STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR PLANNING ACT MATTERS
DÉCLARATION POUR LES questions SOUS LA Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire
The Chair read a statement relative to the Official
Plan amendment listed as Item 3, and the Zoning By-law amendments listed as
Item 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on the agenda. It was noted that only those who made
oral submissions at the meeting or written submissions before the amendment
were adopted may appeal the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB.) In
addition, the applicant may appeal the matter to the OMB if Council does not
adopt an amendment within 120 days for Zoning and 180 days for an Official Plan
Amendment of receipt of the application.
The Chair explained that a comment sheet was available
at the door for anyone wishing to submit written comments on these amendments.
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMUNICATIONS
Responses to Inquiries: / Réponses aux
demandes de renseignements:
PEC 04-10 – Zoning for Business requiring multi transport activity /
Zonage pour entreprise nécessitant des opérations multi transports
RECEIVED
CC 19-10 – Direction to Front Lawn Design Competition Teams to
Relocate the Horticulture Building at Lansdowne Park/ Instructions aux équipes
qui participent au concours de design de l’espace vert du parc Lansdowne pour
le déménagement de l’Édifice de l’Horticulture
RECEIVED
OTTAWA BUILT HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LE PATRIMOINE BÂTI D’OTTAWA
DEMANDE VISANT À TRANSFORMER LE
299, PLACE SOPER, PROPRIÉTÉ DÉSIGNÉE AUX TERMES DE LA PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR LE
PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO ET SITUÉE DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU
PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0105 Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)
Councillor
Doucet noted that the Chair of the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee had
recently resigned and wondered what the reason was for this resignation. Staff
indicated they were not aware of the reasons. The Councillor noted there had
been a number of resignations from the Advisory Committee and wished to seek
assurances that it was in good health. The Chair advised that, as the
Councillors questions did not pertain to the heritage application in question,
they were not in order. He suggested the Advisory Committee had been
exercising its mandate with great diligence, and suggested they could find an
opportunity at another time to discuss the issues raised by the Councillor.
Committee then
approved the recommendations of staff and OBHAC, as presented.
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend
that Council:
1.
Approve the
application to alter 299 Soper Place according to plans submitted by Barry J.
Hobin and Associates Architects Inc. received on April 28, 2010.
2.
Issue the
heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.
3.
Delegate
authority for minor design changes to the General Manager, Planning and Growth
Management Department.
(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration
of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on July
27, 2010)
(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario
Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the
issuance of a building permit.)
CARRIED
DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION AU
290, AVENUE ACACIA, PROPRIÉTÉ DÉSIGNÉE AUX TERMES DE LA PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR
LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO ET SITUÉE DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU
PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0106 Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)
STAFF AND OBHAC RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend
that Council:
1.
Approve the
application for new construction at 290 Acacia Avenue according to plans
submitted by Robin Fyfe on May 3, 2010.
2.
Issue the
heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.
3.
Delegate
authority for minor design changes to the General Manager, Planning and Growth
Management Department.
(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration
of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on August
1, 2010)
(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario
Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the
issuance of a building permit.)
Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability
SERVICES D’INFRASTRUCTURE ET VIABILITÉ DES
COLLECTIVITÉS
PLANNING
and growth management
URBANISME et Gestion de la croissance
MODIFICATION AU PLAN OFFICIEL - 85 RUE RANGE
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0118 rideau-vanier (12)
(This matter
is Subject to Bill 51)
Alf Hendry, Homestead, Ted Fobert, Fotenn Consultants, Emma
Blanchard, Borden Ladner Gervais, Vince Colizza and Jane Gurr
were present to speak to the item.
Councillor Bédard advised that he had met with the
proponents and they had agreed to defer the item until the next meeting.
Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:
That this item be deferred to the 5 July 2010 meeting
of the Planning and Environment Committee.
CARRIED
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve and adopt an amendment to the Official Plan [Volume
2A, Sandy Hill Secondary Plan] to redesignate 85 Range Road from Low
Profile to Site Specific High Profile, as detailed in Document 2.
DEFERRED to 5 July
ZONAGE - 297 ET 307, CHEMIN
MONTREAL, ET 272 ET 274, AVENUE BRADLEY
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0116 rideau-vanier (12)
(This
matter is Subject to Bill 51)
An e-mail dated 17 June 2010 was received from Beth
Parish with respect to this item, a copy of which is held on file with the City
Clerk.
Bret Cardinal of Douglas Cardinal Architects, Suzanne Valiquet, Executive Director of the
Quartier Vanier Merchants Association, Allison Fisher, Richard
Patten, Max Keeping and Ryan Benson were present in support
of the application.
Councillor Bédard, as the Ward Councillor, noted that
this expansion of the Wabano Centre was going ahead as a result of federal
infrastructure stimulus funding. He emphasized that the community was in
support of the proposal only if something was done to address the traffic
situation. He noted a committee had been established to work on the traffic
issue. He indicated that, while the report noted that Bradley Avenue would be
converted into a two-way street at the entrance in order to reduce the amount
of traffic on that street, it was also the intention that the whole of Bradley
Avenue be converted to two-way with a blockage at one end. He noted that issue
would be coming back at a future date.
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning
By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 297 and 307 Montreal Road and 272
Bradley Avenue from TM3 H(42) (Traditional Mainstreet Subzone 3) and R4E[1489]
(Residential Fourth Density Subzone E) to TM3[1653] H(42) (Traditional
Mainstreet Subzone 3) and to amend Exception [1653] as it applies to these
properties and 274 Bradley Avenue, as shown in Document 1, and as detailed in
Document 2.
CARRIED
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0111 Cumberland (19)
(This
matter is Subject to Bill 51)
Ted
Phillips was present in support of the application.
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend
Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning
of Part of 2168 Tenth Line Road from DR - Development Reserve zone to
R3XX[1312]– Residential Third Density Subzone XX Exception [1312] zone, as
shown in Document 1.
CARRIED
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0113 Gloucester-Southgate (10)
(This
matter is Subject to Bill 51)
The following
correspondence was received with respect to this matter, and is held on file
with the City Clerk:
·
E-mail dated 19 June 2010 from André Vinette
·
E-mail dated 21 June 2010 from Helen McKay
Bill
Holzman, HCL was present in support of the application.
Councillor
Feltmate moved the following technical amendment to the staff report.
Moved by Councillor
P. Feltmate:
WHEREAS
Planning and Environment Committee Report - Reference No. ACS2010 ISC-PGM-0113
recommends the approval of rezoning the property known municipally as 3145
Conroy Road from IG3 to and IG3[XXXX] exception zone;
AND
WHEREAS Document 2 sets out an exception which includes a “recreational and
athletic facility” as an additional permitted land use;
AND
WHEREAS the definition of “recreational and athletic facility” states that that
use “… may include an ancillary sports field or sports arena”;
AND
WHEREAS an ancillary use must be a “listed permitted use” and the use proposed
for the site is a multi-ice pad facility or a “sports arena” which is not a
listed permitted use in the IG3 zone;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Committee approve the addition of a “sports arena” use to
Document 2 immediately following the additional permitted land use
“recreational and athletic facility”.
