmental features on the site and their functions, which together constitute the natural heritage system. The components of this system are generally described in Section 2.4.2, with the exception that significant woodlands are to be further evaluated consistent with the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study. No development is permitted within this system, which is to be conveyed to the City for public use before development of the area is approved; and

c. Identify Recreational Pathways on the site; and

d. Evaluate the adequacy of community facilities existing or planned for the area: and

e. Include a Financial Implementation Plan to show how the following will be secured at no cost to the City:

1. The on-site and off-site servicing systems described above; and

2. The natural heritage system; and

3. Implementation of Recreational Pathways as identified in this Plan; and

4. Improvements to community facilities, if required.

f. Show how the plan will achieve other policies of this Official Plan including, but not limited to, housing mix and densities and affordable housing; and

g. Meet the requirements of Phase 1 and 2 of the Environmental Assessment Act where required.

4. Where the development plan impacts multiple landowners, it is their responsibility to collaborate on the preparation of the plan and to agree on how parks, stormwater ponds and any other facilities will be located and costs shared.

5. An amendment to this Plan will not be required to remove the designation of Developing Community (Expansion Area) and replace it with General Urban Area, but an amendment may be required to implement infrastructure and open space provisions of plans approved for individual areas. Development may proceed once the City is satisfied that the requirements of this section have been met and the development plan has been approved by the City.

EVALULATION OF CANDIDATE URBAN EXPANSION AREAS DOCUMENT 2

Background

The Residential Land Strategy for Ottawa, 2006 to 2031, identifies a need for some additional urban lands to the year 2031. The recommendation is for an additional 850 gross hectares of urban residential land through an urban boundary adjustment in the updated Official Plan. The intent of the expansion is to add small amounts of urban land to the boundary in a number of locations and thereby use residual capacity in existing infrastructure and provide the highest probability of integration with the existing community. The purpose of this summary is to present information for each candidate area and to recommend appropriate locations for changes to the urban boundary.

The recommended expansion areas are based on balancing various considerations:

· The availability of land in a non agricultural designation

· The expected absorption rate in various areas

· The relative merit of each parcel based on a number of evaluation criteria

Table 1: Additions to the Urban Area, 1987 to 2009
Year	Ha added	Gross Ha
1987		31,815
1988	183.0	31,998	Land added in Kanata North (ROPA's 73 & 74 to 1974 Regional OP)
1988	26.0	32,024	Salvation Army site, southwest of 417 and Terry Fox, ROPA 75
1988	16.0	32,040	Land southeast of Innes & 10th Line, ROPA 79 to 1974 ROP
1989	567.9	32,608	Leitrim added at adoption of 1988 ROP (not including wetland)
1990	1245.0	33,853	Orleans Expansion added through ROPA 1 to the 1988 ROP
1992	40.0	33,893	Palladium, ROPA 8 to 1988 ROP
1994	2.1	33,895	St. John's Anglican Church, north Kanata, ROPA 43
1995	12.5	33,908	Goulbourn Recreation Complex added to Stittsville, ROPA 48
1996	202.0	34,110	Kanata North Expansion Area added through ROPA 41
2000	685.0	34,795	Kanata West added through ROPA 9 to the 1997 ROP
2001	-	34,795	Size of urban area at amalgamation
2006	470.6	35,265	Del-Brookfield-Westpark added (Board order in 2006)
2009	795.0	36,060	Proposed additions
Total 1987 to 2006	3450.1		Increase from 1987 = 10.8% over 19 years
Total 1987 to 2009	4300.0		Increase from 1987 = 13.5%% over 22 years

Methodology

Identification of Candidate Areas

A number of assumptions guided the identification of candidate areas for analysis:

1. The parcels must be a logical extension of the existing urban area;
2. No lands in an Agricultural Resource Area designation were considered (with the exception of areas 5a and 10d,e discussed later). The Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan are very clear that expansion of urban uses into Agricultural Resource Areas may only be considered if there are no reasonable alternatives that avoid Prime Agricultural Areas. Since staff have identified more than 2,000 hectares of non-agricultural land as candidate areas, there is no need to look elsewhere.
3. No lands in a Natural Environment Area designation were considered;
4. Some Sand and Gravel Resource lands were included in the candidate areas, on the assumption that the resources would be depleted within the planning period.
5. Virtually all lands in a General Rural Area designation abutting the existing Urban Area were included. The only exceptions were General Rural Area lands that had no residential potential due to aircraft noise or proximity to the Trail Road solid waste disposal site.

Secondly, the areas were screened based on the presence of Natural Heritage System components. Focus was placed on forested areas, wet areas, escarpments and valleylands. This information was used to understand the availability of developable land within the study area and to profile the possibility of securing these lands through the process at no cost to the City. Such natural heritage features were not included in the definition of “gross developable” residential hectares.

Gross hectares identified: 2035

Gross developable hectares identified: 1537

Gross developable residential hectares required: 850

The purpose of the evaluation is to identify the specific 850 ha to be recommended for inclusion in the urban area, from among the 2035 ha initially identified.

The areas that were included as candidate areas for analysis are shown on the maps in Annex 1. The tables in Annex 1 provide a basic description of each candidate area including the location, size, designation, zoning, current and adjacent land uses. Any relevant planning history is also provided.

The lands selected as candidate areas were not influenced by ownership or by the submission of planning applications. However, three landowners submitted studies to indicate that the Agricultural Resource Area designation on their land was inappropriate. Annex 2 is the staff response to these studies. Otherwise, the existing designations were taken at face value and not reviewed.

Annex 3 is a list of submissions received during the review process. While this material was scrutinized, it was not the basis for identifying candidate areas.

Definition of Gross Residential Hectares

The objective is to identify an additional 850 hectares of gross residential land. Gross residential land includes residential land, public streets and a limited range of non-residential uses typically found in a neighbourhood such as parks, schools, community centres, churches, convenience level retail and stormwater facilities. It is usually measured in dwelling units per land area. It does not usually include significant natural areas that would be ‘in addition to’ the gross residential requirements.

The candidate areas have been examined with respect to the presence of natural heritage features. The land described as natural heritage is subtracted from the parcel size and the remainder is the gross residential area of the candidate parcel.

Evaluation Criteria

As stated earlier, the overall objective is to select areas that make the best use of existing available infrastructure capacity and community resources. These parcels should be developable within a reasonable period of time such as the in the next five to 10 years. The Official Plan is reviewed every five years and the condition of City infrastructure is monitored continuously. Lands that score lower today may very well be good candidates later.

It is very clear that each of the candidate sites could be made to work. This is very much an exercise of the relative merits of the various candidate areas.

Each candidate area has been evaluated against the criteria in Table 2. All distances are measured from the centroid of the candidate area to the facility. The possible scores are distributed as follows and then weighted:

Criteria	Possible Score	Weight	Total Possible Weighted Score
Servicing	12	2	24
Transportation	12	2	24
Community Facilities	18	1	18
Potential Conflicts	4	1	4
Physical Characteristics	5	1	5
Demand for land	4	2	8
Total	55		83

Table 2 – Evaluation Criteria and Scores

Criteria	Description	Scores	Possible Score
1. Serviceability – Water	Scores for each site ranged from 0 to 4 based on consideration of the factors in the next column.	0 – major upgrade / expansion of pump station and/or distribution system required to service development area 4 – residual capacity available in pressure zone to service development area with no or minimal investment in existing distribution system	4
2. Serviceability – Wastewater	Scores for each site ranged from 0 to 4 based on consideration of the factors in the next column.	0 – no gravity outlet; may require new local pump station and forcemain due to topographic conditions; capacity upgrades required in external trunk sewers and / or pump station 4 – existing trunk sewers and / or pump stations have residual capacity to service development area with no or minimal investment	4
3. Serviceability – Stormwater	Scores for each site ranged from 0 to 4 based on consideration of the factors in the next column.	· 0 – existing servicing constraints; flood hazard constraints; no Environmental Management / Subwatershed Plan available to guide development area · 4 – Environmental Management / Subwatershed Plan available to guide development; little or no servicing / flood hazard constraints	4
4. Capacity - roads	Examined the existing/planned road infrastructure to determine if capacity can accommodate demand	· 0 – Major capacity problem will occur · 1 – Moderate capacity problem · 2 – Limited capacity problem · 3 – No major capacity problem	3
5. Accessibility –Arterial Roads	· Direct access to an existing or planned arterial road	· 0 – No direct access · 1 – direct access to one collector road · 2 – Direct access to one arterial road · 3 – Direct access to 1 arterial and 1 or more collectors · 4 – Direct access to two or more arterials	4
6. Accessibility – Transit	· Distance to existing or planned rapid transit network or to park and ride. The average is 2.9 km. The points measure up to 25% more or less and 50% more or less	· 0 points – more than 4.4 km · 1 points – 3.8 to 4.4 · 2 points – 3.0 to 3.7 · 3 points – 2.3 to 2.9 · 4 points – 1.6 to 2.2 · 5 points – 0 to 1.5	5
7. Accessibility to existing or planned retail/commercial focus	· Distance to Mainstreet or Mixed Use Centre. The average is 4.6 km.	· 0 points – more than 6.9 km · 1 points – 5.9 to 6.9 · 2 points – 4.7 to 5.8 · 3 points – 3.6 to 4.6 · 4 points – 2.4 to 3.5 · 5 points – 0 to 2.3	5
8. Ability to work in community	· Jobs/Housing Balance. This is cumulative, starting at the parcel nearest to the urban boundary	· 0 – insufficient (<1.10) · 1 – 1.1 to 1.19 · 2 – 1.2 to 1.24 · 3 – 1.25 or more	3
9. Accessibility to community facilities	· Distance to Major Recreational Facility. The average distance is 3.3 km	· 0 points – more than 4.9 km · 1 points – 4.2 to 4.9 · 2 points – 3.4 to 4.1 · 3 points – 2.6 to 3.3 · 4 points – 1.7 to 2.5 · 5 points – 0 to 1.6	5
10. Availability of existing or planned emergency services	· Distance to emergency fire, ambulance and police (total /2). The average distance is 5.7 km	· 0 points – more than 8.5 km · 1 points – 7.2 to 8.5 · 2 points – 5.8 to 7.1 · 3 points – 4.4 to 5.7 · 4 points – 2.9 to 4.3 · 5 points – 0 to 2.8	5
11. Conflicting Land Uses	· Agricultural Resource Area within 500 metres	· 0 – yes · 2 – no	2
12. Conflicting Land Uses	· Adjacent rural development: Country Lot or Village Development	· 0 – yes · 2 – no	2
13. Environment – soil constraints	· Presence of potential soil constraints	· 0 – present · 2 – absent	2
14. Depth to Bedrock		· 0 – 0-2 metres · 1 – 2 to 3 metres · 2 – 5 to 10 metres · 3 – 10 to 15 metres	3
15. Land Absorption	· Approximate years supply in 2007	· 0 – >21 (Riverside South) · 1 – 20 to 21 (Leitrim) · 2 – 18 to 19 (Kanata, Stittsville) · 3 – 16 to 17 · 4 – <16 (South Nepean, Orleans)	4
Total			55

