STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS POST JANUARY
1, 2007
For the Zoning By-law amendments listed as Items 1 and 2 on today’s
agenda, only those who make oral submissions today or written submissions
before the amendments are adopted may appeal the matter to the Ontario
Municipal Board. In addition, the
applicant may appeal the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board 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.
PLANNING, TRANSIT & THE ENVIRONMENT
URBANISME, TRANSPORT EN COMMUN ET
L’ENVIRONNEMENT
planning
URBANISME
1. ZONING - 2226 GIROUX ROAD
ZONAGE - 2226, CHEMIN GIROUX
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0078 CUMBERLAND (19)
(This application
is subject to Bill 51)
That the Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Committee recommend Council approve an amendment
to the former City of Cumberland Rural Zoning By-law to change the zoning of
2226 Giroux Road from Agriculture ("AGR") to Agriculture-Exception x
("AGR-Xx") as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
2. ZONING - 8553 BANK STREET
ZONAGE -
8553, RUE BANK
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0083 OSGOODE (20)
(This application
is subject to Bill 51)
That the
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township
of Osgoode Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 8553 Bank Street from RU
(Rural Zone) to RU[349] (Rural Exception Zone) as shown in Document 1.
CARRIED
PUBLIC WORKS AND SERVICES
TRAVAUX PUBLICS
Infrastructure
Services
Services
d’infrastructure
3. PETITIONS
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SANITARY SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE AS LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR
HILLSIDE GARDENS AND CORE AREA IN THE VILLAGE OF MANOTICK
PÉTITIONS POUR
L’INSTALLATION D’UNE INFRASTRUCTURE D’ÉGOUTs SÉPARATIFS EN TANT
QU’AMÉLIORATIONS LOCALES POUR HILLSIDE GARDENS ET LE secteur CENTRAL DU VILLAGE
DE MANOTICK
ACS2008-PWS-INF-0001 RIDEAU-GOULBOURN (21)
The Committee heard from the
following list of delegations. A brief
summary of their presentation is listed within the minutes. The verbal presentation of those delegations
that provided written submissions has been briefly summarized as their
documentation is held on file with the City Clerk’s office.
Delegations:
Sue McCulloch
Robert Henderson
Bruce Webster, President, The Rural Council of Ottawa
Carleton
Jeff Turner
John Harrison
Noel Norenius, Manotick Community Association
Brian Grover
Doug Hardwick
Glen McCurdie
Brian Tansley, West Manotick Community Association
Richmond Wilson
Christopher Hawes
Brian Earl
Mr. Wayne Newell, Director,
Infrastructure Services Branch, Public Works and Services Department (PWS) provided a PowerPoint presentation
in which he reviewed the details of the above-noted report and the staff
recommendations. He went into detail on
the history of the area, the chronology of events and the petition process that
took place over the many months preceding this meeting. A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is
held on file with the City Clerk.
In response to Councillor
El-Chantiry’s question on research of alternative delivery, Mr. Newell stated
that all options were examined and that the studies undertaken and analysis showed that the
path forward was the conventional sanitary sewer system.
Councillor Hunter inquired what the
City’s options were once presented with a local improvement petition and
certified by the Clerk as valid. Mr.
Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, stated that Committee and Council have the
discretion to say “no” since it does have an impact on the capital budget. However, they may also say “yes” if they see
fit to proceed.
Councillor Hunter stated that in his
28 years on Council he hasn’t dealt with many improvement petitions since most
communities come on-line with servicing and when they did come up, they usually
came with no costs to the City. However he found the funding for this one
convoluted and wished more breakdown of costs. Mr. Newell agreed that local
improvements have not come to Committee and Council often. The petition area represents 20% of the
overall area and when the petition began, the City gave a cost to the
landowners. Since the start of that
process, City costs increased due to tactical areas such as soil
conditions. This resulted in the City
picking up a higher share.
Councillor Brooks asked if staff
have looked at the unsolicited proposal and done an analysis and “apples to
apples” comparison? Mr. Newell
confirmed they had. There had been recent extensive analysis done between
conventional and small-bore systems. He
stated that staff looked at two opportunities to being to a comparable level
and had done substantial work in the evaluation.
In response to Councillor Brooks’
question on if professional engineers and planners had done the work, Mr.
Newell stated that yes, an in-house staff of professional engineers and
analysts and staff had sat down with the proponent and gone through details.
Councillor Thompson wondered if the
decision on this project would be best done after the Minto appeal on the
Mahogany Community. Mr. Newell stated
that in their planning process and when designing a central system, they have
to account for ultimate build out of an area; a combination of the existing
community and proposed development.
They have allowed for full build-out of future areas in the design to
service the whole area and future residents will have to fund their full share.
The Committee heard from the following public
delegations:
Ms. Sue
McCulloch, a resident whose property abuts the Hillside Gardens community,
spoke to prepared statement
and referred to a map contained therein.
A copy of her written submission is held on file with the City
Clerk. The gist of her concern was why
her property and the school were included in this petition area.
Chair Jellett inquired of staff why
it was extended to include this property? He stated he could see the benefit
for the school, but not necessarily for this one house. Mr. Newell stated that limits of the
petition area are determined through close consultation with community and
staff. The school was included in the
petition area itself and since the property in question’s sewer will abut the
property, in accordance with local regulations, if you abut to a sewer, you do
not have the option to opt out. Mr.