That
pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further notice be
given.
CARRIED
Committee then
approved the report recommendations, as amended:
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning
By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 3145 Conroy Road from General
Industrial subzone – IG3 to General Industrial subzone exception – IG3[****],
as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2, as amended by the
addition of a “sports
arena” use to Document 2 immediately following the additional permitted land
use “recreational and athletic facility.”
And that pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further
notice be given.
CARRIED, as amended
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0108 Stittsville (6) / Kanata
South (23)
(This
matter is Subject to Bill 51)
Committee received the following correspondence with
respect to this item:
·
Comments dated 22 June 2010 from
Lloyd Hope, with respect to 5271 Richmond Road
·
Letter dated 21 June 2010 from Miguel
Tremblay for Dharma Developments: 1491 / 1493 Stittsville Main Street
·
Letter dated 20 June 2010 from
Faith Blacquiere
·
E-mail dated 20 June 2010 from Ted
Cooper
·
Letter dated 21 June 2010 from
Kathleen Willis for North American (Goulbourn) Corporation
·
E-mails dated June 4 and 17 from
Kevin Yemm for Richcraft
·
Letter dated 6 June 2010 from Beth
Henderson for Riotrin Properties (Hazeldean) Inc.
·
Letter dated 27 May 2010 from
Janet Bradley, Borden, Ladner, Gervais, for 743104 Ontario Inc.
·
Letter dated 21 May 2010 from
Habib Chabour, 1763295 Ontario Inc.
·
Comments dated 22 June 2010 from
Lloyd Hope
Michael Wildman, Manager of Development Review,
Suburban Services, presented staff’s recommendations with respect to the
Hazeldean Pump Station Holding Zone. He was accompanied by Guy Bourgon,
Program Manager, Development Review (Suburban Southeast) and Don Herweyer, Program Manager, Development Review
(Suburban West.)
The Chair began by noting that the proposed Holding
Zone related to the City’s ability, through the Ministry of the Environment
(MOE) to proceed to upgrade the Hazeldean Pump Station using a Class A+
Environmental Assessment (EA) process. He noted the Holding Zone was part of
an agreement that the City reached with the MOE to allow upgrades to proceed,
and suggested that if the City did not go forward with the holding zones on the
recommended properties, the City would likely be required to go back through a
schedule B EA process
Mr. Wildman agreed with the Chair’s assessment, noting
that after many months of working with Ministry on finding the path forward for
the EA an understanding was reached with the Ministry that the Ministry would
support a Schedule A+ EA for the first project upgrade, on the understanding
that the City would pass a holding designation and that development would be
controlled to a certain flow rate until the full upgrades were complete. The
Chair suggested that if Committee and Council were to remove properties from
the holding could jeopardize the City’s ability to proceed under the A+
scenario. Mr Wildman agreed.
In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr.
Wildman suggested that it Committee were to remove properties from the Holding
Zone, the Ministry would have pause for reflection on their agreement with the
City and predicted, which could lengthen the process and delay the
establishment of the much-needed buffer to help prevent against flooding such
that which took place in July 2009.
Mr. Wildman noted that in the preceding nine months
the City had been working on a path forward to provide for a buffer to help
prevent flooding such as that experienced by residents in July 2009. He
explained that what was recommended was a temporary holding (“h”) designation
applied over an area of approximately 3000 hectares and approximately 360 very
diverse properties. He suggested staff had been consistent in its approach and
analysis in determining the best path forward for each property, although each
property had specific differences.
Mr. Wildman predicted that some property owners would
raise the argument that their particular property only a small flow, and
therefore should be allowed to proceed. He cautioned against removing such
properties from the holding designation, as they could collectively result in a
problematic flow volume. He predicted other owners would argue that their
lands did not have to go to the Hazeldean Pump Station, and therefore should be
removed from the holding zone. He explained that those properties that could
go to the Hazeldean Pump Station, even if only on a temporary basis, were
recommended to be included in the holding zone, as it was common practice for
interim measures to be employed, and these could result in those properties
proposing to connect to the Hazeldean Pump station.
Mr. Wildman then proceeded with a detailed PowerPoint
presentation to review staff’s report and recommendations, a copy of which is
held on file with the City Clerk.
In response to questions from Councillors Feltmate,
Qadri and Monette, staff provided the following additional information:
·
Infrastructure Services staff has
been actively involved in tracing all the sources they could find of the storm
inflow that got into the sanitary system in July 2009, and are looking at many
measures that would provide for its removal. These measures could range from the
use of inlet control devices to upgrades to storm sewers themselves.
·
Even though they would be
providing for additional capacity at the Hazeldean Pump Station, they would
also be removing storm flows through those other measures, further increasing
the buffer against peak flows experienced during the July 2009 storm event.
·
Staff would begin lifting the Holding
Zone on a case-by-case basis once the Certificate of Approval was in place for
the 1225 l/s project upgrade and the pump in place to provide the needed capacity.
·
Development would be limited to
1077 l/s until the ultimate project upgrade of 1400 l/s was in place.
·
To lift the holding provision, the
General Manager, with the concurrence of the Ward Councillor, would authorize
listing of a By-law on the City Council agenda to lift the Holding provision
off a particular property. There would not be a report to Committee and
Council.
·
Staff’s recommended approach is to
allocate capacity on a first come first serve basis, as applications advance
through the planning process. Commercial and Industrial properties would not be
treated with a higher priority.
·
When asked to Comment on why
similar measures were not undertaken after the July 2006 flooding in Orléans,
Mr. Wildman noted he was not the lead on that file. He indicated that, in the
case of the west end flooding it was clear that the flows in the pump station
exceeded the rated capacity and staff had to move forward with the Ministry to
develop a go-forward plan to increase the capacity above the peak flows.
·
With respect to the Carp River, Mr.
Wildman noted that the work underway by Infrastructure Services examined all
potential sources of the flooding, and if the Carp River was found to be a
source, it would be looked at for mitigation measures.
·
Staff is unable to indicate
precisely how many years of development would be guaranteed by the ultimate
1400l/s of flow provided by the Hazeldean Pump station upgrades. Although they
are absorbing capacity at a rate of approx 44 l/s per year, the equation is
complicated by the fact that the Kanata Pump Station, to be commissioned around
2016, will divert some of the flows. Staff is monitoring the capacity and a
go-forward plan will ensure the capacity is available when needed and the
upgrades occur when needed.
·
Staff intends to continue
reviewing planning applications throughout the temporary hold period, and will
advance the planning applications as far as possible, although certain files
which do not currently have allocated flows will not receive final approval until
the 1225l/s upgrade is in place. Staff expects to be able to start lifting the “h”
in early 2011.
·
Holding will be lifted on a first
come first serve basis, and this order will not be affected by the amount of
flow contributed by a particular property. Staff will follow a “no banking”
policy and thus will not be allocating large amounts of capacity.