Distribution of 850 hectares to Urban Centres Outside the Greenbelt

Various ways exist to distribute the 850 hectares of additional urban land. In total size it is equivalent to an area 50% larger than the designated urban area of Leitrim or to an area about half the size of the total urban area of Stittsville.

1. Council could place it all in one location to facilitate comprehensive planning of the lands. This is not recommended because such a strategy will have the greatest impact on the demand for services. It is intended that this addition be more of a rationalization of the urban boundary and not the creation of a new community. This particular work is looking for the location that makes the most efficient use of existing infrastructure and services.

2. Council could distribute it based on the existing absorption rate in each urban centre of Kanata/Stittsville, South Nepean, Riverside South, Leitrim and Orleans. This approach treats the Nepean South market as completely distinct from the Riverside South market. Table 3 summarizes the land consumption patterns over the last 10 years and the implications for land supply if the 850 hectares will contribute to providing a similar number of years supply in each area.

Table 3– Potential Distribution of 850 Ha Based on Historical Absorption Rates in Urban Centres

Area		10-year demand (average per year) Net Hectares^1	Total Supply of Vacant Land (net ha 2007)	Approximate years supply (end of 2007)	Proposed Additional Gross Residential Hectares	Approximate years supply with additions (end 2007)^2
Kanata - Stittsville		48.0	880.7	18.3	315	21.6
South Nepean		34.9	501.3	14.4	170^3	16.8
Riverside South		9.6	552.7	57.5	0	57.5
Leitrim		6.3	138.3	22.0	0	22.0
Orléans		30.7	477.1	15.5	365	21.5
Total		126.5	2,550.1	20.2	850 ha	23.5
	* Notes: 1. Total does not add because Leitrim average is based only on the 5-year period 2003-07 during which there was building activity. 2. Gross ha are converted to net ha based on an assumption of 50%. 3. Only 170 ha have been identified as candidate areas in South Nepean so this is the maximum total that can be added.

3. Council could distribute the 850 hectares based on growth patterns in three urban centres in the west, south and east. This treats the South Nepean, Leitrim, Riverside South market as a block. Over the next 20 to 25 years it is highly likely that the rate of growth in Riverside South will increase in response to the construction of rapid transit as well as the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge. Such an approach is described in Table 4.

Table 4 – Potential Distribution of 850 Ha based on Historical Absorption Rates in Generalized Urban Locations

Area	10-year demand (average per year) Net Hectares	Total Supply of Vacant Land (net ha 2007)	Approximate years supply (in 2007)	Proposed Additional Gross Residential Hectares	Approximate years supply with additions (end 2007)
West	48.0	880.7	18.3	425	22.8
South	47.7	1,192.3	25.0	0	25.0
East	30.7	477.1	15.5	425	22.4
Total	126.5	2,550.1	20.2	850 ha	23.5

4. Council could distribute the 850 ha equally among the three urban areas east, west, and south. This is shown in Table 5. It does not recognize the historical trends in each area.

Table 5 – Potential Distribution of 850 Ha based on an equal share to Generalized Urban Locations

Area	10-year demand (average per year) Net Hectares	Total Supply of Vacant Land (net ha 2007)	Approximate years supply (in 2007)	Proposed Additional Gross Residential Hectares	Approximate years supply with additions (end 2007)
West	48.0	880.7	18.3	283.3	21.3
South	47.7	1,192.3	25.0	283.3	28.0
East	30.7	477.1	15.5	283.3	20.1
Total	126.5	2,550.1	20.2	850 ha	23.5

Comparison of Areas

Annex 1 includes a profile of each area and summarizes each evaluation. Such an analysis results in the following distribution of additional urban land (Table 6).

Table 6– Potential Distribution of 850 Ha Based on Comparison of all candidate areas based on criteria

Area	10-year demand (average per year) Net Hectares	Total Supply of Vacant Land (net ha 2007)	Approximate years supply (in 2007)	Proposed Additional Gross Residential Hectares	Approximate years supply with additions (end 2007)
West	48.0	880.7	18.3	445.1	23.0
South	47.7	1,192.3	25.0	121.4	26.3
East	30.7	477.1	15.5	228.6	19.2
Total	126.5	2,550.1	20.2	795.1	23.3

The specific scores in order from highest to lowest are shown in Table 7. It is recommended that the shaded parcels be included in the Urban Area. These are also shown on Map 1.

The objective was to identify 850 ha of additional urban residential land. Based on the evaluation, approximately 800 hectares are clearly identified as scoring high enough to be included. The next two parcels have the same score but together they bring the total to approximately 900 ha. They have therefore been excluded.

Table 7 – Areas Sorted by Total Score

				1. Water Infrastructure	2. Sewer Infrastructure	3. Stormwater	4. Road Capacity	5. Arterial-Collector Frontage	6. Rapid Transit	7. Mainstreet -MUC Distance	8. Jobs-Housing Balance	9. Major Recreational Facility	10. Emergency Services	11. Agricultural Land Conflict	12. Country Lot Conflict	13. Soil Constraints	14. Depth to Bedrock	15. Land Absorption	Total
Maximum unweighted score				4	4	4	3	4	5	5	3	5	5	2	2	2	3	4	55
Weight				2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	-
Maximum weighted score possible				8	8	8	6	8	10	5	3	5	5	2	2	2	3	8	83
Area	Gross Ha	Gross Developable Ha	Cumulative developable ha	Unweighted Scores
5a	114.2	105.2	105.2	4	4	4	3	4	5	5	3	3	4	2	2	2	2	3	77
7a	42.8	27.2	132.4	2	4	2	3	3	5	4	2	3	3	2	2	2	3	4	67
5b	68.7	57.7	190.1	4	3	4	3	3	3	5	3	5	5	0	2	0	0	3	66
6a	26.6	26.6	216.7	4	3	2	3	3	4	5	3	4	4	0	2	2	1	3	65
7b	50.4	34.8	251.5	2	4	0	3	3	4	4	2	3	3	0	2	2	3	4	59
7c	74.9	59.3	310.9	2	4	0	3	3	4	4	1	3	3	0	2	2	3	4	58
1a	24.4	23.4	334.3	4	4	2	2	2	5	0	3	3	2	2	0	2	1	3	57
1b	56.7	54.7	389.0	4	3	2	2	2	5	0	3	3	2	2	2	2	1	3	57
1d	46.2	46.2	435.2	4	4	2	2	2	5	0	3	2	2	2	0	2	1	3	56
1c	38.7	36.7	471.9	4	3	2	2	2	5	0	3	2	2	2	0	2	1	3	54
11a	62.6	45.6	517.6	4	4	2	0	2	4	3	0	1	3	2	2	2	3	3	54
1h	18.2	15.6	533.1	4	4	2	2	2	4	0	3	2	1	2	0	2	1	3	53
11c	16.7	6.7	539.8	4	4	2	0	2	4	3	0	1	4	2	2	0	3	3	53
10a	88.7	78.7	618.6	4	2	0	3	3	4	5	0	1	3	0	2	0	3	3	52
11f	69.5	10.5	629.1	4	4	2	0	2	4	3	0	2	4	0	0	2	3	3	52
10d	8.3	8.3	637.4	4	2	0	3	2	4	5	0	2	3	0	2	0	3	3	51
11d	44.1	44.1	681.5	4	4	2	0	3	3	3	0	0	3	2	2	2	1	3	51
11b	64.6	34.6	716.1	4	4	2	0	3	3	2	0	0	3	2	0	2	1	3	48
3	79.0	79.0	795.1	4	4	2	0	2	0	5	3	1	3	2	0	2	1	3	47
10b	88.8	84.8	879.8	4	1	0	3	3	3	5	0	0	2	0	0	0	3	3	44
10e	19.9	19.9	899.7	4	2	0	3	1	3	4	0	1	2	0	2	0	3	3	44
1e	95.6	59.0	958.7	1	4	2	0	1	4	1	3	3	1	2	0	2	1	3	43
10c	88.6	54.6	1,013.3	4	1	0	3	3	3	4	0	0	2	0	0	0	3	3	43
11e	41.0	16.0	1,029.3	4	1	2	0	2	4	3	0	0	3	2	0	2	1	3	43
9a	29.6	29.6	1,058.8	3	3	2	0	2	1	3	2	2.5	4	2	2	2	1	1	42.5
4	59.0	38.5	1,097.3	2	2	2	0	3	0	5	3	1	2	2	2	2	1	3	42
11g	38.8	0.0	1,097.3	4	4	2	0	1	3	2	0	0	3	0	0	2	1	3	42
6b	12.3	12.3	1,109.6	0	3	2	0	0	3	5	3	4	4	2	0	0	1	3	41
1f	42.1	34.1	1,143.8	4	1	2	0	0	5	0	3	2	1	2	0	2	1	3	41
6c	19.8	19.8	1,163.6	0	3	2	0	2	2	5	3	2	4	2	0	0	0	3	40
9b	36.3	36.3	1,199.9	3	3	2	0	2	0	3	1	2.5	3	2	2	2	1	1	38.5
2	75.2	47.2	1,247.1	4	1	0	0	2	1	3	3	2	3	0	2	2	1	3	38
1g	26.6	23.6	1,270.7	4	1	2	0	0	4	0	3	1	1	2	0	2	1	3	38
9c	40.4	37.4	1,308.1	2	2	2	0	3	0	2	0	2.5	3	2	2	2	1	1	34.5
8a	22.5	21.1	1,329.2	1	2	2	0	3	0	1	3	2.5	2	2	2	2	1	1	33.5
8b	22.7	16.5	1,345.7	1	2	2	0	4	0	1	1	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	33
9d	17.4	13.7	1,359.4	1	2	0	0	3	0	2	0	2.5	3	2	2	2	1	1	28.5
8d	33.7	30.7	1,390.1	0	1	2	0	4	1	0	0	2	1	2	0	2	3	1	28
8c	48.2	17.6	1,407.7	0	2	2	0	2	0	1	1	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	27
8f	93.0	75.0	1,482.7	0	1	2	0	4	0	0	0	2	1	2	2	2	1	1	26
8e	87.8	54.7	1,537.4	0	1	2	0	4	0	0	0	2	1	2	0	2	1	1	24