Marc stated the school had signed the petition and if the Committee excludes
this property then the school does not get the service.
Mr. Robert
Henderson, a resident of Hillside Gardens, stated that he was in favour of
this project and staff’s recommendations.
He stated that the lot sizes are quite small; there is urban density
with rural infrastructure that was approved 40 years ago. He stated that the rural infrastructure
can’t handle water being processed in Hillside Gardens; hence sewage
contamination documented by numerous studies.
He mentioned that it is the only area in Ottawa that has it in the
Official Plan that there is sewage contamination. He said that the City has already invested upwards of $5 million
in studies and now to determine whether to invest wisely or throw money out the
door. The popular opinion in the
community is that this is a zoning problem created by the City 40 years ago and
the City should pay. However, 72% of
residents are willing to pay. He is
asking the Committee to vote in favour to remove hazards.
Mr. Bruce
Webster, President, Rural Council of Ottawa Carleton, spoke to a prepared statement. A copy of his written submission is held on
file with the City Clerk. His concern is not necessarily that this area needs
servicing since it does but what type of service and for how much. He believes a treatment system can be
put in cheaper and a better alternative is to delay a decision on this until an
OMB hearing. The City is too far in
debt; he believes new technology can save the City significant money.
Councillor
Brooks asked Mr. Webster if he had any engineering numbers to support what he
had stated regarding the collector system and treatment. He wanted to know what numbers he had for a
piped system vs. a collector system. Mr
Webster gave the following numbers: pipe $12,500 plus pipe connection; $5,000
estimated digging, connection, etc…looking at at least $4,800 (1974 numbers;
likely tripled today); ends up costing $25-30 thousand, prior to
decommissioning septic system.
In response to
Councillor Brooks’ question on the numbers for alternative delivery, Mr. Webster
stated that he did not have the numbers for the unsolicited alternative. He said he has spoken with providers for
alternate treatment systems such as an on-site treatment for 10,000 persons
costing about $1 million. It is a small system that fits onto the back
of a truck.
Councillor
Brooks then asked for more information on the Village Walk system and if it’s
only at 20% capacity why can’t it handle more.
Mr. Dixon Weir, Director, Water and Wastewater Services, stated that
with the 36 months it’s been in operation, it has been out of compliance 7 out
of 12 months in 2007 and all months in 2008.
He said that from a hydraulic point of view there is capacity, but it
cannot meet effluent criteria. This is
what makes staff question its viability; not near design capacity and
struggling to be in compliance with criteria as specified by the Ministry of
the Environment (MOE).
Councillor
El-Chantiry cited the example of alternate servicing strategies and
technologies such as the proposal for Carp airport. If it works for Carp airport, why can’t we have a comparison for
this project? Mr. Newell stated again
that staff had done their analysis and undertaken assessments dealing with the
proponents’ submission. When staff compare the two systems, which is also based
on future growth, they have to design a system to allow for servicing of the
entire area, realizing it is subject to future petitions. He stated that based on detailed analysis,
they were confident there would be no cost savings to look at alternatives. They have undertaken analyses and stand by
their recommendations. He went on to
say that this project and Carp are different in surface areas; Carp is much
smaller with space limitations. He
stated that you cannot move unilateral solutions that work in one area quickly
into another as there are different demands, settings and geography.
Chair Jellett
requested more information on the Village Walk and what would it take to bring
it back to compliance? Mr. Weir stated
that they were working with the operator and the MOE to help bring it back into
compliance and no one has been able to identify what is required to bring into
regular compliance.
Chair Jellett
inquired that if could be brought into compliance, could it take the capacity
of the village? Mr. Weir cautioned that
if it’s not in compliance at 20% what would happen at 100%? This might be problematic.
Mr. Jeff
Turner moved into Hillside Gardens 12 years ago. He stated that this problem goes back to the 1990’s and they have
been involved in meetings with staff, councillors, etc. to find solutions to
this problem. He said that you could
smell septic at any time of year. They
have people in the community who can’t do laundry; septic systems won’t support
the extra capacity; can’t flush toilets, etc.
He said that this is an area of clay and therefore has poor
drainage. They have waited a long time;
they can’t landscape, can’t do laundry, and can’t do driveways. He said that this is not the time to test
unproven technologies on their homes given the fragile environment; not
fair. He asked the Committee to give
this good consideration and that others with outside interests not be allowed
to hinder something that they have to live with. Think it’s time to put this aside and move on. He said that digging could start as early as
May 2008 but that going into further debate with further studies would be a
waste of time and money; adding to the peril of living in that
neighbourhood. Consider yourselves
living under those circumstances.
In response to
Councillor El-Chantiry’s question with regards to costs and if they outlined
their concerns in letters, Mr. Turner stated that a number of community members
spent time on the petition, talked to a number of contractors and costs could
go from $3,500 - $30,000 depending on individual needs.
Councillor
Brooks wanted to be clear on his understanding of decommissioning of a septic
tank; is it that you pull the lid off, fill with sand and put the lid back
on? Mr. Weir stated that he was not
familiar with it and could only suggest that you puncture the bottom of the
tank so it drains. Mr. Newell stated
that that work would not be the City’s responsibility, and varies with each
site and depends on what you want to do with the property; this has to be
determined on case-by-case basis.
