Report Template


 

3.         OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING - 5309 BANK STREET

 

PLAN OFFICIEL ET ZONAGE - 5309, RUE BANK

 

 

 

Committee RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That Council:

 

1.                  approve an amendment to the City Council Approved Official Plan and the former Regional of Ottawa-Carleton Official Plan to redesignate 5309 Bank Street from 'General Rural Area' and 'Environmental Features'/'Rural Natural Features' to 'Limestone Resource Area' as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2; and,

 

2.                  approve an amendment to the former City of Gloucester Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 5309 Bank Street from ‘Agricultural General’ (Ag) Zone to Me ‘Industrial Extraction’ Zone as detailed in Document 3.

 

 

RECOMMANDATIONS du comité

 

Que le Conseil :

 

1.                  Approuve une modification du Plan directeur approuvé au Conseil municipal et de l’ancien Plan directeur de la Région d’Ottawa-Carleton en vue de faire passer la désignation du 5309, rue Bank de « Zone rurale générale » et de « Caractéristiques environnementales/caractéristiques naturelles rurales » à « Zone de ressources calcaires », comme l’indiquent les documents 1 et 2.

 

2.         Approuve une modification de l’ancien Règlement de zonage de Gloucester afin de modifier le zonage du 5309, rue Bank, de Ag – Secteur agricole général à Me – Secteur d’extraction industrielle, comme l’indique le document 3.

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.                  Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management report dated 15 June 2005 (ACS2005-PGM-APR-0076).

 

2.         Extract of Draft Minutes, 28 June 2005 will be distributed prior to Council.


Report to/Rapport au :

 

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

15 June / le 15 juin 2005

 

Submitted by/Soumis par :  Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager / Directeur municipal adjoint

Planning and Growth Management / Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Karen Currie, Manager / Gestionnaire

Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement

(613) 580-2424 x28310, Karen.Currie@ottawa.ca

 

Gloucester-Southgate (10)

Ref N°: ACS2005-PGM-APR-0076

 

 

SUBJECT:

OFFICIAL PLAN and Zoning - 5309 Bank street

(D01-01-04-0013 and D02-02-04-0007)

 

 

OBJET :

plan officiel et zonage - 5309, rue bank

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

 

1.                  approve an amendment to the City Council Approved Official Plan and the former Regional of Ottawa-Carleton Official Plan to redesignate 5309 Bank Street from 'General Rural Area' and 'Environmental Features'/'Rural Natural Features' to 'Limestone Resource Area' as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2; and,

 

2.                  approve an amendment to the former City of Gloucester Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 5309 Bank Street from ‘Agricultural General’ (Ag) Zone to Me ‘Industrial Extraction’ Zone as detailed in Document 3.

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil :

1.                  D’approuver une modification du Plan directeur approuvé au Conseil municipal et de l’ancien Plan directeur de la Région d’Ottawa-Carleton en vue de faire passer la désignation du 5309, rue Bank de « Zone rurale générale » et de « Caractéristiques environnementales/caractéristiques naturelles rurales » à « Zone de ressources calcaires », comme l’indiquent les documents 1 et 2.

2.                  D’approuver une modification de l’ancien Règlement de zonage de Gloucester afin de modifier le zonage du 5309, rue Bank, de Ag – Secteur agricole général à Me – Secteur d’extraction industrielle, comme l’indique le document 3.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Assumptions and Analysis:

 

The applicants propose to expand the existing Rideau Road Quarry Operation by approximately 40 hectares to permit the continuation of the existing 35 hectare quarrying operation in the future.  To permit such an expansion, the applicant is required to undertake an Official Plan Amendment to the City Council Approved Official Plan and the former Regional Official Plan from 'General Rural Area' and 'Environmental Features'/'Rural Natural Features' to 'Limestone Resource Area' (Document 1).  A Zoning By-law Amendment is also required to rezone the property from ‘Agricultural General’ (Ag) Zone to Me ‘Industrial Extraction’ Zone (former City of Gloucester Zoning By-law) to permit expansion of the existing quarry operation.

 

The primary matter of discussion has centred around the two resources found on the subject site:  natural heritage features and mineral aggregate resources.  A diverse forest with a number of significant environmental features and functions defines the natural heritage of the site.  As required, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was used to identify potential environmental significance and the impacts of the proposal.  The on-site aggregate resources are characterized by Oxford and March formation bedrock, which are both aggregate resources in demand for the production of high quality concrete and asphalt applications locally and Provincially.  Both of these resources are given high priority in City of Ottawa studies and policy, and therefore, represent competing land use policy interests. 

 

Financial Implications:

 

On June 25th 2003, Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommended to Council the sale of land at 5309 Bank Street.  As one of the conditions of the sale, the owner/applicant is required to satisfy certain conditions including: a re-zoning approval, the completion of a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify potential environmental impacts, and the protection of all significant environmental features entitled to protection under current applicable laws or regulations and identified in EIS to the satisfaction of the City and the Province. 

 

Public Consultation/Input:

 

Since its submission in January 2004, the application has been presented and discussed with the public at a Community Information Session in May 2004 and through on-going correspondence.  The primary concern comes from local environmental groups and individuals who are concerned with the possible partial or total loss of a natural environment area and they request that the subject site remain protected from land use changes that they indicate will impact the existing natural environment on-site and portions of the surrounding South Gloucester Woodlands Natural area.

 

Staff has investigated comments and recommendations received with a view to balancing the needs of the broader community, the desires of the concerned environmental groups and individual and the land owner and applicant.   Under the circumstances of the present application and subject land, simultaneous use of both on-site resources is not feasible, and therefore, one resource must be diminished to achieve the benefits of the other.  The present applications offer a land use development that will achieve many public policy benefits.  The continued operation and the expansion of the existing quarry are considered to be: desirable for meeting growing local, regional and Provincial consumption needs; compatible with the surrounding community with minimal impacts; timely given the increased demand of such aggregate resources; and conforms with the broader policy intent of the Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement.  The site should be designated for long-term protection of mineral aggregate resource.  After review of the merits of each land use the Department is recommending approval of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

 

RÉSUMÉ

 

Hypothèses et analyse :

 

Les demandeurs proposent d’élargir le périmètre d’exploitation de la carrière de la rue Rideau d’environ 40 hectares afin de permettre à l’avenir la poursuite de l’exploitation de la carrière de 35 hectares. À cette fin, le demandeur doit demander une modification du Plan directeur approuvé au Conseil municipal et de l’ancien Plan directeur régional de « Zone rurale générale » et de « Caractéristiques environnementales/caractéristiques naturelles rurales » à « Zone de ressources calcaires » (document 1). Une modification du Règlement de zonage est également nécessaire afin de modifier le zonage de Ag – Secteur agricole général à Me – Secteur d’extraction industrielle (ancien Règlement de zonage de la Ville de Gloucester), afin de permettre l’expansion de l’exploitation de la carrière actuelle.

Le principal sujet de discussion était centré sur les deux ressources qui se trouvent sur l’emplacement en objet : un patrimoine naturel et des ressources minérales en agrégats. Une forêt diversifiée dotée de diverses caractéristiques et fonctions environnementales importantes définit le patrimoine naturel de l’emplacement. Tel que stipulé, une étude d’impact sur l’environnement a été utilisée afin de déterminer l’importance environnementale potentielle et les répercussions de la proposition. Les ressources en agrégats de l’emplacement sont caractérisées par un substratum de formation d’Oxford et de March, deux ressources en agrégats en demande pour la production d’applications de béton et d’asphalte de qualité localement et provincialement. Les études et les politiques de la Ville d’Ottawa accordent la priorité à ces deux ressources, d’ou l’existence d’intérêts opposés en matière de politique sur l’aménagement du territoire.

