Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee Comité
de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales MINUTES 58 / PROCÈS-VERBAL
58 Thursday, 8 July 2010, 4:30 p.m. le jeudi 8 juillet 2010, 16 h 30 Richmond
Memorial Community Centre, 6095 Perth Street, Richmond Centre communautaire commémoratif
de Richmond, 6095, rue Perth, Richmond |
Present / Présent : D.
Thompson (Chair/Président), E. El-Chantiry (Vice-Chair/Vice-Président)
Councillors / Conseillers G. Brooks, R. Jellett
Regrets / Excuses: Councillor
/ Conseiller G. Hunter
DECLARATIONS OF
INTEREST
DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT
No
declarations of interest were filed.
CONFIRMATION
OF MINUTES
RATIFICATION DU PROCÈS-VERBAL
ARAC Minutes 56 of Thursday, 27 May 2010, and
Minutes 57 - Monday, 14 June 2010 were confirmed.
The Committee Chair read a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone
who intended to appeal the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan
Amendments listed as Items 5 and 7 on today’s agenda must either voice their
objections at the public meeting or submit their comments in writing prior to
the Amendment(s) being adopted by City Council on 14 July 2010, failing which,
the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) might dismiss all or part of the
appeals. In addition, it was noted that
applicants could appeal the matter to the OMB if Council did not adopt an
amendment within 120 days for Zoning, or 180 days for an Official Plan
Amendment, of receipt of the application.
At the outset,
Chair Thompson outlined the structure of the present meeting, explaining that
consideration of agenda items would proceed in order, save for Item No. 7, Village of Richmond Community Design Plan,
which was timed for discussion at 7:00 p.m.
reports
INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES AND COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY
SERVICES D’INFRASTRUCTURE ET VIABILITE DES
COLLECTIVITES
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAUX
1. UPPER FLOWING CREEK MUNICIPAL DRAIn
INSTALLATIONS MUNICIPALES DE drainage
Upper Flowing Creek
ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0071
ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0016
(Original report deferred from meeting of 27 May 2010 /
Rapport original reporté de la réunion
du 27 mai 2010) RIDEAU-GOULBOURN (21)
Councillor Brooks explained that he was asking
for a further deferral of the consideration of this matter because, to date,
time had proven inadequate to address questions raised in discussions at a
meeting held with the original 19 petitioners on 15 June 2010. Mr. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, Corporate
Development and Environmental Law Branch, Legal Services, City of Ottawa,
concurred that staff were in support of a deferral of this item to the
Committee’s 26 August 2010 meeting.
Chair Thompson noted that two speakers had
registered to speak in opposition to this matter, but suggested that as
deferral was being proposed, the speakers would not be speaking at the present
time, but could do so on a subsequent occasion.
Mr. Marc advised that although not a requirement, past practice, at the
discretion of the Committee, had been to allow people to submit their names to
speak to the issue of deferral.
Mr. Ken McRae said he did not support deferral. Referencing a posting on Councillor Brooks’
website regarding a meeting held with petitioners on this matter, Mr. McRae
expressed the opinion that the petitioners were seeking to slough parts of the
overall cost of the proposed municipal drain onto other taxpayers, which he
felt was inappropriate.
Ms. Dawn O’Leary, Dragonluck Kennels, explained that although she was not one of
the petitioners, she owns a significant amount of property concerned with this
issue, at the top end of Branch No. 1 of the proposed municipal drain. In terms of deferral, she agreed with the
need for additional discussion, but reminded the Committee that at its meeting
of 27 May, a request had been made to include other affected landowners in
discussions of this matter, and she again requested to be kept informed of
future meetings.
There being no further discussion, the
Committee considered the following Motion.
Moved by Councillor G. Brooks:
That
the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend that Council adopt the Engineer's
Report for the Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain and give first and second
reading to the attached By-law in accordance with Sections 42 and 45 of the Drainage Act of Ontario.
DEFERRED
TO
26 AUGUST 2010
REGULAR ITEMS
POINTS RÉGULIERS
INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES AND COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY
SERVICES D’INFRASTRUCTURE ET VIABILITE DES
COLLECTIVITES
PLANNING and growth
management
URBANISME et
Gestion de la croissance
2. Development of a City of ottawa municipal
concurrence process for communication towers
élaboration d’un accord municipal de la ville d’Ottawa
concernant les tours de transmission
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0123 City-wide
/ À l'échelle de la Ville
That
the Planning and Environment Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee direct staff to develop a municipal concurrence and public
consultation process for communication tower proposals in accordance with
Industry Canada’s regulatory framework and report back to the appropriate
Standing Committees and Council for approval.
CARRIED
3. OTTAWA’S RURAL CLEAN WATER GRANTS
PROGRAM
programme de subvention pour l’assainissement de l’eau
en milieu rural
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0132 West-Carleton
(5), cumberland (19)
Osgoode
(20), Rideau Goulbourn (21)
Councillor Desroches noted that although he
represents an urban area, its placement outside of the City’s Greenbelt may, at
one time, have characterized it as rural.
He expressed concern with the design and scope of the program in that he
felt considerations on the issue of clean water should be examined from a watershed perspective, and not centre
arbitrarily around a rural/urban
distinction.
The Councillor outlined that the program has
not historically dealt with grants for septic system decommissioning, and will
not do so under the current plan. In
response to a query as to why the City was not considering grants for
decommissioning to ensure that only the most rigorous septic systems remain,
Ms. Lise Guèvremont, Planner, Land Use
and Natural Systems Unit, Policy Development and Urban Design Branch, Planning
and Growth Management, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability,
explained that well and septic system upgrades had been funded during the first nine years of the
program (in operation since 2000), but that well decommissioning had not. She noted that in 2009, ARAC and Council had
voted to remove well and septic system upgrades from the program, and that a
report, to be prepared by ISCS staff for Committee’s consideration by the
fourth quarter (Q4) of 2010, will address the City’s role with regard to
education and incentives related to wells and septic systems.
Councillor Desroches asked why the City’s
eligibility criteria do not include communities within the urban boundary which
may be considered potentially high for environmental risk factors (i.e., Rideau
Glen, Heart’s Desire or Honey Gables).
He said residents in these areas have approached the Conservation
Authorities, only to be told that they are ineligible because of an arbitrary
line that places them within the urban area.
Ms. Guèvremont explained that historically,
much effort and money had been dedicated to addressing urban stormwater
management issues to improve water quality, whereas nothing had been done in
the rural area. The Rural Clean Water
Program was developed to address this issue, by enabling rural residents to
undertake environmental projects on their land.
She said this was why the urban boundary had been chosen as the cut-off.
Councillor Desroches suggested there is
seemingly little difference in terms of the value to environmental protection
between a Streamline Stabilization Grant in
an area like Honey Gables, and a rural area farther upstream. Ms. Guèvremont suggested that other programs,
i.e., the City’s Community Environmental Projects Grants Program (CEPGP), are
available within the urban area to perform such works.
She added that staff are proposing that well
decommissioning grants continue for 2011 to fund the decommissioning of
abandoned and unused wells, which differ from wells in urban areas and that are
part of well and septic systems.
Councillor Desroches said he was pleased that
staff had also included a pilot project to try to deal with farms within the
urban boundary, but felt a programming gap still existed, in that there remains
a need to provide an incentive for residents within the urban boundary to
decommission their wells. He said he
would ask Councillor Jellett to move, on his behalf, an amendment to the
recommendation, to request increased funding for the decommissioning of wells
within the urban boundary.
Chair Thompson introduced Ms. Josée Brizard,
Director of Conservation Programs, Water Quality Department (WQD) and Ms. Ronda
Boutz, Water Quality Coordinator, WQD, South Nation Conservation Authority
(SNCA), to respond to any questions that might arise during discussions. He asked if there is a waiting list for the
grants program. Ms. Boutz outlined that
the SNCA is currently using 2010 funding to address a waiting list from 2009. She explained that due to high demand, the
Authority had started a contact list
as of 17 September 2009, but that when Committee decided to remove wells and
septic systems from the program, the SNCA had not continued to maintain an
active list of participants, on the basis that this would not continue to form
part of the program. Hence, the SNCA has
contact names but is not maintaining a waiting list at this point.
Responding to a request for comment from
Councillor Jellett regarding an increase in funding, requiring an increase to
the levy of $50,000.00 to include the decommissioning of wells within the urban
area, Ms. Boutz offered that the Authority would have no objection, adding she
appreciated an acknowledgement that there would be an increased cost associated
with such a proposal. She said questions
over the potential number of decommissionings had arisen in discussions with
City staff, but she believed the program was manageable in terms of funding and
sustainability, provided it did not involve an excessive number of individuals
on waiting lists annually who could not be serviced.
Councillor Jellett asked if staff could provide
an estimate of the number of wells that might be decommissioned in a given year
within the urban area if this program were to apply to such lands. Ms. Guèvremont reiterated that the issue of
septic system and well upgrades within the urban area will be examined in a
report in Q4 of 2010. She estimated that
there are approximately 1,500 households on well and septic systems within the
urban area, and noted that in past years, the program has funded between eight
and ten well decommissionings per year.
She suggested that increased interest could overwhelm such local
improvement programs. She explained that
current emphasis was on priority projects in the rural area such as stream bank
planting and farming projects.
Councillor Jellett agreed that the ranking of
applications in terms of greater value to environmental safety could be
difficult. He suggested a way around
this would be to set up separate accounts; $50,000.00 for an urban decommission
program and $200,000.00 for the rural area, with $50,000.00 forming an interim
amount until the receipt of a full study, with program eligibility criteria to
include properties within the urban boundary for a well decommissioning grant.
Councillor Desroches added that in earlier
discussions, the Rural Issues Advisory Committee had supported the concepts of
providing support to the urban area as well, and of not drawing the line
specifically at the urban boundary.
Moved by R. Jellett:
That
the Rural Clean Water Grant Program budget be increased by $50,000.00 as a
separate account, and that the program eligibility criteria for that account
include properties within the urban boundary for the well decommissioning
grant.
CARRIED
Councillor Brooks then spoke to the issue of
well decommissioning being of paramount importance, particularly in the rural,
rather than the urban area, because of the many open wells that are of a depth
of between 35 and 50 feet and which, at this level, contribute to the
contamination of aquifers. Noting
previous attempts to introduce decommissioning of septic systems in urban areas
(i.e., Manotick), he asked why such attempts had not been addressed in the
present report. Ms. Guèvremont offered
that the issues involving septic systems and wells were complex, including
issues of growth, as well as connection to central services. She said staff felt these questions would be
better addressed by Infrastructure Planning staff, looking at a number of City
initiatives (including the Groundwater Management Plan, education workshops,
etc.), to be included in the afore-mentioned subsequent report for Q4 of 2010.