Mr. John
Harrison, a resident of the core of Manotick, focused on the validity of
the petition. He strongly feels that
the petition was carefully calculated to win.
He feels the BIA drove it and the local homeowner in the core did not
have a real say. He stated that the
costs have skyrocketed and that the City has not planned for this. He commented that it did not make sense to
run a pipe from Manotick to the Ottawa River.
There are other issues and it is way too early to make a decision.
Councillor
Brooks asked what his solution was since there were real problems that needed
to be addressed immediately. Mr.
Harrison said that the City should have proposals from staff for alternate
proposals for sewage and then the citizens and the Councillors can see the
comparisons and determine the environmental impacts.
Once again
Councillor Brooks asked staff if real comparisons on costs were done. Mr. Newell once again reiterated that proper
comparisons and analysis were done and staff stand by their
recommendations.
Mr. Noel
Norenius, a resident of Hillside Gardens since 1968, felt the problem faced
by residents required immediate attention and resolution, and not deferral for
future study. He felt the staff-proposed
solution was the right one for the residents of Hillside Gardens, adding that
this issue had been ongoing for the past five years, with all related public
meetings, engineering studies, etc. concluding with the preferred solution of
using regular piping to a regular treatment facility. He felt it would be unfair to residents to now entertain the
possibility of exploring alternative technologies, and added that had the
adverse weather during today’s meeting not been a factor, many more residents
would have been in attendance to share similar feelings with the
Committee. He disputed Mr. Webster’s
views of using alternative technology serviced by the Manotick (Village Walk)
plant, stating the plant in question was incapable of processing phosphate
discharges, and which would be in contravention of Ministry of the Environment
(MOE) directives were it to discharge phosphates into the Rideau River. In conclusion, Mr. Norenius emphasized that
the community had fulfilled its part of the deal by having petitioned and voted
for a sewer connection. He asked that
the City now do its part by building it.
Mr. Brian
Grover, a resident of the Manotick Core Area and supporter of the sewer
petition, referred to a prepared statement which had previously been
distributed to the Committee by e-mail, a copy of which is held on file with
the City Clerk. The following
summarizes the main points raised at the meeting:
·
The speaker is a strong proponent of improved
sanitation in Manotick’s priority areas, noting continuing local growth will
likely lead to further expansion of sewered areas;
·
Alternative systems are available; i.e., Field (near
North Bay), Wardsville (near London), designed by progressive Ottawa-based
engineering consultants offering more choice, i.e., small-bore systems;
·
Local treatment plants should serve local populations;
pumping Manotick waste 50+ km to ROPEC is not a good idea; instead, a separate
local system would be preferable, i.e., Village Walk plant in Manotick or
elsewhere in the village;
·
City engineering staff have not demonstrated to
residents that realistic, lower cost options for local sewage collection and
treatment have been properly considered and evaluated;
In conclusion,
Mr. Grover advised the Committee to take the time needed to make the right
choice, as he felt other rural communities would be forced to connect to the
Ottawa sewer system if Manotick were made to do so. He also suggested that the City solicit help from the local
community, and that the City owed its residents the right to examine the data,
as he felt they had been kept in the dark because cost comparisons of
alternative systems had not been made public.
Councillor
El-Chantiry felt many believed that if a community decided on a particular
course of action that only it would benefit from; it should bear the full costs
incurred. He said it was unfair to pass
on local improvement costs to other Ottawa taxpayers.
Clarifying for
Councillor Brooks on the issue of the unsolicited proposal for a small-bore
system, Mr. Newell affirmed that staff had indeed engaged in a desktop
comparison with the proponent to answer some of the questions that had been
raised. He emphasized the recent
evaluation was more in the nature of a re-evaluation to verify decisions
previously rendered. Mr. Newell
explained the analyses undertaken as part of previous studies and environmental
assessments had earlier concluded that, based on those earlier assessments of
alternatives, the best way to move forward was with central servicing and local
conventional sewers for these areas. He
stated the recent analysis had been undertaken through discussions with the
proponent to check to make sure staff’s previous decisions were still
appropriate, and confirmed that he believed the appropriate recommendations had
been encapsulated in the present report.
Mr. Doug
Hardwick, a resident of the Manotick core for 37 years, said he had been
involved with the issue of sewage and related technology for 20 years. He expressed frustration with a process he
believed was problematic and full of misunderstandings, which he largely
attributed to City staff. He felt that
despite staff assertions that alternate systems were not feasible, reasons and
empirical data to back up this view had never been made available to the
public. He stated that viable
alternative systems were currently working in Europe, Ontario and parts of the
United States. Noting the City was
involved with a Sepratech membrane system at the Village Walk plant, he
stated the technology involved was old, and was not the same as currently
available membrane technology systems.
Mr. Hardwick also felt the process was not transparent, noting that when
speaking to an on-site engineer at the Village Walk plant, he had been directed
to communicate with engineers at ROPEC (the R.O. Pickard Environmental Centre)
for further information.