Répercussions financières :

 

Le 25 juin 2003, le Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique a recommandé au Conseil la vente du terrain situé au 5309, rue Bank. Parmi les conditions de la vente que le propriétaire/demandeur doit respecter, mentionnons : l’approbation d’une modification du Règlement de zonage, la réalisation d’une étude d’impact sur l’environnement approfondie afin de déterminer les répercussions possibles sur l’environnement, et la protection de toutes les caractéristiques environnementales importantes protégées par les lois ou les règlements actuels applicables et précisés dans l’étude d’impact sur l’environnement, à la satisfaction de la Ville et de la Province.

Consultation publique / commentaires :

 

Depuis sa présentation en janvier 2004, la demande a été présentée et discutée publiquement à une séance d’information communautaire tenue en mai 2004, en plus de faire l’objet d’une correspondance suivie. La principale préoccupation émane de groupes environnementaux locaux et de personnes qui sont préoccupées par la perte partielle ou totale possible d’un milieu naturel. Ils demandent donc que l’emplacement en objet reste protégé de toute modification de l’utilisation du terrain qui, font-ils valoir, aura des répercussions sur le milieu naturel existant et diverses parties des terres boisées environnantes de Gloucester Sud.

Le personnel a étudié les commentaires et les recommandations reçus en tenant compte des besoins de la collectivité générale ainsi que des désirs exprimés par les groupes environnementaux et les personnes concernées ainsi que par le propriétaire du terrain et le demandeur. Compte tenu des circonstances de la présente demande et du terrain en objet, l’utilisation simultanée des deux ressources n’est pas possible et, par conséquent, une ressource doit être diminuée au profit de l’autre. La présente demande permet le développement d’un terrain qui procurera de nombreux avantages d’intérêt public. L’exploitation continue et l’expansion de la carrière existante sont considérées comme : souhaitables pour répondre aux besoins de consommation croissants à l’échelle locale, régionale et provinciale, compatibles avec la collectivité environnante avec des répercussions mineures; opportunes, compte tenu de la demande croissante d’agrégats de ce genre; et conformes à l’intention générale du Plan directeur et de l’Énoncé de politique provincial. L’emplacement devrait être désigné pour une protection à long terme des ressources minérales en agrégats. Après un examen au fond de chaque utilisation du terrain, le Service recommande l’approbation de la modification du Plan directeur et du Règlement de zonage.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Proposal

 

The purpose of the applicant's proposal is to obtain the appropriate municipal planning approvals, i.e. Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the expansion of the existing quarry operation at 5309 Bank Street.

 

The Applications

 

The City has received two development applications relating to the subject 40-hectare parcel of land.  The purpose of the applications is to assess the merits of a proposal to amend the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton Official Plan and the City Council Approved Official Plan to modify the subject site’s designated 'General Rural Area' and 'Environmental Features' and 'Rural Natural Features' and 'General Rural Area' (as adopted in 1999 and 2003, respectively) to 'Limestone Resource Area' designation. 

 

The concurrent Zoning By-law Amendment application proposes to change existing zoning from ‘Agricultural General’ (Ag) Zone to Me ‘Industrial Extraction’ Zone.  The main uses permitted under the Me Zone include:  quarry, sand or gravel pit, agriculture, and forestry.  Conditional uses include:  administrative offices: manufacture of concrete and concrete products; manufacture of asphalt; repair and maintenance of industrial vehicles; treating of mineral aggregates; and, recycling of inert construction material (i.e. concrete, asphalt).

 

Description of Site/Area and Surroundings:

 

The subject property, 5309 Bank Street, is located north of the Village of Greely, between Bank Street and Hawthorne Road to the west and east, and Mitch Owens Road and Rideau Road to the south and north.

 

The site is bounded to the north by the existing Rideau Road Quarry (35 ha) and to the south by a wooded parcel owned by the applicant (see Document 1).  To the west of the rezoning area on the same property, the lands are wooded.  There are also some commercial properties along Bank Street to the west.  There are two residential communities approximately 300m from the subject area: one to the southwest, called Woodlands Court and another to the south, called Southside Mobile Home Park.  Some quarry, agricultural and forested areas are to the east of the site.  The subject site is characterized by a diversity of mature and immature trees and vegetation, some recreational trails and a hydro line corridor.  There will be no new access created for the quarry expansion as it will come from the existing quarry. 

 

Land Sale

 

The applicant owns land north and south of the subject property.  In 2002, they approached the City to purchase the subject property, for the purpose of expanding its existing quarry operation in the future.  On June 25, 2003, City Council approved the sale of the subject site to the applicant.  The sale acknowledged that the site zoning is ‘Agricultural General’ (Ag) Zone and that an Me ‘Industrial Extraction’ Zone would be required to expand the existing quarry operations onto the subject property.  Any application to amend the zoning would be the responsibility of the purchaser.  In this regard, the purchaser, and applicant of the present application, acknowledged that the sale of the subject property does not constitute any agreement or commitment by the City to support or approve any application to amend the zoning.

 

On June 25th, 2003, Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommended to Council the sale of land at 5309 Bank Street.  There was considerable debate surrounding the merits of selling the subject lands given the possible environmental sensitivity and significance of some plant species on and around the site.  After discussion, the land sale was recommended, subject to conditions (see Document 5).

 

Funds received from the sale of the land were to be directed to the Environmental Resources Area Acquisition reserve fund for the future purchase of land deemed to be environmentally significant.

 

The Owner/applicant made application in February 2004 to fulfill Condition No.4 of the land sale.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Planning Policy Context and Conformity

 

Two resources of importance are found on and surrounding the subject site:  natural heritage (environmental) resources and mineral aggregate resources.  The present application brings to question the merits and implications of the subject property’s two important and scarce resources in the context of both the Provincial and Municipal policy and regulatory requirements.

 

Provincial Policy Statement

 

Ontario's 1996 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) includes two sections of particular relevance to the present applications:  Nature Heritage and Mineral Resources.  Any application made prior to March 1, 2005 shall have regard to these policies.

 

The PPS states that natural heritage features and areas will be protected from incompatible development.  Specifically, development and site alteration will not be permitted in significant portions of the habitat of endangered and threatened species.  The PPS also states that "diversity of natural features in an area, and the natural connections between them be maintained, and improved where possible” (2.3.3). 

 

The PPS requires the long term protection of mineral resources (mineral aggregates, minerals and petroleum resources).  The policy specifically identifies that "as much of the mineral aggregate resources as is realistically possible will be made available to supply mineral resource needs, as close to markets as possible" (Section 2.2.3.1).  The PPS also states that progressive rehabilitation to accommodate subsequent land uses will be required. 

 

On both accounts, the approach of the application is consistent with the intent of the PPS.  An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been provided for the purposes of defining the extent of the natural heritage on subject lands and has presented a comprehensive rehabilitation strategy.  The proposed quarry expansion is approximately 20 km from the city centre and conforms with PPS intent to protect mineral resource aggregates to supply local and Provincial needs. 

 

According to the PPS, both the natural heritage features and the mineral aggregate resources are important and worthy of special consideration.  In the case of the subject application, both resources correspond to the exact site, and therefore, present competing land uses.   A review of the PPS does not indicate a specific policy directive for determining the preferred land use between mineral resource and natural heritage uses.  However, in situations where conflicts in Provincial policy occur, the site and context specific facts form the basis for a decision that may favour one policy or resource priority over another.