·
Staff is undertaking a system-wide
review of west end sanitary network, under the direction of Roman Diduch, Program
Manager of Infrastructure Policy, that will address the issue of how the
downstream pumping stations are and will function, which would inform the
Schedule B EA for the 1400 l/s upgrade.
·
Staff is generally confident that
they are on track with scheduling pump station upgrades relative to growth pressures.
In the case of the Hazeldean Pump Station, the major storm event was a
complicating factor. Staff continues to monitor and track the growth relative
the capacity in the pump stations.
Councillor Qadri made the following direction to staff:
DIRECTION
TO STAFF:
That the results of staff’s system-wide sanitary study
come back to Planning and Environment Committee for information.
Committee then heard from the following Public
Delegations:
Kevin Yemm, Richcraft Homes Ltd, spoke in opposition to the staff recommendations.
Specifically, he expressed opposition to parcels outside of the Hazeldean Pump
Station Service Area being included in the draft by-law, which included the
land owned by Richcraft. He raised the following objections:
·
The holding zone concerns land
serviced by the Hazeldean Pump Station, while Richcraft’s parcel of land
is to be serviced by the Kanata West Pump Station
·
There are several existing
mechanisms for the City to impose restrictions on development
·
The Holding Zone would result in unnecessary
additional administration and costs
·
While the current staff and
Council understand the context of the holding zone and the development climate,
The Holding Zone could result in undue prejudice from future councils and
community groups.
In conclusion, Mr. Yemm recommended that the Holding
Zone exclude lands designed to drain to other pumping stations, and that the
Richcraft lands be removed from the proposed draft zoning by-law amendment. A
copy of Mr. Yemm’s detailed PowerPoint Presentation is held on file with the
City Clerk.
Mr. Wildman spoke to the issue of why the Richcraft
lands were included in the holding zone. He reiterated that the zone included
some parcels that were not ultimately intended to go to the Hazeldean pumping
station, but it is common practice for interim measures to be requested to
allow for servicing to proceed. In this case staff believed there was a
possibility that the Richcraft lands could proceed to the Hazeldean pump
station on an interim basis. Staff felt their position was conservative and
the right thing to do.
Councillor Feltmate wondered if there was the
opportunity to put the holding zone on each individual property as they came
through the development process. Mr. Marc indicated that, while that was
technically possible to do, staff’s approach had been to do a comprehensive
holding zone for all the areas that discharge into the Hazeldean Pump Station in
order to assure the Ministry of the capacity buffer. Mr. Wildman confirmed
that staff’s approach, and the agreement with the ministry, as intended to
assure the highest level of protection for residents.
In response to further questions from Councillor
Feltmate, Mr. Wildman clarified that the Fernbank Lands had not been included
in the Holding Zone. Mr. Marc explained that, due to appeals to Official Plan
Amendment (OPA) 77, the OP status of the Fernbank lands had been in question
until very recently. He further explained that the Ontario Municipal Board
(OMB) had, the previous week, dismissed the main appeal to OPA 77, and thus the
OP would come into force. He indicated that staff would now be coming forward
with a recommendation to impose a similar holding zone on the Fernbank Lands.
He cautioned that Committee should not seek to impose such a holding zone
immediately, as it would give rise to questions of notice.
Faith Blacquiere, resident of Glen Cairn, noted that she had been investigating the
flooding that had occurred in July 2009, and provided a detailed analysis of
the issues related to the Hazeldean Pump Station reliability, capacity and
proposed upgrades. She did so by means of a detailed PowerPoint presentation,
a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. While she was supportive
of the holding zone, she had several comments, concerns and recommendations
with respect to the staff report. She made the following recommendations to
Committee:
·
Implement the Holding Zone for the
whole sewershed, including the Fernbank Lands.
·
Do not allocate more capacity
until the overflow is in place.
·
Expand the Schedule B project to a
Condition and Capacity assessment.
·
Treat the situation as an
emergency, as it is an emergency for both residents and the developers
·
Brainstorm possible emergency
alternatives and technologies with the Ministry and consider Emergency Standby
Portable Pumping Alternatives.
·
Developers should review
construction practices.
·
The City should establish a water reduction
program for the west end for extreme wet weather
·
The City should review policies which
resulted in capacity not meeting growth needs and prevent basement flooding
·
The City should identify and take
action on all infrastructure upgrades affecting existing clients where
development has been delayed
·
If there is another flood, the
consultant should report directly to Council, and start immediately
In conclusion, Ms. Blacquiere suggested the other
thing Council should do was pray, as this was what the residents of Glen Cairn
must do whenever it rains.
Councillor Feltmate thanked Ms. Blacquiere for all the
work she had done over the preceding year, and suggested on the of the reasons
the City knew as much as it did was as a result of the documentation Ms.
Blacquiere had compiled. In response to questions from the Councillor, Ms.
Blacquiere elaborated on the portable pumping and emergency technologies
recommended in her submission. She noted that the 1999 study identified that
there had been a submersible pump in the inlet manhole. She suggested if the
station had total failure, it would be possible to bring in trucks to pump out
the station and provide emergency service. She noted there were technologies
that were being approved for some pumping stations to provide temporary
solutions in an emergency, and suggested the City needed to investigate such
emergency alternatives. Mr. Wildman explained that infrastructure services had
done exhaustive research and investigation of factors related to the 2009
flood, and they are underway with the Schedule B upgrade. If measures such as
those identified by the delegation were required, they would be implemented.
He suggested that before implementing any such measures, the City needed to
complete a comprehensive investigation of the causes of the flooding and gain a
thorough understanding of how to address them through both mitigation measures
and the upgrade of the pump station.
With respect to the existing emergency measures in the
event of a pump station failure, Dixon Weir, General Manager of Environmental
Services, explained that this and other pump stations had a series of
redundancies, and are designed to have emergency back-up power, communication,
pumping et cetera to ensure service reliability. Councillor Feltmate wondered
if there were short-term solutions to prevent the water backing up into
people’s homes, as occurred in July 2009. Alain Gonthier, Manager of Asset
Management, noted there were a number of measures that have been implemented
with the aim of keeping storm water out of the sanitary sewer system. He
suggested increasing the pumping capacity to 1225l/s was one of the interim
measures while the City undertakes the longer-term works. With respect to the
1999 study, he noted that since then there has been an upgrade to the Hazeldean
Pump Station and additional capacity provided.
In response to questions from Councillor Feltmate with
respect to the issue of allocating capacity, Mr. Wildman indicated that it was
not the usual practice to allocate more than the current capacity to
developers. The existing and allocated flows are still below the rated
capacity of the pump station. On the issue of one developer selling capacity
to another, Mr. Wildman explained that this was not permitted for City-owned
pump stations. For private pump stations, while it is difficult to for the City
to control sale of capacity; the City does regulate the output from the private
pump station, which is not allowed to exceed the rated capacity.