While the
speaker agreed with the residents of Hillside Gardens that a critical situation
existed, he felt Manotick residents had been backed into agreeing to the
proffered solution. He requested to be
shown actual figures, questioning the notion that two different systems could
come out with equal costs. As to the
question of the proponent’s anonymity, Mr. Hardwick believed that it would be
hard for the proponent to generate business outside of the Ottawa area should
the proposal be turned down by Committee.
In conclusion, the speaker encouraged Committee not to delay the process
further, but to critically examine a system, which he felt, could perform
equally well, and for less money.
Councillor
Brooks questioned whether the proponent of the unsolicited proposal had made
any request to come before the City to openly make a presentation in support of
it. Mr. D. Moodie, Rural Affairs
Officer, explained that although the company’s representatives had spoken to
ARAC and various Committees in the past, there had been no recent request to do
so. In light of the company’s
reluctance to appear before Committee to defend itself, and also because of its
request for anonymity, the Councillor questioned the proposal’s authenticity.
Councillor
Brooks asked if staff had openly conferred with the proponent in comparing the
two systems in terms of cost and construction.
Mr. Newell explained staff had looked at the two alternatives and tried
to bring them to a level playing field to allow for an appropriate assessment,
but emphasized that there were differences between the two systems. He detailed that the proponent’s small-bore
system, unlike the staff-proposed system (which would connect to residents’
houses at their front yards), would run piping into residents’ back
yards and join with a pipe from the residence that would normally connect to a
septic bed. Mr. Newell said such
systems would not permit below-grade facilities in basements, whereas the
staff-proposed system would, because it would provide a conventional lateral
connection at a grade below the elevation of the basement footings. He stated that allowances had been in both
assumptions when comparing common levels of service and costs, further
explaining that some of the incremental costs involved went beyond the cost of
the services alone, i.e., trunk systems and external works to remove
wastewater, including allowances in the designs of the systems should future
petitioners come forth to apply for a conventional vs. a small-bore system.
Mr. Glen
McCurdie, a long-time resident of Rideau Township currently living in the
Manotick core for the last seven years, said he fully supported a system as
proposed with a view towards improving Manotick’s business community and
sustaining its residents. However, he
felt that not all residents had been fairly encompassed by the petition and
were not all on an equal footing. Mr.
McCurdie explained that some core residents lived within a short distance of
the village main street, whose connection costs would be significantly
different than his own, as his property was situated 200 feet downhill from the
street. He noted he had not originally
seen the petition, suggesting his property may have been bypassed owing to the
distance involved, and further suggested that consultation and communication
from the City had been poor. Mr.
McCurdie questioned how “core area” had been defined, as he did not believe his
property should be included.
Acknowledging the City had extended him a rebate in terms of connecting
to his property, he offered this would still result in a net sum of $13,800 for
him to connect to the pipe at the property line. He noted it would likely cost him an additional $35,000 to run
piping another 200 feet to connect to his house, and to cover the cost of
closing off his existing septic system and installing a pump to remove
wastewater. He expressed a lack of
confidence in the ability of such a system to pump wastewater 200 feet uphill
without consequence, stating that a sewer backup would affect him more directly
than others. While Mr. McCurdie said he
backed the project, he asked that there be consideration given for individuals
in situations like his.
Chair Jellett
asked the speaker if he was asking to be exempted from connecting to the
system. Mr. McCurdie explained that he
would either prefer to be exempted from it or for the costs to be shared in a
better way, as he believed it unfair to have to pay in excess of $50,000 for
hook-up costs.
At Chair
Jellett’s request to explain, from an engineering perspective, whether the
pumping of wastewater 200 feet uphill was feasible, Mr. Newell said staff
believed that it was. Further, he
commented that because Mr. McCurdie’s particular situation did not allow for
servicing on a conventional basis because of gravity, his costs would be
reduced by up to 75%, owing to the additional efforts that would be required on
his part to make use of the proposed system.
Referring to
Document 1 of the staff report, Councillor Hunter asked about two areas on the
map along the river excluded from core area servicing. He offered that the areas seemed to have
engineering difficulties similar to those of Mr. McCurdie’s property, which had
been included in the catchment’s area.
Mr. Newell explained that if sites could not allow for construction for
whatever reason, such areas would be excluded.
He said it was necessary to work with the community to properly define
boundary limitations in order to determine a site’s feasibility for
connection. Mr. Newell explained that
Mr. McCurdie’s property was determined to be feasible for connection, but
acknowledged it would be more onerous and would not incorporate the same level
of service.
Mr. Brian
Tansley, President, West Manotick Community Association, said he supported
the concerns of the residents of Hillside Gardens and Manotick’s commercial
core. However, he disagreed with the
position taken by City engineers that the only viable solution was for central
servicing, explaining that four alternatives had originally been voted upon,
with the chosen option being the completion of a rural wastewater management
study analysis of alternatives and a study for costing including the servicing
of 2000 homes. Mr. Tansley explained
that a subsequent report to the City’s Planning and Environment Committee
outlined that the scope of the survey of alternative wastewater systems focused
on the management and sustainability of privately-serviced areas of the City
and did not specifically address the use of such systems to service large
populations. Further, the evidence of
the case studies demonstrated that in Ontario, the application of alternative
technologies was limited and had only been used to service small populations. For this reason, staff believed the
Committee’s direction had been fulfilled.