 

Official Plan

 

The former City of Gloucester Official Plan (approved 1992) designates the subject lands as 'Limited Development' and 'Mineral Resources'.  Areas identified Mineral Resources are those areas within the city which contain potential economically viable aggregate resources:  "…Mineral reserves be protected to provide resources for the future construction, repair of roads and domestic services" (Section 8.3).   The former City of Gloucester's intent for this designation was to protect and reserve the potential of existing and future mineral extraction operations. 

 

The former Region of Ottawa-Carlton Official Plan (approved October 1997) designates the subject lands as 'General Rural Area' and 'Environmental Features'.   The City Council Approved Official Plan (adopted May 2003) designates the subject lands as 'Rural Natural Features' and 'General Rural Area'.   The General Rural Area designation in both Official Plans refers to a variety of land uses that are appropriate for a rural location but may have less resource potential than other parts of the rural area.  In both Official Plans, this designation permits sand and gravel pits (subject to a rezoning), wayside pits and quarries and portable asphalt plants, and underground mining (provided that the above ground use does not include extensive stockpiling or storage facilities, processing or manufacturing operations).  A quarry operation is not permitted.

 

In both the Regional and the City Council Approved Official Plans, designations of the subject site recognize it as having potentially considerable environmental significance: "Environmental Feature" and “Rural Natural Feature”, respectively.   These designations require protection of significant environmental features and functions found within natural complexes, including:

·        areas that contribute to the overall diversity of a natural area; and

·        areas that support rare species and contribute to species diversity.

 

Rural Natural Features are natural areas in the rural area that contain woodlands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat  Any development within or adjacent to these lands must be assessed in terms of its impact on the area's natural feature, particularly impacts arising from the extent of disturbance and the location of buildings.  Any Official Plan Amendment to such a designation must provide a satisfactory, full site-impact, Environmental Impact Statement.

 

Under both the former Regional and the City Council Approved Official Plans, the proposed quarry operation expansion is not permitted and requires an Official Plan amendment. 

 

Zoning

 

A Zoning By-law Amendment application was also submitted to amend the uses from ‘Agricultural General’ (Ag) Zone to Me ‘Industrial Extraction’ Zone.  The Ag Zone permits only agricultural use and a single dwelling use, and therefore, the proposed use is not permitted and a zoning amendment is required.  The main uses permitted under proposed Me Zone include:  quarry, sand or gravel pit, agriculture, and forestry.  There are also a number of conditional complementary industrial uses that are permitted in this zone.

 

 


DISCUSSION

 

Environmental Implications

 

As required by the Official Plan and as a condition of the land sale, the proponent has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that reflects ongoing staff comments and peer review of an initial environmental screening report and subsequent draft EIS.  

 

The site consists of a mix of woodland communities largely on the eastern half of the site combined with an extensive old field area in the western and central portion of the site.  Many of the environmental features and functions are associated with the woodland communities although, as noted below, many of the rare species are in fact associated with the old field area.

 

The site is a part of a larger woodland area generally referred to as the South Gloucester Woodland.   This woodland has been identified as having high significance at a regional or city level through both the Natural Environment Systems Strategy completed by the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton and the more recently completed Shields Creek sub-watershed plan.  Local naturalists groups have also documented the significance of the site since the 1970’s. The significance of the area reflects a number of features and functions including rare and endangered species, rare habitats, high biological diversity, and good interior forest habitat.

 

The EIS submitted by the proponent confirms that the site proposed for the quarry expansion contains the ecological features and functions for which the South Gloucester Woodland is deemed significant.  The EIS indicates that the site includes:

 

·        Rare plant species occur across the site.  Two significant species are:

-         American Ginseng, designated nationally as an endangered species by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).  It is not listed under the Endangered Species Act in Ontario but the Province recommends that those species designated by COSEWIC as endangered be treated as a threatened species under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS);

-         Butternut trees with similar status, designated as endangered by COSEWIC but not listed in Ontario, largely as a result of disease. 

 

·        A relatively diverse forest environment with deciduous, coniferous, mixed forest and deciduous swamp forest stands with high quality interior habitat and rare vegetative associations. 

 

·        Regionally representative landforms found on the site provide buffering functions and habitat extensions between the numerous mixed forest, deciduous forest, coniferous forest and old field associations for wildlife and other flora. 

 

Extraction of aggregate will have a direct impact on these features and functions and with the exception of buffer areas required between adjacent uses and properties, the natural features within the licensed area will be removed over time.  There will also be some impacts in adjacent areas as the overall size of the woodland is reduced and new edge or transition areas are created. The gradual and staged extraction within the licensed area, and the fact that there is already extensive extraction in the area, provides some opportunity for adjustments and adaptation by local wildlife, partially mitigating these impacts.

 

Given the information in the EIS and other sources, it is clear that avoidance of any impacts on the significant features and functions for which the South Gloucester Woodland was designated would require a reduction in licensed area that, when combined with the buffers required to recognize the mobile home community adjacent to the western portion of the site, would provide little opportunity for extraction on the site.

 

The EIS explains further that the significance of the impacts are lessened through several observations and proposed mitigation measures:

 

-         There is suitable Ginseng habitat on lands owned by the proponent adjacent to the proposed extraction area.  This habitat to the south appears to be less disturbed and healthier than the area on-site.  The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has approved the proposed extraction area, the assessment of the relative habitat areas and the proposed mitigation approach for this ginseng habitat, that being to move specimens and monitor their health.   

-         A mitigation plan to transplant and monitor butternut has also been reviewed and approved by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

-         Other woodland features and functions are also represented elsewhere in the woodland and significant areas of interior habitat would remain within the South Gloucester Woodland after extraction.

-         The proponent has indicated that efforts will be made to transplant significant species and initiate habitat enhancement programs on lands to the south of the proposed extraction site as well as within the buffer area on-site.

 

The proposal for licensed extraction on the site has been assessed for ecological implications under the Aggregate Resources Act, PPS as well as local policy and legislation.  The woodland to the south will be affected by the removal of 27 ha of forest community on the proposed site; however, based on the size of the southern forest community, sufficient interior habitat will be maintained to support sensitive woodland wildlife that will be displaced from the site.  A portion of the woodlot specifically providing ecologically significant habitat representative of undisturbed areas would be removed from the site.  The proposed rehabilitation plan, now approved by MNR, includes protection of non-extractive forested and open lands, mitigation of endangered species, and use of non-extractive lands for transplantation and restoration.  A lake feature will be created in an area where currently there is less than 1% of this ecological feature.

 

The above observations and mitigation proposals serve to lessen the potential impact of the proposed licensed area.  The fact remains that the total or partial removal of significant features and functions in this natural area will affect its surrounding natural environment.  The natural habitat relies on redundancy, size and shape to maintain ecological balance.  To ensure the maintenance of the surrounding ecological habit in perpetuity will require the protection of similar features or functions elsewhere in the natural area.  The EIS proposes mitigation strategies and actions to minimize such impacts on the natural area, but cannot offer long-term protection of the surrounding area.

 

The overall conclusion upon reviewing the revised EIS is that the proposed extraction would have an impact on the ecological features and functions for which the South Gloucester Woodlands have been identified as significant.  The impact of the rezoning application on this natural environment feature and function must, however, be considered in concert with the importance of this area’s mineral aggregate resource, as discussed in the following sections.

 

Mineral Resource Implications

 

Work undertaken by the applicant indicates that the subject site possesses aggregate mineral resources of the highest quality within the City.  While the Ottawa region is rich in bedrock resources, the quality of these resources varies substantially.  These bedrock formations are generally recognized as the highest quality and most significant deposits in Ottawa. 