Douglas Kelly, Soloway Wright, spoke on behalf of
Cavanagh and 1384341 Ontario Ltd. He
noted those property owners had registered plans of subdivision, and had been
allocated some capacity. He indicated that they were pleased in recent months
with the work staff had done with the Ministry to reach an arrangement that
affords those properties some capacity. He expressed concern with respect to
the restrictions in the west end on those lots available for development, and
supported future efforts of staff to work with the ministry to address that
problem.
Mr. Kelly also spoke on behalf of Chenier, owners of a property located in Cypress Gardens Phase
Three in Stittsville. He noted, at the time of pre-consultation in 2005, it
was proposed the property would be acquired by the City as an Urban Natural
Feature; however, the owners have not received an offer from the City to
purchase the land, and now intend to proceed with the development of the land,
which is designated General Urban Area. He hoped that staff would proceed to
process their application in anticipation that the problems with the pump
station would be solved.
Councillor Qadri asked staff to comment on the Chenier
property and the landowner’s request to have the City purchase the property.
Mr. Wildman indicated that would require some further discussion.
Alan Cohen, Soloway Wright, spoke in opposition to staff’s recommendations. He
was accompanied by Sue Murphy, Mattamy Homes, He spoke with respect to
how the proposal would impact the Mattamy Fairwinds development. He
acknowledged that this was a very serious issue, citing the concerns of the Glen
Cairn residents with respect to flooding. He noted there were 800 homes built
and occupied in Fairwinds and the remaining 600 units had been draft plan
approved since 2006 and 2007. He suggested draft plan approval signified that
there was sufficient capacity, noting there was no special condition in the
draft plan approval related to the pumping station. He noted the lands were
then zoned and were ready for development.
Mr. Cohen suggested the proposed holding zone amounted
to a down-zoning of his client’s property. He noted that the Kanata West
environmental EAs and third party review were not an impediment to the
development of his client’s lands, and the only impediment would be the
proposed holding zone. He expressed concern that the actual capacity was not
clear, and indicated that he did not accept the figures provided by staff.
Also, he expressed that they had no confidence in the manner in which capacity
would subsequently be allocated. Finally, he submitted that his client’s lands
met the definition of allocation, and questioned why they were not among those
being given immediate allocation.
Mr. Cohen suggested the holding zone meant that the
City would forego millions of dollars in development charges and taxes, the
community could not be completed, and 600 families would be prevented from
moving into their new homes. In conclusion, he encouraged Committee to not put
the holding designation on his client’s lands, but if they did, to make it
clear that they were among the lands to go with allocation.
Mr. Wildman noted that the Mattamy lands were part of
the broader area subject to the master servicing studies for the area, and the
development is currently serviced by a temporary pump station with a limited
capacity. While the master studies for the area indicate that there could be a
path forward to see those lands move, this work has yet to be done. As such,
staff feels the property should be subject to the holding zone.
Ursula Melinz, Soloway Wright, spoke on behalf of
Urbandale. She spoke in opposition
to the proposed holding zone, specifically with respect to Urbandale’s land
located at 310 Stonehaven Drive. She noted the property was well into the
development process, with applications submitted as early as 2005 for the last phase
of development in the Glen Cairn community. She noted the lands had been
through the development review process, had been to the OMB, and Urbandale was
now in the position where there were trying to finalize development and seek
allocation. She indicated that they would be working with staff seeking part
of the allocation. In response to questions from the Chair, Ms. Melinz
confirmed that 310 Stonehaven Drive was not on the allocated flow list, while
Urbandale’s Bridlewood Phase 3 E, located further west on Stonehaven Drive, was
on the allocated flow list and was currently under construction. She noted the
document marked as Area B of Document 9 to the staff report was a City-owned
woodlot formerly belonging to Urbandale.
Emma Blanchard, Borden, Ladner, Gervais, spoke on
behalf of 743104 Ontario Inc., owners
of the property located at 5924 Hazeldean Road. She spoke in opposition to the
staff recommendation with respect to that property. She noted that the
property in question had received site plan approval and a site plan agreement
was negotiated and executed by the City in March 2010 and registered on title.
She indicated that during the Site Plan process there had been no discussion of
the possibility of a holding zone, nor any discussion of capacity as being an
issue. She noted her client had paid all the required performance securities,
park fees and was ready to develop the building. She submitted that, because
the property was at an advanced stage of development, it should receive allocation
and the holding zone was inappropriate.
Mr. Wildman noted that there were indeed some
properties subject to the holding zone that were in an advance planning stage,
such as 5924 Hazeldean Road, and these would be prevented from proceeding until
the capacity issues were addressed. This development had a condition requiring
that the upgrades be in place before proceeding. He surmised that, under the
recommended first come first served allocation policy, this would likely be one
of the first in line due to the agreements in place.
Ms. Blanchard also spoke on behalf of ECL Developments Ltd. (Sobeys,)
owners of 6303 Hazeldean Road/ 1122 and 1130 Carp Road. With respect to this
property, she indicated that her clients had been allocated capacity were in agreement
with the arrangement that had been discussed with staff. However, she
indicated her client’s view that, given the allocated capacity reflects the
site plan, there would be no need to impose the H on the property.
Chris Leblanc
spoke in opposition to the proposed holding zone on the Mattamy’s Fairwinds
development Phase 5A. He noted that he was a current resident of Fairwinds
Phase 1, and in 2009 had purchased a home in Phase 5A. He noted that there had
been delays preventing that development from proceeding, and suggested the
proposed holding zone would add to the delays that he and other home purchasers
were experiencing. He expressed concern that if an H was placed on the
property, they would not get the necessary capacity at their interim pump
station to allow them to proceed.
Mr. Wildman explained that the temporary pump station
referenced by the delegation had met its capacity in terms of commitments, and
thus staff was recommending the lands be included in the holding zone.
In response to questions from Councillor Qadri, Mr.
Wildman confirmed that the delays to Mattamy Fairwinds Phase 5 were not all
related to the issue of pump station capacity. In addition to the issue of the
Hazeldean Pump Station, which arose from the July 2009 Flooding Event, the
lands in Kanata West that ultimately drained into the Carp River had also been
subject to much scrutiny, which contributed to the delays for the property in
question.
In response to questions from Councillor
Doucet, with respect to storm sewers, and how storm water had found its way
into the sanitary system after the major rain event of July 2009, Mr. Wildman
noted that some of the storm sewers in question were over 30 years old and the
design standards of the day were different. The storm sewers put in place since
the new City standards have been in place have performed well and performed as
intended to limit flooding. Mr. Wildman suggested that this was dependant on
the area in question. He explained that as development moved into flatter
lands where geotechnical restrictions do not allow for grade increases, pumping
stations could be necessary. He agreed that caution was always in order when
designing these systems and suggested recent systems were performing well as a
result of that caution.
