2. Official plan, zoning and draft plan of subdivision - 300 goulbourn forced road AND 535 goulbourn forced road

PLAN OFFICIEL, ZONAGE ET PLAN DE LOTISSEMENT PRÉLIMINAIRE - 300 ET 535, CHEMIN GOULBOURN FORCED

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

That Council approve:

1. An amendment to the former City of Kanata Official Plan to shift boundaries of current land-use designations of 300 Goulbourn Forced Road and 535 Goulbourn Forced Road, as shown in Document 3, as amended by the following:

To include Schedule B to the Official Plan Amendment being an amendment to Schedule C of the Former City of Kanata Official Plan.

2. An amendment to remove the land at 300 Goulbourn Forced Road and 535 Goulbourn Forced Road from the former March Township Zoning By-law No. 552 and amend former City of Kanata Zoning By-law 167-93 to zone the land "Residential Type 3A-10", "Residential Type 3A-9", "Residential Type 6A-1", "General Commercial-1", "Institutional-1" and Open Space-1" as detailed in Document 4.

3. The active park be reduced by three acres by sharing parking and playing fields with the adjacent schools and that the three acres of open space be added to the NEA lands north of the West Block.

4. The Solandt Road connection be reflected in the Plan of Subdivision until such time as a formal traffic study confirms that it is not required.

And that the necessary amendments be made to the Official Plan, Plan of Subdivision and the zoning details. And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.

RECOMMANDATIONS MODIFIÉes DU COMITÉ

Que le Conseil approuve :

1. La modification du Plan officiel de l’ancienne Ville de Kanata de manière à déplacer les limites des utilisations du sol au 300 et 535, chemin Goulbourn Forced, comme l’illustre le document 3, sous réserve de la modification suivante :

Inclure l’annexe B de la modification du Plan official, soit une modification de l’annexe C du Plan official de l’ancienne Ville de Kanata.

2. Une modification qui soustrairait les terres situées au 300 et au 535, chemin Goulbourn Forced du Règlement de zonage 552 de l’ancien Canton de March, modifierait le Règlement de zonage 167﷓93 de l’ancienne Ville de Kanata et attribuerait aux terres visées les désignations zone résidentielle type 3A﷓7, zone résidentielle type 3A﷓8, zone résidentielle type 6A﷓1, zone commerciale générale﷓1, zone institutionnelle﷓1, zone d’espace libre﷓1, comme l’explique en détail le document 4.

3. Le retranchement de trois acres du parc actif par le partage des terrains de stationnement et de sport avec les écoles attenantes et l’ajout des trois acres d’espace libre aux terrains de la zone écologique naturelle au nord du bloc ouest.

4. La représentation du raccordement de la promenade Solandt dans le plan de lotissement jusqu’à ce qu’une étude en règle de la circulation confirme qu’il n’est pas requis.

Que le Plan officiel, le plan de lotissement et les particularités du zonage soient modifiés en conséquence. Qu’aucun autre avis ne soit donné aux termes du paragraphe 34(17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.

For the information of council

The Committee approved the following Motion in conjunction with the staff recommendation:

Direct staff to investigate the following Motion and report back before the matter rises to Council:

That the incursion into City owned NEA lands by the Terry Fox Drive extension be traded with the developer for equivalent forested lands within the development (six acres)

Pour la gouverne du Conseil

Le Comité a approuvé la motion suivante compte tenu de la recommandation du personnel :

Charger le personnel de faire enquête sur la motion suivante et de faire rapport de ses constatations avant que le Conseil se penche sur la question :

Que la partie des terrains de la zone écologique naturelle qui appartiennent à la Ville sur laquelle empiétera le prolongement de la promenade Terry-Fox soit échangée contre des terrains boisés équivalents appartenant au promoteur à l’intérieur du secteur à aménager (six acres).

Documentation

1. Development Services Department General Manager’s report dated 13 April 2004 (ACS2004-DEV-APR-0054).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 11 May 2004.

Report to/Rapport au :

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

and Council / et au Conseil

13 April 2004 / le 13 avril 2004

Submitted by/Soumis par : Ned Lathrop, General Manager/Directeur général,

Development Services/Services d'aménagement

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Grant Lindsay, Manager / Gestionnaire

Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d’aménagement

(613) 580-2424 x13242, Grant.Lindsay@ottawa.ca

Kanata (4)

Ref N°: ACS2004-DEV-APR-0054

SUBJECT:	Official plan, zoning and draft plan of subdivision - 300 goulbourn forced road and 535 goulbourn forced road

OBJET :	PLAN OFFICIEL, ZONAGE ET PLAN DE LOTISSEMENT PRÉLIMINAIRE – 300 ET 535, CHEMIN GOULBOURN FORCED

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Planning and Environment Committee:

1. Recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata Official Plan to shift boundaries of current land-use designations of 300 Goulbourn Forced Road and 535 Goulbourn Forced Road, as shown in Document 3.

2. Recommend Council approve an amendment to remove the land at 300 Goulbourn Forced Road and 535 Goulbourn Forced Road from the former March Township Zoning By-law No. 552 and amend former City of Kanata Zoning By-law 167-93 to zone the land "Residential Type 3A-7", "Residential Type 3A-8", "Residential Type 6A-1", "General Commercial-1", "Institutional-1" and Open Space-1" as detailed in Document 4.

3. Authorize the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to grant draft plan approval to the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision shown in Document 5, and subject to the Draft Plan Conditions detailed in Document 7.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement :

1. recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Plan officiel de l’ancienne Ville de Kanata de manière à déplacer les limites des utilisations du sol actuelles au 300 et au 535, chemin Goulbourn Forced, comme l’illustre le document 3.

2. recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification qui soustrairait les terres situées au 300 et au 535, chemin Goulbourn Forced du Règlement de zonage 552 de l’ancien Canton de March, modifierait le Règlement de zonage 167﷓93 de l’ancienne Ville de Kanata et attribuerait aux terres visées les désignations zone résidentielle type 3A﷓7, zone résidentielle type 3A﷓8, zone résidentielle type 6A﷓1, zone commerciale générale﷓1, zone institutionnelle﷓1, zone d’espace libre﷓1, comme l’explique en détail le document 4.

3. autorise le directeur, Approbation des demandes d’urbanisme et d’infrastructure, à approuver le projet de plan de lotissement préliminaire présenté au document 5, dont le détail est expliqué au document 7, sous réserve des conditions applicables audit plan préliminaire.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis:

The applications propose the layout of the remaining undeveloped land within the Marchwood-Lakeside Community, covering an area of approximately 269 hectares. The lands were designated for urban development by order of the Ontario Municipal Board in January, 1983. The current proposal includes a wide range of land uses, including a mix of residential densities, institutional uses, open space, commercial uses and natural environment areas (referred to as “Environmental Protection Area” by the former Kanata Official Plan). This subdivision proposal is atypical of most such applications due to the legal requirement for 40% of the land area to be designated for “open space” purposes.

Existing residential development abuts the subject lands to the south, east and north. Residents of these communities and elsewhere have enjoyed use of the subject lands as a natural recreational area for more than twenty years. The lands form part of the Canadian Shield, are largely forested, and contain wetland pockets and rock outcrops. Well-used recreational trails cover most of the subject land.

The currently proposed subdivision would replace much of the forested area with residential development. Consequently, the community has expressed a great deal of opposition to the subdivision layout as it was submitted and proposed in June, 2003. The magnitude of community concern became evident at the Community Information Session, held in September 2003, at which approximately 600 people, expressed their wish to maintain the forests and pathways in their current state. Due to the magnitude of community concern, review of the proposal became a highly interactive process between staff, the applicant, community representatives and the Ward Councillor.

The primary matter of discussion has been the 40% agreement, and identification of the lands to be dedicated as “open space” under the definitions contained within the agreement. The plan has been modified from its original submission through Plans “A”, “B”, and “C”. Version “D” was proposed by the community and finally, Plan ‘H’, is supported by staff and contained in Document 5 (Plans A and B) as the final proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision. The proposed draft plan is of a size that necessitates two separate plans.

Public Consultation/Input:

Since its submission in June, 2003, the plan(s) has been presented and discussed with community associations and the public in numerous venues. Various forms of formal public meetings and focus group sessions were held in September and December 2003, as well as February and April, 2004.

Generally, the public view is to preserve as much of the land north of the Beaver Pond as possible. Community groups have put forth suggestions that much of these lands, which are currently designated for residential development by the former Kanata Official Plan, be traded for other lands which are either currently designated as “Open Space”, or proposed to be designated as “Open Space” under Plan ‘H’. The community suggests that locally significant wetlands, fish habitat, active recreational space (soccer pitches), the clear-cut lands for which compensation land has been offered, and other natural environment areas and buffers be developed as a trade-off for preserving more of the lands located north of the Beaver Pond.

Planning staff has investigated the community’s recommendations with a view to balancing the desire of the existing adjacent communities with the needs of the future community, and the acceptance of such changes to the landowner. The landowner currently enjoys the right to develop the land by virtue of its current Official Plan designation. To suggest alternatives that would significantly increase their cost of development may result in the owner appealing the applications to the Ontario Municipal Board, where their current development rights would likely be maintained.

The matter of “Open Space” allocation is further complicated by a relative shortfall in the area that can be designated as open space. The boundaries of the “Environmental Protection Area” contained within the three Official Plans are now compromised and reduced in area as a result of the implementation of the 40% agreement. The shortfall is the result of an over-dedication of approximately 7.3 hectares of 40% open space through registration of earlier subdivisions. In addition, new environmental areas now qualify for allocation under the 40% agreement. For example, the requirement to protect fish habitat pre-dates the 40% agreement. However, as a natural feature, Shirley’s Brook, which contains fish habitat, must now be protected and dedicated under the 40% agreement.

Staff are recommending approval of Plan ‘H’, which designates a larger area of open space north of the Beaver Pond than was proposed by the 1990 concept plan and is currently designated by the three applicable Official Plans. The area that is most compromised by Plan ‘H’ is a section of Kizell Pond, known as the “west block”, consisting of a mature beech forest. Due to the net shortfall in 40% open space area, approximately two-thirds of this beech forest (west block) will be redesignated from “Environmental Protection Area” to “Low” and “Medium-Density Residential” land use designations.

RÉSUMÉ

Hypothèses et analyse :

Les demandes visent à fixer la disposition des terres non aménagées, d’une superficie d’environ 269 hectares, de la communauté de Marchwood-Lakeside. L’aménagement urbain des terres visées est prévu par une ordonnance rendue par la Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario en janvier 1983. La proposition actuelle prévoit un large éventail d’utilisations du sol, notamment un assortiment d’utilisations résidentielles de densités variées, des utilisations institutionnelles, des espaces libres, des utilisations commerciales et des aires environnementales naturelles (appelées « aires de protection environnementale » dans le Plan officiel de l’ancienne ville de Kanata). La présente demande de lotissement a ceci de particulier qu’elle est soumise à une exigence légale selon laquelle 40 % de la superficie des terres doit être désigné « espace libre ».

Des aménagements résidentiels sont contigus aux terres visées, au sud, à l’est et au nord. Les résidents de ces quartiers et d’ailleurs profitent des terres visées en tant qu’aires récréatives naturelles depuis plus de 20 ans. Les terres en question font partie du Bouclier canadien, sont en grande partie boisées et comportent des enclaves de terres humides et des affleurements rocheux. Des sentiers récréatifs achalandés fortement fréquentés les sillonnent.

La demande de lotissement aurait pour effet l’aménagement résidentiel d’une part importante des terres boisées. Par conséquent, la collectivité s’est opposée fortement au plan de lotissement présenté en juin 2003. L’ampleur des préoccupations de la population est devenue évidente à l’occasion de la séance d’information communautaire tenue en septembre 2003, auquel moment environ 600 personnes ont dit vouloir préserver les forêts et les sentiers. L’importance des préoccupations exprimées par la collectivité a fait du processus d’examen de la demande une démarche fortement interactive à laquelle ont participé le personnel, le requérant, des représentants de la collectivité et le conseiller du quartier.

Les discussions ont porté principalement sur l’accord éventuel prévoyant le maintien de 40 % d’espace libre et la détermination des terres à désigner ainsi aux termes des définitions contenues dans ledit accord. Le plan a été modifié plusieurs fois, et des versions A, B et C ont été présentées. La version D a été proposée à la collectivité, et, finalement, le personnel a accordé son appui à la version H, contenue dans le document 5 (plans A et B), qui représente le projet final de plan de lotissement préliminaire. Le projet de plan préliminaire est illustré par deux schémas distincts en raison de sa grande taille.

Consultation publique/commentaires :

Depuis leur présentation en juin 2003, les plans ont été soumis à l’examen d’associations communautaires et du public et discutés avec eux à de nombreux endroits. Divers types de réunions publiques officielles et de séances de groupes de ciblage ont eu lieu en septembre et décembre 2003, aussi bien qu’en février et avril 2004.

Le public souhaite généralement préserver la plus grande superficie possible au nord de l’étang de castors. Des groupes communautaires ont proposé qu’une part importante des terres visées que le Plan officiel de l’ancienne Ville de Kanata destine à l’aménagement résidentiel soient échangées contre d’autres qui sont déjà désignées espace libre ou dont la désignation comme tel est proposée en vertu du plan H. La communauté a proposé que des terres humides d’importance locale, des habitats de poissons, des aires récréatives à usage actif (terrains de soccer), des terres coupées à blanc pour lesquelles des terres de substitution ont été offertes, d’autres aires environnementales naturelles et des zones tampons soient aménagés en échange de la préservation d’une superficie accrue des terres situées au nord de l’étang de castors.

Les urbanistes ont fait enquête sur les recommandations du public en vue de concilier les vœux des collectivités contiguës et les besoins de la future collectivité, aussi bien que de maximiser les chances que les changements proposés soient acceptés par le propriétaire. Ce dernier est actuellement autorisé à aménager les terres visées en vertu de leur désignation dans le Plan officiel. Si les solutions de rechange proposées devaient augmenter de manière appréciable le coût de l’aménagement, le propriétaire pourrait en appeler des décisions rendues en ce sens à la Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario, qui, vraisemblablement, reconnaîtrait les droits d’aménagement en vigueur.

La détermination de la part des terres à désigner espace libre est compliquée par l’insuffisance relative de la superficie susceptible d’être désignée comme tel. Les limites de l’aire de protection environnementale prévues dans les trois plans officiels sont désormais compromises, et la superficie de l’aire est réduite à cause du principe de l’attribution de la désignation espace libre à une part de 40 % des terres dont l’aménagement est proposé. En effet, l’insuffisance s’explique par la désignation excessive de 7,3 hectares à titre de part de 40 % d’espace libre par suite de l’enregistrement de plans de lotissement antérieurs. De plus, de nouvelles aires environnementales sont désormais susceptibles d’être désignées aux termes d’accords dits « de 40 % ». À titre d’exemple, l’obligation de protéger les habitats de poissons est antérieure aux accords de 40 %. Cependant, comme il s’agit d’une caractéristique naturelle, le ruisseau Shirley, qui renferme des habitats de poissons, doit désormais être protégé et désigné en vertu de l’accord de 40 %.

Le personnel recommande l’approbation du plan H, qui désigne une superficie d’espace libre au nord de l’étang de castors supérieure à ce qui avait été proposé dans le plan conceptuel de 1990, laquelle superficie est actuellement désignée comme tel par les trois plans officiels pertinents. Le secteur menacé le plus par le plan H est une partie du secteur de l’étang Kizell, appelée « bloc de l’ouest », qui consiste en une forêt de hêtres adultes. À cause de l’insuffisance nette de la superficie de 40 % d’espace libre, la désignation aire de protection environnementale des deux tiers environ de la forêt de hêtres (bloc de l’ouest) sera remplacée par les désignations zone résidentielle de faible densité et zone résidentielle de densité moyenne.

BACKGROUND

The Applications:

The City has received three development applications relating to a 269-hectare parcel of land. The application to amend the former Kanata Official Plan proposes to modify the boundaries of specific land use designations that were adopted in 1990. The Zoning By-law Amendment will implement the proposed Official Plan designations, as the lands are currently not zoned for urban development. The City has also received an application for Draft Plan of Subdivision approval. The Ward Councilor has exercised the discretion to remove delegated authority from staff.

The lands subject to the applications are located to the north of existing development in the Marchwood-Lakeside Community (also known as Kanata Lakes). The subject land straddles the Kizell Pond and runs north of the Beaver Pond where it meets the Morgan’s Grant Community and the future Terry Fox Drive extension. The western limit is the unopened First Line Road allowance and the eastern limit abuts the Kanata North Business Park. The lands are currently undeveloped and are covered by forest, Canadian Shield rock outcropping and locally significant wetlands. Goulbourn Forced Road, currently constructed to a rural standard, bisects the land. For planning purposes, the Marchwood-Lakeside Community is made up of Marchwood, which is planned to contain four neighbourhoods, and Lakeside, which is planned to contain three neighbourhoods. A Location Map is shown as Document 1.

In 1981, the City of Kanata entered into a legal agreement with the landowner of the time which required 40% of the total land area (566.5 hectares at that time) to be designated as “Open Space”. In return, the City would support the landowner’s application to designate the land for urban development. The decision to designate the land for urban development was rendered in 1983 by the Ontario Municipal Board, and the 40% Agreement continues to remain registered on title. Based on a total land area of 566.5 hectares, the 40% agreement requires that a total of 226.6 hectares be allocated as “Open Space”.

The 1981 40% agreement, amended in 1988, defines the applicable 40% lands as including the 18-hole golf course, stormwater management areas, natural environment areas and land to be used for park purposes. To date, a Surveyor’s Certificate certifies that 119.08 hectares of land have already been provided under the 40% agreement through registration of previous subdivisions, leaving 107.55 hectares to be dedicated and designated through the current applications.

As a condition of the development approvals granted in 1983, the landowner was required to submit a concept plan of the entire development. This concept plan formed the basis of the current Kanata Official Plan designations, which were adopted in 1990. The concept plan, shown at Document 2, reflects the form and location of development that is presently permitted by the applicable Official Plans. The current proposal represents a relatively minor deviation from the 1988 concept plan.

DISCUSSION

Council Approved Official Plan

The Growth Management strategies of the new Official Plan provide that growth will occur by directing it to the urban area. Environmental integrity will be maintained by conserving provincially and locally significant wetlands, maintaining ecosystems functions and protecting greenspaces. The subject applications are consistent with this strategic direction.

Within the Plan, Section 3 -“Plan Designations and Land Use” contains policies pertaining to the natural environment and the “Urban Natural Features” designation that applies to Trillium Woods, Kizell Pond and Beaver Pond. The Official Plan policies apply this designation to woodlands, wetlands, watercourses, and ravines and describe the permitted uses as including open air recreation, scientific, educational or conservation uses.

The proposed Kanata Official Plan amendment and Zoning By-law amendment comply with the policies contained in Section 4.7 of the Plan, “Environmental Objectives”. The objective to increase forest cover is met by maintaining as much of the most environmentally valuable land as possible. Also consistent with the objective of protecting and improving the habitat for fish and wildlife in stream corridors, Shirley’s Brook and a 30 metre buffer will be protected by applying an “Open Space” designation under the Draft Kanata Official Plan amendment.

The Plan designates the land as “General Urban Area” and “Urban Natural Feature”. The latter designation applies to Trillium Woods, Kizell Pond and Beaver Pond. The minor boundary change to the “Urban Natural Feature” area proposed does not necessitate an Official Plan Amendment to the City of Ottawa Official Plan. The applicable policy states “the boundaries of land designated Urban Natural Features are based on a variety of detailed mapping sources…..However, when more detailed environmental studies are completed, this additional information may require minor adjustments in the definition of features and functions and the interpretation of the boundary. It is not intended that these minor adjustments will require amendment to this Plan”.

The City of Ottawa Official Plan is currently under appeal. Therefore, the applications are subject to the policies of the Regional Official Plan and Kanata Official Plan.

Former Regional Official Plan (ROP) Designation

The subject lands are designated "General Urban Area" and "Natural Environment Area-A" by the former Regional Official Plan. The "General Urban Area" designation permits residential uses, as well as community facilities, retail uses and service commercial uses.

The areas that form part of the Trillium Woods, as well as Kizell Pond and Beaver Pond are designated "Natural Environment Area-A". The "Natural Environment Area" designation is intended to protect significant natural areas. However, the Plan recognizes that the boundaries of this designation may be interpreted differently without amending the plan, based on more detailed studies.

The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision therefore conforms with both the "General Urban Area" and "Natural Environment Area-A'" designations of the Regional Official Plan. An amendment to the Plan is not required.

Former Kanata Official Plan Amendment

The current Official Plan policies that apply to all of the Marchwood-Lakeside Community, including the subject lands, require that a total population of 23000 people be accommodated within the overall community at full build-out. The targets are set at achieving a population of 14000 in Marchwood and 9000 people in Lakeside. The current population is approximately 9700.