Map 1

ANNEX 1

DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE AREAS

Candidate Area for urban boundary rationalization

Area 1 – North of Kanata Urban Area

Location Northern extension of the Kanata urban area on either side of March Road. Part of Lot 12, Concessions II, II and IV, March	OP Designation: General Rural Area.	Current Land Use(s): Primarily farms and forested areas. Some pockets of rural development within the study area. The Ottawa Central Rail Road line runs north-south through the eastern portion of parcels b and c while Shirley’s Brook runs north-south through the western portion of b and c.
Size: Gross ha = 349 Gross developable ha = 293	Zoning: RU – Rural Countryside
Planning Status Part of 1e is within an OPA application from Richcraft Group of Companies.	Adjacent Land-Use designations: North: General Rural East: Greenbelt Rural South: General Urban Area West: Natural Environment Area	Adjacent Land Use(s): to the south is Urban Kanata, primarily residential uses. To the west are the South March Highlands. To the north is more countryside. To the east is the Greenbelt. Three existing areas of rural development are located within or adjacent to the study area.

Evaluation – Area 1

Parcel ID	Gross ha	NHS feature	NHS areas removed	Limestone Resource 500m setback	Landfill 500m setback	Other constraints	Notes re other constraints	Gross ha developable
1a	24.4					1.0	Shirley's Brook floodplain	23.4
1b	56.7					2.0	Shirley's Brook floodplain	54.7
1c	38.7					2.0	Shirley's Brook floodplain	36.7
1d	46.2							46.2
1e	95.6	Woodland/Wetland	34.0		2.6			59.0
1f	42.1	Woodland	5.0			3.0	Shirley's Brook floodplain	34.1
1g	26.6					3.0	Shirley's Brook floodplain	23.6
1h	18.2					2.6	church and cemetery	15.6
Sub-total	348.6		39.0	0.0	2.6	13.6		293.3

Infrastructure

Criteria	Area 1 - Infrastructure
1. Water	The water supply (existing and proposed) to Area 1 in Pressure Zone 2W is generally very good with the exception of Area 1e. Servicing Area 1e would require a major upgrade/expansion of the Morgan’s Grant PS and likely some of the suction/discharge piping to the pump station. The remainder of Area 1 would be serviced by the March Road watermain, which varies from 1067mm diameter near Corkstown Road to 406mm near Old Carp Road. Some improvements have been proposed for parts of the March Road W/M, which has sufficient residual capacity to supply approximately 3,690 units (10,700 additional persons) in Areas 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1f, 1g, and 1h. Area 1h is located furthest from away from Old Carp Road and would likely be the last area serviced.
2. Wastewater	Existing sanitary sewer downstream of Shirley's Brook (East March Trunk) has residual capacity to service over half of Area 1; however, the last 400m of the sewer has no residual capacity. The last 400m of sewer may be upgraded at relatively low cost which will service approximately 2700 units (7800 people). A new sanitary sewer may be installed on March Road to service Areas 1a, 1d, 1e, and 1h as well as parts of Area 1b and 1c along March Road. Parts of Area 1b and 1c may be serviced by upgrading a small trunk leading to Briar Ridge PS. Servicing Area 1f and 1g would require a pump station/forcemain to service the parcels, thus leading to higher capital and operating costs.

3. Stormwater

Shirley’s Brook subwatershed plan would require updating to guide development. Some floodplain constraints exist in parcels east of March Road. Parcels west of March Road may have areas where overburden is shallow (blasting may be required to service). No significant drainage constraints exist that could not be overcome with application of conventional engineering methods.

	Criteria ¯	1a	1b	1c	1d	1e	1f	1g	1h
Water	1	4	4	4	4	1*	4*	4*	4
Wastewater	2	4	3	3	4	4	1	1	4
Stormwater	3	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Road Capacity	4	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Arterial & Collector Road Frontage	5	March	March	March	March	none	none	none	March
	5					Second Line & Old Carp
Arterial-Collector Frontage Score	5	2	2	2	2	1	0	0	2
Distance to Rapid Transit	6	0.5	0.9	1.3	1.2	1.9	1.4	2.1	1.9
Transit Score	6	5	5	5	5	4	5	4	4
Distance to Main-street or MUC	7	7.3	7.5	8.5	8.3	6.3	8.2	9.2	9.2
Mainstreet Score	7	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
Jobs-Housing Balance	8	1.47	1.45	1.44	1.42	1.40	1.39	1.38	1.37
Jobs-Housing Balance Score	8	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
Distance to Major Recreational Facility	9	2.7	3.0	3.6	3.5	2.8	3.5	4.3	4.0
Major Rec Facility Score	9	3	3	2	2	3	2	1	2
Emergency Services POLICE	10	9.1	9.4	9.9	9.7	10.3	9.9	10.6	10.4
Emergency Services FIRE	10	2.8	3.0	2.2	2.0	4.0	3.4	2.9	1.8
Emergency Services AMBULANCE	10	8.3	8.6	9.1	8.9	8.7	9.1	9.8	9.6
Emergency Services AVERAGE	10	6.7	7.0	7.1	6.9	7.7	7.5	7.8	7.3
Emergency Score	10	2	2	2	2	1	1	1	1
Agricultural land adjacent	11	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	117
Agricultural land adjacent score	11	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Country Lot adjacent	12	Marchbrook	none	Hedge Dr	Marchbrook+Nadia	Marchbrook+Th.Fuller	none	Hedge Dr	Wildacre
Country Lot adjacent score	12	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0
Soils Constraints	13	no	no	no	no	no	no	no	no
Soils Constraints score	13	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	2-3	2-3	2-3	2-3	2-3	3-5	2-3	2-3
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Urban Land Supply	15	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3

*The cumulative impact of selecting a number of parcels in the West is to cause the road capacity to be significantly exceeded. Therefore, the lowest scoring parcels overall in the West have been given a reduced score for road capacity.

Candidate Area for urban boundary rationalization

Area 2 – West of Terry Fox Extension

Location West of the alignment of the future Terry Fox Drive extension	OP Designation: General Rural Area	Current Land Use(s): Undeveloped scrub land
Size: Gross ha = 75 Gross developable ha = 47	Zoning: RU – Rural Countryside
Planning Status Richcraft Group of Companies has submitted an Official Plan Amendment Application that includes these lands.	Adjacent Land-Use designations: South and West: Agricultural Resource Area East: Urban Area North: Natural Environment Area.	Adjacent Land Use(s): Huntmar Drive to the west, Carp River to the South, future Terry Fox alignment to the east and South March Highlands to the north.