Mr. Tansley disagreed with this position, noting no reference had made
to membrane bioreactor systems, used in Ontario since 2000, and the technology
recommended in the unsolicited proposal.
He believed such a system could be employed in a timely fashion, at a
lower cost than the central servicing option.
He too asked that the cost comparisons be made public. He felt that to implement a $70 million
project to serve 400 residents served to disenfranchise 80% of the population
when only 20% of the area’s population had been given a vote. He asked Committee to give serious
consideration to the long-term implications of implementing such a
decision.
Responding to
Councillor Thompson’s question regarding the fairness of having 20% of the
local population affecting, potentially, 80% of local residents as a result of
the local improvement petition, Mr. Marc explained that the Official Plan (OP)
speaks to what should be considered priority areas in terms of servicing. Consistent with this, the Public Works and
Services department (PWS) examined the Village of Manotick and established
lines based on what were determined to be the logical areas to service. Further, consistent with both the direction
of the OP and based on determinations from an engineering perspective, the
petitions went ahead in the two subject areas.
Councillor
Brooks added that Hillside Gardens and the Manotick core had been identified in
both the Manotick Secondary Plan and in the OP. He pointed out the petition to have the village serviced spoke to
doing so over time, which could mean 25 to 40 years hence, emphasizing that the
issue before Committee at present was only that of a local
improvement. The Councillor noted that
staff had been asked to design a system for the entire village, as defined in
the Secondary Plan and OP, in realizing that the whole area would likely be
serviced over time, and when such servicing was deemed to be required,
residents could petition. Councillor
Brooks explained a two-thirds majority of affected residents would be required,
failing which; the subject area would not receive servicing. He noted this requirement would apply to all
areas. Mr. Marc confirmed this was
correct.
At Councillor
Brooks’ request, Mr. Tansley expanded on his earlier reference to alternative
technologies, explaining that membrane bioreactor system technology had been
commercially viable since 2000 in Ontario and earlier in other parts of the
world. He was uncertain as to how many
Ontario communities were currently utilizing such technology, but spoke of one
in Creemore, Ontario, in Clearview Township, operating continuously under
contract with the Collingwood system since 2000.
Noting this type
of technology had been available since 2000, Councillor Brooks wondered why
many communities still preferred to implement “old” technology. Mr. Tansley suggested it had not initially
been adopted more widely due to start-up hesitation, but believed it was being
adopted more widely at present, noting there were now many examples in current
use all over North America. He believed
such technology deserved a serious look as befitted Manotick for cost reasons
and for timeliness. He further noted
the system approved for operation in Creemore, Ontario issued a relatively
clean effluent, which did not increase the level of pollution of the river into
which it discharged.
In reply to
Councillor Brooks as to whether staff had looked at the Creemore model, Mr.
Newell explained that he could not specify what technologies had been examined,
but noted that treatment options had been considered as part of the
environmental assessment (EA) process, at the conclusion of which, the
preferred option had been recommended.
He further clarified that the issue at hand was not one of viability,
as there were other viable options available, including small-bore systems and
treatment facilities. Mr. Newell
further explained that through the processes, studies and EA’s undertaken to date,
staff had recommended a preferred solution to service both the area at
large, and that of Hillside Gardens and Manotick Core subject to the local
improvement process in particular. He
said staff could continue to look at different options and processes, which
could result in alternate solutions, but that the focus had been on moving
forward with the implementation of a preferred option.
Responding to a
question from Chair Jellett as to whether the preferred option would have been
the same had there been no plans for future expansion outside of the subject
areas, Mr. Newell explained staff had designed the system on the basis of
accommodating the entire area. He
suggested that to speculate on what decisions might have been made under
different scenarios might prove difficult.
Mr. Rich Wilson spoke in favour of the petition
and stated that he has been involved with this issue for long time. For quite some time they were convinced that
a piped system was the way to go, particularly for Hillside Gardens and the
core. He stated that any change from
this piped solution would have to be approved by the MOE and this would cause a
delay in the solution. There is a
problem in this community that needs to be resolved now. There are current constructions being
allowed to proceed with the understanding that sewers are coming on-line
soon. He also stated that as far as the
vitality of the core is concerned, not much could be done until they have the
pipe. To introduce other elements at
the 11th hour is unwarranted especially since the petition process
was delayed for two months to allow for consideration of alternate systems.
There is nothing on the horizon to make anyone comfortable with the idea of
reinventing the wheel; have to deal with a real and immediate problem.
Mr. Christopher Hawes, a resident of Hillside Gardens and
the lead petitioner stated that this was an issue of health and safety and that
they have been fighting for ten years.
He said that there is sewage in the surface water of Hillside Gardens,
which is a real danger to children, animals and public health. They have been told too often that there
would be a solution. They, as residents, recognized there was a significant
problem. He stated that they went down
the path of alternate technologies; he was one of the first proponents of small
bore. He strongly emphasized that
residents in this area have paid taxes for this improvement for years to the
RMOC and now to the City. Years ago
they hooked up to City water because of faecal coliform counts. They leach unacceptable levels of effluent
into the river. 17% of residents live
on an annual income of less than $35,000 and 9% live below the poverty line.