The subject proposal provides for 3248 dwelling units, with 332 of these completing the Marchwood Community and 2916 units to be developed within the three planned neighbourhoods of the Lakeside Community. It is therefore anticipated that population targets will come close to those set within the existing Kanata Official Plan policies, providing for approximately 13000 people in Marchwood and 8000 in Lakeside.

In order to implement the proposed plan of subdivision, changes to the Kanata Official Plan are proposed which affect the policies, as well as the land use designations shown on Schedule ‘B’ – “Urban Land Use Designations”. The Draft Official Plan amendment is contained in Document 3.

Schedule changes will adjust the boundaries of residential designations, move school, park and commercial sites and re-align certain collector streets. Policy amendments are also proposed, reducing the minimum lot size for the commercial use and de-centralizing the location of schools and parks. The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision would result in a slightly lower housing yield and population than what is currently targeted within the Kanata Official Plan for the Marchwood and Lakeside Communities. The OPA will therefore encourage densities to be increased wherever possible by assigning a dual “Low Density/Medium Density” designation where lotting for singles is proposed by the Draft Plan, and will increase the maximum permitted density within the “Residential High Density” designation.

The amendment will provide for the deletion the Walden Drive connection to Terry Fox Drive, through the Special Study Area lands. It will also provide for the potential deletion of the connection of Solandt Road between the lands north of the Beaver Pond and the Kanata North Business Park, subject to approval of an acceptable Transportation Impact Study and provision of alternate access to development lands in the Kanata North Business Park. This requirement will also be included as a condition of Draft Plan of Subdivision approval. Similarly, Official Plan policies regarding the phasing of road construction are deleted. Such requirements are more appropriately implemented through conditions of draft plan approval, and are listed in the conditions provided in Document 7.

The amendment to Schedule ‘B’ – “Urban Land Use Designations” will alter the boundary of the current “EPA” lands. The boundary of the “Environmental Protection Area” (EPA) north of the Beaver Pond remains relatively unchanged, with the exception of the loss of a small amount of open space west of Kimmins Court and the addition of a 40 metre wide corridor connecting the Beaver Pond forested area to Trillium Woods to the north. Also, Shirley’s Brook, along with its required 30 metre buffer and a small active park providing a mini soccer pitch and tot lot are added at the southeast intersection of Goulbourn Forced road and the rail right-of-way. The “EPA” lands on the west side of Goulbourn Forced Road at Kizell Pond/west block are decreased along the northern edge where this boundary has been shifted to the south. This is the area of greatest change between the current “EPA” boundary and the proposed new boundary, compromising some of the west block/beech forest. The designation of Trillium Woods as “EPA” remains unchanged.

Zoning By-law Amendment

The land has been designated for urban development since 1983. However, an implementing zoning by-law amendment has not yet been passed. The subject lands are currently not zoned for urban development and are zoned “Rural” by an old March Township Zoning By-Law No. 552. The proposed zone provisions prescribe development standards for single-detached, semi-detached, townhouse and apartment development. These are similar in nature to the most current forms of residential development, using reduced, less land-consumptive standards. The typical front and exterior side yard setbacks for Marchwood Development have been 4.5 metres, with a 7.5 metre rear yards. The proposed Zoning By-law employs 4.5 metres setbacks for garages, reduced to 3.0 metres for the dwelling. This can provide for a more pleasing streetscape of recessed garages. Rear yards will be reduced to 6.0 metres for one-storey dwellings, but increased to 15 metres where a yard abuts the rail right-of-way. Overall building coverage is increased from 40% to 55% for single-storey and 50% for two-storey units. This is consistent with Zoning By-laws in various growth areas of the city. Zone provisions for commercial and institutional uses have also been adjusted to be consistent with those standards currently used throughout the City. Despite the draft plan showing single-lots, the applicable zoning will also permit semi-detached and townhouse dwellings. This will allow the development densities to be increased more easily and facilitate meeting population targets for the Marchwood-Lakeside Community. Document 4 contains a table outlining the proposed zone provisions, as well as a Zoning By-law Schedule.

Rationale:

Planning Policy Context and Conformity

Currently, the three relevant Official Plans, being Kanata, the Region and the new City of Ottawa Plan, designate Trillium Woods, Beaver Pond and Kizell Pond, as well as forested area north of Kizell Pond (west block) as “Environmental Protection Area” (EPA), “Natural Environment Area – A” (NEA-A) and “Urban Natural Feature” (UNF), respectively. All designations generally have the intention of protecting the environmental value and integrity of the natural area. The three Official Plans also acknowledge that the boundary of the natural area may be further defined through the plan of subdivision process, field studies or other further study. The current applications and Draft Kanata OPA define the final natural area boundary. It is important to note that the three natural features within the subject lands (Trillium Woods, Beaver Pond and Kizell Pond/west block) constitute all of the “Urban Natural Features” designation within the former City of Kanata. This natural environment area is therefore intended to serve the whole Kanata community, and not just the immediate and adjacent neighbourhoods.

The proposed Draft Plan, attached as Document 5 (A and B) has been modified numerous times since its submission as an application in June, 2003. Staff is recommending approval of this plan (called Plan/Alternative ‘H’) and its associated Draft Official Plan amendment and Zoning By-law amendment.

Ratio of low, medium, high residential

The subdivision plan proposes the development of over 3200 dwellings. Of these, nearly 54% represent medium density townhouse development. High density residential development represents 11% of the dwellings proposes, while low-density single-detached development makes up the remaining 35%. The new Official Plan encourages higher density development such as this, as well as the use of alternative development standards to assist in providing more affordable housing. The proposed Zoning By-law amendment implements reduced setbacks and the use of some alternative development standards.

School Blocks

The proposed draft plan of subdivision contains one separate elementary school site within the final (4th) Marchwood neighbourhood. Within the three Lakeside neighbourhoods, two elementary schools and one high school site are proposed to be grouped together north of Kizell Pond, along the west side of Goulbourn Forced Road, opposite Trillium Park. The schools are also in proximity to the 5.4-hectare active City park, planned to provide four full size soccer pitches. The school boards have provided their concurrence on the proposed sites. These sites are designated and zoned “Institutional” in the draft OPA and Zoning By-law Amendment.

City Parks

The Planning Act permits the municipality to take up to 5% of the total land area as parkland dedication. With a total land area of 269 hectares, 13.45 hectares could be dedicated for parkland purposes through a typical subdivision approval process. However, based on the provisions of the 40% Agreement, more than 107 hectares will be dedicated as open space through the subdivision development. The areas of active parkland will be designated as “Open Space” and Zoned “Open Space-1”, while the natural environment areas are designated “Environmental Protection Area” (EPA) by the Kanata Official Plan and also zoned “OS-1”.

The proposed draft plan provides approximately 8.5 hectares of active parkland, including a 5.4-hectare community park, providing four playing fields. A Park Facilities Program Update: Kanata Lakes North Neighbourhood (November, 2002) indicates a need for soccer fields due to the growth in popularity of the sport, and a lack of playing fields in the vicinity. Additionally, each of the three Lakeside neighbourhoods are provided with a neighbourhood park, each having an area ranging from 0.48 hectares to 1.2 hectares. The remaining 5 hectares of parkland that would normally by dedicated under the Planning Act are essentially transferred to the “EPA” designation.

Servicing

Servicing of the proposed subdivision will be developed in four phases, the first phase being immediately north of Kanata Avenue, and west of Goulbourn Forced Road. Development of this neighbourhood will complete development within the Marchwood Community. The second phase of development will extend the sanitary sewer from the hydro corridor at the north end of Kimmins Court, and trunk watermain from the northeast end of the Beaver Pond. Generally, stormwater is channeled to Beaver Pond for development on the east side of Goulbourn Forced Road, and to Kizell Pond for development on the west side of Goulbourn Forced Road. The realigned Shirley’s Brook will also receive stormwater runoff. The third phase of development consists of the neighbourhood located between Kizell Pond and the Rail line. The last phase is located north of the rail line, west of Goulbourn Forced Road and south of Terry Fox Drive.

Capacity is not a concern as the proposed draft plan of subdivision contains densities and land uses similar to those proposed in the original concept plan. When the existing trunk sewers and watermains that will service this development were designed through previous subdivision development, capacity was provided for the subject lands.

Transportation

In 1985, the landowner of the time completed a Transportation Study for the Marchwood-Lakeside Community which was based on the concept plan shown as Document 2. The 1985 study was based on a unit count of more than 3700 dwellings and was approved by Kanata City Council. As part of the current planning submissions, the applicant has provided a revised Transportation Impact Study to update the earlier study and to address the minor changes between the transportation network of the original concept plan and the currently proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, containing approximately 3200 dwellings.

Two of the more considerable changes proposed to the transportation network since 1985 are the deletion of the Walden Drive connection to future Terry Fox Drive to the west, and the deletion of the Solandt Road connection between the Beaver Pond north neighbourhood and the Kanata North Business Park.

The proposed amendment to the Kanata Official Plan will allow for the possible deletion of the Solandt Road connection from Walden Drive north of Beaver Pond to the Kanata North Business Park. Deletion of this connection will be conditional upon the City’s acceptance and approval of a further Transportation Impact Study. The City will also need to consider the provision of an alternate means of access to development lands that would have been served by the Solandt Road extension. These requirements are contained within the subdivision conditions of Draft Plan Approval.

In addition, the Kanata Official Plan and the new Official Plan show the Walden Drive collector as extending westerly, through the Special Study Area (lands between the future Terry Fox Drive and the unopened First Line Road allowance) and connecting to future Terry Fox Drive. The Draft Official Plan Amendment deletes this connection in order to maintain the environmental integrity of the Special Study/Natural Environment Area lands.

Rail Right-of-Way

The former CN Railway line runs diagonally through the proposed subdivision. The right-of-way is owned by the City, and was originally purchased by the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton as part of its initiative to protect abandoned rail rights-of-way for future commuter rail service. The City currently leases use of the right-of-way to a manufacturer in Arnprior who makes one or more round trips per week on the line, employing trains operated by Ottawa-Central Railway (OCR).

Consistent with policies of the new City of Ottawa Official Plan, the rail line will remain protected for use as a future transportation corridor. Section 2 – Strategic Directions, states that the City will purchase surplus railway rights-of-way corridors for use as future transportation and utility corridors. When such rights-of-way are acquired, recreational and agricultural uses may be permitted as interim uses. The Plan further states that future use as a transportation or utility corridor will have priority over any interim use.

In this case, the line remains active; therefore the right-of-way is not proposed to be used for recreational purposes through the subdivision approval process. Because it is not proposed to be used as a recreational corridor, it will not be designated as Open Space. The zoning by-law will require deeper 15 metre setbacks for yards where residential lots abut the rail right-of-way. The developer is required to install 1.2 metre high black vinyl-coated chain link fence along the rail right-of-way for safety purposes. Noise abatement will be implemented when necessary through the construction of noise walls. At the current usage of one train per week, noise walls are not necessary. Under a light-rail scenario, they would likely be required. The draft plan conditions include a notice on title to all purchasers of the potential for light rail along this corridor, in addition to the standard noise warning clauses.

Shirley’s Brook

An emerging environmental issue that was not addressed in the 1990 Kanata Official Plan is the presence of Shirley’s Brook west of Goulbourn Forced Road. The Council approved Shirley’s Brook, Watt’s Creek Subwatershed Study (September, 1999) requires the protection of Shirley’s Brook, using a 30 metre wide buffer. The brook is situated within the development area north of the Kizell Pond EPA. Shirley’s Brook has been identified as fish habitat along its entire length within the subdivision area. Under the Federal Fisheries Act, Shirley’s Brook must be protected. Since Shirley’s Brook is an environmental feature, the area required to protect this natural resource is included within the “open space” definition of the 40% agreement and is designated as “Open Space” by the draft OPA.

Pedestrian pathway linkages have been added along the length of Shirley’s Brook inside the buffer area to create continuous connections between the larger EPA areas of Trillium Woods, Beaver Pond and Kizell Pond and the extension of the South March Highlands in the Special Study Area, west of First Line Road.

Environmental Protection Area, Green Linkages and the 40% Agreement

Earlier subdivision approvals and excess 40% land dedication from the original land holding has left the balance of 40% lands somewhat short in comparison with what is currently designated by the existing Official Plans. That is, the lands shown as “EPA”, “NEA-A” and “UNF” will be reduced in scale through the final subdivision approval because the remaining 107.25 hectares of open space must be divided among stormwater management, active parks, stream protection and buffers, wetlands, woodlands, greenspace linkages and pathways, and Trillium Woods. Some of these areas were not included in the existing “EPA” designations of the current Official Plans. In addition, approximately 7 hectares of excess Open Space (40% land) has been dedicated through the registration of previous subdivisions. The proposed plan of subdivision results in a net shortfall of open space mainly in the Kizell Pond/West Block area of approximately 7.29 hectares compared to what is currently designated by the three Official Plans.

The boundaries of the natural environment area (EPA) have been defined through the subdivision approval process. Green linkages have also been added as “EPA” to create a pedestrian-oriented recreational pathway system that links the various natural areas (Beaver Pond, Kizell Pond, Trillium Woods, South March Highlands). This exercise, and approval of the draft plan of subdivision complete the allocation of the remaining 107.25 hectares of open space lands required under the 40% agreement.

Document 8 is a comparative table that provides a break down of land areas designated as “open space”. The comparison shows the land area based on the 1990 concept plan, which was the basis for the current Official Plan designation, versus the proposed Draft Plan shown in Document 5. The table indicates that the “Open Space” lands north of the Beaver Pond will increase in size, while the Kizell Pond and west block area will be decreased from what is currently designated for protection. The Environmental Implications section of this report describes the methodology and consultation process whereby the fulfillment of the open space agreement as shown on the draft plan was determined.

Conclusions

In conclusion, staff support the approval of the Draft Plan of Subdivision and implementing Zoning and Official Plan designations as detailed in this report. The proposed draft plan balances existing and future community needs and respects the principles of the original open space agreement and existing land use designations.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

The “NEA” and “EPA” designations conceptually defined on Schedule B of the former Regional and Kanata Official Plans was the starting point for the definition of the natural area boundaries. In 2002, the City and landowner jointly commissioned ESG International Consulting Services to determine the boundaries of the conceptually defined Natural Environment Areas (NEA's) and the Shirley’s Brook watercourse within the Kanata Lakes development. Trillium Woods was excluded from this exercise as the boundaries are defined by development to the east, Terry Fox Drive to the north, the railway corridor to the south and the future alignment of Goulbourn Forced Road to the west. The exact northern boundary will be determined through the detailed design of Terry Fox Drive.

The boundary delineation of the Kizell Pond and Beaver Pond natural areas needed to consider:

· Environmental criteria;

· Stormwater Management requirements;

· Recreational Requirements; and,

· The 40% Open Space Agreement.

Policy 5.3.5.1 of the former Kanata Official Plan states, “The Natural Environment Area includes sites where landforms, vegetation or topography poses a high environmental value, are ecologically sensitive or have some other special characteristics that require protection from urban development.” This policy helped to derive the following environmental criteria used to initially define the “EPA” boundaries:

· Representation of diverse natural features

· Marsh and swamp wetlands

· Coniferous, mixed and deciduous forests

· Bedrock knolls

· Protection of the sensitive natural features

· Suitable development setback from the wetland habitat and edges of the forests

· Topography

· Locate boundaries beyond greater slopes

ESG International conducted field investigations in the summer of 2002 in order to accurately apply the boundary criteria. In November 2002, a report was prepared by ESG proposing boundary lines for the “EPA’s” and supporting environmental rationale. The proposed “EPA’s” included the wetlands and open water associated with Kizell Pond and the Beaver Pond, and suitable adjacent lands to protect the wetland. Large tracts of deciduous and mixed forest were incorporated within the “EPA” boundaries north of Kizell Pond, and smaller cedar and deciduous forests were included on the south side of Kizell Pond. The “EPA” boundary on the north side of Kizell Pond was designed to be large enough to include a core protected forest area of a minimum of 10 hectares for area sensitive breeding birds. A buffer of 10 to 15 metres was included around the perimeter of Kizell Pond to protect the wetland from the impact of adjacent development. Some of this buffer, particularly along the south side of Kizell Pond, has been compromised in an effort to accommodate the community’s desire to preserve more of the lands north of the Beaver Pond.

The “EPA” boundaries include provision for stormwater management, some existing trails and the space required for new trail alignments on both sides of Kizell Pond and on the north side of Beaver Pond. The south side of Beaver Pond is already developed and contains a pedestrian pathway. The new recreational trail alignment was designed to protect the more sensitive environmental features while providing the desired social experiences that could be achieved within the “EPA”.

A primary consideration for the allocation of 40% land is the environmental value of the land. Consequently, throughout the review process, staff have been recommending that as much of the “upland habitat forest” known as the “west block” be maintained as possible as it is considered to have the highest environmental value, second to Trillium Woods, of all lands currently designated for environmental protection. This “west block”, or “Beech forest” area represents a mature sugar maple forest with good representation of American beech and yellow birch forests. It is quite pristine and forms contiguous habitat with the South March Highlands area to the west.

A 1992 study commissioned by the City of Kanata, identified and prioritized areas for preservation within the Marchwood-Lakeside Community. In order of priority, these were, Trillium Woods, north of Kizell Pond and thirdly, north of Beaver Pond. Despite the environmental significance of the west block at Kizell Pond, the community desire to preserve Beaver Pond lands has resulted in a final draft plan of subdivision wherein the majority of the 7 + hectares of previously over-dedicated open space throughout Marchwood has ultimately come out of the west block “EPA” lands.

The current Kanata Official Plan designation shows a green linkage designated as “EPA” between Beaver Pond and Trillium Woods situated at the east end of Beaver Pond, north of Kimmins Court. The study undertaken by ESG examined this area and found it to have a high level of disturbance due to the presence of the hydro line corridor and formal and informal trails. The forested portion of this area is immature and very fragmented with extensive areas without a closed canopy of woody vegetation. The most significant feature is Kizell Drain situated within the existing open space lands adjacent to Kimmins Court. Kizell Drain and its associated buffer immediately west of Kimmins Court has already been dedicated to the City under the 40% agreement and will remain protected as “EPA”. The adjacent hydro corridor will be taken under the 40% agreement as “open space” as it will be developed with a pedestrian pathway that will link to the only existing pedestrian crossing over the rail line, connecting to pathways in Trillium Woods. A portion of the rock knoll, located immediately west of the Kizell Drain open space buffer will remain undeveloped and continue to be designated as “EPA”, while part of it will be developed in order to connect to the existing sanitary sewer at the north end of Kimmins Court.

The creation of a recreational linkage to Trillium Woods from Beaver Pond is considered to be an important component of the open space system that does not exist under the 1990 Kanata Official Plan. A 40-metre wide corridor is now proposed and is shown on the proposed subdivision plan. The community has requested a wider linkage. However, such an “ecological” corridor between the two “EPA’s” is discouraged given the extent of existing and proposed development. A natural ecological corridor between Beaver Pond and Trillium Woods would serve as a trap for wildlife within the residential development. This would have a negative impact on the wildlife as well as the homeowner.

The treed buffer to be preserved along the northern perimeter of the Beaver Pond has been widened and increased in size with respect to its current boundary under the Kanata OP. This has been done primarily at the request of the community. The existing community has expressed significant interest and desire to preserve as much of this area as possible from development.

Currently, wetland habitat, especially open water marshes, are under-represented in the Ottawa urban landscape based on the initial findings of the City’s Urban Natural Features Study. Maintenance of the Beaver Pond and particularly Kizell Pond as “Environmental Protection Areas” is consistent with the direction of the new Official Plan. The forested area associated with the "EPA's" will help to achieve the City’s forest cover target. These urban natural features are ecologically connected to the South March Highlands area to the north and west of the subject land. The connection with this significant environmental area improves the environmental values of the urban features.

The preservation and protection of the “Environmental Protection Areas” assists in achieving the new Official Plan goal for a green and environmentally sensitive City. Urban natural features provide a number of ecological and social benefits. Wetlands and woodlands provide a valuable contribution to biodiversity and wildlife habitat. The preservation and integration of the natural features within the community provides both an ecological and social richness. The natural features will serve as a focal point for the immediate and broader community. It will provide a sense of nature within an urban area allowing for educational and passive recreational benefits by all users.

The proposed plan is an attempt to achieve the best balance possible between the community’s wishes, the landowner’s existing right to develop the land, and the desire to preserve the more environmentally valuable area in the west block.

CONSULTATION

Notice of the applications was carried out in accordance with the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Policy. Information signs were posted on-site indicating the nature of the applications. The Ward Councillor is aware of the applications and the staff recommendation, and has been actively involved in City-initiated focus group meetings and in trying to achieve a consensus among community groups.