Councillor Brooks thanked Ms. Guèvremont for
her response, but suggested the real reasons that the City and Province pay for
septic system upgrades in urban areas, but not for decommissioning, are that
although such undertakings are more prudent from the perspective of
maintenance, they often prove economically prohibitive.
There being no further discussion, the
Committee considered the report recommendations as amended by the foregoing.
That
the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve:
1. The renewal of the Rural Clean Water
Grants Program for an additional five years, ending 31 December 2015 and the
allocation of $200,000 per year under the special levy to the South Nation
Conservation Authority for the Rural Clean Water Grants Program;
2. Entering into an agreement with the
Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association to deliver top-ups to the
Canada-Ontario Farm Stewardship Program through the Rural Clean Water Grants
Program;
3. A Partnership with the Green Acres and
Shoreline Naturalization Programs to deliver top-ups through the Rural Clean
Water Grants Program;
4. That properties must be located outside
of the urban boundary to be eligible for funding, with the exception of
projects on farms in the urban area. A one-year pilot to include farm projects
within the urban boundary is proposed. A condition of being considered is that
the farm operator must have completed an Environmental Farm Plan, and;
5. Annual reporting to Committee and
Council regarding the uptake and effectiveness of the program, and;
6. That the Rural Clean Water Grant
Program budget be increased by $50,000.00 as a separate account, and that the
program eligibility criteria for that account include properties within the
urban boundary for the well decommissioning grant.
CARRIED
as amended
4. RURAL REVIEW - INFORMATION REPORT
examen rural - rapport d’information
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0128 City-wide
/ À l'échelle de la Ville
Chair Thompson announced that he wished to
direct staff to meet with the Greater
Ottawa Home Builders Association (GOHBA) to work out a schedule for work,
as outlined in the report, and to report back in September with an agreed-upon
schedule.
Mr. Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering
Consultants,
introduced Ms. January Cohen,
Soloway, Wright LLP, both representing appellants to Official Plan
Amendment (OPA) 76. Mr. Chown referenced
letters to the Committee from Soloway, Wright and Ms. Janet Bradley of the firm
Borden, Ladner, Gervais, LLP. He said
the current report arose from discussions and submissions centred on the five
year Official Plan review and joint meetings between the Agriculture and Rural
Affairs and Planning and Environment Committees in the Spring of 2009 and
subsequent debate by Council in June of 2009.
He reminded Committee that the appeals to OPA 76 relate, among other
things, to policies regarding rural lot severances, and commented that the
Council-imposed five-year moratorium on new country lot subdivisions should not
exist. Mr. Chown said he appreciated the
Chair’s proposed direction to staff to establish a more practical timeline, and
voiced his concerns with the length of the process, in that the studies he felt
should have commenced over a year ago had not yet occurred, and that the
current report was only making reference to the preparation of another
report. The speaker also commented that
although the work program responds to Council’s direction, it fails to respond
to issues raised in discussions over a year ago, i.e., the examination of
alternate strategies for regulating rural lot severances. Mr. Chown felt it would be worthwhile if such
were incorporated into the present exercise.
In conclusion, Mr. Chown also asked for clarification of staff comments
contained in the report’s “Legal/Risk Management Implications” section.
Ms. Cohen asked that any meetings to discuss
this matter with industry stakeholders include noted her clients, Thomas
Cavanaugh Construction and Carson Holdings, as they are not members of the
GOHBA.
Mr. Marc explained that Council has taken the
position that the moratorium should exist; hence, although the legal comment
includes wording to the effect that “…the
City Clerk and Solicitor’s Department will seek the dismissal of the current
appeals to OPA 76…”, this did not mean that the City will move to dismiss
without a hearing, acknowledging that there is some planning merit to the
arguments being advanced by the speakers.
However, he outlined that the City will be seeking a hearing, likely in
the Spring of 2011, consistent with Council’s will as expressed in OPA 76, to
have their appeals dismissed.
In response to questions from Councillor
El-Chantiry, Ms. Krista Libman, Planner, Land Use and Natural Systems Unit,
Policy Development and Urban Design Branch, PGM, ISCS, said that a detailed
report including specific work plans for each of the projects, and a detailed
consultation strategy, will be presented in early 2011. She explained that the current information
report speaks to projects staff are working on at present, provides a
communications opportunity to mitigate duplicate meetings with the community,
and explains staff’s research efforts in terms of background and
best-practices. Responding to additional
questions, Mr. Marc also confirmed that there are several appellants to the
Country Estate Lot provisions, and to the Village Lot provisions.
Councillor El-Chantiry reminded staff he had
initially asked for a report speaking to the revitalization of villages to
encourage development within village boundaries. Mr. John Moser, General Manager, Planning and
Growth Management, ISCS, recalled that discussions had centred on the context
of development for the Village of Carp, and said staff will continue to pursue
this initiative to provide a sense of what can
be done to help appropriate development within villages, with a report
to return in December or January.
Noting that much development is taking place
outside of villages, Councillor El-Chantiry suggested that in addition to the
particulars of the afore-mentioned report, staff include a study of village
sustainability, speaking to what the City can do to encourage more development
to village boundaries, and specifically for the villages named in the current
report. Mr. Moser said he would take
this as a friendly reminder to staff.
Referencing the idea of timeframes, required as
part of the planning process, Councillor Brooks asked if there was a way to put
timeframes on responses to Council directives.
He expressed frustration, in that earlier directives regarding certain
planning issues, i.e., clustering, raised in 2009 as a part of the
afore-mentioned moratorium, had to date remained unaddressed. Mr. Moser said the current report does speak
to the issue of how development should proceed in the rural area. He explained that PGM’s Policy group’s
current priority is to defend the City’s OP before the OMB, but he assured the
Committee that staff’s review over the next term will include an examination of
clustering.
There being no further discussion the Committee
“Received” the report, with direction to staff as outlined below.
That
the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee receive this report for
information.
RECEIVED
DIRECTION TO STAFF:
The City Clerk and Solicitor’s Department to
outline to Committee the process that staff intend to undertake with respect to
the appellants to the Country Lot Moratorium.
5. ZONING
- 4974 (5026) Bank Street
zONAGE - 4974 (5026), rue bank
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0109 OSGOODE (20)
(This
application is subject to the provisions of Bill 51.)
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250
to change the zoning part of 4974 Bank Street from Rural Countryside Zone
(RU) to Rural Countryside Zone Exception
142r (RU[142r]) and Rural Commercial Subzone 2 (RC2), as detailed in Document 2
and as shown on Document 1.
CARRIED
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0104 City
Wide/À l'échelle de la Ville
That
the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and Planning and Environment
Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve the Environmental Impact
Statement Guidelines as detailed in Document 1, including the Environmental
Impact Statement Form and the Environmental Impact Statement Decision Tool
contained in the document as Appendices 1 and 2, for use in the development
review process, effective immediately.
2. Direct staff to provide a transition
period during which applicants will not be required to adhere strictly to the
new Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines in the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement for a specific development or site alteration
application if, prior to the approval and adoption of these Environmental
Impact Statement Guidelines by City Council, the applicant has: (a) received formal direction from City
planning staff on the preparation and requirements of an Environmental Impact
Statement for that specific development or site alteration application (i.e.
during a pre-application consultation or other consultation with City staff on
the specific content of that Environmental Impact Statement); and, (b),
commenced preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with
the direction from City staff.
3. Direct staff to undertake a review of the
Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines’ content and process, beginning one
full year after implementation, and considering any written feedback received
from local stakeholder organizations or members of the public in that time, and
to report back to Committees and Council on the results of the review.
CARRIED
7. VILLAGE OF RICHMOND COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN,
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT, VILLAGE OF RICHMOND WATER AND
SANITARY MASTER SERVICING STUDY AND CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PHASES 1, 2,
3 AND 4, vILLAGE OF rICHMOND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND VILLAGE OF
RICHMOND TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
PLAN DE CONCEPTION COMMUNAUTAIRE DU VILLAGE DE
RICHMOND, MODIFICATION DU PLAN OFFICIEL, MODIFICATION DU RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE,
PLAN DIRECTEUR DE VIABILISATION ET ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE DE PORTÉE
GÉNÉRALE PHASES 1, 2, 3 ET 4 DES SERVICES D’EAUX ET D’ÉGOUTS DU VILLAGE DE
RICHMOND, PLAN DE GESTION ENVIRONNEMENTALE DU VILLAGE DE RICHMOND ET PLAN
DIRECTEUR DES TRANSPORTS DU VILLAGE DE RICHMOND
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0122 RIDEAU-GOULBOURN (21)
Prior to consideration of this item, Councillor
Brooks took a moment to inform the assemblage of the untimely passing of Mrs.
Pierrette Webster, a long-time resident and active community member within the
Village of Richmond, and wife of Mr. Bruce Webster, President of the Richmond
Village Association (RVA). As Mr.
Webster was unable to attend the present meeting under the circumstances, Ms.
Judy Wagdin, Acting President of the RVA, spoke about Mrs. Webster’s community
involvement and contributions to the Village of Richmond, following which, in
respect to her memory, the audience observed a moment of silence. Following the moment of silence, Chair
Thompson thanked Councillor Brooks and Ms. Wagdin for their kind words, and he
asked Ms. Wagdin to convey the Committee’s sympathies to Mr. Webster.
The Chair then outlined the format of the
meeting, with staff presenting first, followed by Mattamy Homes, Mr. David
George, Chair of the Richmond Community Design Plan (CDP) Steering
Committee, Mr. Robert McKinley, who would speak on behalf of
approximately 75 village residents, and other speakers who wished to provide
comment. As this item had been timed for
7:00 p.m., the Committee Chair re-read a statement required under the Planning Act, advising anyone who
intended to appeal this Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment that they
must either voice their objections at the meeting or submit their comments in
writing prior to the Amendment being adopted by Council on 14 July 2010,
failing which, the OMB might dismiss all or part of such appeals. In addition, the Chair noted that applicants
could appeal the matter to the OMB if Council did not adopt an amendment within
120 days of receipt of the application for Zoning, or 180 days for an Official
Plan Amendment.
Mr. Donald Morse, Planner, Development Review
(Suburban Services Branch), PGM, ISCS, introduced Mr. Dana Collings, Program
Manager, Community Planning and Urban Design, Policy Development and Urban
Design Branch, PGM, ISCS. Messrs. Morse
and Collings were before the Committee to present the proposal for the Village
of Richmond CDP. Mr. Morse said the
report had been a collaborative effort involving the Richmond Steering
Committee, RVA, City staff and various landowners and developers, who had all
worked together on the development of the CDP.