Evaluation – Area 2

Parcel ID	Gross ha	NHS feature	NHS areas removed	Limestone Resource 500m setback	Landfill 500m setback	Other constraints	Notes re other constraints	Gross ha developable
2	75.2	Escarpment	1.0	0.0	0.0	27.0	Carp River floodplain	47.2

Criteria	Area 2 - Infrastructure
1. Water	The water supply (existing and proposed) to Area 2 in Pressure Zone 3W is very good and no specific upgrades to any existing or proposed piping or pumping would be required.
2. Wastewater	The area can be serviced by routing the flow towards the Signature Ridge Pump Station (SRPS). An upgrade of the SRPS is required in order to service existing build-out conditions and could incorporate a further capacity increase to service the subject area. Approximately 1600m of trunk sewer will be required along Terry Fox Drive. Given the elevation of the subject lands, a separate PS may be required due to overflow elevation constraints stemming from the SRPS.
3. Stormwater	There would be a need to update the impact assessment for the Carp River. The lands are generally flat and have poor drainage. Stormwater management may be challenging because of the mild slopes and outlet constraints.

	Criteria ¯	Area 2
Water	1	4
Wastewater	2	1
Stormwater	3	0
Road Capacity	4	0*
Arterial & Collector Road Frontage	5	Terry Fox
	5
Arterial-Collector Frontage Score	5	2
Distance to Rapid Transit	6	3.9
Transit Score	6	1
Distance to Main-street or MUC	7	4.4
Mainstreet Score	7	3
Jobs-Housing Balance	8	1.46
Jobs-Housing Balance Score	8	3
Distance to Major Recreational Facility	9	3.4
Major Rec Facility Score	9	2
Emergency Services POLICE	10	4.3
Emergency Services FIRE	10	5.8
Emergency Services AMBULANCE	10	5.0
Emergency Services AVERAGE	10	5.0
Emergency Score	10	3
Agricultural land adjacent	11	0
Agricultural land adjacent score	11	0
Country Lot adjacent	12	none
Country Lot adjacent score	12	2
Soils Constraints	13	no
Soils Constraints score	13	2
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	2-3
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	1
Urban Land Supply	15	3

*The cumulative impact of selecting a number of parcels in the West is to cause the road capacity to be significantly exceeded. Therefore, the lowest scoring parcels overall in the West have been given a reduced score for road capacity.

Candidate Area for urban boundary rationalization

Area 3 – North of Stittsville

Location: North of Stittsville urban boundary, west of Kanata West urban boundary, south of Hwy 417 and three lots east of Carp Road	OP Designation: Rural Natural Feature	Current Land Use(s): Vacant Forest
Size: Gross ha = 79 Gross developable ha = 79	Zoning: RU – Rural Countryside
Planning Status: -no active application -subject of an appeal on the 2003 Official Plan urban boundary	Adjacent Land-Use designations: South and East: Urban West: Carp Road North: Rural Natural Feature	Adjacent Land Use(s): -Vacant to North -Residential in South -Planned employment in East -Residential along Carp Rd in west

Evaluation – Area 3

Parcel ID	Gross ha	NHS feature	NHS areas removed	Limestone Resource 500m setback	Landfill 500m setback	Other constraints	Notes re other constraints	Gross ha developable
3	79.0			0.0	0.0			79.0

Criteria	Area 3 - Infrastructure
1. Water	The water supply (existing and proposed) to Area 3 in Pressure Zone 3W is very good and no specific upgrades to any existing or proposed piping or pumping would be required. The proposed 762mm diameter Hazeldean watermain feeding this area would only need to be up-sized if all Areas 3, 4, 6b and 6c were to be serviced and the Stittsville Elevated Water Tank is relocated in the future.
2. Wastewater	Area 3 lies immediately west of the Kanata West Development Area, and hence can be serviced by the proposed Kanata West Pumping Station. The proposed trunk sewer on Maple Grove can be upsized and extended to the parcel.
3. Stormwater	Drains to Feedmill Creek (within Carp River watershed). Existing studies would require updating; some areas of shallow overburden (blasting may be required to service).

	Criteria ¯	Area 3
Water	1	4
Wastewater	2	4
Stormwater	3	2
Road Capacity	4	0*
Arterial & Collector Road Frontage	5	Carp
	5
Arterial-Collector Frontage Score	5	2
Distance to Rapid Transit	6	4.6
Transit Score	6	0
Distance to Main-street or MUC	7	2.0
Mainstreet Score	7	5
Jobs-Housing Balance	8	1.45
Jobs-Housing Balance Score	8	3
Distance to Major Recreational Facility	9	4.6
Major Rec Facility Score	9	1
Emergency Services POLICE	10	3.1
Emergency Services FIRE	10	8.0
Emergency Services AMBULANCE	10	4.5
Emergency Services AVERAGE	10	5.2
Emergency Score	10	3
Agricultural land adjacent	11	0
Agricultural land adjacent score	11	2
Country Lot adjacent	12	Lloydalex in parcel
Country Lot adjacent score	12	0
Soils Constraints	13	no
Soils Constraints score	13	2
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	2-3
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	1
Urban Land Supply	15	3

*The cumulative impact of selecting a number of parcels in the West is to cause the road capacity to be significantly exceeded. Therefore, the lowest scoring parcels overall in the West have been given a reduced score for road capacity.

Candidate Area for urban boundary rationalization

Area 4 – West of Stittsville

Location West of Stittsville, north of Hazeldean Road	OP Designation: General Rural Area	Current Land Use(s): Fields, forest, one residential use
Size: Gross ha = 59 Gross developable ha = 39	Zoning: RU – Rural Countryside
Planning Status No application	Adjacent Land-Use designations: North: Carp Road West: General Rural South: Rural Natural Feature East: Urban Area.	Adjacent Land Use(s): Residential to the east, forested to the south, forest and farm to west and mineral resource to the north.

Evaluation – Area 4

Parcel ID	Gross ha	NHS feature	NHS areas removed	Limestone Resource 500m setback	Landfill 500m setback	Other constraints	Notes re other constraints	Gross ha developable
4	59.0	Woodland/Wetland	17.0	1.2	0.0	2.3	Hydro r-o-w	38.5

Criteria	Area 4 - Infrastructure
1. Water	The water supply (existing and proposed) to Area 4 (future Stittsville Pressure Zone) would require a minor expansion of the future Stittsville PS. Piping upgrades on Hazeldean Road (west of Carp Road) and through the development east of Area 4 would also be required. The proposed 762mm diameter Hazeldean watermain feeding this area would only need to be up-sized if all Areas 3, 4, 6b and 6c were to be serviced and the Stittsville Elevated Water Tank is relocated in the future.
2. Wastewater	Area 4 is located east of Stittsville. Following the extension of the trunk sewer to service Area 3, an additional 1200 m of trunk sewer along Rothbourne/Maple Grove Road will be required. This additional flow will also need to be accounted for in the upgrades along Maple Grove and at the Kanata West Pumping Station
3. Stormwater	Drains to Feedmill Creek (within Carp River watershed). Drainage of Area 4 may be challenging because of constraints created by the existing Timbermere subdivision to the east. Existing studies would require updating; some areas of shallow overburden (blasting may be required to service).

	Criteria ¯	Area 4
Water	1	2
Wastewater	2	2
Stormwater	3	2
Road Capacity	4	0*
Arterial & Collector Road Frontage	5	Hazeldean
	5	Rothbourne
Arterial-Collector Frontage Score	5	3
Distance to Rapid Transit	6	4.9
Transit Score	6	0
Distance to Main-street or MUC	7	2.0
Mainstreet Score	7	5
Jobs-Housing Balance	8	1.47
Jobs-Housing Balance Score	8	3
Distance to Major Recreational Facility	9	4.3
Major Rec Facility Score	9	1
Emergency Services POLICE	10	4.9
Emergency Services FIRE	10	9.8
Emergency Services AMBULANCE	10	4.3
Emergency Services AVERAGE	10	6.3
Emergency Score	10	2
Agricultural land adjacent	11	0
Agricultural land adjacent score	11	2
Country Lot adjacent	12	none
Country Lot adjacent score	12	2
Soils Constraints	13	no
Soils Constraints score	13	2
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	2-3
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	1
Urban Land Supply	15	3

*The cumulative impact of selecting a number of parcels in the West is to cause the road capacity to be significantly exceeded. Therefore, the lowest scoring parcels overall in the West have been given a reduced score for road capacity.

Candidate Area for urban boundary rationalization

Area 5 – Part of Fernbank Estates

Location Two parcels within the study area of the Fernbank Estates community design plan.	OP Designation: Agricultural Resource Area and General Rural Area	Current Land Use(s): 5a is farmed 5b is partially tree covered
Size: Gross ha = 183 Gross developable ha = 163	Zoning: AG – Agricultural RU – Rural Countryside
Planning Status Has been included in the Fernbank community design plan. Part of 5a is the subject of an OPA application from Richcraft Group of Companies	Adjacent Land-Use designations: Urban Area and Future Urban Area. 5b also has General Rural Area to the south.	Adjacent Land Use(s): 5a is surrounded by Fernbank Future Urban Area and 5b is adjacent to Fernbank in the west, the Sacred Heart High School and Goulbourn Recreation Complex in the north, Stittsville Urban Area in the east and rural undeveloped land to the south.