 

Previous Region of Ottawa Carleton and City of Ottawa mapping supports that the subject area is characterized by aggregate formations categorized as "Oxford" and "March formations", the two highest quality forms of aggregate in the city.  Tests indicate that the proposed expansion area has Oxford formation of about 29 metres in depth and March formations of about 49 metres. These unusually deep deposits of high quality aggregate resources provide a rare opportunity to obtain high volumes of aggregate from both a concentrated and a centrally located area.

 

The Oxford formation can be used in variety of applications, including concrete, while the March formation is used in applications where a higher quality aggregate is necessary, including top asphalt applications.  March formations are valued for their use in the construction of skid and rut resistant pavements. 

 

The need for premium aggregates found in the Oxford and March formations, according to the applicant, will increase in the future due to the trend toward high occupancy vehicles, such as buses and articulated buses, which cause many of the conventional asphaltic pavements to rut.  Further, premium asphaltic concrete mixes are increasingly being utilized to rehabilitate high traffic routes, highways and bus routes within Ottawa.

 

Such premium aggregate resource is available at only three quarries within Ottawa and another location near Brockville while the market area for this aggregate extends throughout eastern and central Ontario.  The applicant notes that within the former City of Gloucester the estimated available land for potential aggregate resource is limited: 303 ha of high quality Oxford formation bedrock and 60 ha of March formation.  The next closest Oxford formation is 1886 ha near Metcalfe.  A former Region of Ottawa Carleton Report (1995) identified mineral aggregate in City of Ottawa region as an essential non-renewable natural resource requiring protection when close to the market.  The two main reasons are:  to ensure reasonable cost for consumer and to meet future growth and demand at the local, regional and provincial levels.

 

The City Council Approved Official Plan recognizes that "existing licensed extraction sites make up for much of the future supply of aggregate.  The City will protect their continued operation and expansion by preventing any new development in their vicinity that would preclude or hinder aggregate extraction" (Section 3.7.4).  Further, policies for Sand and Gravel and Limestone Resource Areas have been designated with the intent to:

-         protect non-renewable mineral aggregate resources, located close to markets, for future use;

-         protect mineral aggregate resource and aggregate operations from incompatible activities;

-         minimize community and environmental disruptions from aggregate extraction activities.

 

Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses

 

Under the Aggregate Resources Act, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), in cooperation with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), is the reviewing authority for the majority of land use and development intensity issues associated with the expansion of the existing quarry.  These are reviewed as part of the Category 2 Class "A" License Application and License for Water-taking Permit for a quarry operation.  Studies provide information on the anticipated impacts of the following issues on the site and surrounding community:

 

-         noise, vibration, and dust levels (to the satisfaction of the MOE);

-         hauling routes and traffic volumes, and entrance design;

-         the elevation of the groundwater table on and surrounding the site;

-         any proposed water diversion, water taking, storage and drainage facilities on the site and points of discharge to surface waters.  Impact assessments will address the potential effects on the following features on or adjacent to the site, where applicable:

i)   water wells

ii)  springs

iii) groundwater

iv) surface watercourses and bodies

v)  wetlands, woodlands, and fish and wildlife habitat.

-           adjacent  nearby land uses and an assessment of the compatibility of the proposed development with existing land uses, including completion of an EIS

-           the proposed after-use and rehabilitation plan.

 

MNR has reviewed the proponent's technical submission of these land use factors.  While their report has not been finalized, and cannot be until a decision has been made regarding the Official Plan and Rezoning amendments, MNR suggests there is nothing to indicate that the proposed quarry is not suitable for operation within the context, and, at the time of the writing of this report, it does not anticipate any negative impacts to occur as a result of the proposed quarry expansion.  Mitigation and rehabilitation strategies for the relocation and rehabilitation of plants and habitats of the American Ginseng and Butternut Tree have been approved by MNR. 

 

The City Council Approved Official Plan asserts that areas of influence generally are 500 metres around quarries and 150 metres for pits.  The general intent of this is to ensure that existing surrounding uses are not negatively impact by a quarry or its expansion, or to ensure that the existing quarry's operations will not be jeopardized by any proposed non-quarry use that may be incompatible with such aggregate extraction use. 

 

The limits of the proposed quarry expansion are 300 metres away from two existing residential communities (Woodlands Court and Southside Mobile Home Park).  The Department concurs with the MNR position that the proposed development is not anticipated to generate any negative impacts on the surrounding community, given the history of the existing quarry operation and that the proposed expansion does not propose any changes to the current operations with respect to:  traffic; blast vibrations; noise impact assessment; groundwater impacts (including wells, springs, groundwater aquifers and surface watercourses and bodies) and servicing (no new servicing will be required to the site).  It is further anticipated that there will be reduced community impacts from this expansion rather than a new quarry elsewhere within city limits.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

From a Provincial Policy Statement and Official Plan policy standpoint, the application presents a conflict between two resources:  natural environmental features and mineral resources.  All information and analysis indicates both of these resources are of significant value on the subject site.  

 

The EIS confirms that the site proposed for the quarry expansion does in fact contain the ecological features and functions for which the South Gloucester Woodland is deemed significant and provides habitats for:

·        Rare plant species, including American Ginseng and the Butternut tree which either exist presently on site or have been reported on site in recent years. 

·        Relatively diverse forest environment with deciduous, conifer, mixed forest and deciduous swamp forest stands with high quality interior habitat and rare vegetative associations. 

·        Buffering functions and habitat extensions between the numerous mixed forest, deciduous forest, conifer forest and old field associations for wildlife and other flora.

 

Reports of the former Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton confirm the presence of regionally scarce, high quality mineral aggregates (Oxford and March formations) on the subject site.  From a mineral aggregate resource standpoint, the expansion proposal has significant merits:

·        Possesses highest quality bedrock formations (Oxford and March formations) in the City of Ottawa region

·        Significant quantities due to unusually deep March formations (a particularly valuable aggregate in high demand for its use in the construction in the skid and rut resistant pavements).

·        Ensures the continued supply of such non-renewable aggregate resources for the growing needs of the city, the region and the Province.

·        Located close to markets ensuring reasonable cost for consumers and meets future growth and demand at the local, regional and provincial levels.

·        Expansion maintains the competitive market for this aggregate.

·        Existing licensed, quarry operation with a proven compatibility with surrounding existing residential and commercial areas and presents few negative impacts on the community

·        Reduced community impacts from an expansion rather than a new quarry elsewhere within city limits (that may exacerbate or generate new technical concerns, e.g. noise, traffic, water levels, etc.).

 

After review of the merits of each land use in the context of higher policy, staff recommend approval of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.  Under the circumstances of the present application and subject land, simultaneous use of both on-site resources is not feasible, and therefore, one resource must be diminished to achieve the benefits of the other.  The proponent, however, has demonstrated through the work of the EIS that it has taken measures to address these impacts by developing and incorporating mitigation, compensation and rehabilitation measures into the site development proposal. 

 

The present applications offer a land use development that will achieve many public policy benefits.  The continued operation and the expansion of the existing quarry are considered to be: desirable for meeting growing local, regional and Provincial consumption needs; compatible with the surrounding community with minimal impacts; timely given the increased demand of such aggregate resources; and conforms with the broader policy intent of the Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement.  The site should be designated for long-term protection of mineral aggregate resource. 

 

CONSULTATION

[U1] 

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 Community Information Sessions to inform the public and address issues of concern amongst community groups and the applicant.