He then outlined that the CDP process had involved nine official public
meetings, 25 Steering Committee meetings, two design workshops, the
establishment of a community profile, and a 10-12 page visioning work book,
mailed to all households. Mr. Morse
added that input had also been received from 175 returns to mail-outs, along
with regular newspaper coverage. He also
listed the names of approximately 30 individuals within the Richmond Village
community who had participated on either the Richmond Steering Committee or its
Sub-committees (names listed within the Richmond CDP document, held on file
with the City Clerk).
Messrs Morse and Collings then spoke to a
detailed PowerPoint slide presentation (held on file with the City Clerk) which
provided a high-level overview touching of the following six documents (also
held on file with the City Clerk):
·
Village of Richmond Community Design Plan
(CDP);
·
Village of Richmond Secondary Plan (OPA);
·
Zoning By-Law Amendment (ZBL)
·
Village of Richmond Environmental Management
Plan (EMP);
·
Village of Richmond Water and Sanitary Master
Servicing Study (and Class EA
Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4), and;
·
Village of Richmond Transportation Master Plan
(TMP).
Councillor Jellett thanked staff for the
presentation, but noted the presentation had highlighted that much work was
still needed to address issues involving the stormwater pond, sump pumps and
critically, financing. He asked why the
Committee was being asked to approve an OPA at present when so much information
was still outstanding.
Mr. Morse felt it was important to proceed
sooner rather than later, acknowledging that the multimillion dollar project
contained many unknowns. He offered that
it was in the City’s interest to minimize the unknowns, and instead focus on
issues involving land use design, heritage, etc., that staff were bringing
forward. He said the others could be
dealt with later through other procedures.
He said that the members of the Steering Committee, involved with the
project for over two years, also wished to see their efforts come to fruition,
so that they could move on with their own personal endeavours.
Councillor El-Chantiry questioned whether it
was necessary to approve all of the CDP elements addressed during Mr. Morse’s
presentation in order to move forward with the project. Specifically, the Councillor asked whether
the financial part of the CDP needed immediate approval, given the
unknowns. Mr. Morse said he did not
believe so, as he believed the City had done similar work previously, and that
work on the unknown elements, i.e., financial plan, drainage, etc., could be
done afterward without affecting the Plan.
Mr. Morse suggested that elements within the Plan, i.e., grading and
drainage, might be subject to change, but that elements such as residential
designations would not be, regardless of drainage. He offered that in the event that such
changes did occur, staff could return with the financial plan and make the
required changes. Responding to
additional queries from the Councillor regarding the necessity of approving the
Village of Richmond EMP, Mr. Morse explained that he saw such elements as all
being part of one package, with no perceivable harm in approving the EMP, which
he believed was not controversial, and was proposing specific
improvements. Councillor Brooks
suggested that definitive answers were needed from those who were experts in
the various areas of the Plan to give a greater feeling of comfort.
There being no further questions of staff,
Chair Thompson introduced Ms. Susan Murphy, Project Manager for the Richmond
CDP Project, Mattamy Homes. Ms.
Murphy in turn introduced Messrs. Jim Constantine, Principal, Community
Planning, and Gonzalo Echeverria, Project Manager, Looney Ricks Kiss (LRK),
Mattamy Homes’ Community Planning and Architecture Consultant, retained to
assist in both Mattamy’s proposal and the Richmond CDP project. They have, with the endorsement of the
Steering Committee, participated and assisted in actualizing the vision for the
Village. Tonight’s presentation is
focusing on the process and the design elements that have come out both for the
Village and our plan, consistent with the Village vision.
Messrs. Constantine and Echeverria spoke to a
detailed PowerPoint slide presentation (held on file with the City Clerk),
serving to provide an overview of Mattamy Homes’ proposal vis-à-vis the
Richmond CDP project, focusing on process and design elements common to Mattamy
Homes and the Richmond CDP, consistent with the Village vision.
PUBLIC DELEGATIONS
Mr. David George, Chair, Richmond CDP Steering
Committee, said he
became involved with the CDP process out of both curiosity, and a desire to
ensure there would be no repeat of the same issues as had occurred between
Minto and the Manotick community. He
offered that the Steering Committee had engaged in a process where all parties,
including Mattamy and other developers, had been invited to the table and had
been afforded an opportunity to speak; despite being criticized for having
involved Mattamy in discussions on the future of the community, Mr. George felt
real discussion about the future of the community could not occur without
Mattamy’s presence. He offered that
Mattamy had made efforts to involve the community, and had tailored its
development to suit the Richmond community instead of offering an
“off-the-shelf” solution. Mr. George
thanked those who had been involved in the process, along with the various communities
that had proceeded with CDP’s of their own, which the Steering Committee had
followed as models for its own. Mr.
George offered that although the members of the Steering Committee are not
experts on all topics covered, they are cognizant of what they want for their
community. He said he hoped that as the
process continues, the community will continue to work together to make
Richmond a place where people want to live.
Councillor Brooks and Chair Thompson thanked
Mr. George for his efforts in Chairing the Richmond CDP Steering Committee,
those on the Steering Committee for the work they had accomplished to benefit
the Richmond Village community, and City staff.
Mr. Robert McKinley, President, Rural Council
of Ottawa-Carleton, also
speaking on behalf of the RVA, stated that he did not believe the 15 minutes he
had been allotted to speak on behalf of the (approximately) 75 signatories to a
petition he had submitted (held on file with the City Clerk) in opposition to
the Richmond CDP project, was adequate to make a presentation outlining the
concerns that the RVA wished to raise through him. He explained that the RVA is opposed to this
project which, if it proceeds, the RVA will oppose before the OMB. Mr. McKinley said that in terms of Planning Act requirements, the time
would be insufficient to allow for a full presentation on the concerns and
arguments he wished to address. He said
he would make a full written submission to Council to protect his and his clients’
options.
Mr. McKinley then spoke to what he considered
to be a lack of substance in the presentations the Committee had heard
earlier. He said outstanding fundamental
concerns needed to be addressed, not only for future residents, but for current
residents in the Village and in other rural areas. Speaking to a prepared statement he had
earlier mailed to the Committee (held on file with the City Clerk), containing
a summary of his recommendations, Mr. McKinley touched on aspects of Financial Implications, Sanitary Systems,
Water and Stormwater Management, and Planning
Policy. He asked that the report be tabled for further consideration,
pending action on his recommendations.
A summary of his comments is provided
below.
Financial
Implications
·
Staff
projections (contained in report) for Capital investment required - $69
million;
·
Development
of CDP and infrastructure expansion not anticipated in Capital budget;
·
Significant
implications Re: funding formula, inadequately commented upon by staff;
·
Outstanding
questions Re: amount of land needed, whether funding adequate to fund
infrastructure for OP requirements, where money to come from and how to be
spent;
·
Current OP
compliant with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS); additional land
unnecessary; leads to “piecemeal” planning outside of planning review process;
·
No new
home buyers added to inventory by moving 2,000-4,000 new homes into Richmond
from elsewhere in City; leads to “dilution” of available buyers;
·
Process
akin to designing house without budget; costs unknown, to be determined at
later date; example of bad planning;
·
No
methodology to deal with partial servicing; no funding identified for extending
water services into Village, decommissioning of private wells (should wells run
dry), no identification of who pays, and hydrogeological evaluation
insufficient to assuage residents’ concerns Re: adequate supply; full service
plan needed.
Sanitary
Systems
·
Rationale
that Richmond sanitary system at capacity is only partially correct;
·
Staff have
identified major infiltration of non-sewage water into system; sewage generated
by homes - 10 litres per second (l/s); infiltration from sump pumps - 70 l/s;
·
No City
By-law to remove extraneous flows by decommissioning septic fields;
·
Suggestion
- Either enact authority to require owners to decommission, or provide funding
for same; City calculations indicate three-fold expansion of servicing capacity
for pump station as a result, with little to no Capital investment;
Stormwater
Management
·
City
should not lend itself to process where proper processes have not been
followed, to allow for scrutiny, as required under the Environmental Assessment Act;
·
Stormwater
pond development being pursued by private company, with knowledge that facility
will end up as future City installation, in public hands; suggest this is being
done to avoid application of legislation; developer should be submitting
application as joint applicant with City, following proper EA process;
·
Suggest
directing staff to follow proper procedures; should not be done piecemeal;
serious issues need serious consideration.
Water
·
Engineering
report suggests adequate water supply in deep aquifer to service proposed
development; not in dispute;
·
At issue;
whether or not developer’s report adequately evaluates potential risk for use of aquifer, which services not only
Richmond, but other jurisdictions;
·
Suggest
Committee direct staff to bring back clearer, simpler layman’s assessment and
recommendations regarding what risks may/may not have been addressed, to provide
greater comfort that process was properly followed;
·
Not
requesting peer review; asking
Committee to make informed decision based on advice of accountable body.
Planning
Policy
·
Argument
that opposition to application for secondary plan (OPA) would not be supported
(i.e., Manotick / Minto case, lost before OMB) is untrue;
·
Planning
process in Ontario commences with question of whether infrastructure necessary
to implement planning decision has been planned or provided for;
·
City has
responsibility to look at ability to fund Capital costs of project as beginning
point; City Solicitor comment - unless a Provincially-mandated program, start
point is question of whether Council has jurisdiction to make unfettered
decisions over how to spend money and implement infrastructure without
interference from courts or OMB; not done through planning process; done through budget
process.
Mr. McKinley also said he believed the City had
departed from Provincial policy in its own OP.
He asked that Committee direct staff to respond to questions he had
raised, and wondered why the City would proceed to an OMB hearing if
fundamental departures in process could be addressed by a more complete review,
or a different process. In conclusion,
he said he did not want to stop what was happening, but wished to ensure that
it be done properly.
Responding to questions from Councillors
El-Chantiry and Brooks regarding his reference to $69 million in Capital costs,
Mr. McKinley explained this was a calculation of the figures contained in the
staff report, belonging to transportation infrastructure, sanitary upgrades and
water improvements.
Councillor El-Chantiry referenced Mr.
McKinley’s caveat regarding well-protection, and pointed out that in a Kanata
North development, where a developer had been proven to have negatively
impacted on wells, owners had been compensated with new wells. The Councillor said this was standard
procedure; otherwise, nobody would be able to build in rural areas for fear of
disrupting existing well infrastructure.
Mr. McKinley offered that by undergoing the
current process, the City was offending the PPS by suggesting that settlement
areas be left partially serviced. He
explained that when extending central systems into a portion of the Village,
Provincial policy states that this should only be done under very restricted
circumstances. He said this is an
acknowl-edgement of a potential risk. With
no user protection in place, he suggested that the City provide a backup plan
to provide for a servicing strategy, if necessary, to bring communal water to
the remainder of the Village, and to provide a funding opportunity, to be
relied upon if necessary.
He asserted that residents have a legitimate
right to be concerned with the unknown, were being told that nothing would, but
that should the worst case come to pass, they would be on their own.