Evaluation – Area 5

Parcel ID	Gross ha	NHS feature	NHS areas removed	Limestone Resource 500m setback	Landfill 500m setback	Other constraints	Notes re other constraints	Gross ha developable
5a	114.2					9.0	Carp River floodplain	105.2
5b	68.7	Woodland	10.0			1.0	Hydro R-O-W	57.7
Sub-total	182.9		10.0	0.0	0.0	10.0		162.9

Criteria	Area 5 - Infrastructure
1. Water	The water supply to Areas 5a and 5b (Pressure Zone 3W) will be included in the Fernbank CDP and servicing could be easily integrated into this future development at a very small cost.
2. Wastewater	Area 5a can be serviced by the Hazeldean PS along with the Fernbank Community. An upgrade of the Hazeldean PS is required in order to service existing build-out conditions and could incorporate a further capacity increase to service the subject area. Area 5b can be serviced by upsizing of the proposed trunks within the Fernbank Community. This additional flow will also need to be accounted for in the upgrades at the Hazeldean PS.
3. Stormwater	Area 5a is in the Carp River watershed area 5b is part of the Jock River watershed. Drainage of these lands has been considered in the Fernbank CDP EMP, which is nearing completion. Drainage / stormwater management of the alternative sites is reasonably straightforward using conventional engineering methods.

	Criteria ¯	Area 5a	Area 5b
Water	1	4	4
Wastewater	2	4	3
Stormwater	3	4	4
Road Capacity	4	3	3
Arterial & Collector Road Frontage	5	Hazeldean+Terry Fox	Fernbank
	5	future collector	Shea
Arterial-Collector Frontage Score	5	4	3
Distance to Rapid Transit	6	0.3	2.5
Transit Score	6	5	3
Distance to Main-street or MUC	7	1.0	1.0
Mainstreet Score	7	5	5
Jobs-Housing Balance	8	1.44	1.42
Jobs-Housing Balance Score	8	3	3
Distance to Major Recreational Facility	9	3.1	0.9
Major Rec Facility Score	9	3	5
Emergency Services POLICE	10	3.4	5.5
Emergency Services FIRE	10	4.3	1.0
Emergency Services AMBULANCE	10	4.3	1.0
Emergency Services AVERAGE	10	4.0	2.5
Emergency Score	10	4	5
Agricultural land adjacent	11	13	53
Agricultural land adjacent score	11	2	0
Country Lot adjacent	12	none	none
Country Lot adjacent score	12	2	2
Soils Constraints	13	no	about 30% organic
Soils Constraints score	13	2	0
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	5-10	0-2
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	2	0
Urban Land Supply	15	3	3

Candidate Area for urban boundary rationalization

Area 6 – South of Stittsville

Location South of Stittsville Urban Area and south of area 5b	OP Designation: General Rural Area	Current Land Use(s): 6c is cleared for development and the rest is scrub and old fields.
Size: Gross ha = 59 Gross developable ha = 59	Zoning: RU – Rural Countryside
Planning Status Ray Bell has an active Country Lot Subdivision application on Area 6c and has an active application for an urban expansion	Adjacent Land-Use designations: North: Urban Area and Future Urban Area East: Agricultural Resource Area South: Agriculture Resource Area and General Rural Area West: General Rural Area	Adjacent Land Use(s): South of 6c is a Country Lot Subdivision, Stittsville residential is to the north and Agriculture is to the east.

Evaluation – Area 6

Parcel ID	Gross ha	NHS feature	NHS areas removed	Limestone Resource 500m setback	Landfill 500m setback	Other constraints	Notes re other constraints	Gross ha developable
6a	26.6							26.6
6b	12.3							12.3
6c	19.8							19.8
Sub-total	58.8							58.8

Criteria	Area 6 - Infrastructure
1. Water	The water supply to Area 6a (Pressure Zone 3W) could easily be included as part of the Fernbank CDP and servicing could be easily integrated into this future development at a very small cost. However, the water supply (existing and proposed) to Areas 6b and 6c (future Stittsville Pressure Zone) is very weak and would require a major upgrade to the future Stittsville PS and a new watermain on Main Street from Hazeldean. The proposed 762mm diameter Hazeldean watermain feeding this area would only need to be up-sized if all Areas 3, 4, 6b and 6c were to be serviced and the Stittsville Elevated Water Tank is relocated in the future.
2. Wastewater	Area 6a, 6b, and 6c generally slope in an easterly direction, and would fall within the area serviced by Hazeldean Pump Station. Relatively high ground elevations present an opportunity to service these lands through the Fernbank community. Further upsizing of the Fernbank Trunks and upgrade to the Hazeldean PS will be required. Alternatively, a portion of the areas may be serviced by the Stittsville PS. In addition to the same downstream upgrades, an upgrade to the Stittsville PS will be required.
3. Stormwater	The Area 6 alternative sites fall within the Jock River Reach 2 subwatershed. The existing subwatershed study and/or Fernbank EMP would require updating/expansion for southerly parcels. All alternatives sites have little or no drainage constraints. Drainage / stormwater management of the alternative sites is reasonably straightforward using conventional engineering methods.

	Criteria ¯	Area 6a	Area 6b	Area 6c
Water	1	4	0	0
Wastewater	2	3	3	3
Stormwater	3	2	2	2
Road Capacity	4	3	0*	0*
Arterial & Collector Road Frontage	5	Fernbank	none	Stitts. Main
	5	Shea
Arterial-Collector Frontage Score	5	3	0	2
Distance to Rapid Transit	6	2.2	2.8	3.4
Transit Score	6	4	3	2
Distance to Main-street or MUC	7	2.0	1.9	1.6
Mainstreet Score	7	5	5	5
Jobs-Housing Balance	8	1.47	1.47	1.46
Jobs-Housing Balance Score	8	3	3	3
Distance to Major Recreational Facility	9	1.8	2.5	3.6
Major Rec Facility Score	9	4	4	2
Emergency Services POLICE	10	6.3	7.0	8
Emergency Services FIRE	10	2.3	2.1	1.7
Emergency Services AMBULANCE	10	2.4	2.3	1.7
Emergency Services AVERAGE	10	3.7	3.8	3.8
Emergency Score	10	4	4	4
Agricultural land adjacent	11	0	0	123
Agricultural land adjacent score	11	0	2	2
Country Lot adjacent	12	none	sub. to southwest	sub. abuts south
Country Lot adjacent score	12	2	0	0
Soils Constraints	13	no	about 15% organic	about 25% organic
Soils Constraints score	13	2	0	0
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	2-3	3-5	0-2
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	1	1	0
Urban Land Supply	15	3	3	3

*The cumulative impact of selecting a number of parcels in the West is to cause the road capacity to be significantly exceeded. Therefore, the lowest scoring parcels overall in the West have been given a reduced score for road capacity.

Candidate Area for urban boundary rationalization

Area 7 – South of Barrhaven Community east of Highway 416

Location East of HWY 416 south of the urban boundary	OP Designation: Sand and Gravel Resource Area	Current Land Use(s): Primarily mineral extraction. Agriculture
Size: Gross ha = 168 Gross developable ha = 121	Zoning: MR – Mineral Aggregate Reserve ME – Mineral Extraction
Planning Status Official Plan Amendment Application submitted by Minto Communities for a larger area.	Adjacent Land-Use designations: North and East: Urban Area South: Agriculture Resource Area West: General Rural Area	Adjacent Land Use(s): Currently undeveloped to the north, Agriculture to the east and south and mineral extraction and waste disposal to the west.

Evaluation – Area 7

Parcel ID	Gross ha	NHS feature	NHS areas removed	Limestone Resource 500m setback	Landfill 500m setback	Other constraints	Notes re other constraints	Gross ha developable
7a	42.8				15.6			27.2
7b	50.4				15.6			34.8
7c	74.9				15.6			59.3
Sub-total	168.2		0.0	0.0	46.8	0.0		121.4

Criteria	Area 7 - Infrastructure
1. Water	The water supply piping (existing and proposed) to Area 7 is very good and no specific upgrades to any existing or proposed piping would be required. However, the City is currently planning a major reconfiguration of Pressure Zones BARR and 2W with a new future Pressure Zone 3C which would impact the pressures available to Area 7. A new booster pumping station would likely be required to service the majority of Areas 7a, 7b and 7c (with minimal or no piping upgrades required), so the cost per unit would be reduced by only servicing the lower lying areas or maximizing the number units serviced by a new pumping station.
2. Wastewater	The total area can be serviced through the South Nepean Collector (SNC). The area may be serviced by gravity by upsizing the proposed trunks along Greenbank Road and Cambrian Road. Any low lying area (potentially within Area 7a) may be serviced by upsizing the Barrhaven South trunk sewer along the Jock River. According to the Barrhaven South Master Servicing Study (June 2007), a proposed trunk sewer (900 mm) from Greenbank to SNC has a residual capacity that would allow for the servicing of all 2781 units or 8033 people (the trunk has been recently installed). The next bottleneck in the system is West Rideau Collector (WRC) downstream of Hunt Club Road with residual capacity that would limit development to 1750 units (5000 people). This constraint can be alleviated to service entire area by simply diverting flow from the Barrhaven Community to the Greenbank Trunk at a relatively low cost.
3. Stormwater	Area is in the Jock River watershed. The subwatershed plan and/or the Barrhaven South Master Servicing Plan would need updating. The incremental impact of Area 7a on drainage constraints in Barrhaven South may be manageable, however, the cumulative impact of drainage from Areas 7a, 7b, and 7c would be challenging given the constraints in storm drainage systems planned and built in Barrhaven South.