In response to questions from Councillor
Monette with respect to what alternative solution
there was instead of holding zones, Mr. Wildman suggested the alternative would
be to do a full Schedule B EA, and cautioned that delays could result if that
EA were to be subject to any Part 2 Order. As such, staff felt the proposed
Schedule A+ EA and holding zone is the fastest path forward, in the best
interests of the public, to ensure a buffer above the peak flows that have been
experienced. Mr. Marc further explained that when there is a capacity issue
with respect to infrastructure, the only tool the municipality has is to impose
the holding zone in order to allow the necessary improvements to infrastructure
to be made so that the development can proceed. He suggested the recommended
holding zone would, in effect, allow the municipality to deal with the issue on
a case by case basis.
Councillor Hunter suggested that there were other
reasons for the 2009 Glen Cairn flooding, aside from the Hazeldean pumping
station, given that other areas served by the same pumping station did not
have sanitary sewer problems. These reasons could include pipe capacity and
problems related to the standards under which the community was developed. He
suggested it was wrong to make developers that are building communities to
appropriate standards, and homeowners, wait in line because of a problem that
was probably caused by the Ministry of Housing decades ago.
The Councillor noted the City had for the past 20
years been adding communities to the various pumping stations and there had
always been plenty of capacity. He suggested putting a hold on development was
a kneejerk reaction to the 2009 storm, which affects developers and the area’s
potential homeowners. He noted there was sufficient capacity except during a
big storm, and suggested that for the storm situation the solution was to stop
the storm water infiltration, not stop the development.
Councillor Feltmate spoke to the flooding that had
occurred in Glen Cairn in July 2009. She acknowledged that there were a number
of reasons it had occurred, but emphasized that the design of the pump station
was one of those reasons. She noted that because the capacity was insufficient
for the section going to Glen Cairn in a storm, there was nowhere for it to
overflow other than residents’ basements. She indicated her support for the
holding zone, and maintained that new homes should not expect to feed into the
system, when existing homeowners have to pay the price. She suggested staff
was doing the best they could to protect the current residents, while allowing
the process with the Ministry to move forward more quickly with the upgrades to
provide the required capacity, and begin allocating on a case by case basis. She
further suggested that as infrastructure ages and demonstrates that it does not
meet capacity the City needs to move forward with getting it fixed sooner and
not delaying it to avoid tax increases. In conclusion, she encouraged
Committee and Council to vote in favour of the holding zone.
Councillor Qadri spoke in support of the holding zone,
suggesting it was a thoughtful pause in the development of the west end
communities. He acknowledged that there were carious issues related to water
flow in the area in question, and indicated that he felt sympathy for the
homebuyers who would have to wait to move in. However, he felt this was an
opportunity to correct some of the problems for the benefit of those future
residents.
With respect to the flooding of July 2009, he
suggested the Carp River third party review was one piece of the puzzle, this
was another, and the full picture would come forward when the report came
forward from staff examining what exactly happened in that flood and what
corrective measures would be taken going forward.
With respect to the developers, he noted that this
report would not stop the planning process, and further noted that many of the
development were not at the stage where they were even ready for building
permits. Referencing the ECL proposal, which was already worked through with
staff, he noted staff was working to fairly allocate capacity based on phases
of that development. He praised staff for standing up and saying we need to
review the infrastructure before proceeding. In conclusion, he asked Committee
to support the staff recommendations.
Committee then approved the report recommendations, as
presented.
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend
Council approve:
1.
An amendment to the Zoning
By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of properties within the Hazeldean Pump
Station Sewershed such that a holding zone (h) is added to the existing zones,
as illustrated in Documents 5 to 13 and detailed in Document 14.
2.
That staff proceed with
application for Certificate of Approval in accordance with the 1999 Region of
Ottawa-Carleton Hazeldean Sewage Pumping Station Capacity Expansion Schedule B
– Class Environmental Assessment to increase the capacity of the HPS to 1077
l/s.
3.
That, consistent with existing
delegated authority, the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management be
directed to list by-laws providing for the lifting of the ‘h’ on a case by case
basis upon confirmation that capacity is available.
4.
That the General Manager,
Planning and Growth Management be given authorization to waive the planning
fees, identified in the Planning Fee By-law (2010-110), for a ‘Lifting Holding
By-law’ application related to the subject ‘h’.
5.
That the General Manager,
Planning and Growth Management be directed to list a by-law for the lifting of
the ‘h’ related to sanitary sewer capacity off of all properties once the
Certificate of Approval for the Schedule A+ project to bring capacity to 1225
l/s has been issued and the Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment for the
project to bring capacity to 1400 l/s is complete.
CARRIED
DIRECTION
TO STAFF:
That
the results of staff’s system-wide sanitary study come back to Planning and
Environment Committee for information.
8. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW 2008-250: ANOMALIES
AND MINOR CORRECTIONS - SECOND QUARTER 2010 - URBAN AREA
RÈGLEMENT
DE ZONAGE GÉNÉRAL 2008-250 : ANOMALIES ET CORRECTIONS MINEURES – DEUXIÈME
TRIMESTRE 2010 – SECTEUR
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0098 City Wide/À
l'échelle de la Ville
(This
matter is Subject to Bill 51)
Ursula
Melinz, Soloway Wright, was present on behalf of the owner of 882 Pinewood
Avenue, in support of Item 14 of Document 1.
That Planning and Environment
Committee recommend that Council approve the amendments recommended in Column 3
of Document 1, to correct anomalies in Zoning By-law 2008-250.
CARRIED
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAUX
9. COMMENTS TO ENVIRONMENT CANADA ON THE PROPOSED
WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE CANADA
GAZETTE, PART 1 ON MARCH 20, 2009
COMMENTAIRES SOUMIS À
ENVIRONNEMENT CANADA SUR LE RÈGLEMENT PROPOSÉ SUR LES EFFLUENTS DES SYSTÈMES
D’ASSAINISSEMENT DES EAUX USÉES AFFICHÉ POUR L’OBTENTION DE COMMENTAIRES DU
PUBLIC À LA GAZETTE DU CANADA, PARTIE 1 DU 20 MARS 2009
ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0026 City Wide/À
l'échelle de la Ville
In response to questions from the Chair, Dixon Weir,
General Manager of Environmental Services explained that he had been contacted
informally by Environment Canada as a result of this item appearing on the
agenda. He explained that they had indicated that it was not their intent to
insist upon complete sewer separation for communities like Ottawa to insist
upon complete separation. They also recognized that the complexity of the
regulation as it exists today made it difficult for communities across Canada
to understand the intent. He indicated that Environment Canada had
acknowledged major revisions would be necessary and the City has offered its
assistance to do so.
In response to questions from Councillor Doucet, Mr.
Weir indicated that staff was pleased to see that the federal government was
moving forward, and was very supportive of the intent in the goals of the
regulation; however, staff does have some concerns and questions as outlined in
their comments. He noted that the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
(CCME) had developed a consensus opinion on this regulation back in 2009, and
in bring forward the regulation in 2010 one of the areas of particular concern
and confusion to the City was how the Federal government was directing
municipalities to deal with combined sewer overflows. Staff’s comments in the
report suggest that this area of regulation needs to be improved
significantly. He indicated that staff was hopeful that the next iteration of
the regulation would be clearer in this regard.