Councillor El-Chantiry acknowledged that work
would need to be done beforehand, but suggested many of Mr. McKinley’s concerns
could be addressed at a later stage when dealing with engineering and servicing
matters. The Councillor also expressed
concern with Mr. McKinley’s comments pertaining to project documentation, and
his suggestion that those in the employ of Mattamy Homes may have skewed their
reporting.
In response, Mr. McKinley cited the example of
Manotick, where the City had proceeded with an OPA, based on a traffic study
that had been peer-reviewed at the City’s request. In that case, two engineers had reached the
same conclusion, but at the OMB hearing, a third engineer hired by the City to
defend Council’s position had arrived at a different one. Mr. McKinley offered that the difference was
not in whether or not the engineers were honest, creditable professionals, but
in whether or not the underlying assumptions they were making were
sufficient. He suggested the real issue
was the level of risk being assumed, and further suggested that if there were
any outstanding concerns about the project, there would be little harm in procuring
the opinion of an independent evaluator, noting this was not the first time
questions had arisen regarding hydrogeology.
On the issue of potable water, Councillor
Brooks asked how the speaker had arrived at his conclusion that a problem
existed. Mr. McKinley said he had
arrived at no such conclusion, but had simply voiced the concerns of
residents. He suggested there were two
ways in which the City could have responded to such concerns; the first was to
identify the cost of extending water to the rest of the Village and provide a
funding formula for its implementation.
The second was to get a second opinion on the report. Mr. McKinley said he was not identifying whether
or not a problem existed, but was expressing that existing concerns were not
being answered.
At Councillor Jellett’s request, Mr. McKinley
expanded his reference to potential risks, should there be a determination, as
a result of new information, that changes would be required in future. He cautioned that because the whole process
is integrated, decisions regarding changes to one aspect of the project have
the potential to dramatically affect others, hence the warning not to attempt
to perform work in a piecemeal fashion.
He suggested it was prudent to ask questions to allow for a better
understanding in the context of the full information available.
In light of the preceding, Councillor Jellett
asked Mr. Marc to consider questions pertaining to whether Committee’s approval
of the project would commit the City to an irreversible position, regardless of
potential future costs, sump pump issues, etc.
He said he believed this was a valid concern, and that he wished to
ensure that the risk of making changes, on the City’s part, would be nil.
Mr. Bruce Muir, Organic Gardens of Richmond, a property owner and resident of Richmond for
the past 14 years, read from a prepared statement (held on file with the City Clerk) outlining his concerns with the
potential effect of the Richmond CDP on his organic vegetable garden and future
property uses. Mr. Muir’s comments
included that the Village Commercial
designation seeks to enforce a pedestrian environment, more appropriate to an
urban/suburban setting than to a rural village where driving is more of a
necessity. He believed a Highway Commercial designation was more
appropriate. Mr. Muir also sought
clarification of the term ‘Other
Stakeholders’, pertaining to Financial Implications, to provide greater
comfort to existing residents. The
speaker felt that Capital improvements for the Jock River Corridor should be
paid from future Development Charges (DC’s), to be generated if the western
lands were developed, as approval of the report as presented instructs staff to
impose a Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) levy on all residents,
which he felt was unnecessary. Regarding
the improvement to water quality in Flowing Creek, Mr. Muir noted the report
states that a Capital project should be established to fund design and
implementation of one or more potential stormwater retrofit projects identified
in the Environmental Improvement Plan, but he raised a concern that such
projects do not appear to be identified.
Lastly, he pointed out that the Jock River floodplain is designated a one-zone floodplain in Richmond, whereas
Constance Bay is designated a two-zone
floodplain. He suggested Richmond be
designated similarly prior to the finalization of the CDP, which may prove
advantageous, in allowing a redesign to remove sump pumps from the system.
Responding to questions from Councillor Brooks
as to how the designation of a two-zone floodplain would help Mr. Muir, he
explained that his land is in the floodplain, the implications of which he had
been aware at the time of purchase. He
raised concerns with nearby development draining through Flowing Creek,
explaining that the former Township of Goulbourn had, through a By-law,
collected $1,000 per lot from homes in Richmond and the south end of
Stittsville to pay for future stormwater management along Flowing Creek. Mr. Muir suggested the reason this was not
being done was because of the one-zone floodplain designation in Richmond. He said a two-zone designation might allow
for the construction of a greenhouse on part of his land.
Councillor El-Chantiry said he shared the
speaker’s concerns, and asked staff to respond at an appropriate time during
the meeting. Councillor Jellett asked
staff to provide an idea of how best to respond to presenters’ recommendations,
as he felt the Committee was unqualified to make such determinations.
Mr. Gary Foster, a landowner and resident of Richmond for 14
years, spoke on behalf of five family members who own land at the corner of
Ottawa Street and Eagleson Road, currently zoned Light Industrial. He said
his family, along with two other families, represent the interests of over 60
landowners or residents in Richmond and Ottawa.
He said the group had collectively submitted their own concept plan to
the City regarding the rezoning of these industrial lands, which would be
affected by the Richmond CDP. He
provided details of the rezoning proposals, and of the land’s features. Recognizing the hard work that had been
performed by volunteers, the developers and City staff, Mr. Foster emphasized
that the group was not requesting amendment of the CDP, but the placement of a
hold on his subject lands to allow for the formation of a special study group
to re-evaluate the area with the group’s input and support. A copy of Mr. Foster’s full submission is
held on file with the City Clerk.
Ms. Elaine Morgan, former Vice-Chair, CDP
Steering Committee, a
Richmond resident since 1994, referenced Councillor Jellett’s query wherein he
had asked why there was a rush to proceed with the project. Ms. Morgan explained that when the CDP
Steering Committee was formed, members believed they would have opportunities
to discuss what they wished to see their village become. Although she acknowledged she had little
experience with technical matters, she sais she had experience in representation
and consultation, which she felt this process had lacked. As a result, she resigned her position, as
she felt the process had been taken over by the developer. Ms. Morgan said that at community meetings,
developers in attendance outnumbered residents, and the original 17-20 Steering
Committee members had dwindled to 13 within the last year.
Ms. Morgan said she had devoted much time and
energy into raising residents’ awareness and encouraging residents to attend
meetings, but said that many long-time Richmond residents had told her not to
waste her time as, in their words, “…the
developers always win.” When asking
residents why they did not wish to be a part of the process, Ms. Morgan
recounted the frequent response that they did not want to lend legitimacy to
the process, as they had expressed the view that the developers and City were
hand-in-hand.
Although she lauded the efforts of Messrs.
Constantine and Echeverria of LRK, whom she believed had a good sense of the
community, she felt that overall, the developers’ presentations were a
smokescreen for the actual process, with residents’ concerns remaining
unaddressed or ignored. In conclusion,
Ms. Morgan suggested this had not been exemplary model of a CDP process, and
that in future, residents should have the right to discuss, amongst themselves,
what it is they want for their community, following which developers can be
afforded an equal opportunity. At the
end of the process, Ms. Morgan said it is then Council’s job to have the two groups
meet to seek a compromise.
Mr. John Dawson, speaking on behalf of his wife, Mrs. Joan
Dawson, who has an interest in approximately 47 acres of land zoned Light Industrial in the vicinity of
Eagleson Road / Ottawa Street, read from a prepared statement (held on file
with the City Clerk) to speak to zoning matters. While acknowledging that much consultation
has taken place, Mr. Dawson felt that residents’ and landowners’ comments had
gone unheeded and that the planning process had not paid sufficient attention
to the industrial lands. Referring to
earlier comments, Mr. Dawson suggested the current plan for industrial lands
had not worked for the last 40 years, yet the City’s position was to leave the
zoning unchanged, to protect land for future jobs, as referenced in the PPS. Citing the need to attract jobs now, the
speaker referenced a concept plan to explore mixed use development of the
subject lands consisting of commercial, home office, residential and light
industrial, to satisfy the PPS and to provide a development of which the village
could be proud. He asked the Committee
to defer approximately 100 acres of the industrial lands for further study.
Ms. Allyson White, a 19-year old resident of Richmond, contended
that there is little support in Richmond for high density residential development
as proposed by Mattamy. She said she had
started a “Save Richmond” Facebook social networking group two years ago,
amassing over 600 members within five days, and was interviewed by both the
Ottawa Sun newspaper and on local TV.
She recounted that as a result of her efforts, she had been ridiculed by
a local newspaper for behaving more like a change-resistant elder than a
teenager. She said that in speaking with
those involved with project planning to see what could be done to prevent
development, she had been told that change was inevitable, and that residents
needed to learn to accept this reality.
Ms. White provided the Committee with a sampling of comments from the
Facebook group (held on file with the City Clerk) in support of her position. She said that despite her 19 years and
inexperience with planning matters, she is aware that people choose to live in
Richmond because of the lifestyle afforded by such a community; a sense of
security, a safe place to raise children, a low crime rate, and the community’s
rustic appeal. In conclusion, Ms. White
asked that Richmond be left alone, as the residents prefer things the way they
are.
Mr. Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering
Consultants, on behalf of Richmond Creek Estates Ltd., and Colonnade
Development Inc. He explained that Richmond Creek Estates owns
a significant portion of the lands in the northeast quadrant, and are
represented by Mr. Ron Milligan, a Steering Committee member who participated
in discussions. Mr. Chown said Colonnade
Development has an interest in Village
Core 1 land, which has a number of specific CDP policies to guide the
possible development of the site as a small community shopping centre to serve
the village. Mr. Chown said both clients
support the CDP and OPA, and he commended staff and Steering Committee efforts
in reaching this first step in the process, which will see a plan for the
village move forward. He reminded those
present that what was being considered for approval at present was the plan, with nothing yet ready to be built
on any of the future development lands, pending further studies (i.e.,
financing) and rigorous planning processes for either subdivisions, site plans
or rezoning. He encouraged Committee to
support the recommendations to move the process to its next steps.
Chair Thompson related this matter to the
Village of Greely, which he said also has a paucity of Light Industrial zoning. He
said Greely residents are interested in seeing more Light Commercial development to create job opportunities and to
reduce the need to travel outside of the community to work. In response to a question from Councillor
Thompson as to whether he believed that sequential development of the
commercial lands would be beneficial for Richmond, Mr. Chown offered that the
group of property owners requesting deferral of the designation represents only
a portion of the subject industrial lands, and that their request for deferral
to allow for further consideration does not remove all of the lands from the
picture. In terms of job creation and
opportunities, he said that questions regarding limiting jobs to the industrial
lands or Village core had been
discussed frequently. He offered that
were the Colonnade project to proceed, it would generate job opportunities to
allow young people to work within their community, mitigating the need to
travel to other parts of the City for work.