A Community Information Session was held in the community on September 18, 2003. Signatures of those in attendance numbered approximately 400, and the local newspaper estimated attendance at approximately 600 people. The primary matter of concern to the community was the desire to prohibit development on the forested land north of the Beaver Pond, south of the rail line and Trillium Woods.

In an effort to obtain community input in an effective and efficient manner, Staff coordinated a facilitated focus group. Invitees included representatives from the three most affected Community Associations (KLCA, Beaverbrook Community Association, and Morgan’s Grant/Briarbrook Community Association) as well as organized groups that had previously provided input and written comments about the applications. These groups included the Kanata Survey Group, the Trails Advisory Committee, The Ottawa Forest and Greenspace Advisory Committee and the Environmental Advisory Committee.

Several formal meetings have been held between focus group members, staff and the Ward Councillor. Meetings were held on December 17, 2003, February 3, 2004 and April 1, 2004. The subdivision public meeting required by the Planning Act was held on February 16, 2004 and drew approximately 150 attendees.

The basis of the discussions has focused on the question of which lands should be taken as protected as “Environmental Protection Area” under the 40% agreement. Details of the discussions and a list of questions raised by residents and focus group members, with staff responses is provided within Document 6 – “Consultation Details”.

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

This application was not processed within the timeframe established for the processing of Official Plan Amendments due to the complexity of the issue, the level and type of public consultation undertaken, and the interconnection of the OPA and Zoning-By-law Amendment applications with the Draft Plan of Subdivision approval process.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 – Location Map

Document 2 – Concept Plan (1988)

Document 3 – Draft Official Plan Amendment

Document 4 – Details of Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment

Document 5 – Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision A and B (2004) (Plan ‘H’)

Document 6 – Consultation Details; Questions and Answers

Document 7 – Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval

Document 8 – Table of 40% Land Area Calculations – 1990 OP Designation vs. Current Proposal

DISPOSITION

Department of Corporate Services, Secretariat Services to notify the owner (KNL Development Corporation, 2193 Arch Street, Ottawa, ON K1G 2H5), applicant (D.W. Kennedy Consulting Ltd., 604 Courtenay Avenue, Ottawa, ON K2A 3B5), All Signs, 8692 Russell Road, Navan, ON K4B 1J1, and the Program Manager, Assessment, Department of Corporate Services of City Council’s decision.

Planning and Development Department to prepare the implementing by-laws and forward to Legal Services Branch, and undertake the statutory notification amendment to the Zoning by-law (167-93) of the former City of Kanata.

Department of Corporate Services, Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.

LOCATION MAP Document 1

CONSULTATION DETAILS; QUESTIONS AND ANWERS Document 6

At the request of the Kanata Lakes Community Association (KLCA), meetings were held with staff, and site visits and walking tours of the existing and proposed trails were undertaken shortly after the original application was circulated in the summer of 2003. A Commmunity Information Session was held in the community on September 18, 2003. Signatures of those in attendance numbered approximately 400, and the local newspaper estimated attendance at approximately 600 people. The primary matter of concern to the community was the desire to prohibit development on the forested land north of the Beaver Pond, south of the rail line and Trillium Woods. Those in attendance expressed a desire to maintain their current use of the receational trails in this area. This is the area that has been designated for urban residential development since 1983.

Focus Group

Staff coordinated a facilitated focus group in an effort to obtain community input in a more efficient and productive manner. Invitees included representatives from the three most affected Community Associations (KLCA, Beaverbrook Community Association, and Morgan’s Grant/Briarbrook Community Association) as well as organized groups that had previously provided input and written comments about the applications. These groups included the Kanata Survey Group, the Trails Advisory Committee, The Ottawa Forest and Greenspace Advisory Committee and the Environmental Advisory Committee.

The focus group meeting, held December 17, 2003, considered the proposed draft plan of subdivision within the context of the 40% Agreement. Participants provided written comments to City staff following the meeting. The comments highlighted the difference of opinion that continued to exist between the groups in terms of which areas should be allocated as open space under the 40% agreement, the primary difference being the preservation of lands north of the Beaver Pond or lands north of Kizell Pond in the “west block”, known for its mature beech forest.

At the earliest Focus Group meeting, the Beaverbrook Community Association and the Kanata Survey Group considered preservation of the lands north of Beaver Pond as a priority. Another group, represented mainly by Kanata Lakes Community Association (KLCA) and environmental groups saw preservation of the “west block” as a high priority.

Following from this, staff and the applicant began an intensive review and negotiation process to find additional 40% land that could be allocated to one or both of the areas known to be of greatest concern to the community. A “savings” in 40% land was achieved by reducing three proposed north-south linkages between Beaver Pond and Trillium Woods into one 40 metre wide corridor. A large rock knoll located at the intersection of the rail line and future Terry Fox will not be considered, in its entirety, under the 40% agreement, despite the developer’s earlier request for the City to accept it as Open Space. Buffers along the rail line were removed wherever possible, and rear yard setbacks are increased as an alternative. Also, the rock knoll located west of the Kizell Drain open space buffer behind Kimmins Court was deleted and proposed for development. The discussions resulted in the “freeing up” of approximately 5.67 hectares of “EPA” land.

Subsequently, Plans A, B and C were developed as alternatives and presented at a second focus group meeting, held on February 3, 2004. All of the plans were generally based on the original 2003 subdivision submission. Plan ‘A’ added the “found” 5.67 hectares to the “west block”, north of Kizell Pond. This was the plan that was most supported by Planning Staff as it preserves more of the most environmentally valuable land, in keeping with the City’s Natural Environment policies, yet the plan still provides buffered recreational trails along the northern perimeter of Beaver Pond, as was planned by the original 1990 concept plan.

Plan ‘B’ distributes the “found” 5.67 hectares along the northern perimeter of the Beaver Pond and replaces the “Environmental Protection Area” (EPA) designation to the rock knoll at Kimmins Court. The “west block” becomes development land under this plan. This plan was most preferred by community groups.

Plan ‘C’ divides the 5.67 hectares between the two areas. It preserves approximately one third of the “west block” that is currently designated for protection by the three Official Plans. The plan preserves the rock knoll to the west of Kimmins Court and widens the treed buffer along the north sideof the Beaver Pond.

Conclusions of this second focus group meeting found that opinions continued to differ with respect to the preferred allocation of the 40% open space lands. That is, environmental groups continued to support preservation of the “west block” over widening the buffer along the north perimeter of the Beaver Pond. The community groups generally supported the latter, but have never specifically supported any of the plans presented. The position of the community has been that certain lands accepted by staff as falling within the definition of the 40% agreement should not be accepted as such. The community suggests that between 10 to 20 hectares of land can be freed up and redesignated from their current “environmental protection” designation to one that permits development in order to preserve a larger portion of lands north of the Beaver Pond.

Subdivision Public Meeting

The public meeting with respect to the subdivision application, as requried by the Planning Act, was held on Februrary 16, 2004. There were approximately 150 people in attendance at the meeting who, again, supported preservation of the lands north of the Beaver Pond.

The Kanata Lakes and Beaverbrook Community Associations, as well as the Kanata Survey Group presented their opinions in the context of a plan they called Plan ‘D’ or Plan ‘C-plus’. Their plan preserves a greater portion of the land north of the Beaver Pond, as well as some of the “west block”. To achieve Plan ‘D’, and “find” additional 40% land, the following modifications were made by the community:

Fill in a significant portion of Kizell Pond and use the compensation lands to the west for stormwater management purposes;
delete Shirley’s Brook;
delete the neighbourhood park (and tot lot) in Neighbourhood 1 of Lakeside;
delete buffered recreational pathways along the south side of Kizell Pond;
permit development on land that was clearcut and resulted in the “Compensation Land” deal in 2002;
access was (inadvertently) removed to existing pedestrian crossing over the rail line; and
reduce playing fields in the community park from 4 to 3 potentially by using a shared land arrangement with the adjacent school.

These and other suggestions had been made previously by the public and by community representatives throughout the Focus Group sessions. Staff have provided the rationale for the infeasibility of the proposed modifications at public meetings, through the Focus Group Sesssions and through direct correspondence. The list of community questions and suggestions and staff responses is outlined in detail within the “Question and Answer” section of Document 6.

Plan ‘H’

Following the Public Meeting, staff and the applicant gave further review to the subdivision plan with a view to finding additional land to be attributed to the Beaver Pond area. Staff have agreed to permit development to encroach into the buffer surrounding Kizell Pond, including approximately two acres of the higher, developable clearcut land. In addition, the “west block” has been reduced in area. These “EPA” lands have been tranferred to the Beaver Pond area, including to the rock knoll to the west of Kimmins Court.

A further meeting was organized by the Councillor’s office on April 1, 2004 between the applicant, City staff, the community representatives and the Councillor to try to reach a consensus on a plan. It is Plan ‘H’ shown as Document 5 (A & B) that comes closest to achieving this level of agreement between all parties.

The Table shown as Document 8 highlights the changes in land area of the “EPA” designation between the current OP designations and the proposed draft plan. This table shows that the Beaver Pond has gained some land area, while Kizell Pond/west block has been reduced in size. New areas falling under the 40% agreement (eg. Shirley’s Brook) are also listed under the 2004 concept plan.

Other Public Input

A written survey has been undertaken by an ad-hoc community group. Representatives of this group acted as full participants in the Focus Group sessions. The survey was extensive and was delivered to households throughout Kanata, with 1300 returned. The group’s analysis of their survey found that the community’s priority for natural area preservation is highest for Beaver Pond north, followed by Trillium Woods, West Block and finally, Kizell Pond.

Finally, dozens of e-mails, letters and petitions have also been received, with the primary goal being preservation of lands north of the Beaver Pond. A separate petition was also received from the residents of Kimmins Court who objected to the loss of the rock knoll to the west, the majority of which has since been reinstated. The questions asked and points raised within the letters and e-mails are consolidated in the “Questions and Answers” section that follows:

Questions and Answers:

1. Q. Why can’t we just say “no” to the developer and deny the applications?

A. The land was approved for urban development as a result of an Ontario Municipal Board decision in 1983 and was supported by both the City of Kanata and Region of Ottawa-Carleton through the 40% Agreement which was signed in 1981. This legal agreement, registered against the land, states:

“Campeau (landowner at the time) and Kanata mutually covenant and agree to support the application by the Region for approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 24 to the Official Plan of the Ottawa-Carleton Planning Area…”

There is a long history of approvals of Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 24 which brought the land into an urban development designation, followed by City of Kanata Official Plan Amendment No. 11 that implemented its current Official Plan landuse designations, permitting residential development and setting out the general location of “Environmental Protection Area”. The landowner has proceeded in good faith, believing in his rights to develop the land. It is therefore difficult to take away this right. Such a decision by the City may be appealed to the OMB by the landowner.

2. Q. The public wants to preserve as much of the land north of the Beaver Pond as possible. Why isn’t City staff insisting that the developer not build on these lands?

A. It is the provisions of the 40% agreement that gives the City the right to 107.5 hectares of land to be dedicated as “Open Space” within the current subdivision proposal. These provisions also set out what is defined as “Open Space” under the agreement. That is, (1) the golf course, (2) lands for stormwater management, (3) lands for natural environment preservation and (4) lands to be used for park purposes all fall within the definition of the 40% agreement.

The boundaries of the natural environment areas have generally been defined by a subdivision concept plan since 1988, which have been implemented in policy since 1990. This basically gives the landowner the legal right to develop the lands within the landuse designations that are currently in place in the Kanata, Regional, and New City of Ottawa Official Plan policy documents.

The process of finalizing the actual natural environment area boundaries has become, for City staff, an exercise of negotiation with the landowner, balancing community needs, and of applying proper planning principles (balancing the social needs/demands of the community with development costs for the proponent, larger City interests and the preservation of the environment).

Where Staff attempt to push the balance of interests in favour of the community, the landowner can find the costs of development to be too great. As a simple example, installation of services running from Kimmins Court and Walden Drive westerly to the Goulbourn Forced Road is necessary to service the lands on the west side of Goulbourn Forced Road. To install this amount of infrastructure without (sufficient) housing development to offset the costs is unacceptable to the developer. They will appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The threat of losing local control of the final plan layout to the OMB greatly inhibits the options available to City staff for achieving a plan that meets all of the residents’ requests. The OMB will likely recognize the right the landowner currently has to develop at least as much of the land north of the Beaver Pond as is proposed by the current subdivision plan.

Filling in of Kizell Pond

3. Q. A number of the community associations have suggested that existing Kizell Pond “EPA” should be filled in for urban development. This area should be traded to allow the lands north of the Beaver Pond to be preserved as environmental protection land instead.

A. There are planning policies, and environmental and social benefits which support its designation for environmental preservation. There are also stormwater servicing limitations and development constraints that preclude the implementation of this idea.

Planning Policy

Kizell Pond is designated in all Official Plans as a natural environment area worthy of protection. In the former Kanata Official Plan, Kizell Pond is defined as part of the larger ecosystem of the Kanata Pond/Kizell Creek Drainage Area. It is designated Environmental Protection Area. Policy 5.3.5.3 of the former Kanata Official Plan states:

“The Kanata Pond shall provide the focal point for the Lakeside Community. It shall be used as a recreation area and storm water management pond. It shall provide one part of the buffer between the two communities and shall be an important focal point for the total development area. The pond shall have both landscaped and natural edges linked by the sidewalk/pathway system. In accordance with Section 6.2 hereof, a Park Development Plan shall be prepared for the Kanata Pond area”.

The preservation of Kizell Pond is consistent with all natural environment policies in the three effective Official Plans. As well as the planning policy cited above.

Natural Environment

Overall, wetlands are an important environmental feature on the landscape. They are among the most productive and biologically diverse habitats in Ontario. Wetlands perform a number important functions including: the recharge and discharge of groundwater, corridors for the movement of species between habitats, recreational opportunities, provision of habitat for a wide variety of plant and wildlife species and water quality improvement. Over 70% of wetlands in southern Ontario have been lost to urbanization.

Kizell and Beaver Ponds are important wetland features within a local planning context. The Provincial Policy Statement states that municipalities can identify other natural heritage features and areas considered significant within their local context. Wetland habitat, especially open water marshes, are under-represented in the Ottawa urban landscape based on the initial findings of the City’s Urban Natural Features Study. The preservation of these wetlands contributes to the overall biodiversity in the City.

Kizell Pond represents a diverse wetland habitat of greater value than Beaver Pond. It supports cattail marsh and red maple and deciduous swamp. The regionally significant Blanding Turtle was observed in Kizell Pond during the 2002 field survey. Although the function of the swamp habitat has been changed as a result of the tree-cutting incident, it still represents wetland habitat that will rehabilitate and provide a greater diversity of habitat as the woody vegetation grows. Kizell Pond is also ecologically linked with the wetlands and upland habitat directly to the west of First Line Road (compensation lands) and Beaver Pond. Removing Kizell Pond would reduce the overall environmental value of the NEA lands, including the lands to the north and compensation lands to the west.

Wetland mapping and evaluations undertaken by the Ministry of Natural Resources indicate the local significance of the Kizell Drain Wetland Complex. The overall wetland score for this complex is 582. The MNR defines Provincially Significant Wetlands within northern and southern Ontario as any wetland that achieves a score of 600 or more points. While the Kizell Pond falls just short of meeting the requirements for protection as a Provincially Significant Wetland under the Provincial Policy Statements, it is short by only 18 points. The MNR encourages the conservation of other Wetlands (Classes 4 through 7) throughout Ontario. City Planning staff encourage and support the preservation of Kizell Pond as a locally significant wetland that forms part of a larger complex, running from Beaver Pond in the east, through the compensation lands to the west.

Mississippi Valley Conservation has taken the following position with respect to Kizell Pond:

“Approximately 200 metres upstream of Goulbourn Forced Road is within the fill regulated area of Kizell Drain under Ontario Regulation 159/90 (Fill, Construction and alteration to Waterways). Therefore, in addition to any approval from the City of Ottawa or any other agencies, a permit would be required from MVC before this filling could occur. Staff of MVC would not be in favour of this proposal. Our policies generally do not support the filling of natural riverine wetland areas. Among other functions, this wetland area temporarily stores water that then contributes to the base flow of Kizell Drain in dryer periods. Substantial sections of Shirley’s Brook dry up in the summer months. In comparison to Shirley’s Brook, Kizell Drain has a much steadier base flow due to the mitigative effects of the Beaver Pond and the upstream wetlands. Therefore, filling in these wetlands would have impacts for all of the Kizell Drain downstream of Goulbourn Forced Road. This area would also represent local fish habitat.”

MVC further states:

“The area around Kizell Pond has been designated as a natural area (NEA in the Region’s Official Plan and Urban Natural Feature in the new City of Ottawa Plan) in various planning documents for almost 10 years. MVC believes this is an appropriate designation for this area.”

For these reasons, it is inappropriate for the City to endorse filling in this natural feature. It is appropriate to preserve the environmental integrity and fish habitat of the pond as much as possible.

Social Benefits

Kizell Pond will be an important social amenity area for the larger Kanata community as well as the future residents of the Marchwood-Lakeside Community. It will be a valuable asset for the community providing the same social function that Beaver Pond presently contributes to the existing residents. The pathway system around its perimeter will allow the users to have a “nature experience” right in their backyard. The wetlands can provide an outdoor educational opportunity for the residents to learn about nature.

Servicing Limitations

The filling of Kizell Pond does not appear feasible from a stormwater perspective. Kizell Pond area is a designated storm water storage area for major storm events. This was identified in the Master Drainage Plan prepared for Kanata Lakes and is a basic assumption that has been incorporated into all the storm sewer construction completed to date. This use directly conflicts with any proposal to develop the Kizell Pond and would require an alternative storage area for this storm water. There is no alternative storage area for stormwater for the entire drainage area as well as the “new” development area. This is a problem that will not easily be resolved given the significant increase in elevation of the surrounding area.

The western limit of the KNL ownership is also very close to the split in watersheds between the Kizell Drain and Carp River. The low lands to the west of Kizell Pond are not available as an alternative stormwater outlet as it would mean diverting drainage from one watershed to another. Diversion of flows from one watershed to another is generally discouraged because of its negative environmental impacts on both watersheds. This is reinforced in the Council approved Shirley’s Brook/Watts Creek Subwatershed Study which recommends that no diversion of drainage can be undertaken as it would have negative impacts on base flow and fisheries within Shirley’s Brook.

Economic

The Kizell Pond area has been identified as an area to be left undeveloped since the original concept plan was prepared for Kanata Lakes in the 1980s and existing infrastructure has not been designed to support the development of this area. In order to develop Kizell Pond, environmental impacts aside, it would be necessary to remove the organic material from the pond area and fill the entire area with engineered fill above the 1:100 year flood levels of Kizell Pond. It would be cost prohibitive to develop this area in this manner.

An assessment was undertaken by a professional engineer to evaluate the cost of developing the south side of Kizell Pond. The lands under consideration covered an area of 7 hectares, with 950 metres of frontage along the south side of Kizell Pond. Cross sections of grade differences were provided. The depth of peat is estimated to be between 2 and 6 metres.

The report concludes that in order to build up to the extended limit of Kizell Pond, a five-metre high retaining wall would be required as well as approximately 100 cubic metres of engineered fill per lineal metre Costs would be incurred to remove and dispose of the peat and to dewater the excavation. Construction of the retaining wall and its required footings will add to the costs associated with developing Kizell Pond. In addition, the sanitary sewer would need to be lowered and the pedestrian pathway that is to run around the perimeter of Kizell Pond would be relocated, requiring the removal of peat and replacement with granular material. The costs for these works are estimated as follows:

Engineered fill $4,750,000

Retaining wall $2,375,000

Retaining wall footings $ 950,000

Sanitary sewer overdepth $ 190,000

Pathway base $ 475,000

Total $8,740,000

The Engineering report concludes that based on additional development costs well in excess of $8 million, it is not feasible to develop this 7 hectare parcel of land. The aesthetics of a 5 metre high retaining wall is of concern to both the developer and City staff.

4. Q. How large an area is required for Kizell Pond to accommodate its stormwater management function?

A. From an environmental perspective, the wetland feature and functions would benefit from sustaining current volumes. Kizell Pond will be used as a stormwater management system, meaning the current hydrologic regime of the wetland will have both on-site and off-site benefits. Maintaining water volume within the wetland will improve the wetland’s ability to remove impurities from the water. This wetland is the headwaters to Kizell Drain/Watts Creek. Maintaining the wetland and its hydrologic function will help to ensure that there is no negative impact on baseflow and subsequently aquatic habitat downstream. Wetlands have the ability to store water and slowly release it during dry periods when baseflow is very low. This helps to sustain fisheries within the watercourse during summer dry periods.

The actual surface area required for the pond depends on the total storage volume required. Preliminary modeling of the storm system has suggests that the 100 year storm elevation of the pond will follow the 94.3m contour interval. This may change as the design evolves. Draft Plan conditions of subdivision approval will require that a final stormwater management plan be approved prior to registration of this phase of the subdivision.