Councillor Doucet suggested that the reason the City’s
infrastructure costs were running higher than other Canadian cities was due to sprawl.
Mr. Weir noted that the issue around combined sewer overflows concerned the
older core of the City, rather than the areas outside the Greenbelt that is
serviced by separated sewers and by a collection system and trunk system that
deals with that.
With respect to the issue of storm water overflow into
sanitary sewers, Mr. Weir noted there was a series of problems that contributed
to storm water gaining access to the sanitary system and the solution lies in
large part upon preventing storm water from getting into the sanitary system.
The combined sewer overflow issue pertains to older parts of the City where those
systems are combined by intent.
Mr. Weir referenced Council’s approved Ottawa River Action
Plan, which he suggested was a continuation of the significant progress being
made with respect to combined sewer overflows. He noted that they would be
reporting that combined sewer overflows in 2009 were the lowest in four years
of record, largely due to the progress the City has made in implementing real
time control. With respect to this report and staff’s comments on the federal
regulation, staff wanted to ensure that the City’s progress would not be
affected by an unintended consequence of the federal regulation, and ensure the
federal government understood that there are cost effective solutions to
address the issues while protecting the environment and the fisheries.
In response to questions from Councillor Monette, Mr.
Weir estimated that the capital costs for complete sewer separation would be
$1.5 to 2 billion, and it would take the City 30 to 50 years to complete that
program.
Committee then approved the report recommendations, as
presented.
That Planning and Environment Committee recommend
Council endorse the comments submitted to Environment Canada by the General
Manager of Environmental Services (Document 1) as well as comments submitted by
the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (Document 2) and the Canadian Water
and Wastewater Association (Document 3) as the City of Ottawa’s official
response to the Federal Government’s proposed Wastewater Systems Effluent
Regulations.
CARRIED
Committee received the following
correspondence with respect to this item, which is held on file with the City
Clerk:
·
Memo dated 21 June 2010
from the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee (OFGAC)
·
Letter dated 21 June
2010 from Dr. Faisal Moola, David Suzuki Foundation
·
Letter dated 21 June
2010 from Douglas Kelly and Ursula Melinz, on behalf of KNL Developments Inc.
and Urbandale Corporation
·
Letter dated 22 June
2010 from Jane Daly
In response to questions from the Chair,
Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, confirmed that this motion amounted to a
lifting of delegated authority by the Ward Councillor for approval of a
condition of subdivision. With respect to whether the matter would rise to
Council, Mr. Marc explained that, as Planning and Environment Committee is
delegated the authority to deal with subdivisions, he was of the opinion that
the matter could be decided at Committee. The motion would require that
Planning and Environment Committee make the determination as to whether the tree
preservation plan for the subject development satisfied the condition of the subdivision
agreement, and this would occur at a later date. He clarified that the motion
was not written in a fashion that would permit committee to make a decision on
the tree preservation at the present meeting.
Councillor Wilkinson introduced her motion.
She noted that, while the developer believes they have completed a tree preservation
plan, she suggested the only trees being preserved were on the City park
lands. She maintained Urbandale had not addressed some of key conditions, for
example with respect to Black Cherry trees or Butternut trees, and suggested
more information was required. The Councillor noted that the public was very
interested in the issue and was concerned about how the development would proceed.
She indicated that the intent of her motion was to give the public an
opportunity to review and comment on the tree preservation plan, which would be
key to how the development would impact the environment. She noted that there
were many knowledgeable people in the community that would be given the
opportunity to express their views. She further suggested that this could be achieved
by holding a public meeting rather than having the matter come back to the
Planning and Environment Committee, if that was more appropriate.
In response to questions from the Chair
with respect to Committee’s leeway in this matter, Mr. Marc suggested that,
should the matter come to Committee, Committee could either be satisfied that
it was done property or send it back for further work. He further explained
that the subdivision in question was approved in the context of the “40 per
cent agreement,” whereby the City agreed the land could be developed and the
landowner agreed to preserve 40 per cent of the land as green space. He
suggested that, while there may be some ability for Committee to protect
certain trees along there lot lines and margins, the aforementioned 40 per cent
agreement meant that Committee could not use the tree preservation plan
condition to protect broad swaths of land from development.
Mr. Marc further suggested that if the
developer were concerned about Committee adopting the recommendation as amended,
they could refer the condition back to Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to amend
it so that city approval of the tree preservation plan would not be required. As
to why Committee could not give direction immediately with respect to what
trees could be preserved, Mr. Marc indicated that the purpose of the
Councillor’s motion was to provide for an opportunity for Community input and
consultation.
Councillor Wilkinson reiterated her offer
to have a public meeting for the public to provide their input, rather than having
the matter return to Planning and Environment Committee. She suggested there
was some urgency to do this, as the developer has indicated they would begin
cutting trees in mid July. The Chair indicated they would ask the developer if
he was amenable to holding such a meeting.
Committee then heard from the following
public delegations:
Paul Renaud, Coalition to Protect the
South March Highlands,
spoke in support of Councillor Wilkinson’s recommendations. He did so by means
of a detailed PowerPoint presentation, including extensive photo documentation
of the South March Highlands. A copy of the presentation is held on file with
the City Clerk. The following is a summary of the points raised by Mr. Renaud
in his presentation, with further details to be found the referenced PowerPoint:
·
There is tremendous
opposition in the community to what they consider to have been a very bad
planning decision allowing development of this area.
·
The public feels they
have a right to know what is going on, and do not feel they have been
adequately informed by either the City or the developers in the area. Approval
of the motion would ensure a measure of public participation and understanding.
·
Emphasizing that the
matter was not merely about trees, he noted that the South March Highlands is
one of the most significant areas in the City.
·
The development for
this area has been triggered by the Terry Fox Drive, and the developer intends
to clear cut the area if conditions of approval have been met on the tree
preservation plan.
·
The original 1970s
Zoning protected the area, and the 1981 re-zoning decision by the former Region
was a widely criticized planning decision based on an inadequate environmental
assessment conducted by the Campeau Corporation.
·
He outlined the
examples of how the area’s environmental value had been recognized, reviewed the
species of risk in the area, and potential species of trees that would be lost
due to development in the South March Highlands area.
·
He noted KNL had 89
conditions of approval on the draft plan of subdivision and expressed a desire
to see a score card on those conditions.
·
He asked Committee to
ensure that the public is involved in the planning process as it continues to
unfold, because of the significance of the area, noting that the Official Plan
(OP) recognizes the importance of such public participation.
·
All of the community
associations in Ottawa are actually opposed to development in this area, as do
leading organizations such as the David Suzuki Foundation, the Sierra Club of
Canada, the Canadian Biodiversity Institute, Ottawa Riverkeeper.
·
The coalition is
working with the greenbelt coalition with the NCC in their master plan review
on defining a plan which will ultimately lead to an extension of the Greenbelt
to encompass and embrace this area.