Looking at other technologies will delay this project for 5 years or more. In 5 years, if someone gets sick from
contamination, it will be the City’s fault. He and many others have worked
countless hours with volunteers to provide information. They have done everything they could do to
legally live up to what the City has told them they have to do.
Mr. Brian Earl has been a Hillside Gardens
resident since 1972 and stated that he does not have the full use of his yard;
taken up with a septic tank and bed. He
stated that he has done research on small-bore systems and said it would still
require him to keep a septic tank. If
they connected to small bore, they would not have full use of their lots and
would end up paying more than the average citizen of Ottawa.
Councillor Brooks asked staff to
further explain the 2 systems investigated.
Mr. A. Gonthier, Manager, Infrastructure Management stated that staff
took both systems and compared them based on the same level of service and
overall servicing strategy, based on direction from Council and the Official
Plan, which was to service the overall area.
The difference in costs is almost negligible and has been identified in
the 2008 capital budget. Staff have
gone through detailed analyses and they do not have the same degree of
confidence in the proponent’s unsolicited proposal, but have taken information
at face value. The difference between
the two systems was not felt to provide enough justification to entertain as an
option.
Councillor Brooks clarified that he
was looking for cost comparisons. Mr.
Newell stated that to the best of their ability they have done the analysis as
stated and the conventional system is still the one recommended.
In response to Councillor Harder’s
question on the when the unsolicited proposal was brought forward, Mr. Derrick
Moodie, Rural Affairs Officer, stated that it was received within the last 2
months. The small bore technology has
been tried in other communities and works but the comparison is based on very
small populations of about 400 people, and is therefore not really an apples to
apples comparison.
Councillor Monette inquired as to
why this report did not first go to the Rural Issues Advisory Committee
(RIAC). Mr. Newell stated that this was
a local petition and initiative and therefore, staff felt it was more
appropriate to come to ARAC directly.
In response to Councillor Monette’s
question on whether the petitioners knew the costs involved, Mr. Newell stated
that each resident was informed what the costs would be for their individual
properties.
In response to Councillors’
questions on opting in or out, Mr. Newell stated that this was possible only if
it does not affect an abutting property that wants the service. Chair Jellett stated that in Mr. McCurdie’s
case he could opt out because it doesn’t affect anyone else (at end of the
pipe) but in Ms. McCulloch’s case, this could not be done without affecting the
school.
Councillor El-Chantiry stated that
staff have done a great job and he did not want to discredit the job they had
done, but wondered if there are other options that should have been
investigated further and should be looked at now especially with the Minto
appeal coming. Mr. Newell responded
stating that staff had to examine a system to service a large area and part of
it is an existing community, and part of it is to service a future community;
but that was not drove the process. For
any future development such as Minto, they will be responsible for paying their
share of costs. He stated that there
have been a number of studies, directions, assessments, etc… and what staff had
done most recently was re-evaluate a chosen option to assess whether it was a
viable option for Hillside Gardens and the core.
Councillor Brooks acknowledged that
sometimes it takes time to make the right decision, however, this has been
looked at it in the 90’s (twice), after amalgamation (twice); how many times do
we have to look at it? He stated the
research has been done and the comparisons have been made. Is there any advantage of re-examining it
again? Mr. Newell said he believed not.
Councillor Brooks asked if the costs
accurately reflected the costs to the City such as opening and closing roads to
replace asbestos pipe? Mr. Newell
stated that the $6.1 million was exclusively for infrastructure not including
local improvement.
With regard to surcharge monies, Mr.
Newell stated on a personal view that the City was not spending the right
amount of dollars on fixing its infrastructure; if not spending in Manotick,
would it be spent elsewhere? Have assumed the funds would not be spent
elsewhere, but priorities dictate that the City would be fixing water mains
elsewhere.
Chair Jellett stated that the
Committee had recommendations from staff and asked if there were any amending
motions.
Councillor Brooks urged the
Committee to accept the recommendation as outlined in the ARAC report to
proceed with sanitary sewers.
Councillor El-Chantiry asked if
there was any advantage to sending the report to RIAC and the Chair stated that
the Committee could do so if they wished but that a small portion of overall
cost is attributable to the rural community.
Councillor El-Chantiry stated that next time staff should consult with
RIAC and Mr. Newell stated that staff would take this as direction.
Councillor Thompson commented that
there seemed to be a divisive feeling in the community with regard to this;
have met and listened to proponents of small bore system and have heard from
those most directly affected. He said
he would not defer or refer this any longer, as he had been impacted by what he
had heard. He said there was enough
suffering and that it was time to move ahead.
Councillor Brooks stated that it was
unfortunate that the alternate proposal had come in so late at the 11th
hour and 59th minute and to put it on hold for another 2-5 years
would put the community at risk. He
encouraged staff to look at alternate technologies however, for future
developments such as the one in Richmond Village. He encouraged his colleagues to move forward on this. He believed the recommendation in the staff
report had been well thought-out and well researched.