 

A Community Information Session was held in the community on May 10, 2004.  Signatures of those in attendance numbered approximately 31.   Peak attendance is estimated at approximately 60 people. The primary matter of concern to the community was the disruption and/or destruction that the proposed quarry expansion would cause of specific rare plant species and the natural area.  There was also some concern regarding the flooding, dewatering, and blasting associated with the existing quarry operation.

 

Details of the questions and concerns raised by residents and community groups is provided within Document 4 - "Consultation Details".

 

The issues can be summarized as follows:

·        The proposals lack of conformity with City and Provincial policy

·        The proposal’s impacts of both the on- and off-site natural environment

·        The acceptability of the submitted EIS

·        The Conditions of the Land Sale, with respect to any site alteration prior to rezoning approval

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

On June 25th 2003, Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommended to Council the sale of land at 5309 Bank Street.  As one of the conditions of the sale, the owner/applicant is required to satisfy certain conditions including: a re-zoning approval, the completion of a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify potential environmental impacts, and the protection of all significant environmental features entitled to protection under current applicable laws or regulations and identified in EIS to the satisfaction of the City and the Province. 

 

Failure of the owner/applicant to satisfy each of the conditions of sale would result in an annulment of the land sale of the subject property.

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

 

This application was not processed within the timeframe established for the processing of Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendments due to the complexity of the environmental issues and the proposal.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1      Location Maps

Document 2      Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Document 3    Zoning By-law Amendment Details

Document 4      Consultation Details

Document 5    Conditions of Land Sale

 

DISPOSITION

 

Department of Corporate Services, Secretariat Services to notify the owner/applicant (R.W. Tomlinson Limited, 5597 Power Road, Ottawa, ON, K1G 3N4), agent (James Parkin, MHBC Planning Ltd., 171 Victoria St. N. Kitchener, ON, N2H 5), All Signs, 8692 Russell Road, Navan, ON  K4B 1J1, and the Program Manager, Assessment, Department of Corporate Services of City Council’s decision.

 

Department of Planning and Growth Management to prepare the implementing by-law and forward to Legal Services Branch, and undertake the statutory notification amendment to the Zoning By-Law No. 333 of 1999 of the former Gloucester Zoning By-Law.

 

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

 


LOCATION MAP                                                                                                         Document 1

 



PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT                                                        Document 2

 

The Statement of Components

 

PART A - THE PREAMBLE

Purpose

Location

Basis

 

PART B- THE AMENDMENT

Introductory Statement

Details of the Amendment

Implementation and Interpretation

 

 

 

The Statement of Components

 

PART A – THE PREAMBLE, introduces the actual amendment but does not constitute part of Amendment No.____ to the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton Official Plan or part of Amendment No.____ to the City of Ottawa Official Plan.

 

PART B – THE AMENDMENT, consisting of text constitutes the actual Amendment No. ____ to the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton Official Plan and Amendment No._____  to the City of Ottawa Official Plan.

 

 

 

PART A – THE PREAMBLE

 

Purpose

 

The purpose of Amendment No. ____  and Amendment No.____ is to obtain the appropriate municipal planning approvals to permit the expansion of the existing quarry operation and, therefore, to amend the designation at 5309 Bank Street from 'General Rural Area' and 'Environmental Features', as per Region of Ottawa-Carleton (ROC) Official Plan, and 'Rural Natural Features' and  'General Rural Area', as per City Council Approved Official Plan (as adopted in 1999 and 2003, respectively)  to 'Limestone Resource Area' designation. 

 

Location

 

This policy amendments affect the lands located at the 5309 Bank Street and designated 'General Rural Area' and 'Environmental Features', as per Region of Ottawa-Carleton (ROC) Official Plan, and 'Rural Natural Features' and  'General Rural Area', as per the City Council Approved Official Plan, (as adopted in 1999 and 2003, respectively).

 

Basis

 

The Official Plan and Zone Amendment application to designate the subject site to a 'Limestone Resource Area' is in conformity with the general intent of policies in both Official Plans.  While it is clear that some unique and valued environmental features will be lost or disturbed by the aggregate extraction use, the proponent has demonstrated through the submission of the Environment Impact Statement that measures have been taken to satisfactorily address these impacts by developing and incorporating mitigation, compensation and rehabilitation measure into the site development proposal.  The proposal represents a compatible and desirable proposal that satisfies the intent of Official Plan policies designed to respect the local community context and meets the needs of the greater public.  The proposed use is considered essential to the strong economic and physical development of the City of Ottawa and is, therefore, desirable.

 

PART B – THE AMENDMENT

 

The Introductory Statement

 

All of this part of the document entitled Part B – The Amendment, consisting of the following text constitutes Amendment No. ____  and Amendment No. ____  to the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton (ROC) Official Plan and the City Council Approved Official Plan, (as adopted in 1999 and 2003, respectively).

 

Details of Amendment

 

The former Region of Ottawa-Carleton (ROC) Official Plan is amended as follows:

 

1.  Schedule A  Rural Policy Plan - the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton (ROC) Official Plan is amended by redesignating 5309 Bank Street, being on the east side of Bank Street and north of Mitch Owens Road, as shown on Schedule A, from 'General Rural Area' to 'Limestone Resource Area' designation.

 

2.  Schedule K  Natural Environment System (Rural) - the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton (ROC) Official Plan is amended by redesignating 5309 Bank Street, being on the east side of Bank Street and north of Mitch Owens Road, as shown on Schedule B, from 'Environmental Features' to 'Limestone Resource Area' designation.

 

The City Council Approved Official Plan is amended as follows:

 

1.  Schedule A  Rural Policy Plan - the City Council Approved Official Plan is amended by redesignating 5309 Bank Street, being on the east side of Bank Street and north of Mitch Owens Road, as shown on Schedule C, from 'Rural Natural Features Area' and 'General Rural Area' to 'Limestone Resource Area' designation.

 

Implementation and Interpretation

 

Implementation and Interpretation of this Amendment shall be made having regard to applicable policies of this Plan.





ZONING AMENDMENT DETAILS                                                                   Document 3

 

Map No.29C of By-law 333 of 1999 is amended as follows:

 

(a) the land shown on Document 1, and municipally known as 5309 Bank Street, is rezoned from ‘Agricultural General’ (Ag) Zone to Me ‘Industrial Extraction’ Zone .

 

 


CONSULTATION DETAILS                                                                                       Document 4

 

NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS

 

Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments.  One public Community Information Session meeting was held in the community.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

[U2] 

A Community Information Session was held in the community on May 10, 2004.  Signatures of those in attendance numbered approximately 31.   Peak attendance is estimated at approximately 60 people. The primary matter of concern to the community was the disruption and/or destruction that the proposed quarry expansion would cause of specific rare plant species and the natural area.  There was also some concern regarding the flooding, dewatering, and blasting associated with the existing quarry operation.

 

E-mails and letters have also been received, with the primary goal being preservation of the subject lands, given their environmental significance.  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:

 

Q1.  Determining the environmental significance of this property is of critical importance, so a proper Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required.  Yet how can the results of the EIS be trusted when it is prepared by somebody paid by the applicant/land owner?

 

A1.  The reports which are submitted are prepared by certified professionals.  In certain cases, such as the present applications, where there is a greater interest by the City in the results of such reports, the City retained a “third party” Peer Reviewer, for an additional opinion on the findings submitted by the applicant's own consultant.