5. Q. If Kizell Pond is not appropriate to be filled in for development, then why not fill part of it in to accommodate the City’s active park requirements? Can it be used for the soccer pitches?

A. This being a community scale park, it is most appropriately located with frontage along the primary collector road, being Goulbourn Forced Road. The grades at this section of Kizell Pond would make filling in and leveling the land for the purpose of soccer pitches challenging and costly to the municipality. This is not the preferred location from a community planning, or from an engineering perspective. It is staff’s opinion that the costs outweigh the benefits of preserving additional urban natural environment land in this instance.

In addition, it is desirable from an environmental perspective to maintain the existing size of Kizell Pond in order to maintain its ecological integrity. It is acknowledged that its use as a stormwater management pond will have an ecological impact. Maintaining a larger size of wetland pond will minimize this impact, allowing pollutants to more easily and fully dissipate.

Economically, such a proposal would also be cost prohibitive, as the peat would have to be removed and be replaced with engineered fill. Peat is extremely frost susceptible with no guarantee as to how it would settle each spring. If the peat were not removed, the likely result would be an undulating playing surface that would be unacceptable from both a safety and a usability perspective.

6. Q. Do not accept the damaged, clear cut area of Kizell Pond as Natural Environment Area (NEA) or as dedication under the 40% Agreement.

A. The unauthorized tree cutting incident in April of 2002 damaged approximately 4 hecatres of the Kizell Pond Natural Environment Area. Within the NEA boundary, extensive tree removal occurred in the cedar upland forest south of Kizell Pond, immediately west of Goulbourn Forced Road, and within the ash and maple swamp to the west of Kizell Pond, east of the First Line Road allowance. Tree removal also occurred at the edge of the wetland habitat west of Goulbourn Forced Road, on the south side of the pond. The damaged area extended to the north side of Kizell Pond on a portion of upland deciduous forest, contiguous with the impacted swamp area.

Immediately following the tree cutting, the City negotiated a settlement with the landowner that resulted in agreement that the damaged area within the original NEA boundary would remain as natural environment area. The City maintains the position that the destruction of a designated natural feature does not relieve an individual from the associated protection policies. The developer is required to rehabilitate the damaged habitat prior to the City accepting the dedication of the lands. This requirement is included within the draft plan of subdivision conditions. In addition, the monies from the tree cutting ($10,000) will be used to prepare and implement a management plan for the NEAs. Finally, the landowner will provide compensation land immediately adjacent to Kizell Pond on the west side of the First Line Road allowance at a ratio of three acres for each one acre that was clear cut.

The majority of the damaged area within Kizell Pond NEA was within the wetland itself. The damaged wetland areas cannot be taken out of the larger natural feature. The damaged area along the southern edge of Kizell Pond accomodates the recreational pathway and helps to buffer the effects of adjacent development on the wetland. From an environmental perspective, this area should not be excluded from the Kizell Pond NEA as it performs an environmental, social, recreational and stormwater function.

Nonetheless, this 10 metre buffer surrounding Kizell Pond is an area that has been compromised within the final proposed draft plan in order to achieve the community’s desire for a wider buffer along the north side of Beaver Pond, and to try to recoup the NEA land that was lost within the “west block”.

7. Q. Why is fish habitat and Shirley’s Brook considered under the 40% Open Space Agreement?

A. The fish habitat resources west of Second Line Road allowance were not incorporated in the natural areas and open space network for the Marchwood-Lakeside Community in the former Kanata Official Plan. The administration and implementation of the Federal Fisheries Act as well as environmental attitude has changed since the 1980s, which no longer allows creek systems to be piped. However, to the east of the Second Line Road allowance, Shirley’s Brook and Kizell Drain were included in the Environmental Protection Area designations associated with Trillium Woods and Beaver Pond. Because watercourses and associated aquatic resources encompass the 40% agreement principles as important natural features and habitat, the remaining section of Shirley’s Brook was considered to be part of the 40% Open Space Agreement (“lands for natural environment preservation”) for the subject lands under consideration in this report.

8. Q. Does Shirley’s Brook west of Goulbourn Forced Road constitute fish habitat? If so, can the creek corridor be decreased to 20 metres from the proposed 30-metre corridor?

A. Shirley’s Brook was identified as fish habitat in the Council approved Shirley’s Brook/Watts Creek Subwatershed Plan. The report classifies Shirley’s Brook within the development as Type 1 habitat. Mississippi Valley Conservation and Department of Fisheries & Oceans conducted a further review of the fisheries resources within Shirley’s Brook. Field investigations conducted by both agencies verify that Shirley’s Brook constitutes fish habitat within its entire length of stream, including east of Goulbourn Forced Road. Aquatic inventory work associated with the future Terry Fox Drive Alignment north of Richardson Side Road concluded that Shirley’s Brook west of Goulbourn Forced Road would constitute fish habitat as well.

Shirley’s Brook is a warm water tolerant fish habitat. The Council approved Shirley’s Brook/Watts Creek Subwatershed Plan recommends a 15 metre setback from top-of-bank. Therefore a 30 metre corridor is required, at a minimum, to accommodate the stream and appropriate setbacks. Moreover, rehabilitation of the relocated creek will require the creek to meander in a natural manner. Consequently, the 30 metre wide open space area to be dedicated under the 40% agreement may ultimately need to be wider at some points to accommodate the meander. Where this is necessary, the open space dedication will not come out of the 40% allotment. This will be a condition of draft plan approval, and will be adjusted on the final plans prior to registration.

Community representatives have suggested moving the “buffer” north so that it is incorporated within the City’s rail right of way, thus reducing the 40% allocation required for Shirley’s Brook. However, the meandering of the brook that will be necessary to improve fish habitat over current conditions could cause the brook itself to encroach into the right of way that is protected for possible future light rail.

In a letter provided by DFO, dated February 27, 2004, the comments state: “We consider the proposed relocation of Shirley’s Brook between the existing Goulbourn Forced Road and the eventual new Terry Fox Road to be acceptable in principle. Maximizing or accommodating the subdivision development potential of the land is not considered as adequate justification for a Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction (HADD). In this instance, we see the relocation as an opportunity to achieve a considerable net gain of habitat. This opinion is based on the understanding that the end result will provide equal or increased stream length and improved quality of fish habitat.”

Conditions requiring DFO and MVC approval prior to registration of the subdivision are included as conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval.

9. Q. Why are the applications proceeding prior to Department of Fisheries and Oceans approvals for relocation of Shirley’s Brook west of Goulbourn Forced Road?

A. The City received comments on June 26, 2003, from the MVC who were circulated the applications for an Official Plan amendment, Zoning By-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision earlier in June, 2003. The response at that time contained the standard requirement to include DFO approval as a condition of Draft Plan of Subdivision approval. That is, DFO approval is required to permit relocation of the brook prior to registration of the subdivision.

A new, revised comment was received from MVC in January, 2004. The comments indicate that MVC does not recommend approval of the draft plan prior to DFO approval. A meeting was subsequently held with DFO and MVC to resolve the matter. MVC now approve of the issuance of draft plan approval to the plan of subdivision, subject to conditions that will require the approval of DFO in advance of subdivision registration.

10. Q. Why are the recommendations of the Brunton study of 1992 not being implemented?

A. Daniel Brunton was retained in 1992 by the former City of Kanata, in cooperation with the Kanata Lakes Community Association and Genstar, the landowner at the time, to undertake an environmental assessment of the natural features within the Kanata Lakes area. One of the objectives of the study was to clarify the boundaries and extent of the existing Natural Environment Areas. Based on Brunton’s findings, four major upland forested areas of significance were identified and prioritized as follows: 1) Trillium Woods, 2) West Block, 3) Kanata Pond Ridge (north of Beaver Pond) and, 4) Snake Road outcrop (north of railway corridor, west of Goulbourn Forced Road).

The Official Plans of the former City of Kanata and the former Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton were never amended to fully implement Brunton’s 1992 study recommendations. The natural area designations and conceptual delineation that existed in the 1990 Kanata Official Plan and the Regional Plan have now been approved within the new City of Ottawa Official Plan.

Brunton’s findings may be environmentally sound. However, because the landuse policies and designations within the various Official Plans never implemented the findings, the upland forest south of Trillium Woods, north of Beaver Pond continues to be designated for urban development today.

Trillium Woods north of the railway corridor is designated in all Official Plans for environmental preservation. Recently, the City purchased, through a land exchange, the northern portion of Trillium Woods, south of Terry Fox Drive, adding natural environment lands to the Trillium Woods.

The majority of the “west block” is also currently designated as natural environment area. However, this particular area will now be reduced in area due to the open space requirements associated with the 40% Agreement. City staff have been supporting allocation of open space area to the west block to preserve as much as possible its ecological integrity and function as part of the greater South March Highlands area. The attention to the “west block” is consistent with Brunton’s recommendations as this was the second highest environmental area within Kanata Lakes.

11. Q. Where are the Black Cherry Trees that are referenced in the 1992 Brunton Report, and are they being saved?

A. Both ESG’s 2002 report and Brunton’s 1992 study state that the Black Cherry species are situated on drier, rocky ground north and south of the CNR Tracks east of Goulbourn Forced Road, particularly north of the CNR tracks.

A draft plan condition will be included that will require the siting and identification of Black Cherry trees within the required Tree Preservation Plan. The trees will be preserved where possible. The Tree Preservation Plan must meet with staff approval.

12. The community has raised concerns about the proximity of the school blocks to Trillium Woods.

A. The school boards do not share the concern and indicate that school sites have often been set in proximity to forested areas. Staff find the proximity of the two uses to be beneficial insofar as additional parking and washroom facilities can be made available for each use. Moreover, the location of these uses fronting along Goulbourn Forced Road is beneficial from a design perspective as it minimizes the occurrence of residential reverse lotting where noise walls would likely be required. Accessibility is improved from a transportation perspective by keeping traffic on the collector roads and off local streets. Moreover, the proposed sites will be well served by public transit and a network of public sidewalks and pathway linkages.

13. Utilize a shared parking arrangement between the school site(s) and the community-scale park.

A. The community would like to reduce the area of active parkland within the subdivision and transfer the open space to forested lands north of the Beaver Pond. Staff have considered the option of relying on a “shared parking” arrangement by combining a school site with the Community Park, which could save approximately 0.8 hectares. However, such an arrangement hinges on the school board taking its option on the site. Where a school board does not exercise its option, the City is unable to provide the facilities originally intended for the park. There have been two instances within the existing Marchwood Community where parks could not be developed or completed in a timely manner due to a shared land arrangement with school boards. Staff are therefore recommending that the full area required for active parkland be designated for such use.

14. Q. Take the 6 acres from the yet-to-be developed Walden Park and apply it to lands north of the Beaver Pond. The school has decided not to build there anyway.

A. The school has not yet exercised its option, but it has also not waived it. Recent discussions with the school board indicate there is still strong consideration of this site for an elementary school.

Walden Park is actually City-owned. Lands north of the Beaver Pond, including the rock knoll west of Kimmins Court, continue to be owned by the developer. It is not City practice to sell City-owned parkland for development purposes, nor is it appropriate to set such a precedent.

The budget for park development was to be spent this year to develop the park. The project has been deferred for another year in anticipation of the school taking its option.

Planning staff do not support the sacrifice of planned urban active parks for forested land within an urban community where the need for active parkland has been identified.

The Park Development Plan for this park is complete.

15. Q. A petition was received from Kimmins Court residents opposing the redesignation of a portion of the EPA lands nearest their homes, west of the hydro corridor. The petition refers to the rock knoll area as Parkland and expresses concern about wildlife habitat being affected. Residents state that development should not occur on the lands between Kimmins Court and the Hydro Corridor to the west.

A. The land is not parkland. It is owned by the developer and was designated as Environmental Protection Area (EPA) at the same time as the “west block” lands were also designated “EPA”. There is currently city-owned open space surrounding the homes on Kimmins Court, where Kizell Creek runs through. The creek will continue to have a 15-metre buffer on either side for protection of fish habitat. This buffer is similar in width to the buffer on the east side of Kimmins between it and the Beaverbrook community. The homes on Kimmins Court will remain buffered from development north of the Beaver Pond by virtue of this city-owned open space.

Recent and past studies (Muncaster 2001, Brunton 1992) did not find the EPA at the east end of the Beaver Pond, north of Kimmins Court to be environmentally valuable. This area was found to have a high level of disturbance due to the presence of the hydro line corridor and formal and informal trails. The forested portion of this area is immature and very fragmented with extensive areas without a closed canopy of woody vegetation. The most significant feature is Kizell Creek situated within the City-owned open space lands adjacent to Kimmins Court. Also, the sanitary sewer will run from the existing stub at the cul-de-sac end of Kimmins Court and connect to Walden Drive to the west. This area will therefore be disturbed, and has low environmental value.

As a result of further community consultation, staff now support preserving most of the rock knoll between the Kizell Creek open space and the hydro corridor. While this land is lower in environmental significance than the “west block”, residents of Kimmins Court will be the most highly impacted by the new development. Moreover, the “EPA” designation was in place prior to construction of the homes. It is therefore appropriate to maintain the buffer of the rock knoll for residents of this area, acknowledging that the northern-most portion of the area will be developed to connect the sanitary sewer that presently ends at the north end of Kimmins Court.

16. Q. Why is the hydro corridor immediately west of Kimmins Court included in the 40% agreement?

A. The corridor can be used to provide pedestrian access to the rail right of way, leading to the existing pedestrian crossing into Trillium Woods (over private property). It will be developed with a pedestrian pathway and is therefore considered to be open space under the 40% agreement. It will be a condition of Draft Plan Approval for the developer to construct the pathway to City standards.

17. Q. The community wishes to prohibit development as much as possible, or in its entirety, north of the Beaver Pond. It is understood that the sanitary sewer and watermain will need to be run from where they currently end, at Kimmins Court and Walden Drive, at the east end of Beaver Pond respectively. Instead of constructing Walden Drive through the north Beaver Pond lands, the community suggests the lines should be run along the rail corridor as an alternative to running the lines through Walden Drive, which is otherwise required to service development on the west side of Goulbourn Forced Road.

A. The original community concern was that the installation of the trunk sanitary sewer would require that an extra deep trench be blasted through the rock knoll to the west of the power lines. This sewer will now be located in street 20 parallel to the railway corridor avoiding the rock knoll entirely. Where street 20 intersects Walden Drive, the sewer will continue westerly in Walden Drive to Goulbourn Road.

Watermains are buried at a depth of 2.4m below the crown of the road or finished grade when not under a road. A watermain will need to be installed in Walden Drive to service the lots that front onto it. The only difference in the size of a watermain trench for a 200mm diameter local watermain versus a 400mm diameter trunk is 200mm of extra depth to accommodate the larger diameter. Relocating the trunk watermain to adjacent the railway corridor would not only be extremely costly, but would necessitate additional blasting and tree removal.

Moreover, this suggestion runs counter to the fundamental principles of servicing, such as long-term dependability and accessibility to the infrastructure for installation, operation and maintenance purposes, as well as capturing the total drainage area for sewers, and cost effectiveness of design.

Trunk services are typically developed using a central spine approach. This affords the City the use of a trunk sewer to convey large flows, allowing it to capture drainage from developments on either side of the sewer as it moves toward the outlet. This approach is intended to negate the need for multi-trunk sewer systems to service the same area, adding to the cost of installation, operation and long-term maintenance.

It is not appropriate for such services to be installed within private property, using easements in favour of the City. These services are typically constructed in lands that will be under municipal ownership such as road allowances.

The local sanitary collector sewer located north of the Beaver Pond has been part of the wastewater servicing strategy for Kanata Lakes since the initial servicing concept was prepared in the early 1980’s. This sewer is proposed to drain all of the Kanata Lakes urban area north of the Beaver Pond and Kizell Pond. To do this, the sewer runs parallel to the Beaver Pond draining easterly to an outlet which was provided at the north end of Kimmins Court as part of the very first phase of development of Kanata Lakes. Consistent with this original servicing strategy, the trunk sanitary sewer, which drains all of Kanata Lakes, was reduced at the north limit of Kimmins Court to a size sufficient to drain the urban area south of the Beaver Pond only. These existing conditions alone make it necessary to install a collector sewer north of the Beaver Pond, outletting to the north end of Kimmins Court.

18. Q. If sewers are to be installed within Walden Drive, north of the Beaver Pond, how deep will they need to blast and what impact will this have on the remaining treed buffer along the north perimeter of the Beaver Pond?

A. Based on a preliminary sewer profile provided by the applicant’s engineering firm, the sanitary sewer from the point where it connects to the existing trunk sewer in the hydro corridor east of Kimmins Court, to approximately the mid-point of Phase 2 (area north of the Beaver Pond), has an average depth of 2 to 4 metres, with a maximum of 6 metres depth at the connection point. The remainder of the sewer as far west as Goulbourn Forced Road averages 4 to 5 metres in depth except for three locations where it skirts or goes through knobs where the maximum depth is 9 metres.

Staff have discussed the matter of potential impact on trees from blasting with the City Forester. In his experience in similar situations, there is little impact to the trees caused by blasting in proximity to a forested area. Instead, his concern is for damage to trees caused by construction vehicles. His recommendations are to ensure construction fencing is erected and present at all times. Further, that City Forestry staff will be on-site to provide a significant lever of monitoring of construction activity. Draft Plan conditions will be applied to require adherence to this. Construction fencing will be required to define the limit and protect the natural environment area; and re-fuelling of construction vehicles will only be permitted in designated areas. In addition, it is a condition of draft plan approval that the Owner shall provide a system of measures to protect the trees and their root systems during blasting, to the satisfaction of the City.

19. Q. Who pays the cost of installing infrastructure through the lands north of Beaver Pond?

All costs associated with development of a parcel of land are paid by the developer up front, and ultimately, the new home buyers. Once the works are completed to the City’s satisfaction, the City will take ownership of the infrastructure. At that point, City funds are used for maintenance and life cycle costing of the infrastructure.

20. Q. Have the municipally owned road allowances of Goulbourn Forced Road, through the Trillium Woods, and old Second Line Road allowance been inadvertently included in the 40% calculation?

A. Confirmation from the Ontario Land Surveyor indicates that 0.45 hectares for the community park was inadvertently included in the 40% calculations. There is therefore an additional 0.45 hectares to be put back into NEA lands. This has been added to the buffer north of the Beaver Pond.

The existing Goulbourn Forced Road Alignment will be traded with the developer for the new road alignment where it veers from the Second Line Road allowance.

The old Second Line Road allowance to the south of the rail right-of-way has already been closed and sold to the abutting landowner, now the developer (KNL).

21. Q. The municipally owned land immediately south of Terry Fox Drive extension should be traded with the developer for additional 40% land.

A. This land is owned by the municipality and is therefore not subject to the 40% agreement. The City may exchange it with the developer for lands required to construct Terry Fox Drive and, in particular, the stormwater management ponds required to treat road drainage.

However, an additional 0.8 hectares has been identified as 40% land where the City will encroach into the rock knoll at the intersection of the rail line and Terry Fox Drive overpass. In terms of the final proposed draft plan, this has been kept in reserve. It is staff’s intention to add this area to the west block, if possible, prior to registration of that phase.

22. Q. Some residents object to the alignment of future Terry Fox Drive through lands owned by the City and designated as natural environment area (South March Highlands).

A. The alignment of Terry Fox Drive was set by the Terry Fox Drive Environmental Assessment Study. The study has fulfilled the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The matter is separate from the adjacent subdivision development by a private developer.

However, the land value of the environmental area required for the roadway will be put back into the Environmental Lands Acquisition fund. This fund was originally used to purchase the Terry Fox Drive right-of-way through the South March Highlands Area.

23. Q. The rock knoll at the intersection of the rail line and Terry Fox Drive overpass should not be included in the 40% agreement.

A. Originally, staff had supported preservation of this knoll as a focal point in this location. It would also serve as a significant connection between the Shirley’s Brook pathway and the unopened First Line Road allowance pathway, leading to west block/Kizell Pond and to the South March Highlands. However, due to other considerations and trade-offs, it was reduced to a “nice to have” feature, but not necessary. Consequently, in negotiations with the developer, staff refused to accept it as part of the 40% agreement. The developer would not agree. A negotiated settlement was reached that resulted in the two parties splitting the difference. The rock knoll will remain undeveloped, at a cost of approximately 1 hectare from the 40% allotment.

CONDITIONS OF DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Document 7

File: D07-16-03-0025

CONDITIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL

KNL DEVELOPMENTS LTD.