	Criteria ¯	Area 7a	Area 7b	Area 7c
Water	1	2	2	2
Wastewater	2	4	4	4
Stormwater	3	2	0	0
Road Capacity	4	3	3	3
Arterial & Collector Road Frontage	5	Greenbank ext.	Greenbank ext.	Greenbank ext.
	5	Cedarview	Cedarview	Barnsdale+Cedarview
Arterial-Collector Frontage Score	5	3	3	3
Distance to Rapid Transit	6	1.3	1.6	2.0
Transit Score	6	5	4	4
Distance to Main-street or MUC	7	2.4	2.4	2.5
Mainstreet Score	7	4	4	4
Jobs-Housing Balance	8	1.23	1.21	1.19
Jobs-Housing Balance Score	8	2	2	1
Distance to Major Recreational Facility	9	2.9	3.3	3.2
Major Rec Facility Score	9	3	3	3
Emergency Services POLICE	10	6.7	5.7	5
Emergency Services FIRE	10	4.8	5.0	5.3
Emergency Services AMBULANCE	10	4.5	4.7	5.3
Emergency Services AVERAGE	10	5.3	5.1	5.2
Emergency Score	10	3	3	3
Agricultural land adjacent	11	50	0	13
Agricultural land adjacent score	11	2	0	0
Country Lot adjacent	12	none	none	none
Country Lot adjacent score	12	2	2	2
Soils Constraints	13	no	no	no
Soils Constraints score	13	2	2	2
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	15-25	15-25	15-25
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	3	3	3
Urban Land Supply	15	4	4	4

Candidate Area for urban boundary rationalization

Area 8 – South of Leitrim

Location South of Leitrim Urban Area	OP Designation: General Rural Area and some Sand and Gravel Resource Area	Current Land Use(s): Scrub Racetrack
Size: Gross ha = 308 Gross developable ha = 216	Zoning: RU: Rural Countryside RC4: Rural Commercial (racetrack) ME: Mineral Extraction
Planning Status OPA application from Richcraft Group of Companies includes part of Area 8c.	Adjacent Land-Use designations: South: Sand and Gravel Resource Area North: Urban Area East: Limestone Resource Area and General Rural Area West: Sand and Gravel Resource Area	Adjacent Land Use(s): South: sand and gravel North: under development (residential) East: Quarry West: Idle, golf course, potential future location of CCE.

Evaluation – Area 8

Parcel ID	Gross ha	NHS feature	NHS areas removed	Limestone Resource 500m setback	Landfill 500m setback	Other constraints	Notes re other constraints	Gross ha developable
8a	22.5			1.4				21.1
8b	22.7	Wetland	1.0	5.1				16.5
8c	48.2	Woodland/Wetland	17.0	13.6				17.6
8d	33.7	Wetland	3.0	0.0				30.7
8e	87.8	Woodland	26.0	7.1				54.7
8f	93.0	Woodland	3.0	15.0				75.0
Sub-total	307.7		50.0	42.2	0.0			215.7

Criteria	Area 8 - Infrastructure
1. Water	The water supply (existing and proposed) to Area 8 (Pressure Zone 3C) is not considered strong, especially with the planned reduction in water pressure in this entire pressure zone. Significant pumping and piping upgrades would be required to service more than approximately 1,620 units (4,700 additional persons) in Areas 8 and 9 combined. Up-sizing of watermains through the future Leitrim development area would be required to accommodate additional growth and a new major watermain would be required on Albion Road from Leitrim to provide a looped service to Areas 8c, 8d, 8e and 8f. These areas would also require additional piping on Bank Street as they lie downstream of the Leitrim PS, which is currently under construction. Areas 8a and 8b would also require up-sizing of pipes within the Leitrim development, as the critical low pressure within Zone 3C is along Bank Street near the feed to the Leitrim PS.
2. Wastewater	The Conroy Road Trunk is constrained and provides no residual capacity beyond current build-out conditions. The replacement of approximately 1500 m of the Conroy Trunk would provide residual capacity for up to 1200 units (3500 people). Servicing of the entire area would require the higher cost upgrade/replacement of Leitrim PS, additional segments of the Conroy Road Collector, and the Green Creek Collector. An alternative to the Green Creek Collector upgrades would be to install a bypass pipe connecting the Conroy Road Collector to the South Ottawa Collector. A trunk sewer from Area 8 leading to the Leitrim PS will also be required.
3. Stormwater	All the parcels are in Findlay Creek watershed. No subwatershed plan available to guide development. All alternatives sites have little or no drainage constraints. Drainage / stormwater management of the alternative sites is reasonably straightforward using conventional engineering methods.

	Criteria ¯	Area 8a	Area 8b	Area 8c	Area 8d	Area 8e	Area 8f
Water	1	1	1	0	0	0	0
Wastewater	2	2	2	2	1	1	1
Stormwater	3	2	2	2	2	2	2
Road Capacity	4	0	0	0	0	0	0
Arterial & Collector Road Frontage	5	Bank	Albion+Armstrong	Bank	Albion+Armstrong	Albion+Bank	Albion+Bank
	5	future collector to north					Rideau Rd
Arterial-Collector Frontage Score	5	3	4	2	4	4	4
Distance to Rapid Transit	6	6.2	6.4	5.6	4.4	5.5	6.0
Transit Score	6	0	0	0	1	0	0
Distance to Main-street or MUC	7	6.0	6.2	6.5	7.3	7.1	7.3
Mainstreet Score	7	1	1	1	0	0	0
Jobs-Housing Balance	8	1.25	1.19	1.14	1.05	1.01	0.95
Jobs-Housing Balance Score	8	3	1	1	0	0	0
Distance to Major Recreational Facility	9	1.6	1.7	1.8	2.4	2.3	2.5
Major Rec Facility Score	9	2.5	2	2	2	2	2
Emergency Services POLICE	10	3.1	3.3	3.6	4.7	4.5	4.9
Emergency Services FIRE	10	3.2	3.4	3.7	4.8	4.6	5
Emergency Services AMBULANCE	10	11.4	11.6	11.9	13	12.8	13.2
Emergency Services AVERAGE	10	5.9	6.1	6.4	7.5	7.3	7.7
Emergency Score	10	2	2	2	1	1	1
Agricultural land adjacent	11	122	0	0	0	0	0
Agricultural land adjacent score	11	2	2	2	2	2	2
Country Lot adjacent	12	none	none	none	Racetrack	Racetrack	none
Country Lot adjacent score	12	2	2	2	0	0	2
Soils Constraints	13	no	no	no	no	no	no
Soils Constraints score	13	2	2	2	2	2	2
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	2-3	2-3	3-5	10-15	3-5	3-5
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	1	1	1	3	1	1
Urban Land Supply	15	1	1	1	1	1	1

Candidate Area for urban boundary rationalization

Area 9 – East of Leitrim

Location East of Leitrim, east of Bank Street.	OP Designation: General Rural Area	Current Land Use(s): Scrub Some rural industrial uses
Size: Gross ha = 124 Gross developable ha = 117	Zoning: RU: Rural Countryside
Planning Status No active applications	Adjacent Land-Use designations: North: Urban Area South and East: Rural Natural Feature West: Urban Area	Adjacent Land Use(s): Urban residential development to the north and west. Forest to the east. Quarries to the south

Evaluation – Area 9

Parcel ID	Gross ha	NHS feature	NHS areas removed	Limestone Resource 500m setback	Landfill 500m setback	Other constraints	Notes re other constraints	Gross ha developable
9a	29.6							29.6
9b	36.3							36.3
9c	40.4	Woodland	3.0					37.4
9d	17.4	Woodland	3.0	0.7				13.7
Sub-total	123.7		6.0	0.7	0.0	0.0		117.0

Criteria	Area 9 - Infrastructure
1. Water	The water supply (existing and proposed) to Area 9 (Pressure Zone 3C) is not very strong, especially with the planned reduction in water pressure in this entire pressure zone. Pumping and piping upgrades would be required to service more than approximately 1,620 units (4,700 additional persons) in Areas 8 and 9 combined (1,946 units or 5,643 persons are planned for Area 9 alone). Up-sizing of watermains through the future Leitrim development area would be required to accommodate any additional growth. It is preferred to add any new development as far north as possible to minimize the pipe up-sizing needs.
2. Wastewater	The Conroy Road Trunk is constrained and provides no residual capacity beyond current build-out conditions. Upgrade to a section of Conroy Road sewer (with no residual capacity) will accommodate approximately 1200 units (3500 people), beyond which further upgrades will be required. Areas 9a, 9b, and part of 9c may be serviced with the upgrade. Servicing of the entire area would require the higher cost upgrade/replacement of Leitrim PS, additional segments of the Conroy Road Collector, and the Green Creek Collector. An alternative to the Green Creek Collector upgrades would be to install a bypass pipe connecting the Conroy Road Collector to the South Ottawa Collector.
3. Stormwater	All the parcels are in Findlay Creek watershed. No subwatershed plan available to guide development. With the exception of Area 9d, all alternative sites have little or no drainage constraints. Drainage / stormwater management of sites 9a, 9b, and 9c is reasonably straightforward using conventional engineering methods. Area 9d is constrained by watercourses that cross the land with sizeable external drainage areas.