 

[U3] 

Q2.  The City will protect sensitive environmental areas in the urban and rural areas by designating in this Plan, forests, wetlands and other natural features that perform significant natural functions and by determining how these lands  best be managed to ensure their environmental health.  Also, Policy 1. of the Rural Natural Features Policy states:  "Rural Natural Features are designated on Schedule A to protect locally-significant natural areas and the city's tree cover".  How does the obliteration of this important, sensitive area provide protection and fulfill these polices? 

 

A2.  When a proposal is submitted for a particular property, the City reviews the merits of the proposal within a policy framework.  Most proposals are and can be reviewed within a specific set of applicable policies; however, when elements of a policy designation itself is the subject of a proposal it must be viewed from a broader, higher policy level to assess its costs and benefits.

 

 

Q3.  Certain City of Ottawa policies direct land uses to maintain and enhance forest cover and treed areas and to protect wetlands as carbon sinks and natural filters of pollution.  How does destroying approximately 20 hectares of woodland and wetland fulfill this policy? 

 

A3.   This decision represents a policy trade-off.  The loss of the woodland and wetland on the site does not contribute to the broader City goal of maintaining and enhancing forest cover and treed areas, or protecting wetlands as carbon sinks and natural filters of pollution.  This has been weighed against the need for additional aggregate resources and the public policy benefits of a high quality resource which is adjacent to existing extraction operations and in close proximity to markets.  Other aggregate extraction in new areas further from markets could also result in additional impacts related to landscape disturbance and transportation.

 

 

Q4.With respect to issue resolution, one issue that I would like to see explored before the proposed Official Plan and zoning amendments rise to Planning Committee is this statement on page 24 in the EIS:  "The South Gloucester Study Area was submitted in a draft report in 1992, as a 'Documented Site of Biological Significance' for consideration for a Life Science ANSI designation.  It is our understanding that currently no ANSI designation has been given to the study area, therefore no further evaluation is required."  Presumably the submission was made by the Region.  What happened to that submission?  What was the Province's response?  Is there any evidence that the request was considered and rejected?  Did it get lost on someone's desk?  Was there a process for reconsideration?

 

A4.  The reference being made is to a Site Region review of ANSI’s prepared on behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources in 1992 (by Dan Brunton), not a submission by the former Region.  The 1992 report recommended candidate ANSI’s at two levels – Provincially Significant and Regionally Significant.  The South Gloucester Woodland was actually listed in a third category – site of biological interest – and was not suggested as a candidate ANSI in the report.  Although OMNR has not formally acted on the recommendations in the 1992 report to date, the South Gloucester woodland was not identified as a candidate of Provincial significance and therefore was not under active ANSI consideration.  This appears to be confirmed by the OMNR withdrawal of their Natural Environment concern with the quarry proposal. 

 

Q5.  Where are the scientific references for transplanting rare plant species vs. preserving their habitat?  What does the scientific literature have to say about what is proposed?  There is no analysis whatsoever of the scientific validity of the recommendations proposed in the EIS.  This is exceedingly troubling.

 

A5.  There is no certainty that the transplantation efforts will work.  The peer review suggested that ginseng transplantation was questionable and that efforts to collect fern spores to be transported to a suitable site to create panax habitat would not be successful.  However, the policy decision is not being made on the assumption that a degree of transplantation will be successful.  As a mitigation technique that will be applied rather than simply accepting the loss of some of the populations of significant species it is worth an effort and any successful transplanting and enhancement of habitat and species off site will be encouraged and ongoing efforts and monitoring required as a component of the rehabilitation plan.

 

Q6.  Was the money that was placed in an Environmental Trust to purchase the environmentally sensitive land (as a Condition of the sale of 5309 Bank Street) used to purchase other sensitive land, or is it still being held?  By whom?

 

A6.  The money was placed in the Environmental Acquisition Reserve Fund that can only be accessed for the acquisition of Natural Environment Areas 

 

 

Q7.   “Most of the wetland areas, with the probable exception of those next to the Rideau Road, will likely be negatively impacted by the proposed quarry.  The wetland areas adjacent to the quarry will be the most severely affected.”  Can this result be anticipated?

 

A7. Yes.  The wetlands on site and adjacent to the extraction area will at least be affected and quite possibly lost as a result of the proposal.

 

Q8.      “…The [EIS] statement that the swamp “is not connected to the groundwater regime and is likely not a groundwater discharge zone” is most likely erroneous.”  Can negative results be anticipated due to proposed groundwater and discharge conditions?

 

A8.    It is the professional judgement of the Applicant’s consultants that the wet area is not a discharge zone for the groundwater.  This judgement is based on the fact that the overburden is relatively thin and the water in the bedrock is approximately 10m deep.  Based on observation, the area is wet because it is a depression in relatively heavy soils.  That the area is mostly wet during and after the spring snowmelt would support the opinion that the wetness is due to topography.

 

Q9.  “The Golder EIS fails to provide credible scientific evidence to support the claim that destruction of such an important part of the South Gloucester Natural Area will have no significant impacts on the remainder of the ecosystem.  Such an assertion is contrary to sound conservation practices and basic ecological principles.  It is highly unlikely that the proposed transplantation scheme will be successful or provide adequate long-term protection for the rare plant species.”  Can it be anticipated that the proposed quarrying of the subject site will have negative impacts on the remainder of the ecosystem?  If so, where would they be likely to occur and can their significance be estimated?

 

A9.  The quarry will have some impact on the remainder of the ecosystem (loss of interior habitat, smaller area edge effects, disturbances intruding further into the woodland).  The peer review expressed concern that there had not been adequate work done in this area and concluded that suggesting that significant habitat, features and functions can be sacrificed in the subject area without net loss of ecological significance in the overall area is dubious.    The remaining Natural Area will be more a risk and have lower overall integrity with the loss of habitat, size and interior forest community.

 

It is, however, very difficult to truly assess all of the indirect impacts and quantify loss in terms of wildlife in advance of extraction.  It is argued that the extensive quarry activity in the area means that the current ecosystems have adapted.  The extraction also occurs gradually providing an opportunity for adaptive management and monitoring.  In addition, while the remainder of the woodland has not been inventoried to the same level as the proposed site and immediately adjacent woodland, there is comparable, if not identical, woodland habitat in remaining portions of the South Gloucester Woodlands.

 

One of the concerns related to cumulative impacts and the discussion in the material submitted is that there is no way to guarantee that the remaining woodland will be preserved in perpetuity.  There is a 99 year commitment made on the woodland to the south by the proponent and there is one remaining parcel which includes some of the woodland which is owned by the City. 

 

Conditions related to rehabilitation and monitoring will provide an opportunity for adaptive management as the quarry progresses into the more sensitive areas. 

 

Q10.  There appears to have been some clearing of vegetation near the eastern edge of the property.  Condition #5 of the Land Sale stated that "Tomlinson agrees no trees will be removed nor any environmentally sensitive area will be altered prior to the re-zoning approval being finalized".   Does this annul the sale?  If not, what is the penalty?  Does that land clearance not violate the terms and conditions of the sale?  What will the City do in response to this unauthorized work?

 

A10.  Tomlinson's clearing of vegetation was not in accordance with the terms of his agreement with the City.  However, those actions did not annul the sale.  The Applicant needed to conduct various testing to meet MNR requirements.  The Department did not require or directly request these studies as part of the OPA or Zone amendment applications, and thus, these happened independently of us.  However, as the Province has authority to request any tests and the parameters they require to ensure licensing criteria are met and the municipality has no jurisdiction over the Site Planning of Aggregate Resources land uses, the Applicant would have had to completed such to the Province's satisfaction.  The City could not, in good faith, sell someone a property and then refuse to allow the property owner to undertake all studies necessary to develop the site. 