LAKESIDE SUBDIVISION

DRAFT APPROVED DD/MM/YYYY

The City of Ottawa's conditions applying to the approval of the final plan for registration of KNL Developments Ltd. subdivision (D07-16-03-0025) are as follows:

					Agency to Clear
	General
1.	This approval applies to Draft Plans 1 and 2, certified by, Edward M. Lancaster, Ontario Land Surveyor, dated 02 March 2004, Plan 1 being Part of Lots 6, 7 and 8, Concessions 2 and 3 and Part of the Road Allowance between Concessions 2 and 3, and Plan 2, being Part of Lots 7, 8 and 9, Concessions 2 and 3 of the KNL development.
2.	The Owner agrees, by entering into subdivision agreements, to satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the City of Ottawa, including but not limited to, the phasing of the plan for registration, the provision of roads, installation of services and utilities, and drainage.				OTTAWA (PPD)
3.	Any residential blocks on the final plan shall be configured to ensure that there will generally be no more than 25 units per block.				OTTAWA (PPD)
4.	Prior to any further division of lots or blocks, the City of Ottawa may require an additional agreement to address any new or amended conditions.			OTTAWA (PPD)
5.	That the Owner shall employ Professional Engineers to the satisfaction of the City, to design and supervise the construction of the Subdivision Works in accordance with the City Specifications. No departure from the City Specifications is permitted without the written consent of the City. "As Built" drawings of the development works shall be provided to the City's satisfaction.	OTTAWA (PPD)
6.	The Owner agrees to promptly notify the City Clerk in writing should any of the Works required by the Subdivision Agreement be assigned to other parties. Such notification shall not release the Owner of his obligation to construct such Works.	OTTAWA (PPD)
7.	The Owner agrees that its obligation to construct or install the Works, as required by the Subdivision Agreement, shall not be assigned to any party who purchases land on which a residence has been constructed.	OTTAWA (PPD)
8.	The Owner agrees to co-ordinate the staging of the Subdivision to the satisfaction of the City in consideration of the construction of the Works with the development of other lands in the area, or provision of underground services within the Subdivision.	OTTAWA (PPD)
9.	The Owner agrees that, where applicable, all Offers of Purchase and Sale shall contain a clause notifying the purchasers of the type, location, construction and size of any sidewalk abutting the lands, which are the subject of the offer.	OTTAWA (PPD)
10.	The Owner agrees to implement the recommendations of all applicable reports. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that all reports and/or studies required as a result of the approval of the Plan of Subdivision shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City at the sole expense of the Owner. Further, that the City may require certification by the Owners Professional consultants that the works have been designed and constructed in accordance with the approved reports, studies, standards specifications, and plans to the satisfaction of the City.	OTTAWA (PPD)
	Zoning
11.	Prior to registration of the plan of subdivision, the City of Ottawa shall be satisfied that the proposed plan of subdivision conforms with a zoning by-law approved under the requirements of the Planning Act, with all possibility of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board exhausted.	OTTAWA (PPD)
12.	For each registration, the Owner shall provide a surveyor’s certificate from an Ontario Land Surveyor indicating the frontage and area of all lots/blocks on the final plan.	OTTAWA (PPD)
	Highways/Roads
13.	Prior to registration the Owner shall to the satisfaction of the City revise the final plan to : 1. Eliminate the broken back curve at the east end of Walden Drive. This shall include investigating the use of a portion of the hydro corridor for part of the road allowance. 2. Where possible provide blocks of land for grade separation embankments at the intersection of Goulbourn Road and the Arnprior Nepean Railway ROW . 3. Where feasible, based on natural features and topography, improve roadway connections between internal local streets and eliminate cul-de-sacs, bulbs and eyebrows, to the satisfaction of the City.		OTTAWA (PPD)
14.	The Owner shall convey to the City, in accordance with the principles of the 40 percent agreement, an unencumbered road widening along the Second Line Road allowance between Concessions 2 and 3 in conjunction with the dedication of the realigned Goulbourn Forced Road. The Owner's certificate on the M-Plan shall indicate which Block(s) (are) being dedicated as a public highway of the City of Ottawa, which plan shall be submitted in draft to the City Surveyor.		OTTAWA (PPD)
15.	Where deemed applicable, at the City’s discretion, the Owner shall convey to the City, at no cost, the land required to construct grade-separated crossings.		OTTAWA (PPD)
16.	The design of all road intersections, including geometric, intersection spacing, grades, the conveyance of the necessary sight triangles and required 0.3 m reserves necessary for lot access control, shall be to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa.		OTTAWA (PPD)
17.	The Owner shall undertake to have the approved Subdivision Transportation Impact Study updated by a Professional engineer with expertise in undertaking such studies, for each phase of development The updates shall comply with the City of Ottawa’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (September 1995) in confirming corridor protection requirements, intersection configurations and turning lane requirements as well as identifying TDM measures and analyzing traffic impacts, transit impacts and implications for pedestrian and bicycle movements. The methodology and analysis principles shall be to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa. The update for the first phase of development shall also address the following matters: 1. The requirement for the connection of Solandt Road from Hines Road to Walden Drive. 2. The timing and phasing of construction of all collector roads including the construction of Terry Fox Drive to Goulbourn Road. 3. The requirement for temporary construction access roads to accommodate construction traffic. 4. Requirement of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Owner shall, at its cost, implement the recommendations of the revised approved study including any traffic signals, when warranted, and related roadway modifications, subject to applicable development charge contributions. Further, the Owner will be responsible for the construction of Solandt Road within its subdivision, subject to any applicable development charge contributions, unless both of the following can be demonstrated: 1. The approved Traffic Impact Study indicates that the Solandt Road connection is not required and that the balance of the road network can appropriately accommodate the traffic movements to and from the subdivision; 2. That the City secures alternate public road access to Block 12, Plan 4M-1075, which was originally planned to be accessed via the extension of Solandt Road.		OTTAWA (PPD)
18.	The Owner agrees to transfer to the City at no cost, the land required for Terry Fox Drive right-of-way upon request by the City.		OTTAWA (PPD)
19.	All streets shall be named to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa.		OTTAWA (PPD)
20.	The Owner shall, at its cost, apply for and obtain all necessary road closings and applicable land transfers within the plan of subdivision. This shall be completed prior to the registration of the plan of subdivision.		OTTAWA (PPD)
21.	That the Owner acknowledges that the future Goulbourn Road is a roadway eligible for funding from the Development Charge reserve at a rate of 90% of costs from Development Charges and 10%of the cost from a non-growth fund in accordance with the commitments of the former Kanata Development Charge Bylaw. The roadway is to be developed by the City in accordance with any requirements stipulated in the Environmental Assessment Act. As part of the detailed planning and design for Goulbourn Forced Road, an environmental mitigation plan may be required, outlining the specific mitigation and monitoring measures required to ensure minimal impacts to Trillium Woods, Kizell Pond and Beaver Pond Urban Natural Features, as well as Shirley’s Brook.		OTTAWA (PPD)
22.	The Owner shall dedicate all proposed streets on Plan 1 and Plan 2, in addition to the road widening block adjacent Block 703 on Plan 2 and Block 754 on Plan 2, as shown on the plans as Public Highways to the City.		OTTAWA (PPD)
23.	The Owner shall at its sole cost prepare and register any reference plans for the establishment of municipal rights of way crossings of the Arnprior Nepean Railway corridor as required by the City. In addition, the Owner shall construct all municipal roadway connections through the Arnprior Nepean Railway corridor and all ancillary railway crossing requirements as established by and to the satisfaction of the City and Transport Canada.		OTTAWA (PPD)
	Public Transit
24.	The Owner shall design and construct, at no cost to the City of Ottawa, Street No. 9, Walden Drive, and Street No. 1 connecting to Terry Fox Drive, which have been identified for potential transit services, to TAC standards, including right-of-way width, horizontal and vertical geometry, and pavement structure and the construction of a sidewalk on both sides of the street.		OTTAWA (PPD) OC Transpo
25.	The Owner shall: 1. orient dwellings and vehicular accesses in the vicinity of bus stops in a manner as to avoid traffic conflicts and visual intrusion and to submit plans for approval by the City of Ottawa indicating the orientation of all dwellings and private accesses in the vicinity of all bus stop locations; 2. inform all prospective purchasers through a clause in all agreements of purchase and sale and indicate on all plans used for marketing purposes that Goulbourn Forced Road, Street No. 9, Walden Drive, and Street No. 1 connecting to Terry Fox Drive, have been identified for potential transit services. The locations of the bus stops, paved passenger standing areas, or shelter pads and shelters, which may be located in front of or adjacent to the purchasers' lots at any time shall also be indicated.		OTTAWA (PPD) OC Transpo
26.	The Owner shall design and construct, at no cost to the City of Ottawa, paved transit passenger standing areas, or shelter pads and shelters, to the specifications of OC Transpo.		OTTAWA (PPD) OC Transpo
27.	The Owner shall ensure that the staging of the subdivision, including dwellings, roadways, walkways and paved passenger standing areas, or shelter pads and shelters, will be constructed in a sequence that permits the operation of an efficient, high-quality transit service at all stages of development.		OTTAWA (PPD) OC Transpo
28.	The following streets shall be constructed to collector standards having a R.O.W. width of 26m with 11 m of asphalt pavement and concrete sidewalks on both sides of the road: Street No. 9 on Plan 1 Walden Drive Street No 1 on Plan 2 The local streets on the final plan shall have road allowance widths in accordance with the City’s policies related to construction of sidewalks. This shall be to the satisfaction of the City. .		OTTAWA (PPD)
	Sidewalks, Walkways, and Fencing
29.	The Owner shall design and construct at no cost to the City, public all season pathways within walkway Blocks and in locations specified on the final plan to the satisfaction of the City.		OTTAWA (PPD)
30.	The Owner shall construct a pedestrian pathway, to City specifications, through the hydro corridor (plan 1 blocks 500 & 502) located immediately west of Kimmins Court, and running along the south side of the Rail line, connecting to the existing pedestrian crossing of the Rail line.		OTTAWA (PPD)
31.	If required, the Owner shall construct fencing to City specifications along the shared property line between the subdivision lands and the road allowance between Concession 1 and 2, and adjacent to any park, walkway or open space blocks.		OTTAWA (PPD)
32.	The Owner shall install at its expense, fencing on the Railway right-of-way. Fencing shall be commercial grade chain link, shall not contain gates, and shall be of a height and at a location to be approved by the City prior to installation.		OTTAWA (PPD)
33.	The Owner shall install at its expense, and to City specifications, fencing in the following locations: 1. fencing where required on park, open space blocks and walkway blocks; 2. perimeter fencing surrounding school sites, where required 3. along the rear and side property lines of all lots abutting the Beaver Pond and Kizell Pond Urban Natural Features and Shirley’s Brook 4. perimeter fencing around Block 706 on Plan 2 where it abuts lands owned by others, the rail right-of-way and the community park.		OTTAWA (PPD) OCDSB; OCCSB

Tree Preservation and Land/Streetscaping

34.

The Owner acknowledges and agrees to make every effort to preserve vegetation and natural features located on the lands included in the Plan of Subdivision. To this end, no trees shall be cleared or significant natural features disturbed in any lots or blocks within the Plan of Subdivision until an Existing Conditions and Natural Features and Vegetation Preservation Plan, prepared by a Landscape Architect in good standing with the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects, showing existing contours and/or spot elevations, rock outcroppings, drainage swales or ditches, and the location, species, size range and condition of all stands of trees or outstanding specimens has been submitted to and approved by the City of Ottawa prior to the City of Ottawa reviewing the Lot Grading Plan.

OTTAWA

(PPD)

35.

The Owner(s) shall undertake to protect all existing vegetation on site until such time as a Detailed Tree Planting and Conservation Plan is approved by the City and the vegetation communities and specimen trees which are to be conserved are appropriately marked with snow fencing on-site. The City forester shall approve, on-site, the trees to be preserved and review compliance of on-site works against the approved Tree Planting and Conservation Plan. The Detailed Tree Planting and Conservation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape architect and shall be integrated with the Grading and Drainage Plan, the Storm water Site Management Plan and the Environmental Impact Statement.

OTTAWA

(PPD)

36.

The Detailed Tree Planting and Conservation Plan shall specifically identify Black Cherry species and preserve such trees wherever possible, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals.

OTTAWA (PPD)

37.

The Owner shall update the Kizell Pond Trail and Woodland Restoration Plan (Corush, Sunderland, Wright, April 2003) to the satisfaction of the City to ensure continuity of trails and appropriate connection to existing trails based on the draft plan of subdivision. The Owner shall be responsible for construction of the pathways and implementing the approved plan at no cost to the City.

OTTAWA

(PPD)

38.

The Owner shall, at its cost, revise the concept plan for the Beaver Pond Open Space natural area. The Owner shall implement the plan at its cost, subject to any development charge contributions.

OTTAWA (PPD)

39.

The Owner shall provide appropriate plans for the approval of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals including the following:

1. a description of the parks and open space included in the Draft Plan;

2. a concept plan for each of the parks and open space/natural areas within the area of the Draft Plan;

3. an indication of the location and alignment of the walking trails within the Natural Environment Areas and Open Space areas and the abutting road allowance between Concessions 1 and 2.

4. a cross-section of the trail construction detail;

5. the location, elevation and cross-section detail of any sound attenuation fence required within the area of the Draft Plan;

6. a demarcation on the plan and cross-section indicating the treatment of the boundary of open space and the rear of abutting lots; and

7. an indication of the street and park tree planting with a list of all proposed trees and other plant materials and details of their size and method of installation.

8. The Owner shall construct the trails in accordance with the approved Trail and Woodland Restoration Plan for Kizell Pond, at no cost to the City, subject to any applicable development charge contributions or obligations pursuant to existing agreements.

OTTAWA

(PPD)

40.

The Owners shall implement the mitigation and monitoring measures stated in the report “Environmental Impact Statement, Kanata Lakes North (Muncaster, April 2003) to the satisfaction of the City which include but are not limited to:

1. The outside side of the natural area’s buffers and open space areas will be clearly delineated with construction fencing prior to any grading or other site alterations ;

2. Woodchips will be placed on the development side of the construction fencing to prevent compaction of soil;

3. Tree removal will not occur between May 15^th and July 10^th to protect breeding birds;

4. No in-stream works within the watercourse will occur between March 15^th and June 30^th;

5. An approved system of measures to protect the trees and their root systems during blasting.

OTTAWA

(PPD)

41.

Prior to registration, the Owner shall prepare, at no cost to the City, the on-site remediation and restoration plan for each damaged area within the Kizell Pond Urban Natural Feature as outlined in the Kanata Lakes NEA Boundary Definition, Shirley Brook and Tree Cutting Mitigation Report (Muncaster, November 2002) to the satisfaction of the City. The restoration works will be implemented by the Owner and coordinated with the installation of the pathway and storm water management works.

OTTAWA

(PPD)

42.

The Owner shall provide interpretative signs for each Urban Natural Feature, in locations approved by the City, to indicate the sensitive nature of the wetlands, woodlands and watercourses in the subdivision.

OTTAWA

(PPD)

43.

The Owner shall dedicate at no cost to the City the following individual blocks of land comprised of: 1) Kizell Pond (Block 665), 2) Beaver Pond (Block 477) and 3) Trillium Woods (Blocks 760, 759, 758) Urban Natural Features in healthy and restored condition to the City as “environmental lands”, in accordance with the approved Plan. If applicable, the Owner shall pay any land transfer tax associated with the dedication of these lands.

OTTAWA

(PPD)

44.

The Owner(s) shall prepare to the satisfaction of the City, with input from the community, a Conservation Handbook describing the natural attributes of the subdivision and the importance of good stewardship practices to ensure the long-term health and sustainability of Kizell Pond, Beaver Pond and Trillium Woods Urban Natural Features and Shirley’s Brook. The Handbook shall be distributed to all new home Owners within the subdivision.

OTTAWA

(PPD)

45.

The Owner(s) shall design and construct at no cost to the City, a pathway along one side of Shirley’s Brook for its entire length from Goulbourn Forced Road, connecting to the unopened First Line Road allowance to the satisfaction of the City, subject to applicable development charge policies.

OTTAWA

(PPD)

46.

The Owner(s) shall convey the lands containing Shirley’s Brook to the City (area to be defined by survey) once the creek realignment and landscaping works have been completed with all associated approvals, to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa.

OTTAWA

(PPD)

47.

That the Owner acknowledges, and agrees, that prior to registration, the Owner shall submit to the City and receive approval of, a Street Landscaping Plan, by a Landscape Architect which plan shall specify:

1. Footprints of building units, driveway locations, service drainage swales, retaining walls, fences, street furniture, etc.

2. trees at a minimum ratio of two (2) trees per building lot with one (1) being located in the road allowance and one (1) on private property, where possible and any surplus trees being located on corner lots, and flankages.

3. landscaping requirements for townhouse or multiple blocks within the Plan of Subdivision will be addressed through Site Plan Control Approval Process.

OTTAWA

(PPD)

Parks

48.

The Owner shall “clean and green” all parks, including servicing, finished grading, turf grass areas, paving, sand pits for play structures, parking lots and walkways in accordance with the approved Park Concept Plan(s), subject to applicable development charge contributions.

OTTAWA

(PPD)

Schools

49.

The Owner acknowledges and agrees to reserve Block 756 in the subject draft plan of subdivision as an elementary school site and Block 753 as a secondary school site for the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. The size, configuration and servicing of the school site will be to the satisfaction of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board.

OTTAWA

(PPD), OCDSB, OCCSB

50.

The Owner agrees to enter into a legal agreement with the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board for the reservation of the delegated school sites known as Blocks 756 and 753, in the draft plan of subdivision for a period of up to seven (7) years, from the date of registration of the plan, which contains the subject school site.

OTTAWA

(PPD), OCDSB, OCCSB

51.

The Owner acknowledges and agrees to reserve Blocks 515 and 705 in the subject draft plan of subdivision as elementary school sites for the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board. The size, configuration and servicing of the school site will be to the satisfaction of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board.

OTTAWA

(PPD), OCDSB, OCCSB

52.

The Owner agrees to enter into a legal agreement with the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board for the reservation of the delegated school sites known as Blocks 515 and 705, in the draft plan of subdivision for a period of up to seven (7) years, from the date of registration of the plan, which contains the subject school site.

OTTAWA

(PPD), OCDSB, OCCSB

Archaeology

53.

The Owner shall undertake/agree to the following, to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation and the City of Ottawa:

1. an archaeological assessment of the entire property by a licensed consultant archaeologist, including 1:10,000 scale mapping, “Archaeological Site Record” and report(s);

2. the implementation of the recommendations of the approved assessment, including mitigation, through preservation or removal and documentation of archaeological resources;

3. no demolition, grading or other soil disturbances shall take place until any archaeological resource conservation concerns have been addressed.

OTTAWA

(PPD)

54.

The Owner shall adhere to the procedures of the “Contingency Plan for the Protection of Archaeological Resources in Urgent Situations” as approved by the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation in the Archaeological Resource Potential Mapping Study of the City of Ottawa.