Mr. Bill Cook, also a member of the Steering Committee, said
he was proud of what it had helped to accomplish. A former Village Councillor and Regional
Government employee for 28 years, he said he was well familiar with the
procedures and processes involved for planning matters and zoning by-laws. Also a village resident since 1950, at which
time the population was roughly 300, he noted the population has now exceeded
4,300. Mr. Cook said he felt the
development that had occurred over the last 60 years had served to enhance the
quality of village life, and he suggested that regardless of who would develop the open lands,
development would proceed, failing which, residents would lose their village,
which would stagnate and die. In
conclusion, he said the City should proceed with the project and finish the job
that had been started.
Councillor Brooks noted a number of speakers
had raised a number of important issues, including financial implications. However, he noted this was the first step of
the process, where such issues would be resolved as the process moved
forward. Mr. Cook concurred,
acknowledging that the planning process takes time, and that the project would
not develop overnight, but could take many years. He referred to the many amenities that had
been built in Richmond over the past 60 years as a result of development, and
reiterated that the City should proceed with the project.
Mr. Amedeo Melone, appeared on behalf of his
father, Mr. Vittorio Melone, and referred to a prepared statement (held on file with the City
Clerk), outlining that his family had owned land in the area since 1958, at
which time it had been zoned Light
Industrial, a designation still currently in place. A long-time resident of Richmond, he outlined
that despite the designation, there had been no interest in developing the land
for the past 60 years. While he said he
was cognizant of the many reasons people are opposed to change, he believed it
was time to proceed with the CDP, through a process which at least allowed
residents to provide positive input for future growth.
Mr. Ed Scouten also asked for deferral regarding the
consideration of industrial lands in relation to the CDP, to allow for further
study on this small portion. He
acknowledged that the concept plan was a starting point, and that growth,
although not supported by all, was a necessity, in order to pay for needed
infrastructure services. He felt the
Steering Committee had given good direction, said he supported the work done on
the CDP to date, but that enough time had been spent, and that it was time to
get on with the process.
Ms. Debbie Belfie, on behalf of Talos Custom
Homes and Richmond Gate Development Corporation (owners
of property at the north end of Nixon Farm Drive - Phase 1 lands), sought clarification on points related to
servicing timelines for the various portions of the lands in question, and on
connection timelines related to pumping station upgrades and/or capacity
levels. Ms. Belfie also commented on the
speed at which the process seemed to be proceeding with respect to zoning
provisions and OP policies that had not yet received comment or review. She noted that typically, discussions related
to zoning applications considered by the Planning and Environment Committee
involve a great deal of discourse on existing uses, setbacks, etc., which she
felt had been lacking in the current CDP review. She asked that this be further examined to
note zoning discrepancies, if any, along with questions related to permitted
uses within the Village core boundary, etc.
Mr. Peter Moore, a 15-year resident of Richmond and owner of
roughly 15 per-cent of the development lands optioned to Mattamy, spoke highly
of the integrity of the Steering Committee, of which his wife, Mrs. Gisèle
Moore, was Secretary. Speaking to
suggestions that the CDP process had been flawed, Mr. Moore acknowledged that
it had been long and laborious, but he said the Steering Committee and City had
made great efforts to communicate the process, issues, timing and potential
solutions to residents, resulting in an open and transparent process which had
allowed residents many opportunities to participate. Regarding why he had partnered with Mattamy,
Mr. Moore said that although he had not been seeking to develop his land, he
had been attracted to Mattamy’s vision to develop the lands in a manner
complimentary to the whole village, as opposed to piecemeal development. He also cited the company’s resources and
expertise as factors which will help provide the infrastructure required for
future development. In conclusion, Mr.
Moore said that while Richmond provided a good level of basic services, i.e.,
medical, dental, pharmacy, schools and churches, he offered that a vibrant
community needs growth, which such a development will help achieve.
Ms. Rosemary McArthur, a Richmond resident since 1973, explained she
had attended many meetings from the start of the CDP process in March of
2008. Referencing a prepared statement
(held on file with the City Clerk), she outlined her views regarding the
process, suggesting that from the initial meeting, it appeared that the basic
structure of the CDP was already in place, taking the form of a Steering Committee of villagers and Standing Committee of vested
interests. As pertains to Mattamy’s
‘vision’ for the village, Ms. MacArthur noted that many of the suggested
‘rehabilitations’ to the village had been proposed for privately-owned
structures, the work for which would have to be undertaken at owners’
expense. Ms. MacArthur also questioned
why infrastructure had not been considered a major priority, why Mattamy had been given a non-voting seat at the
CDP table despite objections that a developer should not be in a position to
influence CDP decisions, and why certain meeting minutes had never been
distributed, despite having been requested.
In conclusion, Ms. MacArthur said that while she agreed that
opportunities for input had been provided, such input as provided by those in
opposition had no impact on any decision; despite having spoken, these people
had not been heard.
Mr. Brian Tansley, President, Manotick Village
and Community Association, said he was not a resident of Richmond and was commenting as an
outsider. While he acknowledged that the
process for Richmond seemed to have allowed greater opportunity for public
participation than had been afforded the residents of Manotick, he cautioned
that residents’ input would be seen as useful only insofar as it agreed with
the developers’ interests. He felt the
CDP offered attractive facades, but was lacking substance in certain
fundamental areas as had been addressed by earlier speakers, leaving an
impression that two diametrically opposed visions existed for the village; one
where Richmond ‘would be a nice place to live, but where one would not want to
visit’, or one that ‘would be a nice place to visit, where one would not want
to live’.
Mr. Tansley suggested a middle-ground solution
was desirable, cautioning that it would be prudent to take the time to rely on
the best available legal, planning and engineering expertise to work out a
process that would result in an OPA and Secondary Plan that could be properly
defended before the OMB, in contrast with what had occurred with the CDP for
the Village of Manotick.
Ms. Mina Arbuckle, speaking to issues pertaining to Richmond
youth, said her family had lived in Richmond for at least four generations,
three of which had been the product of two area schools which, along with the
Richmond Arena, comprised three of the most important buildings in the
community. She suggested that the loss
of such structures, currently in need of repair, could potentially result in
the loss of the town due to their function as community hubs. Ms. Arbuckle said she supported the Richmond
CDP for its community-building aspects, such as providing new and expanded
sports facilities, which she felt are important in bringing the community
together. She disagreed with the notion
that increased growth necessarily results in increased crime; instead, she felt
such growth will instead serve to invigorate the local economy, and help put
Richmond on the map.
In addition to the preceding, the Committee also
received correspondence from the following (previously distributed to all
members of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and held on file with
the City Clerk), who either did not attend or did not wish to speak, but
instead provided their comments in writing, as noted below:
·
Ms.
Carolyn Brennan (via email, expressing concerns)
·
Mr. Doug
Kazda (via email, in support)
·
Mr. Barry
Laffin (via email, in support)
·
Mr. Ron
Milligan (via email, in support)
Having heard from the delegations, the
Committee requested that staff address questions that had been raised during
earlier presentations or by the preceding speakers.
Mr. Marc felt a significant question had been
raised by Councillor Jellett, regarding the ability to change as things move
forward. Mr. Marc said Committee had
before it, significant documents, the adoption of which would serve to give
them meaning, and from which certain effects would ensue. Committee and Council would, in essence, be
adopting a vision for the Village of Richmond to the year 2030, to result in
the development of the western lands for residential purposes, and to provide a
particular vision for both the village core and for the other lands. Adoption of the CDP would serve to make it
the official vision of the City of Ottawa, and adopt it under the Planning Act. With respect to timelines and allocation
of funding, Mr. Marc pointed out there is nothing in the OP to dictate when
Council would have to make an investment to bring its vision to fruition, as
such details are not outlined in documentation.
Further, he explained that Council could take a position with regard to
infrastructure, but that the process would allow Council to change its position
in future, should new information become available. Further responding to questions from the
Councillor, Mr. Marc noted that details pertaining to Capital expenditures were
not yet defined, hence no amendments would be required for Council to proceed
with its budgeting. With respect to
infrastructure, he noted that despite the vision currently outlined, changes
would be possible, although amendments might be required to the Environmental
Management Plan or OP itself.
In response to a query from Councillor Jellett
as to whether there would be any benefit to defer approval of the CDP until the
afore-mentioned issues had been dealt with, Mr. Moser expressed that because of
work performed to date, staff felt the plan should proceed, acknowledging that
additional work will still need to be done.
Councillor Jellett expressed concern over
points raised by Mr. McKinley, on behalf of the RVA, regarding financial
recommendations having an adverse impact on current Capital programs for the
City of Ottawa and existing DC funding.
He asked that information be provided prior to any work being undertaken
to provide a better understanding of what such decisions would involve in terms
of costs and prioritization. Mr. Moser
confirmed that staff had considered all of the points the Councillor had raised,
in terms impacts to DC’s, potential approaches to be taken, how the project
will fit into the Long Range Financial Plan, and how much is to be paid by
developers and by landowners. He said
these financial impacts will be re-examined and be brought back to Committee
and Council when staff bring forth the related Financial and Implementation
Plans, and that there will be no impact on the 2011 Budget.
Referencing Mr. McKinley’s submission asking
that an estimate be provided for the total cost of extending communal well
services to the portion of the existing Village served by private wells, the
Councillor asked if such an estimate could easily be provided. Mr. Roman Diduch, Program Manager,
Infrastructure Policy, Policy Development and Urban Design Branch, PGM, ISCS,
said that the costing to extend services overall
could be estimated, but cautioned that such services to a village are usually
done on a piecemeal basis, which
could result in costs that differ. He
said that although a Capital cost estimate could be provided, the funding mechanism becomes important, as many
costs need to be funded up-front, to be recovered over time. Mr. Diduch felt it was unrealistic to provide
an estimate that provides a number without understanding the funding mechanisms
involved. Councillor Jellett said he
would move that the Financial Plan include such an estimate to ensure that all
points were covered.
Addressing the issue of sanitary wastewater
systems and illegal connections of sump pumps adding to extraneous flows,
Councillor Brooks noted that according to survey results, between 60 and 70
per-cent of respondents given a preference between tertiary treatment and a
‘big pipe’ had opted for a piped-waste solution. He asked if there was a way to calculate
extraneous flows into such systems. Mr.
Diduch said staff could look into providing some initial estimates. He noted there are usually two sources
contributing to extraneous flows; sump pumps illegally connected to sanitary
systems, and water entering through leaking pipes and poor joints. He noted that in Richmond, this may be
compounded by a fairly high water table.