 

In response to this issue, Tomlinson was advised not to remove any more vegetation without first contacting the City.   It is disappointing to the City that it was not consulted prior to the disturbance, to locate the least vulnerable areas of the subject site where testing could occur satisfactorily, as the Owner/Applicant was no doubt aware of the condition.

 

 

[U4] COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS[U5] 

 

The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation.  The Councillor’s comments are as follows:

 

Q1.  What were the findings in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)?

Q2.  How will the City's Environmental Management Branch follow-up on the findings of the EIS?

 


The Department advises:

A1.  See Report “DISCUSSION, Environmental Implications”.

A2.  See Document 4 “CONSULTATION DETAILS, ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS, Q15 and A15”.  [U6] CC

 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS

[U7] 

The Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) had the following recommendations (EAC comments received 25 August, 2004).

 

The detailed review of the history and the facts related to 5309 Bank St. lead the EAC to make the following recommendations to Council:

 

1.                  That Council give every possible consideration to recognizing that this environmentally sensitive area should not have been sold in the first place and seek to repurchase it from R.W. Tomlinson Ltd. for the sale price plus reimbursement of his expenses to date in seeking to have the property rezoned.  The fact that R.W. Tomlinson Ltd. has not lived up to the terms of the sale should be taken into account in this transaction.  This expensive lesson can be used as a prime example of what can happen when the City does not adhere to the commitments made during the Ottawa 20/20 Planning Process in the resulting City Plans and Strategies.  Consideration should be given to designating this very unique piece of irreplaceable property as a nature preserve for research and educational purposes.

 

2.                  Should Council decide not to pursue recommendation #1, that no rezoning should be approved until the 15 questions raised by Ms. Barr have been addressed in detail and reviewed by all stakeholders who have expressed interest and concern.  Due to the unique nature of this situation as it relates to the credibility of the City’s new plans, consideration should be given to appointing a special review panel as part of this process.  The panel would not only provide input to this situation but would use it to make broader recommendations related to process and lessons learned from this unfortunate situation.

 

 

Questions from Barbara Barr, Letter dated August 9, 2004:

 

Q1.  According to EIS page 1, “The site is designated as a Rural Natural Feature on Schedule A of the City of Ottawa OP (City of Ottawa, 2003)”; according to page 2, “Within the City of Ottawa Official Plan the subject lands are designated partly as Limestone Resource Area and partly as Rural Natural Features Area; according to page 6, “This site is located within the Rural Natural Features Area for the City of Ottawa. . . ”, and according to page 28, “Within the City of Ottawa Official Plan the subject lands are designated partly as Limestone Resource Area and partly as Rural Natural Features Area.” 

Which of the two statements is correct?

If there are two existing land-use areas, it would have been helpful if the EIS had contained a map showing where they are.

 

A1.  The subject property is at 5309 Bank Street, Concession 5 (Rideau Front), Lot Part 28 and 29.  The area to be redesignated, and therefore the affected area, falls primarily within the “Rural Natural Features” designation, however, a portion of it is designated “General Rural Area” to the west of the property.

 

 

Q2.  On EIS page 2, “According to the Official Plan of the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton, the subject lands are designated partly as Limestone Resource Area and partly as Rural in the Regional Plan”. 

Shouldn’t this additionally say that there is a Natural Environment System (Rural) overlay (Schedule K)?

 

A2.  According to the Official Plan of the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton, the Schedule K overlay characterizes the affected area as “Environmental Features”.

 

Q3.  The Golder EIS mentions removing (p. 16) two bird species, heron and kingfisher, from a breeding bird species list prepared by DST, and removing (p. 17) two mammal species, black bear and grey wolf, from the EIS list prepared by DST.  The DST vascular plant list identified American Chestnut as occurring on the site.  This identification, which others, including myself, thought must be an error, was defended by the consultant at a public meeting.  The vascular plant list in the Golder EIS does not include American Chestnut.  There is no mention in the Golder EIS about removing American Chestnut from the DST list.  Because American Chestnut is a nationally endangered species, it is important to know whether DST now agrees that American Chestnut does not occur on the site. 

Does DST agree that there is no American Chestnut tree on the site? 

 

A3.  As noted in the EIS, Golder did not utilize the DST vascular plant list for the site. The vegetation list in the Golder EIS was based primarily on the list of species reported by Dugal (1999) for the South Gloucester Study Area as a whole. Mr. Dugal’s list did not contain American Chestnut therefore it did not have to be removed from the list in the Golder EIS report. A few species were added to the list based on field work in 2004 by David White and Golder biologists.

The Golder biologists (Janet Lowe and Mark Horsburough) and Mr. David White conducted botanical inventories on June 9, 10 and 11, 2004 and August 20, 21, and 22, 2004. David White revisited the site on June 16, 2004 to specifically check for American Ginseng. Mr. Albert Dugal was invited to join the Golder Team in the field on June 10, 2004 to point out the location of plant species of concern and to provide an overall reconnaissance of the site’s features. A secondary site visit was conducted by Albert Dugal and accompanied by Golder staff on June 28, 2004.

During these botanical surveys, American Chestnut was not observed and therefore not noted as being on the site or within the 120 metre buffer area.

DST was not consulted by Golder as part of the EIS process. Golder’s EIS was done independently of DST therefore, Golder is not aware of DST’s opinion regarding the presence or absence of the American Chestnut tree on the site.

 

Q4.  Will staff require that the EIS include information about rare non-vascular plant species? 

 

A4.   No, the City is not asking for any more work on non-vascular plants.  The Final EIS addresses non-vasular plants (p.21); however, it notes that no site-specific survey has been done of the non-vascular plants and that these are typically not conducted for site specific EIS. 

 

 

Q5.  According to the EIS (p. 24), in 1992, a draft report concerning the South Gloucester Study Area as a “Documented Site of Biological Significance” for consideration for a Life Science ANSI designation was submitted to the Province.

What happened? 

Are there documents that one could examine?

 

A5.   See Document 4 “CONSULTATION DETAILS, PUBLIC COMMENTS, Questions and Answers, Q4 and A4”. 

 

 

Q6.  Assuming a damaging track has been bulldozed into the site following the sale of the land and before it is re-zoned, what would be the consequences or punishment for having done that bulldozing?

 

A6.  See Document 4 “CONSULTATION DETAILS, PUBLIC COMMENTS, Questions and Answers, Q10 and A10”. 

 

 

Q7.  Mr. David White, a botanist and ginseng expert, prepared the vascular plant list for the Golder EIS.  Mr. White also identified what appeared to be suitable ginseng habitat nearby.  Presumably Mr. White would have an expert opinion as to the probability of success of transplanting ginseng and could comment on the proposed transplantation, etc. measures in general.  His opinion is not given in the EIS.  Staff should contact Mr. White.

What is Mr. White’s opinion regarding transplantation and the survival of endangered and threatened species in relation to the rare plant species on the site? 

In his opinion, will the proposed mitigation measures ensure that viable populations of the species will remain in the area and that there will be no negative impacts on the endangered and threatened species from the proposed development?

 

A7.  It should be noted that viable ginseng populations currently do not exist in the area, according to Golder Associates’ EIS. In order to have a viable ginseng population a site must have on average 170 plants.  It is correct in saying Mr. White provided expertise in identifying ginseng and ginseng habitat for the project site and surrounding property. He did not formally provide an opinion on transplanting or mitigation measures. However, such issues were discussed with Mr. White during conversation with Golder biologist Janet Lowe. As well, in the 1999 COSEWIC status report for ginseng there are a few instances where Mr. White indicates he has, or is planning on transplanting ginseng prior to the development of another site. Therefore, Mr. White appears to be utilizing transplanting as a mitigation measure at other sites.