OTTAWA

(PPD)

	Storm water Management
55.	Prior to commencement of construction, the Owner shall provide all Storm Water reports that may be required by the City for approval. The reports shall be in accordance with the approved Shirley’s Brook and Watts Creek Subwatershed Study prepared by Dillon Consulting and the Carp River Subwatershed Study, as the study(ies) pertains to this subdivision and all City or Provincial standards, specifications and guidelines. The reports shall include but are not limited to, the provision of erosion and sedimentation control measures, implementation or phasing requirements, all storm water management measures have been constructed to the satisfaction of the City. The Storm Water Management Plan shall identify the sequence of its implementation in relation to the construction of the subdivision and shall be to the satisfaction of MVCA and the City.	OTTAWA (PPD) MVC
56.	The Owner agrees that the commencement of construction of any phase of this subdivision will not occur until such time as the storm water management facilities required for this subdivision in accordance with the approved Shirley’s Brook Watt’s Creek Subwatershed Study and Carp River Subwatershed Study has been designed and construction has been initiated in accordance with all municipal and agency requirements.	OTTAWA (PPD)
57.	Prior to the commencement of construction of any phase of this subdivision (roads, utilities, any off site work, etc.) the Owner shall: 1. Have an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a Professional Engineer in accordance with Current Best Management Practices, 2. Have such a plan approved by the City of Ottawa, and provide certification to the City of Ottawa through a Professional Engineer that the plan has been implemented.	OTTAWA (PPD)
58.	The Owner agrees that the storm water outlets to be contained within Blocks 447 (Beaver Pond) and 503 (Kizell Pond) shall be designed and constructed to ensure a minimal amount of disturbance to the wetlands as possible. The mitigation measures should be clearly documented in the Storm water Site Management Plan prepared for the subdivision.	OTTAWA (PPD)
59.	The Owner agrees that on completion of all storm water works, the Owner shall provide certification to the City of Ottawa through a Professional Engineer that all measures have been implemented in conformity with the Storm Water Management Plan.	OTTAWA (PPD)
	Fisheries
60.	The Owner acknowledges that the relocation of Shirley’s Brook and any other tributaries within the plan of subdivision will result in harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat within the existing channel. No Authorizations will be issued unless appropriate measures to compensate for the loss of fish habitat are developed and implemented by the Owner and approved by DFO. The relocated stream must provide an equal or increased stream length and improved quality of fish habitat. The re-aligned stream shall be designed by a DFO approved fluvial geomorphologist. The Owner further acknowledges that any further land required to meet DFO requirements will be at the Owner’s expense and will be provided on the final plan and will not form part of the Owner’s obligations with respect to the 40% open space agreement.	DFO MVC OTTAWA (PPD)
61.	The Owner agrees that the base flow in Shirley’s Brook is not to be diminished during subdivision works or after works are completed. This shall be to the satisfaction of the City and the MVC.	MVC
62.	The Owner agrees that the lot layout is to include a river meander in the re-aligned Shirley’s Brook within a 30 metre setback. The final setback from Shirley’s Brook is to be to the satisfaction of the approved fluvial geomorphologist and, with meander setback, may be greater than 30 metres.	MVC
63.	The Owner acknowledges that the lot layout may change depending on the review of streams shown on the plan of subdivision that may be fish habitat and therefore require a 30-metre setback. Any modifications required to the subdivision design and/or layout will be at the sole expense of the developer.	MVC
64.	The Owner acknowledges that a formal Ontario Regulation 159/90 (Fill, Construction, and Alteration to Waterways) Permit will be required for the proposed re-alignment of Shirley’ Brook.	MVC
65.	The Owner acknowledges that a Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act authorization may be required for the proposed re-alignment of Shirley’s Brook, and any other realigned fish habitat streams, from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.	MNR
	Municipal Services
66.	That the Owner agrees that the design of all services shall be of sufficient depth, size and location to service the lands within the subdivision and lands outside the subdivision which in the opinion of the City, may require an outlet through the subdivision in accordance with the Infrastructure Servicing Report for the subdivision as approved by the City.	OTTAWA (PPD)
67.	The Owner shall prepare, at its sole cost, a hydraulic network analysis of the proposed water plant within the plan of subdivision and as it relates to the existing infrastructure. Said report shall be submitted to the City of Ottawa for review and approval as part of the water plant design submission.	OTTAWA (PPD)
	Utilities
68.	Such easements and maintenance agreements which may be required for electrical, gas, water, sewer, telephone and cablevision facilities, shall be provided and agreed to by the Owner, to the satisfaction of the appropriate authority; and that the Owner shall ensure that these easement documents are registered on title immediately following registration of the final plan; and the affected agencies are duly notified.	HYDRO OTTAWA, ENBRIDGE, CABLE, BELL
69.	Where the relocation or removal of any existing on-site/adjacent utility facility, including water, sewer, electrical, gas, telephone and cablevision, is required as a direct result of the development, the Owner shall pay the actual cost associated therewith to the satisfaction of the appropriate utility authority.	HYDRO OTTAWA, ENBRIDGE, CABLE, BELL
70.	The Owner shall coordinate the preparation of an overall utility distribution plan showing the location (shared or otherwise) and installation, timing and phasing of all required utilities (on-grade, below-grade or above-grade), including on-site drainage facilities and streetscaping)--such location plan shall be to the satisfaction of all affected authorities and shall consider their respective standards and specification manuals, where applicable.	OTTAWA (PPD)

	Geotechnical
71.	The Owner shall submit a detailed Geotechnical report prepared by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer, licensed in the Province of Ontario to identify, but not limited to, the existing sub-surface silts, ground water conditions, slope stability and erosion protection, in addition to any building construction requirements adjacent to any unstable slope. The report shall provide recommendations to address any of the latter situations to the satisfaction of the City.	OTTAWA (PPD)
	Noise Attenuation
72.	The Owner shall: 1. have a noise and vibration study prepared and certified by a Professional Engineer with expertise in the subject of acoustics/vibration related to land use planning. The study shall be to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa and shall comply with MOEE LU-131, Noise Assessment Criteria in Land Use Planning, the City of Ottawa 's Standards for Noise Barriers and Noise Control Guidelines, and be in accordance with the current version of the APEO Guidelines, for Professional Engineers providing Acoustical Engineering Services in Land Use Planning; 2. implement the specific noise control and vibration control measures recommended in the approved noise study and any other measures recommended by the City of Ottawa including, as applicable, the City of Ottawa's "Standards for Noise Barriers" as may be amended; 3. prior to the construction of any noise control and vibration control measures, provide certification to the City of Ottawa through a Professional Engineer that the design of the control features will implement the recommendations of the approved study; 4. prior to final building inspection, provide certification to the City of Ottawa, through a Professional Engineer, that the noise control and vibration control measures have been implemented in accordance with the approved study;	OTTAWA (PPD)

	Purchase and Sale Agreements and Covenants on Title
73.	That the Owner agrees that all Purchase and Sale Agreements for the whole or any part of a Lot/Block on the Plan of Subdivision shall contain the following clauses: 1. The Purchaser further acknowledges the sensitive environmental nature of the Trillium Woods, Beaver Pond and Kizell Pond natural areas, the importance of good stewardship practices to ensure the health and sustainability of these natural features and that it is the City’s intent to protect these woodlands and wetlands and leave them in a natural state for the long term. 2. The Purchaser undertakes and agrees that gates shall not be introduced into the rear yard fencing where the lots abut Blocks 477 Plan 1, 503 Plan 1, 665 Plan 2, 685 Plan 2, 682 Plan 2, 683 , 500 Plan 1 and 501 Plan 1. 3. The Purchaser acknowledges that a noise wall may be required for any lot abutting Goulbourn Forced Road and Terry Fox Drive and Castlefrank Road.	OTTAWA (PPD
74.	The Owner agrees that all Purchase and Sale Agreements shall include noise and/or vibration warning clauses, as required by the Noise and Vibration Study.	OTTAWA (PPD
75.	Where a lot abuts the rail line, the following notice shall be placed on title and in all agreements of purchase and sale: 1. “The Owner is advised that the rail line is operational, and is protected by the City for potential future use as a transit corridor and utility corridor.” 2. “That any purchaser of a lot abutting the Arnprior Nepean rail line be advised that a noise wall may be erected at the edge of the right-of-way when transit or other traffic along the rail line increases to a level where noise attenuation measures are required.”	OTTAWA (PPD
76.	In recognition that Shirley’s Brook running across the property is fish habitat, prior to registration of the plan of subdivision, the City of Ottawa shall be satisfied that wording has been included in the subdivision agreement and in all offers of purchase and sale: 1. Informing the Owners of all lots abutting the Open Space lands containing Shirley’s Brook of the need for the protection of fish habitat and that the natural vegetation within the open space setback be retained. 2. Informing Owners that any unauthorized destruction or alteration to a watercourse or an area of fish habitat is prohibited. Any proposed alteration (such as a driveway crossing) must be reviewed in detail by the Conservation Authority and may require authorization pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Fisheries Act.	OTTAWA (PPD)
	Development Charges
77.	That the Owner acknowledges that some of the works of the subdivision are eligible for financial contributions from the City’s Development Charge Reserve Fund pursuant to the Development Charge By-law. Such contributions are to be determined and agreed to by the City prior to the commencement of the associated works or as agreed to by the City. The Owner agrees to enter into any agreements that may be required pursuant to the Development Charge By-law.	OTTAWA (LEGAL)
78.	That the Owner shall after registration of the Plan of Subdivision, inform the purchaser of each lot or block of the development charges that have been paid or which are still applicable to the lot or block. The applicable development charges shall be as stated as of the time of the conveyance of the relevant lot or block and the statement shall be provided at the time of the conveyance. The statement of the Owner of the applicable development charges shall also contain the statement that the development charges are subject to changes in accordance with the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Education Development Charges Act.	OTTAWA (LEGAL)
	Survey Requirements
79.	The plan of subdivision shall be referenced, where possible, to the Horizontal Control Network, in accordance with the City requirements and guidelines for referencing legal surveys.	OTTAWA (SURV)
	Closing Conditions
80.	At any time prior to final approval of this plan for registration, the City of Ottawa may, in accordance with Section 51 (44) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, amend, delete or add to the conditions and this may include the need for amended or new studies.	OTTAWA (PPD
81.	The City of Ottawa Subdivision Agreement shall state that the conditions run with the land and are binding on the Owner's, heirs, successors and assigns.	OTTAWA (LEGAL)
82.	Prior to registration of any phase of the plan of subdivision, the City of Ottawa is to be satisfied that Conditions 1 through 81 have been fulfilled.	OTTAWA (PPD)
83.	If the plan of subdivision has not been registered by (a date three years after the date of draft approval will be inserted later), the draft approval shall lapse pursuant to Section 51 (32) of the Planning Act, 1990. Extensions may only be granted under the provisions of Section 51 (33) of said Planning Act prior to the lapsing date.	OTTAWA (PPD

· Shared parking for soccer pitches and the proposed school site

· Reduce width of recreational walking paths connecting Beaver Pond to Trillium Woods

· Retain and protect significant trees and other features north of Beaver Pond via Tree Preservation Plan

· Minor Modifications:

o Retain Plan A Kizell Pond recreational path to protect the wetland from degradation

o Reduce railway buffer

In response to Councillor Holmes relative to reducing the width of the walking trails,
Ms. Oblak explained they had gone up to 40m and the original discussion was 20m, which is a fairly large path. Ms. Reeves advised there is one 40m pathway (land area) connection running from Beaver Pond to Trillium woods. That is intended to create a natural environment to Trillium Woods, which will be either stone dust or wood chips. The community has requested this be kept as wide as possible to allow as much forest on either side of the path.

As a result of the presentation, staff provided the following clarification:

· Plan A followed the focus group discussions where there was an obvious split in views, so staff and the environmental committees saw West Block as being a priority in terms of preservation. The community groups generally saw lands north of the Beaver Pond as a priority. KNL came back with three plans, A, B and C. Plan A shifted the priority to West block, originally supported by staff, to H as a compromise, which lost some of West block, encroached into the south side of Kizell and shifted that land essentially to the north side of Beaver Pond as much as staff is comfortable with.

· Plans A, B, and C were acceptable to KNL

· Staff supported only Plan A.

Karen Noseworthy, member, Kanata Lakes Community Association and Kanata Survey Group that put together Plan D. Ms. Noseworthy provided a detailed written submission, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk, in opposition to Plan H, as well as Plans A, B and C. She urged the Committee to re-allocate a significant amount of land north of the Beaver Pond. These plans do not preserve adequate forested areas.
Ms. Noseworthy’s presentation focused on: 40% Agreement; Brunton Report; Kizell Drain; Clearcut Area; Fish Habitat; Playing Fields; Tot Lots; and, A Better Plan

Responding to questions from the Committee, staff provided the following clarification:

· Shirley’s Brook has more natural characteristics on the east side, but as it proceeds westerly it has been altered by past agricultural activities. Staff is asking that the creek be realigned by using natural channel design techniques to improve the habitat. The proponent will need to submit plans to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to receive compensation. Under the Fisheries Act, once habitat is moved, you are into Harmful Alteration Destruction (HAD) of a fish habitat and under those provisions you must improve existing conditions under the new creek alignment.

· Aligning it along the creek provides a corridor and creates a recreational linkage along with that ecological corridor.

· It is a risk to the developer and there are conditions in the subdivision that the City will not assume ownership until it is approved, constructed and satisfied by DFO.

Ron Tolmie provided a detailed written submission opposing Plan H, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Tolmie stated the primary objective of the Campeau Agreement was to preserve forest land and posited the following recommendations follow that plan as closely as possible:

1. West Block (north of Kizell) – Designate as NEA land, following the outline of the Kanata OP (with one minor exception that is the need to conform to the new OP).

2. Kizell low land – Designate as UNF, following the outline of the lowland contours, with minor variations along the southern edge.

3. Man-made stormwater ditch along the rail line. – Does not qualify for NEA or UNF protection.

4. Knoll in NW corner. – Does not qualify for NEA or UNF protectin.

5. Stormwater storage in NW corner. – Move to other side of Terry Fox Drive.

6. Parkland. – All of the parkland allocation provided in the Campeau Agreement has already been used up in the previous development of the Kanata Lakes portion of the lands.

7. Beaver Pond forest. – The Balance of the NEA allocation should be applied to this forest, less enough of the allocation to provide park space for tot lots and walkways.

This application does not meet the terms of the contract. PEC should reject this application and recommend that KNL develop a design that provides for development of the 60% private allocation without damaging important natural resource lands. The contract requires that both parties agree to any modifications to the Concept Plan.

Jim Malone, President, Kanata Lakes Community Association (KLCA) (with Lyn Winters, Vice-President). Mr. Malone provided a detailed written submission, in opposition, which is held on file with the City Clerk. KLCA provided the following three suggestions:

· Review “utility space” for more efficient use.

· Identify possible land swaps to provide the developer compensating lands for areas not developed; and,

· Perhaps the developer could give up some land as a gesture of good faith to the community –cost could be offset by the tax advantages of setting up a trust fund.

KLCA suggested the following wording for inclusion in the Subdivision Agreement:

· “The developer agrees that they will not clear more trees than is absolutely necessary to permit development for a one year supply of lots.”

· “The required supply should be based on historical consumption in Kanata Lakes.”

· “Tree cutting shall occur only during the late fall and winter to minimize the effect on wildlife.”

· “A safe, accessible and visually appealing recreational trail should be maintained around the complete circumference of the Beaver Pond throughout development.”

Following the presentation, Councillor Holmes received clarification from staff on the possibility of including the points in the Subdivision Agreement:

· P. 110 of the agenda, Tree Preservation and Land/Streetscaping, outline conditions in the Draft Plan of Subdivision the proponent must satisfy. It is understood by the developer that where possile they will maintain as many trees as possible, but it must be recognized that when grades are altered through subdivision development some trees may not survive.

· With respect to the point that required supply be based on historical lot consumption, that decision would rest with the Committee.

· Tree cutting during late fall and winter to minimize the effect on wildlife can be addressed with the developer.

· All recreational trails will be safe, accessible and visually appealing to meet City standards.

Walter F. Michel provided a detailed written submission opposing Plan H, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Michel provided background on the geology of this area complete with maps. He asked the Committee to consider alternative ways to retain more of the existing forests, especially north of the Beaver Pond.

Following the presentation, Mr. Michel responded to questions posed by the Committee and declared that he supported Plan Y, which will be presented later. He also explained that blasting could affect any existing instability and create movement. There is insufficient information available.

Sophie Gong provided a detailed written submission on behalf of the children in Kanata, opposing the development, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Plans D (preferred), K and Y were generally supported, following a survey she undertook. Beaver Pond should be protected.

Jackie Chow provided a detailed written submission in opposition to the staff recommendation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Ms. Chow supported Plan Y.

Correspondence from Ivan Chow in opposition to the staff recommendation was circulated to the Committee and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Marianne Wilkinson, represented the Kanata Beaverbrook Community Association (KBCA), on behalf of Gordon Henderson (who could not attend). KBCA supports the preservation of as much land as possible in the environment areas. The initial 40% Open Space Agreement was amended in 1988. Statements have been made about lands that should be part of the open space not being included, particularly excess lands. There is a 4.46 acre parcel in the Beaverbrook Community, which is being included in the 40% lands that should not be. She quoted from the 1988 Agreement “The 40% Agreement, and this Agreement, shall only apply to the current lands. The current lands are defined by Appendices”, and there is an additional Appendix called Excess Lands Dedication. The developer states the 4.46 acres is in the excess lands because it is not mentioned in the Appendices. It was in a Plan of Subdivision at that time and other blocks in that same Plan of Subdivision are listed in the Appendices as part of the current lands. The agreement states he can have 60% lands for all of the development, which includes schools, roads and houses, etc.; and, 40% for open space. The community has continuously maintained that 40%, although the Kanata Lakes suggestion to trade some lands is a very good suggestion. Those 4.46 acres should be added north of the beaver pond.

The NCC is looking at the Carp Hills, with a study coming out at the end of this month. The former Region blocked 630 acres outside the urban area. Within the urban area, the City should preserve as much as it can, and where it cannot be preserved, the corridor should be wide enough to allow for movement from smaller NEA’s to larger NEA’s. The agreement never intended it to be a fixed location, but at the time of subdivision to provide an opportunity to determine where that land should be. Now they are fixed in OP’s. Ms. Wilkinson referred to the walkway to Trillium Woods, which is also needed along the Beaver Pond. The connection to Trillium Woods becomes swamp once you cross the road, which is not a good idea. Originally the developer portrayed it at a location that crosses the railway track onto an existing path up to Morgan’s Grant. It should be shifted over to make it more attractive. The fish habitat is not in the 40% Agreement and did not exist at that time. Placing it next to the railway track makes it convenient for the developer since he will no longer need to provide a buffer, which he would otherwise be required to do. At least half that land should be considered to be the developer’s buffer and that half (12 acres) could then be applied in other areas. A small part of Kizell is flood plain and most of the pond has been created by beavers since it flows into the Beaver Pond area. The other half of Kizell flows to Carp. Ms. Wilkinson urged the Committee to look at her suggestions.

In response to Chair Hume on the wetlands, Mr. Marc explained the agreement would only apply to lands that were set forth within it. He understood Ms. Wilkinson to be saying there are lands in this application that go beyond the limit of the 40% Agreement. He could delve into that aspect if the Committee so directed.

Doug Williams was present in opposition, but did not address the Committee.

Bruce Story provided a comprehensive written submission opposing the recommendation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Story provided the Final Results of the Kanata Community Survey on the Future Development of Kanata Lakes North and elaborated upon same, some of which are outlined below:

· 92% of respondents consider the preservation of natural environment as very important.

· Priority preferences to be preserved: #1 – North of Beaver Pond (Over 75% of Beaverbrook and Kanata Lakes residents); #2 – Trillium Woods; #3 – West Block; #4 – Kizell Drain

· 69.4% of respondents indicated that inappropriately clearcut NEA should be excluded from 40% lands, possibly permitting houses to be built to preserve more desirable areas

The communities of North Kanata have demonstrated over a 20-year span that they place a high value on preserving NEA’s and especially the areas adjacent to the Beaver Pond. Plan Y has been put forth as an alternative plan that would preserve significantly more of this area. It offers a compromise that would come closer to preserving the community’s wishes while continuing to meet the commercial objectives of the developer.

Amy Kempster, on behalf of the Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital (GACC), provided a detailed written submission opposing the recommendation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. GACC believes all forested area, wetlands and Shirley’s Brook area should be preserved and are in favour of a revised plan, which saves land in the Beaver Pond area as the community wishes and provides a better connection between the Beaver Pond area and Trillium Woods, but not at the expense of the West Block. GACC is in opposition to the replacement of the phrase “location of the Black Cherry trees on the north side of Kanata Pond” (now Beaver Pond) with “wetland boundaries” in the Kanata OP.

Christopher Busby provided a detailed written submission in opposition to Plan H, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Busby supported Plan Y, which allows for more Shield highlands of Beaverpond Ridge to be preserved and a greater connectivity between adjacent environmentally significant lands.

Mikelis (Mik) Svilans provided a comprehensive written submission (complete with maps) in opposition to Plan H, which is held on file with the City Clerk, and in support of Plan Y. Mr. Svilans’ presentation touched upon the following points:

1. Brunton’s Report (1992) on the Ecological inventory of the Development Lands.

2. The ill-conceived Trade-off between Kizell and West Block/North Beaver Pond.

3. Deviations from the 40% Agreement.

4. Proposed OP amendments.

5. Terry Fox Drive alignment.

The Kizell Drain Complex should be removed from the 40% lands and not included within the EPA, except the portion bounded by the 93m elevation contour extending 150-200m west from the Goulbourn Forced Road. The lands so released should be appropriated to the West Block and north of the Beaver Pond. All other areas which do not qualify for inclusion within the 40% land should be removed from such designation and applied to areas worthy of conserving for the enjoyment of all Ottawa residents. No extra lands need to be purchased to achieve an optimum solution if strict adherence to the current OP and the principles spelled out in the 40% Agreement is maintained. In this way, both residents and the developer receive what is rightfully and legally theirs. Plan H must be re-worked taking all the existing agreements and policies fully into account before approval is conferred.

Karmena Svilans provided a detailed written submission opposing the recommendation, which is held on file with the City Clerk, on behalf of 3 neighbouring landowners (Marlene and Norbett Puetz, Sarma and Mikelis Sviland and Jim Tierney and family). The main concerns are:

a) Safety – due to a 3-5m sheer drop created when a corner of a lot was excavated.

b) Unauthorized removal of existing lot survey pegs remains uncorrected.

c) Snow, salt and other debris from snow clearing of the Witherspoon roadway being pushed onto our gardens and damaging plants.

d) Intrusion of headlight beams of passing cars at night, which due to the elevated road grade are aimed directly into the living room windows.

e) Intrusion of people taking shortcuts across lots from Witherspoon to Kenins.

f) Pollution of back yards by wind-borne dust, construction debris and other garbage.

g) Deprivation of privacy due to raised roadways grade, 2m above back yard.