Mr. Diduch outlined that work done in 2003/04 had estimated that
approximately 10 per cent of area homes had sump pumps connected to the
sanitary system, each likely pumping in the range of between one-half and two
l/s. He estimated that when averaged,
assuming that 10 per cent of the units (approximately 140 units) were running
concurrently, pumping at least one-half l/s, this could provide an average of
70 litres per second, which could potentially be removed if the sump pumps were
taken out of service. However, further
responding to questions from Councillor Brooks, Mr. Diduch pointed out that
although removal of such pumps could be of benefit, the CDP made no actual reference to removing
them. He also said that questions
surrounding sanitary systems would have no impact on Committee’s decisions
regarding approval of the CDP at the current stage of the process.
Referencing Mr. Muir’s earlier request to
designate Richmond a two-zone floodplain area, Councillor El-Chantiry asked if
staff had spoken with Conservation Authorities on this matter. Mr. Morse said he was not an expert in this
area, but that he had spoken with the Authorities. He then recounted that the Constance Bay CDP,
approved by the amalgamated City four or five years ago, was a holdover from
the former Township of West Carleton dating back to the 1980’s. He said staff were not considering a two-zone
designation for Richmond because although such a designation could allow
development on the fringe of the floodplain, staff would have to consider the
effect on the greater area for all of Flowing Creek to gauge the effect on the
whole watershed. Mr. Morse said such a
major study could cost in excess of $100,000.00.
Ms.
Darlene Conway, Senior Project Engineer, Infrastructure Policy, Policy
Development and Urban Design Branch, PGM, ISCS, added that various criteria need to be met, based on
technical guidelines from the Ministry of Natural Resources, which include
whether there is a lack of land. She
noted that this is not the case for the current subject area, where over 100
hectares of land are available outside of the floodplain. She said filling in the floodplain fringe
could result in impacts to existing residents if flood levels were to rise as a
result of filling in the fringe, and outlined this as the reason for performing
exhaustive studies to preclude such impacts.
She noted that the necessary tests were not being met to speak to the
possibility of a two-zone designation for the subject area.
Councillor El-Chantiry observed that report
Recommendation 7 directed staff to
report back on the financial implications of the servicing recommendations, and
he asked when staff were planning to do so. Mr. Morse said he hoped staff could report
back to the Committee and Council by the Fall, but would have to first
undertake the exercise of proceeding with the plan, and said he could not offer
an estimate.
Acknowledging that a great deal of work had
been undertaken to date, the Councillor said he would feel greater comfort if
Committee were to defer approval of Recommendation
5,
pertaining to the endorsement and/or approval of transportation recommendations
contained within the Village of Richmond Transportation Master Plan, and
Recommendation 6, pertaining to approval of the Village of Richmond
Environmental Management Plan, until the financial implications and servicing
recommendations could be implemented or better explained, as the reports became
available. Mr. Marc confirmed that while
Recommendations 5 and 6 have cost implications, approval of the current report
does not commit Council to spend money in any particular year.
He clarified that the report speaks to a
financial commitment to the programs by 2030, but not to any particular year
beforehand.
In response to a question from Councillor
Brooks as to whether Mattamy had followed the legislative process relative to
an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the stormwater pond, Mr. Diduch said he
understood that private interests did not have to go through an EA process for
drainage. However, he added that despite
not having filed their work as an EA, the procedures Mattamy had followed were
identical to those of an EA process.
Speaking to the issue of potable water and
source water protection, the Councillor referenced a recommendation from the
RVCA regarding the need for independent review of the available documentation,
and he asked whether such a review had been undertaken. Mr. Glen MacDonald, Rideau Valley Conservation
Authority (RVCA), said such a review had been undertaken by
Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection staff.
Councillor Brooks explained that he had raised this point because of a
concern on the part of residents with wells drawing from a shallow (under 100
feet) aquifer, that the Mattamy development, proposing to draw water from the
deeper (200-250 feet) Nepean aquifer, would affect their wells. Mr. Macdonald said it was his understanding
that the research and data provided to date had concluded that the water being
drawn from the extensive deeper Nepean aquifer, serving communities throughout
the Region, would not impact on shallow wells, as they were in different
recharge areas. Although not a
hydrogeologist himself, Mr. MacDonald noted the RVCA did have qualified
hydrogeologists on staff; Ms. Claire Milloy, Groundwater Specialist, Watershed
Science and Engineering, and Mr. Brian Stratton, Co-Project Manager, heading
the Source Water Protection Group.
In response to a request from Chair Thompson for
an additional update on this matter prior to Council’s consideration of this
matter, Mr. Diduch suggested that a meeting with Mr. Michel Kearney, the City’s
Senior Hydrogeologist, Infrastructure Policy Unit, Policy Development and Urban
Design Branch, PGM, ISCS, could be arranged to provide the information
requested.
In reference to points Mr. McKinley had earlier
raised regarding the need for Capital outlay for sewer work due to
infiltrations into the wastewater system, Councillor Jellett suggested a second
system might not be required if such flows could be diverted, and he asked how
this could be achieved. Mr. Diduch said
this could be done, but likely only in part, as the costs for removing all
extraneous flows would be prohibitive.
He suggested the issue would be one of cost/benefit when determining the
sources of the extraneous flows. Mr.
Diduch said that preliminary investigations indicated that a large part of
these flows were attributable to sump pumps being connected to the sanitary
system instead of discharging to the surface; elimination of such connections
could provide a relatively low cost solution compared to attempting to fix
leaking, or poorly-connected infrastructure.
Responding to questions from Councillor Jellett
regarding whether cost/benefit analyses would form part of the financial
analysis yet to come, Mr. Diduch said staff did not wish to dictate what form
the financial plan should take.
Instead, he suggested the Committee might wish
to make a recommendation that Richmond be made a higher priority in terms of
the investigations currently being undertaken as part of Infrastructure
Services’ Wet Weather Flow Strategy,
examining various parts of the City to look at opportunities for flow
removal. He said it might be possible to
offset some Capital costs by undertaking flow removal, but that there were no
guarantees, and that instant solutions could not be identified. He suggested it would be imprudent to risk a
financial plan based on such unknowns.
Councillor Jellett said he appreciated this point, but asked if pursuing
flow removal was appropriate. Mr. Diduch
said flow removal would serve to reduce operating costs, and would also reduce
the amount of overflows into the holding lagoon and river.
Councillor Jellett said he was unsure as to
which approach would be appropriate, but said he wanted to ensure that the
right information was available when it came time to make the appropriate
decision regarding the financing of an infrastructure-related solution. Mr. Diduch offered that in working out the
details of the financial plan, staff will examine all available options,
opportunities and potential risks the City may face, as negotiations on costing
are currently only at a preliminary stage.
The Councillor then made reference to Ms.
Belfie’s earlier comments regarding zoning, and asked whether the various
property owners had been given opportunities to see what changes were being
made to their lands and to provide feedback.
He also asked what recourse would be available to landowners, were they
to find that their permitted uses had changed.
Mr. Morse explained that the public had been informed of this throughout
the process, and that as a result of comments from a number of people, staff
had made adjustments to the zoning map.
In terms of recourse, Mr. Morse said staff had tried to broaden some
uses, resulting in improvements for some, such as for the industrial lands,
where allowable uses had been broadened to make the land more palatable for
industrial uses. He acknowledged that in
certain areas, uses had become more restrictive because of the floodplain, but
that even here, adjustments had been made as a result of some responses. Mr. Morse added that people would still have
the right to apply for a Zoning By-Law (ZBL) amendment to address other
outstanding concerns.
Councillor Jellett acknowledged that people
would have this right, but noted there are costs associated with same. He asked if the process could include reports
dealing with anomalies, so that if staff were in concurrence, both parties
could arrive at mutually agreeable solutions without forcing the need for
full-blown OP or ZBL Amendments. Mr.
Moser suggested that if Council were to approve the CDP and zoning, resulting
in appeals or other concerns, he would be prepared for staff to examine options
to see if such could be dealt with through a report dealing with appeals, or by
other means.
Councillor El-Chantiry made reference to an
earlier presentation regarding a stormwater pond proposed on the east side of
Flowing Creek, designed to drain into the Jock River, and asked if this pond
would be located in the floodplain. Ms.
Conway explained that this particular design had pertained to an older plan
that was no longer valid, dating back to the time of the former Township of
Goulbourn’s Drainage Plan.
She outlined that at that time, money had been
collected for homes that were built in Richmond, with the intent of building an
‘online’ pond on Flowing Creek; essentially, a structure right in the creek
that would back up and treat all of the water from Flowing Creek before it
entered the Jock River. Ms. Conway noted
that while this had been considered an acceptable solution at the time, such
works are no longer considered acceptable because of fisheries issues, and are
no longer permitted. She explained that
the stormwater pond proposed for the western development lands is within the
floodplain, but not in the actual drain; rather, it is located beside the
drain, to allow the water to be treated before being discharged.
Having concluded with questions and
deliberations, the Committee turned its attention to the following Motions.
Councillor Brooks introduced a Motion that
would afford property owners an opportunity to review and perform studies prior
to Council making its final decision. He
noted that staff were in support of his Motion, and Mr. Morse confirmed that
the Motion would have no impact on the CDP.
Moved by
Councillor G. Brooks:
WHEREAS
the Community Design Plan and Secondary Plan for the Village of Richmond is
proposing to retain the Industrial designation for most of the lands bounded to
the north by the railroad tracks, to the east by Eagleson Road, to the south by
the Village boundary and to the west by McBean Street;
AND
WHEREAS the City’s Official Plan policy requires that industrial lands be
assessed in a comprehensive manner every five years, and whereas some of the
owners of the lands would like to consider other uses for a portion of the
industrial lands;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the following be
added after Policy 6 in subsection 3.6 of the Secondary Plan for the Village of
Richmond:
“7. Notwithstanding
the requirement to complete a review by June 2014 of employment land needs and other
issues, the City shall undertake a review of the Industrial lands in Richmond
(long-term employment and land supply) in consultation with the land owners and
shall report back to Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee within two years.”
CARRIED
Arising from Mr. McKinley’s presentation on
behalf of the RVA, Councillor Jellett introduced a Motion amending
Recommendation 7 of the staff report, as follows.
Moved by Councillor R. Jellett:
That
the Financial Plan:
a) Does not have adverse impact on any current
Capital budgets and/or Development Charges revenues anticipated for the life of
the current Official Plan;
b) Includes an estimate of the total cost of
extending communal well services to the portion of the existing Village served
by private wells;
c) Recommends funding options for the extension
of water service as referred to in b) above, including possible creation of
reserves from a new Richmond Development Charges By-Law.
CARRIED
Councillor Jellett then introduced a second
Motion, speaking to staff being directed to require the completion of an EA to
assess a stormwater solution that would provide a review of the location of the
stormwater pond, the collection system and foundation drainage. Responding to questions from Councillor
Brooks regarding jurisdiction, Mr. Morse explained that the City would have
jurisdiction over such stormwater ponds, that the RVCA would have a commenting
role, and had already commented that they would prefer that such a pond not be
located in the floodplain.