 

Mr. White was not the only ginseng expert consulted by Golder for this project. Janet Lowe also attended the site on a number of different occasions with Shaun Thompson (American ginseng – recovery team Chair for the province of Ontario). Janet also had conversations with Shaun Thompson regarding the ginseng habitat on the site and mitigation of any ginseng plants that might be present. Only one ginseng plant was found on the site and Shaun Thompson has agreed to transplant the specimen himself. 

 

 

Q8.  It is not apparent to me that any incentive mechanisms, such as conditions, can be attached to a zoning change.  What is the punishment if very little, or none, of the proposed research, monitoring, and transplanting takes place? 

 

A8.  No conditions can be attached to a Zoning Amendment.  The City will work with Ministry of Natural Resources to be a party to the conditions process (for the Aggregate Resources Act license approval) for the additional plant mitigation and monitoring that the City deems reasonable (beyond Ginseng and Butternut). 

 

Q9.  The reference list in the EIS does not contain a reference to a monitoring plan document. 

What exactly is the “monitoring plan” and “site monitoring”, which includes a survey of the proposed extraction area, referred to on EIS page 22?  Apparently the same plan is called an “adaptive management monitoring program” on EIS page 28. 

Is this monitoring plan/adaptive management monitoring program available to the public to read? 

Is it a monitoring plan just for American Ginseng, or is it for all of the regionally rare species listed on EIS page 12? 

 

A9.  Specifically, a monitoring plan for ginseng has been developed and a management strategy for butternut has been developed. Details for both plans are provided in the Final EIS report.  In that adaptive management is proposed for the other rare plant on the site, only conceptual plans are provided at this time on pages 41 and 42 of the EIS and further defined below. Provincial government and numerous conservation authorities have embraced an adaptive management approach in Ontario (OMNR, 2002).  Adaptive management provides a framework within which projects proceed, particularly where natural variations and uncertainties in background data exist, contingent upon monitoring to ensure targets are achieved, and with processes in place to adjust the project using monitoring results and other new information.

 

An adaptive management approach can provide a framework for incorporation of pre-extraction field data, review performance of the operation, and provide management options to address any undue effects as may be observed. As noted above, this will require detailed monitoring of conditions during the period proceeding extraction. An adaptive management program (AMP) will confirm the results of this assessment and provide the assurance that the sensitive species are protected in the long term. 

 

Q10.  What will be the expertise of the person hired to locate and identify the species to be transplanted during the proposed research period?  I have some concern about this in terms of species survival because it was only after two very highly qualified botanists, Mr. David White and Mr. Albert Dugal, were on the site that the most basic item, meaningful plant identification, occurred.  The DST consultant, presumably a qualified person, apparently did not recognize and identify the provincially endangered plant species, which does not bode well for the prospects of identifying plants for monitoring and transplantation.

 

A10.  With regards to ginseng and butternut, to date the MNR has provided expertise along with other consulting expertise that was hired. MNR will continue to provide technical expertise in the field. The intent is to have other botanical specialists from identified universities and consulting firms also provide expertise in the field. 

 

Q11.  In what season will the survey of the proposed extraction area take place?  It is important that the monitoring plan detail this because not all species of plants are most readily identifiable in the same season. 

 

A11.  Botanical field work will take precedence over extraction practices. The proponent recognizes that plants are not all readily available in the same season and the necessary time will be given to establish baseline conditions and implement mitigation in areas slated for extraction as the project progresses. It will take more than 15 years to fully develop the eastern end of the quarry and development will take place sequentially as noted on the operations plan in the application. 

 

Q12.  Transplanting rare plants is a very difficult, if not impossible, proposition.  Any success is likely to take substantial funding for a long period of time. 

Who is going to fund the proposed research, and what is the amount of the funding? 

Is there a document which describes this? 

Will there be adequate funding to do research on transplanting each of the rare species listed on EIS p. 12?

 

A12.  As noted in the answer to Q9, it has been recognized that transplanting will not necessarily be successful for all plant species. As a result adaptive management will allow for monitoring of the mitigation and adapting the plan based on monitoring results. As well, the conceptual plan suggests research to look at other mitigative techniques that may provide more success. Tomlinson is prepared to provide funding for the research and monitoring.

 

Q13.  Have Universities agreed to do the proposed research? 

If so, are agreements available to the public to read? 

Are there research proposals that are available to the public to read and critique? 

 

A13.  Mr. Jeremy Kerr of the University of Ottawa was contacted August 12, 2004 by Golder Associates. The rare plants and mitigation possibilities were discussed. Mr. Kerr indicated that this is something the University would be interested in and provided additional contacts at the Institute of the Environment (Mr. Scott Findlay and Mr. George Haas). Golder Associates is to contact Mr. Haas who administers the projects for the institute.

 

At this time there are no agreements or research proposals available for the public to read. 

 

Q14.  According to the EIS (p. 22), “. . . current research and monitoring activities for ginseng which include but are not limited to establishing an experimental design to test the effect of seed sowing depth and predator removal on seedling emergence.” 

Who is doing this current research and monitoring?

 

A14.  This is part of the recovery initiatives (recovery strategy) developed by the recovery team for American ginseng as noted under the Canadian Wildlife Services – Species At Risk Act website. 

 

Q15.  What role, if any, would the City play in the “adaptive management monitoring program”? 

 

A15.  The City will work with the MNR on the conditions for plant mitigation and monitoring, staying informed of the progress and providing advice for refinement, where appropriate. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                                                                               Document 5

                                      

Excerpt Minutes No.57: 

Ottawa City Council, 25 June 2003, Andrew S. Haydon Hall 1:30 P.M.

Corporate Services And Economic Development Committee Report 52

 

 

Committee Recommendations as amended

 

That Council:

 

1.         Declare a 71.7 ha parcel of vacant land located at 5309 Bank Street, described as Part of Lots 28, and 29, Concession 5 (Rideau Front), geographic Township of Gloucester, City of Ottawa, shown on attached Annex “A”, as surplus to the City’s needs;

 

2.         Approve the sale of the land referred to in Recommendation 1 to R. W. Tomlinson Limited, for $1,770,000.00, plus GST, subject to any easements that may be required, pursuant to an Agreement of Purchase and Sale that has been received.

 

3.         That the funds from the sale of land at 5309 Bank Street are directed to the Environmental Resources Area Acquisition Reserve Fund for the future purchase of land deemed environmentally sensitive.

 

4.         That Tomlinson will complete a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement to the satisfaction of the City and the Province, to identify potential environmental impacts to the satisfaction of applicable governmental agencies (“the Environmental Impact Statement”).  Tomlinson covenants to address to the satisfaction of the City and the Province all significant environmental features entitled to protection under current applicable laws or regulations and identified in the Environmental Impact Statement.  Tomlinson further covenants to develop and incorporate mitigation, compensation and rehabilitation measures into any site development scenarios that are compatible with the contemplated use of the subject property prior to re-zoning approval.

 

5.         That Tomlinson agrees no trees will be removed nor any environmentally sensitive area will be altered prior to the re-zoning approval being finalized.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 [U1]If there are no objections, use the following

 

 [U2]Summarize the public notification and consultation undertaken.

 [U3]Provide details of any public meeting(s).

 [U4]Insert our response

 [U5]Insert Councillor’s comments

 [U6]Insert our response

 [U7]Insert Advisory Committee comments