	Criteria ¯	Area 9a	Area 9b	Area 9c	Area 9d
Water	1	3	3	2	1
Wastewater	2	3	3	2	2
Stormwater	3	2	2	2	0
Road Capacity	4	0	0	0	0
Arterial & Collector Road Frontage	5	Bank	Bank	Bank	Bank
	5			Blais	Blais
Arterial-Collector Frontage Score	5	2	2	3	3
Distance to Rapid Transit	6	4.2	4.5	4.9	5.0
Transit Score	6	1	0	0	0
Distance to Main-street or MUC	7	4.3	4.6	5.0	5.1
Mainstreet Score	7	3	3	2	2
Jobs-Housing Balance	8	1.22	1.11	1.01	0.97
Jobs-Housing Balance Score	8	2	1	0	0
Distance to Major Recreational Facility	9	0.8	1.0	1.1	1.3
Major Rec Facility Score	9	2.5	2.5	2.5	2.5
Emergency Services POLICE	10	1.5	1.8	2.2	2.5
Emergency Services FIRE	10	1.6	1.9	2.3	2.6
Emergency Services AMBULANCE	10	9.8	10.1	10.5	10.8
Emergency Services AVERAGE	10	4.3	4.6	5.0	5.3
Emergency Score	10	4	3	3	3
Agricultural land adjacent	11	0	0	0	0
Agricultural land adjacent score	11	2	2	2	2
Country Lot adjacent	12	none	none	none	none
Country Lot adjacent score	12	2	2	2	2
Soils Constraints	13	no	no	no	no
Soils Constraints score	13	2	2	2	2
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	3-5	2-3	2-3	2-3
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	1	1	1	1
Urban Land Supply	15	1	1	1	1

Candidate Area for urban boundary rationalization

Area 10 – South of Orleans Urban Area

Location South of Orleans Urban area between Mer Bleue Road and Tenth Line Road south to Notre Dame des Champs.	OP Designation: General Rural Area and Village (Notre Dame des Champs)	Current Land Use(s): Agriculture and Bush Strip development along major roads
Size: Gross ha = 294 Gross developable ha = 246	Zoning: RU – Rural Countryside Village Zones
Planning Status Mattamy has an application for urban expansion on parts of 10a and 10b No appeals of the 2003 Official Plan	Adjacent Land-Use designations: General Urban Area to the west and to the north N-D-C Village and General Rural Area to South Agriculture Resource Area to the east	Adjacent Land Use(s): Urban development to the northeast including stormwater management pond. Scrub forest and agriculture in lands to be urbanized to the west. Agriculture to the east.

Evaluation – Area 10

Parcel ID	Gross ha	NHS feature	NHS areas removed	Limestone Resource 500m setback	Landfill 500m setback	Other constraints	Notes re other constraints	Gross ha developable
10a	88.7					10.0	floodplain	78.7
10b	88.8					4.0	floodplain	84.8
10c	88.6	Woodland	4.0			30.0	excludes Notre-Dame-des-Champs (est 30 ha)	54.6
10d	8.3							8.3
10e	19.9							19.9
Sub-total	294.3		4.0	0.0	0.0	44.0		246.4

Criteria	Area 10 - Infrastructure
1. Water	The water supply (existing and proposed) to Area 10 in Pressure Zone 2E is very good and no specific upgrades to any existing or proposed piping or pumping would be required.
2. Wastewater	Given the close proximity of the area to the Tenth Line PS and the downstream trunk sewers (500 m downstream), Area 10 would be most appropriately serviced by the Tenth Line PS. Servicing of Areas 10a and 10d, e will be limited to an upgrade of the Tenth Line PS. Inclusion of Areas 10b and 10c will also require an upgrade to the Orleans-Cumberland Collector.
3. Stormwater	All the parcels are in the McKinnons Creek watershed. No subwatershed plan is available to guide development. Area 10a is constrained by McKinnons Creek which bisects the area, requiring two separate SWM facilities to service, and the area also includes floodplain constraints. Drainage of all sites is poor due to flat topography. Servicing the area would require constructing a storm trunk outlet 1-2 km downstream of Mer Bleue Road to establish a sufficient gravity outlet. Poor soils (Leda clay) exist in some areas, and could limit potential to resolve HGL constraints by filling alternative sites.

	Criteria ¯	Area 10a	Area 10b	Area 10c	Area 10d	Area 10e
Water	1	4	4	4	4	4
Wastewater	2	2	1	1	2	2
Stormwater	3	0	0	0	0	0
Road Capacity	4	3	3	3	3	3
Arterial & Collector Road Frontage	5	10th Line	10th Line	10th Line	10th Line	none
	5	Mer Bleue	Mer Bleue & Wall	Wall		future collector to north
Arterial-Collector Frontage Score	5	3	3	3	2	1
Distance to Rapid Transit	6	1.8	2.3	2.5	1.9	2.7
Transit Score	6	4	3	3	4	3
Distance to Main-street or MUC	7	1.4	2.1	3.5	1.8	2.7
Mainstreet Score	7	5	5	4	5	4
Jobs-Housing Balance	8	0.86	0.84	0.83	0.82	0.82
Jobs-Housing Balance Score	8	0	0	0	0	0
Distance to Major Recreational Facility	9	4.4	5.1	5.4	3.9	4.6
Major Rec Facility Score	9	1	0	0	2	1
Emergency Services POLICE	10	5.7	6.4	6.7	5.2	6.1
Emergency Services FIRE	10	4.0	4.7	5.0	3.5	4.4
Emergency Services AMBULANCE	10	7.5	8.2	8.5	7.0	7.9
Emergency Services AVERAGE	10	5.7	6.4	6.7	5.2	6.1
Emergency Score	10	3	2	2	3	2
Agricultural land adjacent	11	0	20	55	70	51
Agricultural land adjacent score	11	0	0	0	0	0
Country Lot adjacent	12	none	NDC village	NDC village	none	none
Country Lot adjacent score	12	2	0	0	2	2
Soils Constraints	13	Leda clay indicator on all	Leda clay indicator on all	Leda clay indicator on 60%	Leda clay indicator on all	Leda clay indicator on all
Soils Constraints score	13	0	0	0	0	0
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	25-50	35-50	15-25	15-25	15-25
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	3	3	3	3	3
Urban Land Supply	15	3	3	3	3	3

Candidate Area for urban boundary rationalization

Area 11 – East of Orleans Urban Area

Location East of Cardinal Creek and the East boundary of the Orleans Urban Area.	OP Designation: General Rural Area	Current Land Use(s): agriculture, commercial nursery, boat storage, scattered development.
Size: Gross ha = 337 ha Gross developable ha = 158 ha	Zoning: RU – Rural Countryside RI 5 – Rural Institutional RR1 – Rural Residential EP – along creek
Planning Status No applications	Adjacent Land-Use designations: Urban Area in the west; Rural Natural Feature in the south, and General Rural Area in the east.	Adjacent Land Use(s): Cardinal Creek on the west Ottawa River on the north Country lot subdivision on the east Wooded area in the south

Evaluation – Area 11

Parcel ID	Gross ha	NHS feature	NHS areas removed	Limestone Resource 500m setback	Landfill 500m setback	Other constraints	Notes re other constraints	Gross ha developable
11a	62.6	Valleyland	17.0					45.6
11b	64.6	Woodland/Escarpment	30.0					34.6
11c	16.7	Valleyland/Escarpment	10.0					6.7
11d	44.1							44.1
11e	41.0	Woodland, Valleyland & Escarpment	19.0			6.0	174 R-O-W	16.0
11f	69.5	Woodland, Valleyland & Escarpment	59.0					10.5
11g	38.8	Woodland	38.8					0.0
Sub-total	337.3		173.8	0.0	0.0	6.0		157.5

Criteria	Area 11 - Infrastructure
1. Water	The water supply (existing and proposed) to Area 11 in Pressure Zones 1E and 2E is very good and no specific upgrades to any existing or proposed piping or pumping would be required.
2. Wastewater	With the exception of a portion of Area 11e, the entire area can be serviced by gravity through an extension of the Ottawa River Sub-Trunk to the Candidate Area Parcels. The sewer extension would cross the creek with trunk sewers routed above the creek culvert. Servicing all of Area 11e would either require a local PS or the lowering of the trunk services, which would then necessitate a siphon or pumped crossing of the creek. This latter option would result in higher capital and operating costs.
3. Stormwater	Areas 11a, 11b, 11c, and 11d drain to Cardinal Creek, while Area 11e drains to the Ottawa River. The Cardinal Creek subwatershed study is underway, but would need to be updated to provide guidelines for development. All sites have good drainage due to the comparatively steep topography. The greatest stormwater challenge servicing the site would be providing erosion protection along steeply sloped outlets. Engineering requirements, while challenging, are not expected to involve more than conventional drainage systems.