Mr. MacDonald noted the RVCA had provided
comment to the City on the stormwater management proposal and had raised the
issue that, based on its
interpretation of the PPS, the stormwater management pond was not permitted in
the floodplain, unless it had received approval through an EA process. He also noted, however, that there were
differing opinions; hence, the RVCA had sought the Province’s advice to
determine whether or not its interpretation was correct, but that to date, the
Province had not yet provided a suitable answer. He said the RVCA’s position current position
was that the MOE would have to issue a Certificate of Approval (COA) for the
stormwater management pond, in consultation with the Conservation Authority
from a technical perspective. Mr.
MacDonald said that if MOE were to decide to issue the COA, the RVCA would
interpret this to mean that MOE was satisfied that it meets the Policy criteria
of the day, following which the RVCA would still have to issue a permit under
the Conservation Authorities Act for
the pond to be in the floodplain.
Councillor Brooks sought additional
clarification regarding the next stage of the process, following Mattamy’s
completion of its EA process. Mr.
MacDonald outlined that Mattamy, as a private proponent, despite having
voluntarily followed the Class 1 and 2 EA process, would be considered by the
MOE to be exempt from an authorization under this process. He said the question of who would provide the
necessary authorization was still a matter for the Province to decide, a
question to which it had not yet responded.
Further clarifying Councillor Jellett’s Motion,
Mr. Marc explained that the municipality will complete Schedule B, authorized under an EA process, allowing for the
opportunity for a bump-up request.
Should the City clear this process, Mr. Marc believed the RVCA would
concede the point that the City had gone through an EA process because of the
completion of Schedule B. Should the Province not agree, Mr. MacDonald offered that such a decision would likely
be for technical reasons which the Province would refer back to Mattamy’s
engineering consultants in an attempt to resolve any outstanding issues,
resulting in Schedule A approval,
should the City clear the bump-up process.
The Committee then considered Councillor
Jellett’s second Motion.
Moved by Councillor R. Jellett:
WHEREAS
the Demonstration Plan for the western development lands proposes to include a
stormwater management pond within the floodplain;
AND
WHERAS the Provincial Policy Statement prohibits development within a
floodplain;
AND
WHEREAS the Provincial Policy Statement permits municipal infrastructure to be
located within a floodplain, if it has been approved through an Environmental
Assessment,
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to require the completion of an
Environmental Assessment to assess the stormwater solution that would provide a
review of the location of the stormwater pond, the collection system and
foundation drainage.
CARRIED
Prior to approval of the recommendations as
amended, Councillor Jellett sought assurance that overall, the CDP and
Secondary Plans could be considered defensible before the OMB. Mr. Marc offered that in his opinion, they
would be. There being no further
discussion, the Committee considered the report, as amended by the foregoing.
(This application is
subject to the provisions of Bill 51.)
That
the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve the Richmond Community Design
Plan in Document 3, which has been submitted under separate cover;
2. Adopt Official Plan Amendment No. XX
(Richmond Secondary Plan) to the City of Ottawa Official Plan, as detailed in
Document 8;
3. Approve
the zoning changes to implement the Richmond Community Design Plan as detailed
in Document 9;
4. Endorse
the recommended water and wastewater projects identified in Document 13 -
Village of Richmond Water and Sanitary Master Servicing Study and Class
Environmental Assessment Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4 Draft (May 2010);
5. Endorse
the transportation recommendations identified in Document 15 entitled Village
of Richmond Transportation Master Plan (June 2010);
6. Approve
the Village of Richmond Environmental Management Plan (Document 11) that
includes infrastructure and capital improvements to the Richmond Conservation
Area, City-owned properties and parks; and
7. Direct staff to report back to the
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and City Council on the financial
implications of the servicing recommendations;
8. That
the following be added after Policy 6 in subsection 3.6 of the Secondary Plan for
the Village of Richmond:
“7. Notwithstanding the requirement to complete a
review by June 2014 of employment land needs and other issues, the City shall
undertake a review of the Industrial lands in Richmond (long-term employment
and land supply) in consultation with the land owners and shall report back to
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee within two years.”
9. That the Financial Plan:
a) Does not have adverse impact on any current
Capital budgets and/or Development Charges revenues anticipated for the life of
the current Official Plan;
b) Includes an estimate of the total cost of
extending communal well services to the portion of the existing Village served
by private wells;
c) Recommends funding options for the extension
of water service as referred to in b) above, including possible creation of
reserves from a new Richmond Development Charges By-Law.
10. That staff be directed to require the
completion of an Environmental Assessment to assess the stormwater solution
that would provide a review of the location of the stormwater pond, the
collection system and foundation drainage.
CARRIED
as amended
CITY OPERATIONS
OPÉRATIONS MUNICIPALES
BYLAW
AND REGULATORY SERVICES
SERVICES
DES RÈGLEMENTS MUNICIPAUX
8. OPEN
AIR FIRE BY-LAW - HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS
RÈGLEMENT SUR LES
FEUX EN PLEIN AIR - MODIFICATIONS D’ORDRE ADMINISTRATIF
ACS2010-COS-EPS-0028 City-wide / À l'échelle de la Ville
That
the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve the amendments
to the Open Air Fire By-law No. 2004-163 as provided in the attached draft
amending by-law (Document 1).
CARRIED
PARKS, RECREATION AND
CULTURAL SERVICES
SERVICES DES PARCS, DU
LOISIR ET DE LA CULTURE
9. LAND ACQUISITION AND AGREEMENT, GEORGE NELMS SPORTS PARK- 5650 MITCH
OWENS DRIVE
acquisition de terrain
et entente, parc sportif george-nelms - 5650, CHEMIN mitch owens
ACS2010-CMR-REP-0038 osgoode (20)
That
the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve
the negotiated Sports Field Agreement with Ottawa South United Soccer
Association as described in Document 1, and;
2. Approve the acquisition
of real property described as being Part of Lot 1, Concession 1, geographic
township of Osgoode, in the City of Ottawa, more particularly described as
Parts 1, 2 and 3 on 4R-21514, containing 12.962 ha, known municipally as 5650
Mitch Owens Road as shown on Document 2, required for sports fields from
Centaurus Partnership for $1,300,000 plus HST as applicable.
CARRIED
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
BUREAU DU DIRECTEUR
MUNICIPAL
CITY CLERK’S BRANCH
DIRECTION DU GREFFIER MUNICIPAL
10. Status Update -
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Inquiries and Motions for the period ending
1 JULY 2010
RAPPORT DE SITUATION - DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS ET
MOTIONS DU COMITE De l’agriculture et des affaires rurales POUR LA PÉRIODE SE
TERMINANT LE 1 JUILLET 2010
ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0072 City
Wide / a l’échelle de la ville
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee receive
this report for information.
RECEIVED
COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS
POINTS DES CONSEILLERS
COUNCILLOR
/ CONSEILLER R. JELLETT
11. RH Zone - former
cumberland - interim control
ZONE RH - ANCIENNE VILLE DE CUMBERLAND - RESTRICTION PROVISOIRE
ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0069 CUMBERLAND (19)
Councillor Jellett introduced this item by
explaining one of the objectives was to provide a proper time for residents in
Navan and Vars to prepare a response to an application for a waste transfer
facility in their community. He
explained that the previous Cumberland Zoning By-law designated the land in
question as Agriculture MP, which
allowed such uses as a salvage yard and abattoir. He indicated what ended up happening was
that, when the City undertook its Comprehensive Zoning By-law review in 2008,
staff looked at how the land had been used over time, and noted the zoning did
not go far enough to cover what was there, which until that time had been done
without proper zoning. As a result,
staff recommended changing the zoning to Rural
Heavy Industrial, which allowed for a waste transfer facility, as well as
many other uses. He advised that this
was news to residents when the application came forward for a waste transfer
facility and that they needed time to look at all of it. He reported that, at his request, staff had
put together a recommendation to give the community an opportunity to examine
whether the subject land should be zoned Rural
Heavy Industrial and further, look at all the RH zones within the Cumberland area to determine which should have
that level of zoning and which should perhaps be Rural Light Industrial, which would prevent a waste transfer
facility. Therefore, the other objective of the motion was to give staff time
to determine the best land use for the subject property and for all RH zones within Ward 19.
Responding to a series of questions from
Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, confirmed that
applications could go forward to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) without
notification to residents or the local municipality. He indicated that Legal Services reviewed the
Environmental Bill of Rights on a monthly basis to pick up applications in
Ottawa but that, depending on when the application was made, it could be
brought to the municipality’s attention towards the end of the comment
period. He stated that if the proposed
interim control by-law was adopted, there would not be the ability to establish
any new waste transfer or processing facilities within the RH zone for a period
of one year, subject to renewal for a further one-year period. He explained that interim control by-laws did
not happen often, though they were a strong tool at the municipality’s
disposal, and that they were looked upon with caution by the Ontario Municipal
Board (OMB), if appealed to the Board.
He advised that when a municipality adopted an interim control by-law,
it had to commission a study, either before or at the same time. In the case of the recommendations currently
before Committee, he remarked that recommendation 1 did this and, if endorsed
by Council, the requested study would provide information as to whether or not
the permission for a waste transfer and processing facility was appropriate
within the RH zone and if it was appropriate, whether or not there should be
any changes to the performance standards.
Mr. Marc Labrosse, representing Mr. Dan
Meagher, Carl’s Waste Services, understood that people got concerned when hearing about waste disposal
transfer facilities. However, he
submitted that his client’s application was following a process. He indicated his client had met with
Councillor Jellett’s staff and with Planning staff before filing an application
and that the application was currently into a comment period, which had been
extended until September. Accordingly,
everyone had an opportunity to make their concerns known about the current
application. He anticipated that a decision on the application would not be
made until January, adding that residents and/or the City would have the right
to appeal the Ministry’s decisions.
Mr. Labrosse submitted that there were a number
of misconceptions surrounding waste disposal transfer facilities because they
varied in type and size. Speaking to his
client’s facility, he noted it was completely enclosed so everything that
happened there was on a concrete floor.
This was where the materials got sorted in terms of what could be sold
and what could be recycled and he explained that the rest of the materials were
transferred to a licensed facility. He
once again acknowledged residents’ concerns.
However, he suggested the current recommendation was putting the cart
before the horse because if the certificate of approval was not granted, there
would be no need for the interim control by-law. He believed the City was basing this decision
on the time of year, knowing there was less ability to react during the summer
months and the fact that there was an upcoming election. He re-iterated that there would not be a
decision on the certificate of approval until the new year and advised that his
client was prepared to undertake to the City that he would not apply for a
building permit or site plan approval until after then. He noted that by then, Council would be back
into a regular meeting scheduled and would have an opportunity to react.