Debbie Graham submitted the following comments/requests:

· Signs on both sides of the Goulbourn Forced Road state it is parkland (By-Law 44-81).

· A canopy along the Goulbourn Forced Road since it is a heritage road.

· Removing trees reduces air quality.

· By diverting Shirley’s Brook, the City is taking water from her home, which is the last heritage property in this area.

· Would like to see heritage fencing.

· Flat land around Morgan’s Grant could be used for soccer fields.

· A resource centre and school should be constructed where the land was clear cut.

· Concern about blasting since she does not on have a concrete foundation (stones and wood tiles) and asked for protection and no trespassing.

· A levy on residents’ property tax to purchase land.

· Save part of the north woods and cut back on Trillium Woods, which does not have many trilliums – they are on the side of the road that is to be cut down.

· The family has been in the house for 75 - 100 years and would like to see it protected.

· She suggested building smaller homes, which would allow residents to remain in their homes.

Following the presentation, staff responded to questions posed by the Committee. A number of points of clarification were made and summarized as follows:

· The land use designation for the property is shown as residential in the OP.

· The owner does not want to participate in this development plan and there is no detail provided.

· There will need to be a possible road connection from the northwest side of the property to provide linkage through to the collector road.

· The lands are outside of the 40% open space agreement, since they are separately owned, but if developed would be subject to the rules of the day, currently 5%.

Pieter Prins, forester, provided a detailed written submission in opposition, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Prins’ presentation touched upon, but was not limited to the following points:

· 1992 Daniel Brunton’s Environmental Assessment Kanata Lakes Study Area. Identified 14 Habitats.

· Two dominant upland forest habitats are of particular significance.

· The Brunton Assessment identified four significant areas.

Trillium Woods; West Block; Beaver Pond Ridge; and, Snake Road Outcrop.

· Brunton Consulting Services concluded that conservation of the greater part of the significant features and complexes can be contained in two large NEA’s: Trillium Woods; West Block

· The Centre for Environmental Studies at Brown University of Providence, Rhode Island (U.S.A.) has done extensive research on the environmental, economic and social benefits of trees and forests as parts of a City’s infrastructure.

· Planning and implementation of tree preservation.

Des Adam was involved in this project since 1980, as an Alderman and as Mayor of Kanata. He supports Plan H because the community and staff have put in a tremendous amount of work, and it makes sense from a development point of view. There was advanced planning by the former City of Kanata and the Region in the early 1980’s. This is the fruit of that labour. After hearing residents convey that they moved into Kanata Lakes and are now devastated by what is happening, he pointed out this agreement is registered on the title of every property in Kanata Lakes and the concept plan was passed in 1986. There are many economic repercussions in moving the development around the north side of the Beaver Pond.

Staff and Mr. Adam responded to questions posed by members of the Committee. A number of points of clarification were made and are summarized as follows:

· What is before Committee is not far off what was envisioned. The 40% agreement was registered to protect residents and to ensure Campeau Corporation met the 40%.

· There has been discussion about the golf course - there is a clause that states if it ceases to be a golf course, it is conveyed to the City for $1 because there was considerable concern that a golf course would be built, homes sold and the golf course divested.

· It is a very integral part of the 40% agreement and one of the reasons Kanata Lakes is such a great community.

· The 40% agreement is registered and there is a clause in that agreement that refers to the Concept Plan, which is presented and depicts the development on the north side of the Beaver Pond.

· The agreement makes reference to the Concept Plan – the lands will be developed in accordance with the approved concept plan, a copy of which is kept in the municipal offices.

· It was never intended the city would own the golf course. The City had a side agreement to use the golf course for cross-country skiing. If it were sold, the City would be offered first Right of Refusal, which did take place and Kanata Council refused to purchase the golf course. It continues to be privately owned.

Peter van Boeschoten presented a comprehensive written submission outlining Plan Y, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Plan Y is a modification of Plan H, which was proposed by the developer on 1 April. The changes proposed:

· The Solandt Drive connection has been re-inserted to accommodate the anticipated increased traffic. The connection was deleted in December without any traffic study as a basis. No new traffic study has been made available.

· The open space connection with Trillium Woods was moved east to its former location to be more central and to ensure a better connection to a less swampy area of Trillium Woods.

· The greenspace north of the Beaver Pond has been increased by approximately 20 acres. This is in accordance with the environmental studies by Brunton in 1992 and Dillon in 1999. Two extensive community surveys have also confirmed that the neighbouring communities would like to see environmental land protected in this area.

Mr. van Boeschoten provided a table that identifies the areas where accommodations could be made elsewhere in the plan:

1. South side of Kizell Pond – 5 – 20 acres

2. Knoll at the NW corner (Block 682) – 2.63 acres

3. Fish Habitat Blocks 683, 685 – 0 – 12.67 acres

4. Playing fields (Block 704) – 3 acres

5. Open space at Walden and GFR (Block 484) – 3.46 acres

6. Terry Fox Extension into City owned NEA – 0 – 6.11 acres

7. Allocation of City road allowances – 0 – 2 acres

8. Fentiman Park allowance – 0 – 2.58 acres

9. Campeau Drive green space at the hydro easement – 4.46 acres

For a total of 18.55 – 61.91 acres. The community asked for 20 acres and have identified over 60 acres.

Staff responded to questions posed by members of the Committee. A number of points of clarification were made and are summarized as follows:

· The Shirley’s Brook realignment is part of the 40% Agreement.

· Shirley’s Brook does have fish habitat and requires protection. It must be zoned open space since it is not developable land. However, it is not specifically written into the 1988 40% agreement and the community is telling staff it is wrong to say it falls within the 40% agreement. The 40% agreement states that NEA’s, parks, open space and buffers fall within the agreement. It is impossible to argue that Shirley’s Brook does not fall within those definitions.

Chris Hearn, Vice-President, Briarbrook and Morgan’s Grant Community Association, and an active member of the Kanata Community Survey Group since its formation in October. He understood the intent of the 40% agreement was to preserve as much NEA in the Marchwood/Lakeside community as possible when these lands were considered for development. The total Marchwood/Lakeside area was 1,400 acres. Plan H considers for forested Canadian Shield rocky areas: Trillium Woods, the strip north of the Beaver Pond, the area near Kimmens Court and the West Block. By his calculation that amounts to 9.8% of the total Marchwood/Lakeside. In the currently developed Kanata Lakes there is little that could be called NEA. There is a golf course, parks, but no NEA. The other large area is the Kizell Drain area, the Beaver Pond area and the rerouted Shirley’s Brook area (wetlands), which amounts to 10.2%. The NEA and these areas amount to 20% of the 40%. Brunton did not identify the Kizell Drain or the Beaver Pond as NEA and he would agree. 20% is lost through previous decisions by the former City of Kanata during the Kanata Lakes development. 12.5% is lost to the golf course and that does not include the buffers previously mentioned. The balance is active parks, etc. There is only 9.8% NEA, which should be increased. Surveys in the community concluded the areas truly valued are the forested shield areas and the area north of the Beaver Pond. Plan Y is a good compromise, although many residents would like to see all the land north of the Beaver Pond remain as forest. It considerably widens the strip and leaves more forest. Morgan’s Grant and Briarbrook residents are pleased Trillium Woods will remain, but feel this is a contiguous area and regularly use these trail systems. Residents are very concerned about transportation impacts since the transportation study has not been completed and tend to be carried out by subdivision, not globally. It is uncertain when the Terry Fox Extension will be built or the Goulbourn Forced Road paved. It is suggested that the linkage to March Road be removed. There are safety issues - Walden Drive will be a major road, with two grade level crossings.

On the notion of phasing, Mr. Lindsay explained that generally developers respond to market demand. Staff does ask the developer to provide a breakdown on their scheduling, but much is contingent on the marketplace. There are conditions in subdivision approval that require the developer to identify mature trees and species that could be retained after the development is complete.

John Mlacak (former Reeve, March Township), Kanata Beaverbrook Community, opined there are serious deficiencies in the staff report. The principle and intent of the 40% land was to preserve the woodland. But, undevelopable land is being conveyed to the city, which he does not support. The community recognizes development rights and acknowledges a mistake was made 15 years ago, allowing development and zoning change. In his view, the intent of the 40% is being interpreted incorrectly. What is the 40%? Where is it? Why are lands such as the fisheries included? Development is not allowed in lands that can be flooded, yet that is included in the 40%. The definitions have been subverted and there is a major flaw in the plan. Bill Teron has proved you can build without destruction. OP’s are changed to allow development, but not decrease development. He opined that developers are subsidized in their capital cost. The City should review the capital levy since taxpayers bear a large part of development costs. The double zoning and 7 year horizon for schools is a strategy to promote future development in a short time frame since that 7 year time frame is impossible. The land should be zoned for schools and if there is a need for a change, it should follow the zoning amendment process.

Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering, for NorthTech Campus (Canderel), provided a written submission (with a plan), which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Chown addressed the extension of Solandt Road. His clients own Block 12, Plan of Subdivision registered for the NorthTech Campus. Unfortunately, this land has no access to a public street. Solandt Road extension as shown on the former City of Kanata OP provides that access both from the Kanata North Business Park to the east and from the Kanata Lakes Marchwood community to the south. Draft Plan Condition 17 speaks specifically to the requirement to construct Solandt Road and two conditions that would relieve the owner from constructing that road. Mr. Chown recommended that the second condition that must be satisfied before KNL is relieved of the responsibility to build this road be amended to read: “That the City secures alternate public road access to Block 12, Plan 4M-1075, to the satisfaction of the owner of Block 12, Plan 4M-1075.” To be consistent, Mr. Chown asked the relevant policy in the OPA should also be amended. He asked that Section 5, p. 79, be amended to delete the last two sentences of this policy and be replaced with the: "Deletion of the Solandt Road connection will only be considered if alternate access to Block 12 on Plan 4M-1075 in the Kanata North Business Park can be provided to the satisfaction of the owner of Block 12, Plan 4M-1075. Should deletion of this road connection be approved by City staff, and should an alternate access be provided to Block 12, Plan 4M-1075 to the satisfaction to the owner of Block 12, Plan 4M-1075, then no further amendment to this plan, including Schedule 'C' - "Urban Area Roads & Community Phasing" shall be required."

Following the presentation, Mr. Morrison clarified that there is a previous subdivision agreement tied to the Kanata North Business Park that identifies the need for Solandt Road to be extended to the subject parcel of the property. Part of the traffic review entails whether Solandt needs to be extended.

Mr. Chown pointed out there is a portion of Solandt Road, from Hines Road coming into the property that is not part of that registered plan of subdivision. A portion of Solandt requires acquisition of additional lands from adjacent property owners and there has been no progress on those negotiations. As such, there is no guarantee there will be access. There is an opportunity to provide access through the subdivision before Committee as a requirement of that Plan of Subdivision which would assure an access. Having said that, the through connection is important to the community and to his client.

In response to Councillor Hunter, Mr. Marc confirmed it is not typical to have third party provisions in an agreement since a difficulty may arise if the third party does not cooperate and he would not advise the City to include a clause that would be to the satisfaction of a particular land owner.

Barbara Barr, on behalf of the Federation of Citizens’ Associations, provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The Federation’s concerns focused on the forested land, transportation and posited the OPA, Zoning changes and Subdivision Plan should be considered premature and delayed until a proper transportation plan, including a transit plan, has been completed.

Ms. Barr also addressed the Committee, in opposition, as an individual and focused on possible purchase or land exchange for NEA lands; include the City Forester and legal specifics on the agreement. A copy of her presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

Keith McLean provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. McLean’s referred to the OP – Sections 4 and 2, Schedules C, I & J, D and E; Transportation Impact Study (T.I.S.) Guidelines; Environmental Assessment; and, Inconsistency in Process. The KNL Development does not meet the requirements of the OP, nor satisfy the T.I.S. Guidelines. Staff report proposes:

· Removing connection of Walden to Terry Fox – would provide connection to Kanata West.

· Removing Solandt connection (between KNL and March) provides important link to March as expressed by City staff.

· Aggravating the existing “cut through” traffic volume in the Beaverbrook (Varley) area.

· Protecting for the use of the rai corridor ROW for possible future use as a transportation corridor – transportation includes cycling and walking.

Better Alternative:

· Remove proposed connection of Walden to existing Walden and realign Solandt (this road is required to be constructed by an agreement between City and Canderel) to connect to Walden thus providing a direct connection to March and eliminates staff concern about the proposed “broken back” curve in Walden

· Resolves the aggravation of existing “cut-through” condition and preserves the environmentally favourable connection between Beaverbrook area and the Beaver Pond

· Use rail corridor for cycling/pedestrian path per OP

In summary the Marchwood-Lakeside Plan (KNL Development) is premature until all of the issues – including transportation – are addressed in a much more comprehensive study of the area than is available at this time. If there is a requirement to support a plan at this time – support Plan Y.

Following the presentation, Mr. Morrison clarified that through the public process several ideas surfaced from the community, one of which resulted in the condition that the owner undertake an update to the traffic study submitted a year ago and built off the original master study for transportation in this area. Once that information is available, it can better determine whether Solandt should be connected. Any change resulting from that traffic impact analysis would not have a drastic impact on this plan. Mr. McLean’s alternative could be introduced, but additional traffic information is essential.

Councillor Harder received confirmation that by not moving the alternative today does not necessarily preclude it from taking place during the transportation work, unless there was a problem from a transit or distance perspective.

Rob Davis had a concern with respect to traffic. Phase 1 of the Plan of Subdivision, the area north of the Beaver Pond, which does not contemplate arterial roads will increase traffic on Varley Drive. Varley is a crescent, 2k in length, and is currently used as a cut-through. Mr. Davis supported Plan Y.

Kelly Buckley registered in opposition to the recommendation, but left before she could address the Committee.

Pat Suwalski presented the following arguments in opposition to Plan H:

· The compensation land is waste land; it can be replanted, but will not be useful for a long time.

· The big issue is the wet lands.

· Road cannot handle the additional traffic.

· There are more and more power outages in Kanata.

Mr. Suwalski suggested there have been recent studies conducted in the area, specifically citing rock structures and formation; roads and traffic, etc. The area has dramatically changed and he questioned the validity of proceeding, based on outdated studies.

Mary Jarvis, Director of Planning, Urbandale Corporation, majority shareholder in the KNL Developments Inc. (KNL) introduced her team and would highlight some of the issues addressed in some of the previous presentations. KNL purchased the lands in 1999 for development. They worked diligently with staff, the community and Councillors to address concerns from the stand point of land development, the needs of the community and PDD.

Don Kennedy, as the planning consultant of record, provided a history of the development. In particular his presentation revolved around community building and steps that were taken to work with the existing Community (Beaverbrook) and the new communities (both existing and proposed) of Marchwood and Lakeside. A series of plans were shown to supplement the staff drawings in the staff report which demonstrate how closely KNL has followed the approved and registered documents. Mr. Kennedy provided a written submission, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Historically, the plan before Committee was prepared in 1979 and submitted to the community, Kanata Council, Regional Council in 1980-1981 and eventually to the OMB in 1983. The plan covered 1,451 acres, with 571 acres of open space, but the City removed some golf course and medium intensity development in favour of Centrum, reduced the development to 1400 acres. The true calculation is 39.35% provided for open space, rounded to 40%, hence the 560 acres. KNL cannot accept Plan Y for the following reasons:

· Short streets – huge loss of yield in the immediate and best area and undesirable lots

· Costs of Kizell Pond.

· Staff wants soccer pitches.

· Sufficient buffers and credits have been provided.

· Need to look after the new community and residents who have bought into it.

· Timing of proposed alternate lands.

· Environmental Issues – DFO, MVC, City.

The plans have been labelled as A, B, C, D, H and Y. A is the closest to the approved OP, B favours the Beaver Pond, C favours the West Block, H is KNL’s compromise plan and the subject of the staff recommendation. The difference in the amount of land north of the Beaver Pond according to the various plans: A – 10.38; B – 19.92; C – 12; H – 17. Mr. Kennedy urged the Committee to support the staff recommendation for Plan H.

Bob Wingate, Servicing Engineer, Cumming Cockburn Ltd (CCL), is the engineer of record since early 1980’s. Mr. Wingate spoke to municipal servicing. This strategy started in 1984 with the approval of a Master Drainage Plan for all of Kanata Lakes and that plan identified the preferred alternative for stormwater management as the Beaver Pond and Kizell Pond to handle the run off from major storm events. Over $1 Million has been spent installing infrastructure, dredging the lower end of the Beaver Pond and putting control structure under Walden Drive. In addition to the Master Drainage plan in the mid 80’s there was a Master Water Plan, and Master Wastewater Plan. These became the blue print and basis for all municipal servicing in the Kanata Lakes Area. The Wastewater Master Plan seems to be the most controversial because it determined the best servicing scenario for sanitary sewers was a trunk sewer on Kimmins Court, with two minor trunks, one running north of the Beaver Pond and one running south of the Beaver Pond. The one south of the Beaver Pond has been installed to Goulbourn Forced Road and drains a good portion of the land south of the Beaver Pond. The one to the north of the Beaver Pond would be part of Phase 1 construction and needs to connect to the north end of Kimmins Court. That sewer will drain all urban development seen on the concept plan north of the Beaver Pond. The most logical, direct, economic route is to follow Walden Drive. There seems to be controversy about this sewer, which is perplexing since that sewer is an 18-inch diameter sewer (local sewers in a subdivision are 10-inches). Another benefit to the sewer in Walden Drive is that the blasting is shallower. That sewer is of minimal impact because it is marginally deeper than a local sewer in a subdivision street (0-1m). It is 3m deep along the east half of the site and 4m deep along the west half of Goulbourn Forced Road. It does go through some rock knobs, but they will be removed as part of the urban development. There will need to be some blasting and grading due to the topography of the site.

Filling along the south side of the Kizell Pond, north side of Phase 2 of the development - There was preliminary analysis since there has never been any detailed geotechnical information taken on the depth of peat in the Kizell Pond since development had not been anticipated and the Master Drainage Plan attempts to maintain water levels so the natural wetland will remain as is and thrive. There is peat in the order of 4m deep and a significant grade change from the development shown in white and the levels of the existing ground along Kizell Pond. That grade change requires more than just sloping roads to make up that difference. The estimate is in excess of $8 Million using 2m of peat as a conservative number. There is also a significant amount of dewatering required. That does not make that proposal viable.

David Hatton (CCL) addressed transportation and traffic issues and, in particular, how this proposal is consistent with the approved Transportation Master Plan. Mr. Hattan agreed the Marchwood/Lakeside study is an old study (17 years). That study was used as an overview in their current work. The study assumptions were reviewed in terms of land use. The current Urbandale Master Plan has 3,753 units as opposed to the 3,700 in the original Marchwood/Lakeside Plan. In terms of the traffic generated from that land use, 2,700 trips were anticipated in the afternoon peek hour. Some of the conclusions in the report are still appropriate and the report did recommend a network that included the Solandt connection. Points are well taken and require the need for transit input, at each phase. If Solandt is included, it would be KNL’s recommendation that it be at grade since Walden Drive is essentially fixed in position in the current concept plan. Other items looked at on Solandt were the potential for additional cut-through traffic coming from the areas north of March Road heading through the community to Centrum or Corel Centre. He concluded by illustrating on the rail and grade separation issue that current usage being looked at is a very low usage, one train per day, and on that basis KNL was not recommending grade separation with this concept plan.

Bernie Muncaster delineated the limits of the NEA and addressed the proposal in relation to the original proposals. Mr. Muncaster explained the priorities in selecting the NEA lands that started with Trillium woods, which has the greatest selection of ecological features and functions in the study area and tremendous mature deciduous trees. It also has the only mature wetland swamp habitat in the immediate study area and encompasses Shirley’s Brook. When talking about a pathway coming up to the east of the Forced Road, there is a dry portion of the Trillium Woods the pathway can access into the core of the woods to avoid the open water to the east. Trillium Woods ranks #1 as it did in Dan Brunton’s 1992 study. The second area is the West Block area, another area of mature deciduous trees, especially maple and beech trees and significant rock outcrops. All of the West block was not included in the NEA lands. The top priority areas were identified and as land becomes available, the next priority is to add to the West Block. Number 3 is north of the Beaver Pond and many presenters spoke to the mature trees, but it does not have quite the same ecological function seen in the other two; also reflected in the Brunton report as third. It is ecologically distinct from Trillium Woods. The next area was the Kizell Pond and Wetland Area, which has become of more interest recently. The Kizell wetland deserves greater consideration than the Beaver Pond because it does contain diverse wetland habitat. There was tree cutting, but it is in a regeneration program. Kizell pond together with the west block form a continuous area that provides a large natural environment area. In terms of moving the development line further north on the south side of the Kizell pond area, approaching Forced Road, there would be some difficulty from a fish habitat authorization stand point. On the west side approaching the First Line Road allowance, the grade is very steep and provides an excellent buffer to the wetlands between the core of that natural environment area and the residential to the south. DFO is entertaining realignment of Shirley’s Brook 400m west of the Forced Road because it is highly degraded and basically a ditch now.