In response to questions from the Chair as
to what residents hoped to achieve through their review of the tree plan, Mr.
Renaud indicated that they hoped to assure themselves that all of the
subdivision conditions were compliant and all the commitments that were made as
part of the planning process are being held to. They also wished the
opportunity to raise questions and ensure that the identification of any
endangered trees or plant life or other habitat necessary for the support of
endangered wildlife is properly protected.
Councillor Doucet inquired as to why the
City did not buy this area in order to preserve it. Mr. Marc explained that
the lands in question were brought into the urban area in the mid eighties, and
as a condition it was agreed that 40 per cent of the lands would be reserved
for “green space” uses. That agreement was signed and registered against all
the lands within this area, and as the lands have come forward for development
that 40 per cent agreement has been respected. He emphasized that the
agreement worked both ways – not only did it require the developer to ensure
that 40 per cent of the land was green space, but it also limited the
municipality to only taking 40 percent. With respect to this subdivision, choices
were made as to which land would be included within the 40 per cent, and by the
time that the final subdivision came to Committee and Council in 2005/2006 the
40 percent agreement only permitted so much more land to be preserved and would
not have permitted all of the lands in question to be preserved.
Gordon Henderson, President of the Kanata
Beaverbrook Community Association, spoke in support of Councillor Wilkinson’s motion. He noted that
his association had been involved in this issue for many years, and emphasized
that community interest was acute.
He noted that, personally, he had been
working on the issue since he had moved to the area 10 years previous and found
out about the development, and had chaired the Trails Advisory Group. He
expressed concern that some of the conditions attached to the development were
not being satisfied. He suggested it was only fair to the public that has used
the space for decades to be provided the necessary information.
With respect to the 40 per cent agreement,
Mr. Henderson noted that certain lands, such as hydro corridors and beaver
ponds, were counted as green space, which they had argued against before the Ontario
Municipal Board (OMB.) He supported the comments made by the previous
delegation with respect to the biodiversity of the area, and indicated the
residents were doing their best to save it. Mr. Henderson noted that eight
years previous they had attempted to contact every member of Council and only
four had taken time to discuss the issue with them, suggesting this reflected
poorly on the City. He noted the “Kanata tree massacre” in 2001 resulted in the
City’s Tree By-law, and noted that this was the area in question. He expressed
his hope that the community would be given the opportunity to get answers on
these very sensitive issues.
Councillor Holmes surmised that, because
City council is afraid of tax increases and many people do not want their taxes
increased, there is little money left to buy environmental lands. She
suggested that if the City were going to preserve these lands, or other
environmental lands, they would have to buy them.
Councillor Feltmate noted they had worked
really hard on the issue in 2003/ 2004, and expressed disappointment that some
of the 40 per cent lands had gone to a golf course. She suggested how those
lands were allocated was very unfortunate, and made it difficult to save the really
good land.
Rachel Plotkin, David Suzuki Foundation, read a letter on behalf of Dr. Faisal
Moola, Director of the Terrestrial Conservation and Science program for the
foundation. She noted that they did not usually work at the local level, but
felt it was important to get involved in this local issue in their own
community. The letter read by Ms. Plotkin, in support of the Councillor’s Motion,
urged Committee to ensure that the tree preservation plan was carefully
examined in light of the existence of threatened flora and wildlife in the
South March Highlands and the importance of the forest to community health and
well being. A copy of the letter was circulated and is held on file with the
City Clerk.
Stephen Hulaj, resident, spoke in support of the
motion. He did so by means of a detailed PowerPoint presentation that was
circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. His presentation included
numerous photographs of the South March Highlands area and the forest in
question. The following is a summary of the points raised by Mr. Hulaj in his
presentation, with further details to be found the referenced PowerPoint.
Mr. Hulaj highlighted the environmental
significance of the area, suggesting the lands are the most important under
threat today in Ontario if not all of Canada. As evidence of the significant
community interest in the issue, he highlighted the growing membership of the
Facebook Group to save the lands North of the Beaver Pond Park, and the
fact that 700 people had attended a recent event and signed their petition.
With respect to the zoning and development
of the lands, Mr. Hulaj maintained that the decision to re-zone the area for
development was a very poor planning decision, citing documentation in his
presentation with respect to concerns over the quality of the environmental
study conducted by the developer at the time. With respect to the current
landowners, he suggested that the developer was well aware when they acquired
the land that the area in question came with much baggage, and that they knew
they were taking a risk. In conclusion, he maintained that every opportunity
should be afforded to the residents to protect the area. He encouraged
Committee to support Councillor’s motion.
In response to questions from the Chair,
Mr. Hulaj acknowledged that their goal was to preserve all the land and,
whether or not that would be possible, the opportunity would be lost if they
were not allowed to consult on the tree plan in question.
Dr. Judy Makin, President of the March
Rural Community Association,
spoke in support of Councillor Wilkinson’s Motion. She suggested that, given
the high level of public concern, the development needed public scrutiny at
every stage. She suggested that the tools were available in the OP, endangered
species legislation and the provincial policy statement to support protection
of the area. She urged Committee not to allow Urbandale to proceed with
clear-cutting 50 acres of old growth forest. With respect to the
aforementioned 40 per cent agreement, the noted that much of the 40 per cent of
protected land was not left in its natural state; rather, it was golf courses,
playgrounds, water management ponds and hydro corridors. She urged Committee
to think of the future, and not give priority to the short term financial
implications for the developer. She urged Committee to support the motion,
suggesting it was a thoughtful pause, and give the communities time to work
with the City and solve this problem.
Lyon Sachs, President of Urbandale
Corporation, spoke in
opposition to Councillor Wilkinson’s motion. He was accompanied by Mary
Jarvis, Urbandale and Douglas Kelly, Soloway Wright. It was noted
that KNL developments is a partnership between Richcraft Homes and Urbandale.
Mr. Sachs began by noting that when
Campeau Corporation purchased the land and signed the aforementioned 40 per
cent agreement, it was considered to be exceptional at the time, and suggested
it was still exceptional. He expressed his surprise that there was any
consideration that, on top of this 40 per cent, most of the remaining area could
be saved. He emphasized that it was not possible to build the housing
development and keep all the trees. Though there may be a possibility to
preserve some trees on certain lands with larger lots, he suggested that
intensification to be achieved on the land and the rock formations meant that
the trees would be lost where development occurred. He indicated that Urbandale
had spent months working with staff on where the 40 per cent land would be, and
those lands considered the most important were preserved, including the
Trillium Woods and some lands immediately adjoining locations on Beaver Pond.
Mr. Sachs explained that the tree
preservation plan that accompanied the draft plan of subdivision applied to all
of the land that they owned, noting the plan went to through all the required
steps, was scrutinized by staff, consultants, and was subject of an OMB hearing.
He acknowledged that since the initial tree plan there had been other species
considered worthy of study, notably the butternut tree. He noted, however,
that this was not a condition of any tree preservation plan; rather, the
Ministry of Natural Resources requires that if you do destroy such trees, you must
replace them or pay for replacement somewhere else.