Mr. Labrosse advised that by putting in the
proposed interim control by-law, the City would no longer be able to respond to
any other urgent applications for a period of three years because of a Municipal Act restriction. That being the case, he submitted the City
would not have the ability, in Cumberland, to react to a property that had
immediate development rights. He
submitted that Committee was considering an interim control by-law in reaction
to a specific property application and in a situation where staff had not come
forward to say that there was a planning need to look at this type of use. He remarked that other facilities in the City
had been approved under similar zoning and that a scrap yard was permitted on
the site in question. He advised that
his client had previously operated an automobile recycling facility at the
site, where rain fell onto the cars, cars rusted and rust got into the
ground. He suggested there was nothing
more real than the risk that came from uses such as a scrap yard. Therefore, he felt the risks had always
existed for this property, but that it had never been a problem.
He re-iterated that his client had an
application for a fully enclose facility and he submitted that any issues with
ground water, smell and noise could all be addressed through the certificate of
approval process. Therefore, rather than
freezing his client’s development rights for one year, he asked that Committee
sit back and wait to see what would happen through the certificate of approval
process. This would allow the
certificate of approval process to carry forward and not require his client to
spend funds on retaining a lawyer, retaining a planner and going to the Ontario
Municipal Board to appeal an interim control by-law that may never be required
as a result of the current application.
Should the certificate of approval process be unsuccessful, then the City
would not have wasted its opportunity relative to an interim control
by-law. Further, he submitted that if
the City was not satisfied with the certificate of approval process, it could
react to it in the new year, when an application was made for a site plan or a
building permit. In closing, with
respect to Councillor Jellett and the importance of this matter in his ward, he
recommended that the motion be withdrawn and brought back, if necessary, after
the certificate of approval process.
When asked to comment, Mr. Marc confirmed that
it was normal to see interim control by-laws brought much closer to when the
development was being implemented, just prior to an application for a building
permit. However, he believed that if the
interim control by-law was appealed, the Ontario Municipal Board would look
favourably on the municipality having acted at an early stage, calling a pause
in the process and moving on with a study.
He felt this would be seen as a sign of good faith and that, by having
done so at an early stage, the City was less likely to be holding up the
developer if, at the end of the day, the study determined that this type of
development was well-founded on the site.
With respect to the lost ability to enact a future interim control by-law,
he maintained this was just on the RH zones in Cumberland, therefore these were
the only areas that would lose a right for a subsequent three year period.
Further, he recalled only three interim control
by-laws being enacted by Council since amalgamation, so while the risk was
there, he submitted that it seemed remote.
Responding to questions from Councillor Brooks,
Mr. Marc confirmed that if Council enacted an interim control by-law, it could
life this by-law at any time. With
respect to the requested study, Mr. John Moser, General Manager of Planning
& Growth Management, advised staff felt the study could be undertaken with
existing resources and completed in the first quarter of 2011. He added that, if given direction to proceed,
staff would initiate the process forthwith in order to have it done early in
the new year. He noted that it meant
reviewing a limited area in terms of number of zones and looking at the
appropriateness of the land-use mix and performance standards.
Speaking to the timelines, Mr. Labrosse
indicated he had been told that a decision was generally made within a five to
six month period. Given that the
consultation process had been extended until September, he estimated the
Ministry would make its decision in the new year. He noted that it would then be subject to
appeal rights.
In light of the discussion with respect to
timelines, Councillor El-Chantiry suggested a friendly amendment to ensure that
staff would report back in the first quarter of 2011. To this end, Mr. Marc proposed adding some
wording to direct that the interim control by-law would be repealed as of March
15, 2011. He noted that it would still
be subject to the further one year renewal.
However, he indicated this would require that something be before
Committee in February.
Councillor Jellett accepted the proposed
amendment as friendly, stating the idea was for everything to come together at
the same time. He advised that if the
proponent got the certificate of approval, he did not want to delay the
opening. However, he wanted to give the
community the confidence to know nothing would be done until then. Therefore, he felt the proposal was a win for
both sides. He confirmed that Carl’s
Waste Management had met with his office staff, as indicated by Mr. Labrosse,
and that they were told to hold a public meeting, which they did not. He added that, not only did they not hold a
public meeting, they did not circulate information to the broader public in the
area. He advised that his office found
out about the application by accident, when a resident from another ward
e-mailed him after surfing the Ministry website. He indicated this was on June 22 and the
application had gone in weeks earlier.
At that time, the comment period was to end on July 7. He referenced Mr. Labrosse’s statement about
everyone having the opportunity to make their position known to the MOE. He acknowledged that this was true, though it
was difficult to do if one was not aware of the application. He noted that the application was some 40
pages in length and an interim control by-law would give residents an
opportunity to review it and make reasoned comments at the same time as provide
them with assurances that nothing would be put on-site until then. In closing, he re-iterated that he felt this
was a good solution as it would give residents the assurances they wanted while
at the same time, it would not slow down the process for the company, should
they be successful with their application.
Responding to a question from Chair Thompson,
Mr. Labrosse indicated he was satisfied that there was some progress made in
terms of what his client faced coming into this. However, he indicated he would have to take
instruction from his client with respect to whether or not to appeal the
proposed interim control by-law and that he would advise his client as to
whether or not he would be losing any rights in that regard.
Committee then voted on the revised motion:
That
the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve that:
1. The
Planning and Growth Management Department be directed to conduct a study of the
RH zone in the former City of Cumberland, including sub-zones and exception
zones, to determine the appropriateness of permitting waste processing or
transfer facilities to be located within such zones and, where appropriate, to
recommended any appropriate changes to the performance standards for such
facilities.
2. An
interim control by-law be enacted for all lands within the former City of
Cumberland zoned RH, including subzones and exception zones, prohibiting waste
processing or transfer facilities for a period of one year from the date of the
enactment of the by-law, and;
3. That
the by-law be repealed as at 15 March 2011.
CARRIED
as amended
ADDITIONAL ITEM
POINTS SUPPLÉMENTAIRE
COUNCILLOR
/ CONSEILLER R. JELLETT
12. SPEED LIMIT
REDUCTION ON WILHAVEN DRIVE
reduction de la limite de
vitesse sur la promenade wilhaven
ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0076 CUMBERLAND (19)
Moved by Councillor G. Brooks:
That
the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee approve the addition of this item
for consideration by the Committee at today’s meeting, pursuant to section 84
(3) of the Procedure By-Law (being By-Law no. 2006-462).
CARRIED
At Councillor Jellett’s request, the
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee agreed to consider an additional item
concerning the speed limit along Wilhaven Drive, in Cumberland Ward as outlined
in the following Motion.
Moved by Councillor R. Jellett:
WHEREAS
the existing speed limit on the sections of Wilhaven Drive between Frank Kenny
Road and Quigley Hill Road and between Dunning Road and Emmett Road is 80 km/h
at this time;
AND
WHEREAS the speed limit on the section of Wilhaven Drive between Emmett Road
and Canaan Road is unposted at this time;
AND
WHEREAS the residents along Wilhaven Driven and in the residential development
areas adjacent to the road have noticed an increase in traffic and vehicular
speeding along the road;
AND
WHEREAS the residents along Wilhaven Drive and in the residential development
areas adjacent to the road have forwarded a petition to the City requesting
that the speed limit along the entire length of the road be reduced to 60 km/h;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend
Council approve that recommend that Council approve that the speed limit on
Wilhaven Drive be reduced to 60 km/h along the entire section of Wilhaven Drive
between Frank Kenny Road and Canaan Road.
Councillor Jellett indicated that all residents
along Wilhaven Drive have been consulted, were signatories to the original
petition referenced in the Motion above, and are all in accord. Following brief discussions, the Committee
concurred with the Ward Councillor and unanimously approved the Motion
(Councillor Hunter was absent, as advised).
Referencing the City’s Speed Limit Policy, adopted in 2009, Councillor El-Chantiry asked
if the above Motion fell within the referenced policy framework. Mr. Kevin Wylie, Manager, Operations
Engineering and Technical Support Branch, Public Works Department, City
Operations, explained that it did not, in that for arterial roads, current best
practices for establishing speed limits utilize the 85th percentile
speed of the road, based upon the fact that generally, the public acts in a
safe and appropriate manner.
Councillor El-Chantiry asked if, in this case,
the City would simply work to change the speed limit, or whether other
processes were involved, i.e., public consultation with area residents. Mr. Wylie said there would be no public
consultation, with the limit being posted at the closest to 85th
percentile speed unless there were specific features of the road, i.e. curves, which
would require additional precautions to lower the speed.
Speaking to this item, Councillor Jellett
indicated that residents along Wilhaven Drive had corresponded with his office
for the past year, asking to have the speed limit reduced. Although the Councillor’s office had
attempted to work with staff, resolution had proved impossible due to the
Policy stipulation regarding the 85th percentile. Hence, Councillor Jellett recounted that
residents had put together and signed, unanimously, a petition to reduce the
speed limit (referenced in the above Motion), had been consulted by his office,
and were in full concurrence with his Motion.
Councillor Brooks said he believed this was an
example where local issues should be decided by those who have to live with the
consequences, and he asked Committee to support the Motion. There being no further discussion, the
Committee considered and approved the following.
Moved by Councillor R. Jellett:
WHEREAS the existing speed limit on the sections of Wilhaven
Drive between Frank Kenny Road and Quigley Hill Road and between Dunning Road
and Emmett Road is 80 km/h at this time;
AND WHEREAS the speed limit on the section of Wilhaven
Drive between Emmett Road and Canaan Road is unposted at this time;
AND WHEREAS the residents along Wilhaven Driven and in
the residential development areas adjacent to the road have noticed an increase
in traffic and vehicular speeding along the road;
AND WHEREAS the residents along Wilhaven Drive and in the
residential development areas adjacent to the road have forwarded a petition to
the City requesting that the speed limit along the entire length of the road be
reduced to 60 km/h;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Committee recommend Council approve that the speed limit on Wilhaven
Drive be reduced to 60 km/h along the entire section of Wilhaven Drive between
Frank Kenny Road and Canaan Road.
CARRIED
INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED
INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT
A. MUNICIPAL DRAINS PROGRAM UPDATE
MISE À JOUR - PROGRAMME DE DRAINAGE
MUNICIPAL
ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0022-IPD rideau-goulbourn (21)
RECEIVED
B. RURAL
ASSOCIATION PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAM 2010 FUNDING DECISIONS
DÉCISIONS DE FINANCEMENT DE 2010 DU PROGRAMME
DE PARTENARIAT DES ASSOCIATIONS RURALES
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0115-IPD West-Carleton (5), cumberland
(19)
Osgoode
(20), Rideau Goulbourn (21)
RECEIVED
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
Original
signed by Original
signed by
C.
Zwierzchowski Councillor
D. Thompson
Committee Coordinator Chair