Doug Kelly, Soloway, Wright, the solicitor of record, was the Regional Solicitor and responsible for the OMB Hearing, which approved this project and registered it on title. In the original ROP in 1974, there was conservation and recreation designation and the OMB allowed that to be approved, subject to a study being conducted by the Region which was completed in 1978. That study became Amendment 12 to the ROP and before the Board in the early 1980’s. The Board refused to approve it since there was no acquisition policy in the plan. At the same time, Campeau came forward with their proposal; and, Regional Council was considering the appropriate boundary to the western community north of Highway 417 and routes. There is an agreement between Kanata and the Campeau Corporation dated May 26, 1981, which identified 4 portions of this area to be preserved – the proposed 18-hole golf course; the Stormwater Management Area (Kizell Pond and Beaver Pond); the Natural Environment Areas (NEA); and, the 5% park dedication. The Region conducted studies that identified the important Environment Areas (EA’s) contained in Amendment 24 and attached to that agreement. #1 - Trillium Woods - EA Class 1; Kizell Pond and Beaver Pond - EA Class 1 (River Corridor); and, the West Block - EA Class 2. There was no Environmental Designation on the land north of the Beaver Pond, south of the railway tracks. The land north of the Beaver Pond was designated residential.

There were no detailed legal descriptions and it was unknown how large the golf course would be since it had not been designed. There is an agreement between Campeau and Kanata on the design and in 1988 there is better clarification and a further agreement between Campeau and Kanata. There was a desire to buffer Beaverbrook from Marchwood-Lakeside and that buffer was dealt with in a Council Minute of April 1, 1986 where an increased buffer is provided between the two communities, which is part of the 40% agreement. There was clarification of the 40% Agreement in 1988 – Plan 4-M-651; those two blocks in 651 are added into the legal description as part of the 40% Agreement as part of the current lands. The compromise (Plan H) preserves more land north of the Beaver Pond, but also remains true to the principles established when this was dealt with in all the OP’s as former Mayor Adams has addressed to the Committee.

Ms. Jarvis closed by stating that KNL has been working closely with PDD staff and the community and thanked everyone for their patience. Plan H achieves the goals and objectives of the City’s OP. It is a step towards addressing some of the current concerns with respect to the lands north of the Beaver Pond and also achieves the overriding goal of staying true to the 40% Agreement. Since September, KNL has worked rigorously in trying to find ways to extract land and be more efficient with the subdivision to achieve the 560 total acreage of open space in the area, meet their development needs, provide a development that is economically feasible as well as aesthetically pleasing, treat the edges of both the Kizell Pond and the Beaver Pond in such a manner that in the future there are desirable viewscapes and reasonable recreation and outdoor amenity spaces for the public as well as to address community concerns with respect to the existing trail system through the properties and the natural features. With regard to Plan Y, the consultants were selected in an order to highlight concerns with the southern edge of Kizell Pond and filling in that area; the issue with Shirley’s Brook and maintaining and enhancing that natural feature; and, dealing with the 40% Agreement. In closing, KNL supports Plan H and asks the Committee to recommend approval of Plan H to City Council as submitted by PDD staff.

Subsequent to the presentation, the delegation responded to questions posed by the members of the Committee. A number of points of clarification were made and are summarized as follows:

· There will be grade blasting south of the Kizell Pond that removes the extremes from the topography to allow construction with appropriate slopes. There is a cut-fill balance and analysis to determine appropriate elevation to avoid a huge excess of construction material. That is the problem with the northern limit of the Kizell Pond, which would entail considerable excess material.

· This subdivision does follow standard City practice for subdivisions of this size.

· Outlets for traffic were identified, which still exist, although somewhat modified – rather than have Walden Way connecting directly onto Terry Fox, there will be a jog to pick up another street that takes you out to Terry Fox to avoid the NEA lands. Goulbourn Forced Road will still be connected to Terry Fox. The need for Solandt Road will be investigated. Kanata Avenue is being extended to tie into Terry Fox. It is critical to identify, as each phase of development comes on stream, the threshold that will trigger what is being constructed first.

· Phase 1 is north of the Beaver Pond, east of Goulbourn Forced Road; Phase 2 is south of Kizell; and then they were going to travel to the north side of Kizell Pond, developing the lands north of the rail line as the fourth and final phase.

· Goulbourn Forced Road will have to be upgraded to build Phase 1.

· Any land exchange would have to entail like land for like land; or, if purchased, at fair market value.

· If the City were to exercise its option to put a levy on the Beaverbrook and March-Lakeside community to purchase land south of Walden Drive at market value, a levy would be placed on the community for the next 10 +/- years? Ms. Jarvis stated that would need to be discussed with the principles of the company.

· It is important to place the sewer where it is most useful, which is on Walden Drive; it is centrally located and the two sewers come together in that regard. The main cost for a sewer was excavating the hole and whether the pipe is 10” or 18”, the depth is approximately the same. If the sewer was constructed along the railway tracks, the rock knobs would still be removed to level the topography. The 15m setback has been incorporated into the proposed zoning by-law before Committee as it relates to the railway.

· Phases 1A, 1B, 2 and 3, what was the time horizon for build out? Ms. Jarvis responded it would be 10-15 years, possibly longer.

The following documentation was received and circulated to the Committee

· E-mail dated 21 March 2004 from Lesley and Dave Lander outlining concerns with the development.

· E-mail dated 6" May 2004 from Henrietta Gibson in opposition.

· E-mail dated 7 May 2004 from Mark Gibson in opposition.

· E-mail dated 9 May 2004 from Conrad Y. Levesque in opposition.

· E-mail dated 9 May 2004 from Martin Matthews outlining concerns with the development.

· E-mail dated 10 May 2004 from Nola Murphy outlining concerns with the development.

· E-mail dated 10 May 2004 from Lorie Gourley in opposition.

· E-mail dated 10 May 2004 from Ann Shilts in opposition to Plan “H” and in support of Plan “Y”.

· E-mail dated 10 May 2004 from Dr. Peter C. Mason in opposition.

· E-mail dated 10 May 2004 from Morley W. Connell in opposition to Plan “H”.

· E-mail dated 10 May 2004 from Ian Lowrie in opposition to Plan “H” and in support of Plan “Y”.

· E-mail dated 11 May 2004 from Glen Chochia in support of Plan “Y”.

· E-mail dated 11 May 2004 from Tracy Field-Folch and Santiago Folch outlining concerns with respect to the description of the required buffer of Shirley’s Brook.

Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter returned to Committee.

Staff responded to questions posed by members of the Committee. A number of points of clarification were made and are summarized as follows:

· Based on the presentation and staff report, the Committee can direct staff whether or not it will increase the lands on north of the Beaver Pond, decrease Kizell Pond lands in order to have additional land as compensation; whether or not the land shown as a triangle near the corner of Terry Fox in the upper left hand corner should be used as well as compensation for development; and, whether or not the sportsfields should be reduced in size to provide additional acreage north of the Beaver Pond.

· If the golf course lands cease to be a golf course, it can be turned over to the City for $1. In all likelihood, the City would be looking at that option quite significantly to acquire the lands. If the current owners apply for a rezoning, given the confines of the signed agreement the re-zoning application would be recommended for refusal.

· The NEA lands by Terry Fox are not part of the application and any land swap would need to be subject to a future report to Committee and Council and it is assumed it would rise in the context of Terry Fox Drive construction. The City would then be responsible for acquiring other lands to deal with stormwater.

· The proponent does not own this land and cannot include it in the Plan of Subdivision, although staff has asked the proponent to illustrate how it could be developed, which the proponent has done and staff is satisfied it is a logical extension of the existing subdivision. If, in the end, the City determines not to sell or exchange the land with KNL, then the plan will be revised. That land has not been ignored and there is flexibility.

· The 7 year horizon on institutional lands does not take effect until the Plan is registered; and, these lands will not be registered in one phase. While those lands may not be developed for 10 years, they will in all likelihood not be registered for 8 or 9 years and then the 7 years kick in. That is reflected in the Conditions in the report; it ties it to registration.

Chair Hume referred to the technical amendments presented by staff.

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That the Zoning By-law Amendment attached as Document 4 to report ACS2004-DEV-APR-0054 be revised to change “Residential Type 3A-7” to “Residential Type 3A-10” and to change “Residential Type 3A-8” to “Residential Type 3A-9”.

And that Recommendation No. 2 to the report be revised accordingly.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That Document 3 be amended to include Schedule B to the Official Plan Amendment being an amendment to Schedule C of the Former City of Kanata Official Plan.

CARRIED

Chair Hume noted the package of Motions presented by Councillor Feltmate.

Mr. Marc advised that should any of Councillor Feltmate’s Motions be carried the following Motion should be added:

And that the necessary amendments be made to the Official Plan, Plan of Subdivision and the zoning details. And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.

Councillor Feltmate begged everyone’s indulgence and thanked everyone for their patience. This is an emotional issue for Kanata as was shown through the number of delegations in attendance. It is not only about recreation, ecology, environment, trees and paths and the pond, but also about identity. There is an opportunity as was repeatedly stated by the community to influence this development and provide a beautiful parkland as a contiguous massing into the lands already owned for the whole community. The process has been time-consuming and intense for all parties and all are cognizant of the need to maintain control within the community as opposed to an OMB Hearing. She was putting forward a number of resolutions crafted with the community and which reflect the community’s desires. She asked for the Committee’s consideration by amending Plan H to a certain extent, by directing the developer and the community, to make some further accommodations for a better plan. She posited for the Committee to seek the best vision for the new City and its future in the long term.

On Motion 1, Ms. Reeves pointed out it is not staff’s recommendation to compromise active parkland for further NEA. Further to the concept plan in 1988, there was an entire open space master plan approved by Kanata Council, based on the concept plan. In terms of active parks, two active parks were conceptually approved - approximately 12.6 ha. In Plan H there is 8.5 ha., already reducing the amount of active parkland. This would require a needs analysis from People Services and the same comment would hold true for Motion 2.

Councillor Feltmate spoke to her Motion and remarked that there are several experiences in Kanata where parkland has been tied to and awaiting schools. She is convinced schools will be built in this area and referred to the strategy from People Services at the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee (HRSSC) two weeks’ ago on the Sportsfields Strategy. There will be a renewed effort to partner with schools. As taxpayers, it makes sense to partner around parking lots, for playing fields, to ensure there is enough space without paving over “paradise”. Residents are drawn to this community because of the 95 acres of trails and it has to be accepted that the City is investing in recreation trails with pathways, cross-country skiing, biking trails, walking and running trails and possibly there will not be the same level of sportsfields. Given the downtown core has one sportsfield for 42,000 residents, Kanata can give up one sportsfield to accommodate the obvious wishes of the community. She asked the Committee to support this Motion.

Councillors Cullen, Hunter and Chair Hume pointed to the dire shortage of playing fields across the City (67 sportsfield deficit) with many residents unable to come by playing time in their own community. Chair Hume averred it should be absolutely clear to residents in Kanata and the community of March-Lakeside that when this is built out, the City is sacrificing a soccer field for NEA lands; and, the City will not remove resources from underserved communities.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

1. That the active park be reduced by three acres by sharing parking and playing fields with the adjacent schools and that the three acres of open space be added to the NEA lands north of the Beaver pond.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

That Councillor Feltmate’s Motion be amended by replacing the words “north of the Beaver Pond” by the words “of West Block”

CARRIED

YEAS (4): Councillors D. Holmes, J. Harder, A. Cullen, P. Hume

NAYS (3): Councillors H. Kreling, P. Feltmate, G. Hunter

Motion 1, as amended.

CARRIED

YEAS (5): Councillors P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, J. Harder, A. Cullen, P. Hume

NAYS (2): Councillors G. Hunter, H. Kreling

On Motion 2, Ms. Reeves explained that 3.4 acres allows the provision of a mini-soccer pitch and a Tot Lot. The Motion will delete the park area, removing the road frontage and as such will no longer be open to the community it is intended to serve. It will only be accessible through the main collector.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

2. That the park at Goulbourn Forced Road and the Railway be reduced by 3.4 acres to accommodate a children’s play park and the fish habitat park and that the 3.4 acres of open space be added to the NEA lands north of the Beaver Pond.

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors P. Feltmate, A. Cullen

NAYS (5): Councillors G. Hunter, D. Holmes, H. Kreling, J. Harder, P. Hume

On Motion 3, Ms. Murphy noted the Committee heard about the servicing constraints related to the Motion and provided some history. There was a 10m buffer to protect the wetland and provide some buffer between a walkway and the residential development, which elicited several complaints. The buffer was removed and the boundary changed to as much as possible. That land was placed north of Beaver Pond, which was presented in Plan H. The development has already been pushed up in this area.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

3. That the developer (KNL) be instructed to develop a further five acres south of the Kizell Pond area and that five acres of Open space be added to the NEA lands north of the Beaver pond.

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors P. Feltmate, J. Harder

NAYS (5): Councillors A. Cullen, H. Kreling, D. Holmes, G. Hunter, P. Hume

On Motion 4, Mr. Lindsay commented that the Committee clearly heard from the proponent that this will be very expensive land to develop. He believed the Concept Plan did show these lands for development at one time, therefore the staff position is neutral.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

4. That rocky knoll at the north-west corner of the development be designated Medium Density Residential (as per the Concept Plan) rather than Open Space thus saving 2.6 acres and that 2.6 acres of open space be added to the NEA lands north of the Beaver Pond.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

That Councillor Feltmate’s Motion be amended by replacing the words “north of the Beaver Pond” by the words “of West Block”

LOST

YEAS (3): Councillors D. Holmes, A. Cullen, P. Hume

NAYS (4):` Councillors H. Kreling, J. Harder, P. Feltmate, G. Hunter

On Motion 4.

LOST

YEAS (3): Councillors P. Feltmate, G. Hunter, D. Holmes

NAYS (4): Councillors H. Kreling, J. Harder, A. Cullen, P. Hume

On Motion 5, staff provided the following clarification:

· Approval of this recommendation would require concurrence by the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee (CSEDC) since it is a land transaction, which is not within this Committee’s purview.

· The OP would need to be amended to incorporate these lands; the lands would need to be zoned and incorporated into a Plan of Subdivision; and, the City would need to declare these lands surplus as per the requirements of the Municipal Act.

· An appraisal would need to be carried out on the property that would determine the appropriate land value; and, once all that information is before Committee, the Committee would need to determine if it wished to pursue that course.

· A roadway currently cuts through the NEA, with a sliver of the NEA remaining remnant below the roadway, which is the six acres.

· There is a preliminary design document and it is recommended to retain that as a buffer between the development and the NEA, but the practicality and feasibility of that is as yet unknown.

· The land is needed for drainage for the roadway.

· Staff will need to investigate it further and information could be made available at Council.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

5. That the incursion into City owned NEA lands by the Terry Fox Drive extension be traded with the developer for equivalent forested lands within the development (six acres).

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That staff be directed to investigate the Councillor Feltmate’s Motion and report back before the matter rises to Council.

CARRIED

On Motion 6, Ms. Reeves advised that staff has not yet dealt with how the pathway would connect, but she pointed out that staff shifted it to save land and put it back towards the buffer. She also pointed out that if the connection is moved to a central location, it will require an additional buffer to cross the rail line. There is a narrow band of green along the rear lots to the existing pedestrian crossing. Staff does not want to encourage residents to cross the railway line at an uncontrolled location.

Moved Councillor P. Feltmate:

6. That the 40 meter corridor connecting the Beaver Pond NEA with Trillium Woods be relocated easterly to a more central location.

LOST

YEAS (1): Councillor P. Feltmate

NAYS (6): Councillors A. Cullen, J. Harder, H. Kreling, D. Holmes, G. Hunter,
P. Hume

On Motion 7,

7. That the Solandt Road connection be reflected in the Plan of Subdivision until such time as formal traffic study confirms that it is not required.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

8. That item 50 in Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision be changed to 15 years.

On Motion 8, Mr. Marc remarked that the 7 year time limit is established by long established jurisprudence and he echoed the comments made by Mr. Herweyer that it runs not from the date of Draft Approval, but from the date of registration. In effect, these lands may be reserved for much more than 7 years.

Councillor Feltmate suggested that another option is not to have it dual zoned, but to have it zoned institutional. Mr. Lathrop advised it is possible, but could be a big issue in the future. In fairness, the difficult time that staff have with this is that on one hand, there is a benefit in saying that this will be park; on the other hand, is the City being fair to the public if it is not informing them now that if it is not park it may be residential and staff opined that is the fair way to deal with it.

Councillor Feltmate withdrew her Motion.

On Motion 9, Mr. Herweyer commented that it could be done. The staff position is clear that it is part of the environmental land and the 40% open space agreement. Chair Hume added that if the Committee approved the Motion, the City could find itself at an OMB Hearing and staff could not support the Committee’s position. Ms. Murphy stated that in terms of the two water courses, (Kizell and Shirley’s), they were identified in the Concept Plan, not to the full extent seen today, but were included in the Environmental Protection Areas (EPA). In terms of the fisheries, it was included within the open space areas, but not to the full extent recognized today.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

9. That the fish habitat land not be considered part of the 40% agreement and the acreage be applied north of the Beaver Pond.

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors P. Feltmate, G. Hunter

NAYS (5): Councillors D. Holmes, H. Kreling, J. Harder, A. Cullen, P. Hume

Councillor Feltmate commented on the delegation with a private well and asked if there are any conditions that protect ground water for existing private wells and provide for remedial measures if such private water sources are detrimentally affected. Staff was not aware of anything specific, but given the amount of blasting will do due diligence. Chair Hume pointed out Ms. Jarvis is aware of the situation and is nodding her head.

The Chair asked Ms. Jarvis, staff and Councillor Feltmate work on something that can be included as an amendment when the matter rises to Council.

Councillor Holmes noted a request made by the Kanata Lakes Community Association “the developer agrees that they will not clear more trees than is absolutely necessary to permit development for a one year supply of lots.” Mr. Marc responded that from a legal aspect, it won’t apply until Draft Approval is formally given, but that such a condition can be imposed. From a practical perspective, Mr. Lathrop commented that primarily it will revolve around an ability to service. Councillor Holmes asked if staff can have a Motion for Council along the lines of removing only sufficient trees to perform the servicing needed for that season’s work. Mr. Lathrop undertook to provide that wording for Council.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

CARRIED

The Committee congratulated Councillor Feltmate on the excellent job in her first foray with a major development in her Ward, bringing together the different factions. Chair Hume also maintained the proponent was extremely reasonable in agreeing to the numerous deferrals.

The Committee approved the recommendations as amended.

That the Planning and Environment Committee:

To include Schedule B to the Official Plan Amendment being an amendment to Schedule C of the Former City of Kanata Official Plan.

2. Recommend Council approve an amendment to remove the land at 300 Goulbourn Forced Road and 535 Goulbourn Forced Road from the former March Township Zoning By-law No. 552 and amend former City of Kanata Zoning By-law 167-93 to zone the land "Residential Type 3A-10", "Residential Type 3A-9", "Residential Type 6A-1", "General Commercial-1", "Institutional-1" and Open Space-1" as detailed in Document 4.

4. Recommend that Council approve the active park be reduced by three acres by sharing parking and playing fields with the adjacent schools and that the three acres of open space be added to the NEA lands north of the West Block.

5. Direct staff to investigate the following Motion and report back before the matter rises to Council:

That the incursion into City owned NEA lands by the Terry Fox Drive extension be traded with the developer for equivalent forested lands within the development (six acres)

6. Recommend that Council approve the Solandt Road connection be reflected in the Plan of Subdivision until such time as a formal traffic study confirms that it is not required.

CARRIED as amended with Councillor P. Feltmate dissenting.

RECOMMANDATIONS MODIFIÉes DU COMITÉ

Pour la gouverne du Conseil

BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

PART B - THE AMENDMENT

Focus Group

Subdivision Public Meeting

Plan ‘H’

Other Public Input

Filling in of Kizell Pond

Planning Policy

Natural Environment

Social Benefits

Servicing Limitations

Economic

7. Q. Why is fish habitat and Shirley’s Brook considered under the 40% Open Space Agreement?

11. Q. Where are the Black Cherry Trees that are referenced in the 1992 Brunton Report, and are they being saved?

OTTAWA

Highways/Roads

Sidewalks, Walkways, and Fencing

The Detailed Tree Planting and Conservation Plan shall specifically identify Black Cherry species and preserve such trees wherever possible, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals.

MVC

MVC

MNR

Municipal Services

OTTAWA (PPD)

Noise Attenuation

The Owner agrees that all Purchase and Sale Agreements shall include noise and/or vibration warning clauses, as required by the Noise and Vibration Study.

OTTAWA