Moved by Councillor G. Brooks
Whereas, senior levels of government do not recognize
rural Ottawa as rural with respect to infrastructure funding programs;
And whereas, this has disadvantaged both the City and
rural residents, such as residents and businesses in Manotick's Hillside
Gardens and Core areas, that are engaged in local improvement petitions to
improve water and wastewater services in their community;
And whereas other communities have indicated an
interest in pursuing a local improvement to access water and wastewater
services should there be funding assistance available;
And whereas a new group of infrastructure programs,
known as 'Building Canada' are expected to be available in Ontario soon;
Therefore be it resolved that City staff be directed
to submit a request for funding under the Building Canada Fund to both the
Provincial and Federal governments immediately so that an application by the
City could be considered as soon as the funding becomes available;
Be it further resolved, that this application should
focus on water and wastewater projects Citywide in areas that are not currently
served with water or sewer infrastructure;
And be it further resolved, that the funding, if
provided, should be used to offset both the resident's portion required through
the local improvement charge and the City's portion of costs for future
servicing areas, at the same percentage.
CARRIED
Councillor Harder commented that
this was a good motion and the same can be said with rural libraries. She and the Chief Librarian had met with the
Minister of Culture; the City is at a disadvantage due to issues forced upon it
by amalgamation; 90% of the City’s land mass is rural, and less than 10% of the
population is rural.
That the
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve:
1. The construction of
sanitary sewer infrastructure to and within Hillside Gardens on Long Island in
the Village of Manotick, subject to approval of a By-Law to undertake the work
as a Local Improvement in accordance with the Municipal Act;
2. A By-Law to undertake
the construction of sanitary sewer infrastructure to the Core Area on the
mainland of the Village of Manotick, subject to approval of a By-Law to
undertake the work as a Local Improvement in accordance with the Municipal
Act;
3. That staff proceed,
to acquire the land required for the main pumping station and related pipe
works, including expropriation if required;
4. That
City staff be directed to submit a request for funding under the Building
Canada Fund to both the Provincial and Federal governments immediately so that
an application by the City could be considered as soon as the funding becomes
available and that this application should focus on water and wastewater
projects Citywide in areas that are not currently served with water or sewer
infrastructure; and that the funding, if provided, should be used to offset
both the resident's portion required through the local improvement charge and
the City's portion of costs for future servicing areas, at the same percentage.
CARRIED
as amended
INFORMATION
PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED
INFORMATION
DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT
A. Municipal Drain Status Update
Mise à jour de l’état de l’égout municipal
ACS2008-pws-wws-0013-ipd City Wide / À l'échelle de la ville
Mr. Terry
Hale, representing the Rural Issues Advisory Committee, spoke to the
Committee with regard to the information before them and a motion that was
passed by the Rural Council and endorsed by RIAC. In particular he and RIAC were concerned with the Flowing Creek
issue. He stated that it was 3 years
ago to the date that the City started the initiative dealing with Municipal
Drains and in June 2006, the City approved a task force report at ARAC,
subsequently adopted by Council.
With the Flowing
Creek issue, he is concerned that it is not being done in an expeditious
fashion. It is strongly felt that this
work should be undertaken in 2008 and not in 2009 as set out in the IPD. A copy of the RIAC minutes and motion are
held on file with the City Clerk’s office.
Chair Jellett
inquired from staff on why such a long delay.
Mr. Weir stated that it was important to appreciate that there are
certain windows in which to operate.
Staff are trying to mesh together a number of regulatory requirements,
which include approvals, opportunities for appeal, etc. This requires time to proceed; mandatory
approval process allows residents to understand what construction requirements
are, and allows for appeals of the assessment process. Prior to having those costs allocated to
residents, it is important to have the approval and appeal process, and this is
mandated within the legislation; no opportunity for City to alter that. Staff understand what the Rural Council and
RIAC are saying, but there are regulatory requirements that force the City to
go through this approval process and staff can’t compress that.
Chair Jellett
asked if the construction could take place in the spring. Mr. Weir stated that they were limited to
dry summer months out of concern for fish habitats, etc. To take it outside of that window leads to
environmental mitigation costs, etc.
In response to
Chair Jellett’s question on whether the Province might relax some of its
legislation, Mr. Weir stated that staff are involved in discussions with regard
to provincial initiatives to come up with a simpler process and have developed
a collegial, cooperative approach, and staff are working to expedite this issue
to help the Province understand how important this matter is.
Councillor Qadri
inquired on a specific project listed as number 8 on the IPD in Hazeldean. He stated that Council rejected this project
in April 2004 and wondered why it has come before the Committee again. Mr. Weir
stated that within the Drainage Act, there is a provision for someone to
raise this again and a petition is being circulated to do so. Staff are in contact with the proponent,
advising them of the costs involved on their part should this happen, so it may
not proceed.
Mr. Wesley
spoke to the item on Flowing Creek as well and how frustrating it has been to
get any action done on this item considering it has been ongoing for 3 years
now. The residents need some action
soon as much of their land now is marsh or flooded and nothing can be done with
it. Now quarry operations have added to
the problem. They are getting 10 times
the amount of water they should have.
They want to bring it back to the way it was; keep the creek flowing and
get rid of the water.
Chair Jellett
asked if there was anything the Committee could do to speed up the matter. Mr.
Weir stated that staff recognize that this is a problem and are in a situation
that to start to effect the changes, but have to make sure that the rest of
that creek has an adequate outlet, and have to address Upper Flowing Creek in
its entirety. Staff have gone back and forth to find an easier,
quicker solution; but there isn’t any.