	Criteria ¯	Area 11a	Area 11b	Area 11c	Area 11d	Area 11e	Area 11f	Area 11g
Water	1	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Wastewater	2	4	4	4	4	1	4	4
Stormwater	3	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Road Capacity	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Arterial & Collector Road Frontage	5	Old Montreal	Old Montreal	Old Montreal	Old Montreal	174	Old Mtl Rd	none
	5		Ted Kelly		Ted Kelly			Ted Kelly
Arterial-Collector Frontage Score	5	2	3	2	3	2	2	1
Distance to Rapid Transit	6	2.0	2.8	1.7	2.7	1.8	1.9	2.4
Transit Score	6	4	3	4	3	4	4	3
Distance to Main-street or MUC	7	4.0	4.8	3.7	4.6	4.6	3.9	4.9
Mainstreet Score	7	3	2	3	3	3	3	2
Jobs-Housing Balance	8	0.87	0.86	0.86	0.85	0.84	0.84	0.84
Jobs-Housing Balance Score	8	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Distance to Major Recreational Facility	9	4.7	5.3	4.3	5.4	5.4	3.5	5.7
Major Rec Facility Score	9	1	0	1	0	0	2	0
Emergency Services POLICE	10	3.8	4.6	3.4	4.5	4.3	3.3	4.8
Emergency Services FIRE	10	4.6	5.4	4.2	5.3	5.4	3.2	5.6
Emergency Services AMBULANCE	10	5.4	6.2	5.0	6.1	6	5.3	6.4
Emergency Services AVERAGE	10	4.6	5.4	4.2	5.3	5.2	3.9	5.6
Emergency Score	10	3	3	4	3	3	4	3
Agricultural land adjacent	11	20	0	0	0	13	0	42
Agricultural land adjacent score	11	2	2	2	2	2	0	0
Country Lot adjacent	12	none	sub. to east	none	sub. to east	none	none	sub. to east
Country Lot adjacent score	12	2	0	2	2	0	0	0
Soils Constraints	13	no	no	Leda clay probable on 20%	no	no	Leda clay probable on 5%	no
Soils Constraints score	13	2	2	0	2	2	2	2
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	10-15	2-3	10-15	2-3	3-5	10-15	2-3
Depth to Bedrock Score	14	3	1	3	1	1	3	1
Urban Land Supply	15	3	3	3	3	3	3	3

Annex 2 – Re-examination of the Designation of Some Agricultural Resource Areas as

Potential Candidate Areas for Urban Expansion

Summary

The selection of candidate areas for the comparative evaluation, very explicitly avoided Agricultural Resource Area designations as explained in the main report. However, two parties have proposed that some lands should not be designated Agricultural Resource Area and therefore should be considered along with other candidate areas. Based on a review of the material submitted, staff recommend that Part of Lot 4, Concession 10, Cumberland, be included in Candidate Area 10, but that other areas not be included.

The City will revisit the LEAR process beginning in 2009 and apply any new system consistently throughout the rural area. This could very well affect other lands within these submissions. The land that is recommended for inclusion in the analysis is based on its current LEAR score and not on any re-evaluation.

Background

Current Agricultural Resource Area designations are based on the Ottawa-Carleton Land Evaluation and Area Review (LEAR) evaluation system. This system assigns a score to each parcel between 0 and 180+. The score is calculated based on the soil capability for agriculture (70%), the existing land use (15%), the parcel size (10%) and the presence of conflicting land uses in the area (5%). The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is currently reviewing the LEAR process to respond to modern farming practices. The City is committed to redoing the LEAR for all of Ottawa, once the Province has finished their work; probably later in 2009.

Generally lands with a score over 130 were designated Agricultural Resource Area. The purpose of identifying these lands is to protect the resource from loss to other uses and to minimize conflicting land uses in these areas. If a pocket of poor soil exists within a larger expanse of Agricultural Resource Area, it is treated as agricultural. Similarly, a small area with a high score but surrounded by poor lands, is designated as General Rural Area. The overall objective was to protect large continuous areas of good agricultural land.

EnviroPlan Consulting for Mattamy Homes (2008)

Mattamy Homes has submitted an Official Plan Amendment application to redesignate lands south of Orleans from Agricultural Resource Area to Urban Area. Enviroplan evaluated the lands owned by Mattamy Homes, west of Trim Road in part of lot 4, Concession IX, Cumberland, in the context of the larger geographic area. Based on some more accurate mapping of Soil Capability for Agriculture, this information was updated. The other three LEAR criteria were also revisited and the score recalculated. The revised scores for the Mattamy property are still well above the score to be considered as Agricultural Resource Area (primarily 148 and 158) and it is not recommended that they be removed from that designation.

However, the EnviroPlan report raises many factors in favour of these lands being considered non-agricultural that do not influence the LEAR score:

• Areas with similar characteristics are not designated agricultural;
• There has been some encroachment of non-agricultural uses into these areas;
• Lack of investment in farm buildings;
• Land fragmentation in the vicinity
• Logical boundary is a major road such as Trim Road and Wall Road.

All of these may contribute to the feasibility of farming the lands. However, the basis of the Agricultural Resource Area designation is a well-defined set of rules applied consistently throughout the rural area. A committee did the scoring and weighting, with representation from the local municipalities of the day, farmers and the Agricultural organizations.

The City is committed to revisiting the LEAR process and applying any new system consistently throughout the rural area. At that time, these factors may well be incorporated into the evaluation.

David McManus Engineering Ltd with Conna Consulting Inc for Minto Communities Inc. (2008)

Conna Consulting was hired through David McManus Engineering to conduct an agricultural assessment of property south of the existing Avalon community in Orleans. They also reviewed the work done for Mattamy Homes as it applied to their lands.

This analysis raised many of the same criteria that Enviroplan noted as reducing the feasibility of farming the land. The difference with Minto’s property is that some of it had never been scored high enough through the LEAR process to achieve an Agricultural Resource Area designation on its own. At that time, Agricultural Resource Area surrounded it on three sides and Urban Area on the fourth. Therefore, it was designated Agricultural Resource Area consistent with the decision rules. Today this can be revisited because the lands to the west have been General Rural Area for some time. Minto’s land is of poorer quality and below the 130-point threshold.

Annex 3

Potential Urban Expansions

Submissions Received for Consideration as a Candidate Area

Submission	Format	Location	Candidate Area
Foley et al	Brief	North of Old Carp Road on west side of March Road	Areas 1a and 1d
Metcalfe Realty	Brief	936 March Road	Area 1b
Richcraft Group of Companies	OPA Application	1275 Second Line Road	Part of Area 1e
Richcraft Group of Companies	OPA Application	820, 870, and 940 Huntmar Drive	Area 2
Richcraft Group of Companies	OPA Application	590 Hazeldean Road	Part of Area 5a
Davidson Homestead	Brief	Part of Lot 25, Concession 9 of former Township of Goulbourn.	Area 6a
Bell-Bradley	OPA Application	Part of Lot 23, Concession 9, former Township of Goulbourn	Area 6c
Mr. And Mrs Crook	e-mail	Part of Lot 22, Conc 9 – 1877 Stittsville Main Street	Part of Area 6c
Minto Communities	OPA Application	South of South Nepean down to Barnsdale Road	Agricultural part excluded; Rest is Area 7
Idone Lands	Brief	4840 Bank Street. Part of Lot 22, Concession 4	Area 8a
Gib Patterson Enterprises Ltd	Brief	Part of Lot 22, Conc 4 Gloucester south of Leitrim between Bank St and Albion Road	Part is shown in Area 8b. Excluded PSW and the disconnected western portion
Richcraft Group of Companies	OPA Application	4870 Bank Street	Area 8c
Claridge Homes	Brief / Study	Part of Lot 18, Conc 5 Gloucester east of Leitrim	Part shown in Area 9a. Rural Natural Feature excluded.
Kellam-Dowler Lands	Brief	4791 Bank St, Part of Lot 19, Conc 5	Part in Area 9b
Walton International Group	Brief	Stittsville/Kanata to Richmond, along the Jock to 416, north to Greenbelt	Agricultural land excluded
2066924 Ontario Inc (Shenkman)	Brief	Northeast corner of Limebank Road and Rideau Road south of Riverside South community	Agricultural land excluded
Ken Gordon	Brief	Part of lot 25, Broken Front (lands south of Riverside South)	Agricultural land excluded
Urbandale	Brief	East of Limebank, north of Leitrim	Excluded – lands for employment purposes. This land is part of the Greenbelt
Urbandale	Brief	Limebank and Bowesville, SE quadrant, south of Riverside South	Agricultural land excluded
Richcraft Group of Companies	OPA Application	982 Rideau Road	Agricultural land excluded
		3491 and 3515 Blais Road	Excluded - not adjacent to urban area and Rural Natural Feature
		Tanglewood	Excluded - not adjacent to urban area
		Hawthorne Road	Excluded - not adjacent to urban area
		1572 Frank Kenny Road	Agricultural land excluded
		Innes (Bakker lands)	Agricultural land excluded
Nav Aggarwal	e-mail	SE corner Trim and Innes	Excluded – non-residential
Phoenix Homes	e-mail	Part of Lot 1, Concession 3, Township of Huntley, former Township of West Carleton	Excluded - Employment area (Carp Road Corridor)
Metcalfe Realty	Brief	417 and Carp Road	Excluded – requesting employment designation
Metcalfe Realty	Brief	NW Corner 2^nd line and Klondike Road	Excluded – Natural Environment Area
Cardel Homes	letter	South Nepean North-east corner Barnsdale and Greenbank	Excluded – Agricultural Resources