Mr. Kelly provided an overview of the
history of the KNL development through the years, and its various approvals.
The following is a summary of the point raised by Mr. Kelly:
·
The first Regional OP
designated the land as conservation and recreation to protect it, and the
Region received interim approval from the OMB pending studies to be done on the
area on what needed to be protected.
·
Subsequently two
amendments came forward to the regional OP one affecting this land in Kanata
and the other pertaining to the overall rural conservation and recreation
designation to save things like the South March Highlands and other important
areas.
·
With respect to these
amendments, the OMB ruled that if the Region was going to designate land for
conservation and recreation for the benefit of the public as a whole, they must
buy it within a reasonable period of time. As a result of the OMB’s ruling,
the matter went back to Kanata and Regional Council. Then, as now, the budget
for acquiring environmental lands was limited.
·
When Campeau came
forward with the agreement to save 40 per cent of the land, the City of Kanata
and the Region agreed, and it went to the OMB, who approved the agreement. As
part of the discussions at the time the key area for preservation was the
Trillium Woods, which were preserved.
·
The land started being
developed by Campeau, and subsequently acquired by another landowner, and then
KNL
·
In 2005 KNL came back
before the OMB with the support of the City, and changes and adjustments were
made to save more land on the request of the community. At that time KNL was
clear that, due to the density required within the urban boundary, they would
not be able to save any of the trees within the area that was to be developed.
·
After board approval,
Urbandale immediately revised the tree conservation plan from the preliminary
plan and sent it to the City in 2006, received comments back from the City in
2007, revised the plan in 2007 and submitted it back to the City. Urbandale
believes they have approval of the tree plan.
·
Urbandale does not believe
it is appropriate to ask for changes to the tree plan based on the 2009
document, because they have previous approval. Therefore, Urbandale is of the
opinion that they have the right to proceed with tree cutting.
·
If the City wishes to
preserve all the land, they can expropriate it,
·
Urbandale’s lands are
designated general urban area, they have the required zoning and draft approval
and are ready to proceed with the next phase of the development.
Ms. Jarvis reviewed the process they had
undertaken in preparing the tree preservation study, noting they had worked closely
with forestry planning staff to arrive at a plan that they feel is
comprehensive. She noted that in developing the subdivision plan for the area
in question, there had been much work with staff and the community, and the
developer had revised their plans numerous times in response to community
concerns. Much work went into refining what lands would form the 40 per cent,
or 265 acres, that would have to be conveyed to the city under the green space
provisions. She suggested that Councillor Wilkinson’s motion ignored all the
work that had been done in the past and ignored the 40 per cent agreement.
Ms. Jarvis reiterated the points raised by
her colleagues that, with the exception of the 40 per cent, everything else
would indeed be developed. She noted that the lot sizes required in an
intensification zone required that all the trees be removed. While there may
be the opportunity going forward to save a tree here or there, she suggested
that to identify those trees at the present time would be extremely difficult. She
expressed the need to move forward with draft plan approval, and asked
Committee to reconsider the motion proposed by Councillor Wilkinson.
Councillor Wilkinson noted that staff had
indicated that there were further requirements to add to the tree preservation
plan that had already been submitted before moving forward with the next phase
of development. She reiterated that, because this was such a sensitive area,
the public wants a chance to review the plans and speak to them, and indicate
that this could take place at Committee or at a public meeting.
In response to questions from the Chair, Don Herweyer, Program Manager, Development Review
(Suburban West.) confirmed that staff had received
the 2007 plan of subdivision encompassing all of KNL’s lands, but there were a
number of conditions with respect to the latest phase of development that had
not yet been satisfied. He agreed that there could be the opportunity to go to
the public for input. He noted there was a condition that speaks to a
communication strategy with the Ward Councillor and the community, and
suggested this could certainly take the form a public open house meeting. He
indicated that if the Councillor arranged such a meeting, staff would certainly
attend.
Ms. Jarvis wished to clarify which
conditions of subdivision would be subject to the public meeting. She noted
that the condition pertaining to the tree plan requires that the developer
prepare a detailed tree conservation and preservation plan, which they feel
they have already done. She wished to ensure that that particular condition
was not being amended. She also wished to ensure that the scope of the public
information meeting was limited to those conditions that are relevant to the
tree preservation plan, as to have a meeting to review all the conditions would
be onerous. She further noted that the community had concerns with respect to
the planning decision made many years previous to develop the lands, and did
not want to give the impression that by reviewing the tree preservation plan
there would be the opportunity to stop development. She maintained that the
lands would be developed under the 40 per cent agreement under the zoning.
The Chair clarified that the intent of the
meeting would be to facilitate a broader understanding within the community of
the conditions and how they’re being satisfied; the ones that have been
identified as concerns for the community.
Mr. Herweyer indicated that they would
work with the Councillor to arrange a public meeting the meeting and determine
the scope of the relevant conditions
Committee then issues the following
direction to staff:
DIRECTION TO STAFF:
That staff conduct a public meeting to discuss relevant
conditions related to tree preservation, impacts on the natural environment
areas and general pre-requisites that need to be met prior to commencing
construction of Phase 6 of the draft approved plan of subdivision.
Councillor Wilkinson agreed to withdraw
her motion, as the matter would now come forward to a public meeting instead of
Planning and Environment Committee.
Before concluding the item, Councillor Hunter
wished to note that he was unable to find this parcel of land using the development
application search tool on the City’s web site. Mr. Marc explained that the Planning
Act was changed effective 1 January 2007 to require that all documents
pertaining to planning applications be publicly. He surmised the information
was not available in this case because the application pre-dated that change.
That the Planning and Environment
Committee approve that the Tree Preservation Plan, once submitted to the City
by the developer, for the KNL Plan of Subdivision (City Planning File No. D07-16-03-0025)
be forwarded to Planning and Environment Committee for consideration and
direction.
WITHDRAWN
DIRECTION TO STAFF:
That staff conduct a public meeting to discuss relevant
conditions related to tree preservation, impacts on the natural environment
areas and general pre-requisites that need to be met prior to commencing
construction of Phase 6 of the draft approved plan of subdivision.
INFORMATION
PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED
INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT
A. WATER OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSERVATION ACT,
2010 – BILL 72
LOI DE 2010 SUR LE DÉVELOPPMENT DES TECHNOLOGIES ET DE LA
CONSERVATION DE L’EAU – PROJET DE LOI 72
ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0027-IPD CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
RECEIVED
NOTICES
OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING)
AVIS
DE MOTION (POUR EXAMEN LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE)
No
notices of motion were submitted.
Inquiries
DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS
No inquiries were submitted.
OTHER BUSINESS
AUTRES QUESTIONS
No other business was considered.
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
The meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m.
NEXT MEETING
PROCHAINE RÉUNION
Monday, 5 July
2010
le lundi 5 juillet 2010
Committee
Coordinator Chair