Councillor
Brooks stated that he had met with M.P.P. Norm Sterling on this water and
drainage issue and felt that common sense would have to prevail. Sooner or later, residents will have a class
action suit situation. He stated that
they have sat listening to the same situation for three years now and it’s not
getting anywhere. Who takes responsibility? Who does what when? What person do we have to go to get things
done? Mr. Weir responded that there are
three different levels of government in this issue, each with different
competing levels of priority. He stated
that a letter was received from Agriculture Minister Leona Dombrowsky pointing
to some of the same initiatives he has mentioned today. The City is looking forward to liaising with
the Province but there is still concern with regard to the Federal
Government. A copy of the Minister’s letter
is held on file with the Clerk’s office.
Councillor
Brooks stated that all of the decision makers aren’t at the same table and
those who don’t attend are always blamed.
He would like a symposium where all the key decision makers are at the
same table at the same time. Mr. Weir
said there is hesitation from many provincial bodies to have this kind of a
meeting while trying to work something out at the provincial level.
Chair Jellett
made the observation that there is no solution since it seems to be out of the
City’s control.
Councillor
Hunter stated that since Flowing Creek is only a creek at this time and not a
municipal drain could this issue not be brought before the courts by the
landowners? Mr. Weir stated that the
Councillor’s understanding is probably correct, but rarely is the solution this
easy.
Councillor
El-Chantiry suggested that staff report back to ARAC on this issue in three
months’ time since this has been going on too long and the Committee doesn’t
want to hear the same answers again in a year’s time.
Chair Jellett
directed staff to come back with a report in 2 to 3 months time on this issue.
RECEIVED
«OPEN MIKE» SESSION
TRIBUNE LIBRE
Mr. Jason Dever - President, Greater
Ashton Community Association brought forth a problem regarding Ashton Station Road and its
maintenance, or lack thereof. The road
is half maintained by Ottawa, half by Beckwith Township and there appears to be
a gap in terms of maintenance. He
stated that the Ottawa half is well maintained but not so well by
Beckwith. There appears to be
confusion in terms of maintenance.
There are 35 houses on the City of Ottawa side and only 5 on the
Beckwith side. Due to the poor
maintenance of this road the school board won’t allow their buses to travel
along the road at certain times. He
felt that the solution would be for City to take over full responsibility for
the length of the road. He is
requesting that this be examined as this affects City of Ottawa residents.
Chair Jellett stated that this is
the case with many of the City’s boundary roads and he has similar situations
in his ward. The problem is that this
has to be handled on a City-wide basis, not just on a one-road situation.
Councillor Brooks stated that the
Ashton Station Road problem is not unique and he has discussed this road with
the City Manager a number of times, and has arranged for him to drive this
road. He cited the example of how
ridiculous this is; a City plough, ploughing down the road, stops 500 feet from
its end. The road is more mud than
gravel.
Moved by Councillor G. Brooks
WHEREAS, the
conditions of our boundary roads have been identified from residents of the
east, west and south on numerous occasions through public delegations at ARAC
and RIAC as well as through written correspondence, and;
WHEREAS, the
ongoing operations and maintenance of these boundary roads is shared with our
neighbouring municipalities;
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED THAT staff in Public Works and Services be directed to review the
condition of our boundary roads and ditches, and report back to ARAC;
THEREFORE BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff work with the Public Works Departments of our
neighbouring municipalities to develop a strategy to ensure that these roads
and ditches are maintained within the parameters of City standards.
CARRIED
Mr. Webster, representing the Rural
Issues Advisory Committee, spoke to 2 motions passed by RIAC at its meeting of November 27, 2007
dealing with a 3% cap on housing in rural villages and rural servicing. A copy
of the RIAC minutes and motions are held on file with the City Clerk’s office.
On the first point of the cap, he
stated that this had been a traditional percentage for build-out and RIAC felt
it was an appropriate cap. It was felt it could constrain developers and allow
for new residents to integrate into rural areas. RIAC would like ARAC to consider this as an approach to managed
growth. On the second point he stated
that it was incumbent on ARAC to direct City staff to consider on-site
servicing as a first choice for servicing in rural areas.
Chair Jellett stated that the first
motion put forth by RIAC was fairly straightforward but that he difficulty with
the second motion.
Councillor Brooks stated that in
terms of capping, he would love to be able to do it but doesn’t feel the City
could, since it would be challenged often by the OMB. This was tried by former Rideau Township and the lawyer at the
time could not defend the position. He
stated that he supported limiting growth, did not know how this could be best
done, and was not sure a specific number could be put in there.
Chair Jellett suggested that it be
referred to the Official Plan review for staff to determine what can or cannot
be done.
Councillor El-Chantiry agreed as he
had difficulties with some of the motion’s wording and recommendations.
The Committee’s direction to staff
is to refer these motions for review to the Official Plan review.
INQUIRIES
DEMANDES DES
RENSEIGNMENTS
OTHER BUSINESS
AUTRES
QUESTIONS
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
Original signed by Original
signed by
M. Desjardins Councillor
R. Jellett
Committee
Coordinator Chair
