Report to/Rapport au :
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales
and Council / et au Conseil
29 July 2010/le 29 juillet2010
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice
municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community
Sustainability/Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact
Person/Personne-ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Manager/Gestionnaire, Policy
Development and Urban Design/Élaboration de la politique et conception urbaine,
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
Élaboration de la politique et conception urbaine
(613)
580-2424 x22653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee recommend Council:
1. Receive
new information from Muncaster Environmental Planning Inc. regarding the lands
at 820, 870 and 940 Huntmar Drive, attached as Document 1, and;
2. Approve
an amendment to By-law No. 2008-250 to change the zoning for parts of 820, 870,
940 and 1030 Huntmar Drive and the unaddressed parcel of land on Huntmar Drive
as shown in Document 4 and as described in Document 3.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales recommande au Conseil :
1. De
recevoir de nouveaux renseignements de Muncaster Environmental Planning Inc. au
sujet des terrains situés aux 820, 870 et 940, promenade Huntmar, présentés
dans le document 1;
2. D’approuver
une modification au Règlement de zonage no 2008-250 visant à
changer le zonage d’une partie des terrains situés aux 820, 870, 940 et 1030,
promenade Huntmar, ainsi que la parcelle de terrain sans adresse sur la
promenade Huntmar, comme le montre le document 4 et l’explique le document 3.
BACKGROUND
On June 25, 2008, City Council adopted Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2008-250, affecting all properties within the City of Ottawa. An appeal was received from Richcraft Homes Ltd. regarding 12 hectares of land located west of Terry Fox Drive and north of Richardson Side Road at 820, 870 and 940 Huntmar Drive. Initially, the position of the appellant was that the location of the boundary between the Rural Countryside Zone (RU) and the Environmental Protection Subzone 3 (EP3) was in error.
Richcraft Homes Ltd. argued that the land to the north, which is identified as the ‘Unaddressed Parcel’ in Document 4 of this report, which was transferred to the City by the original landowner, was always intended to be the extent of the Natural Environment Area. This assumption was incorrect. This parcel was surveyed and given to the City as an Eco-gift by the original landowner in exchange for the City’s re-designation of land located east of Terry Fox Drive as part of the urban area. The land promised as the Eco-gift had a defined area (120 acres) and did not include all of the land area identified by the environmental study or the Natural Environment Area designation proposed by the City at that time.
Following discussions with the appellant it was agreed that the zoning boundary was not in error, as it corresponds correctly with the boundary between a Natural Environment Area and a General Rural designation, as shown in Schedule A of the Official Plan.
The appellants have revised the reasons for their appeal, stating that the boundary between the two zones should be amended to reflect the findings of a report by Muncaster Environmental Planning dated October 6, 2008 and received by the City on January 13, 2010, included as Document 1- Information from Muncaster Environmental Planning. Staff note that the proposed boundary on the map shown on the last page of Document 1 has been highlighted in white by staff so it would be legible when reproduced in black and white.
This appeal was considered at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing on May 13, 2010. At that hearing, the City brought forward a motion to request an adjournment to permit the information from Muncaster Environmental Planning to be brought before Council for its consideration. A decision was issued by the Ontario Municipal Board allowing the adjournment. Direction was given by the Board to bring the Muncaster report forward to Council for its consideration and, for a written recommendation from Council to be brought forward to the Ontario Municipal Board.
In order to resolve this appeal, a revised boundary between the RU and EP3 zone is proposed. The proposed refinements to the boundary are based on information gathered through site visits conducted on May 10 and July 13, 2010 by City staff and an environmental consultant hired by the City to assist in the evaluation of the lands. Because these changes also impact adjoining properties, two abutting parcels of land not owned by the appellant are also dealt with in this report, an unaddressed parcel on Huntmar Drive and 1030 Huntmar Drive, as these parcels of land are also affected by the boundary between the EP3 and RU zones.
DISCUSSION
The report in Document 1 by Muncaster Environmental Planning details the results of a site visit undertaken on October 6, 2008 to evaluate the environmental significance of the subject lands. The central and west portions of the lands are described as relatively disturbed, while still being included within the EP3 Subzone. These lands are, “dominated by cultural meadows and thickets on former pasture land… Much of the vegetation in the meadows and thickets is non-native and invasive in nature including thick areas of the highly invasive swallow-wort, common mullein, Canada thistle, asters, golden rod, red raspberry, staghorn sumac and common buckthorn, the latter common along the forest edges. These areas were likely formerly used for pasture activity.” As a result of this evaluation, a revised boundary for the EP3 subzone is proposed to, “place the EP3 – RU boundary along the meadow/thicket and forest boundary.” In total, the appellant proposes that 7.4 hectares of the subject lands currently zoned EP3 should be rezoned to RU.
On May 10, 2010 and July 13, 2010, City environmental staff and an environmental consultant hired by the City conducted site visits on the subject lands. The lands were evaluated and waypoints were located using a GPS device. On the basis of the findings of the site visits, changes to the boundary between the EP3 and RU zones are proposed by the City, see Document 2 – Methodology for determining the new zoning boundary for the South March Highlands Natural Environment Area. It is recommended that approximately 2.4 hectares of the lands under appeal be rezoned from EP3 to RU, as these lands were found to not have enough environmental significance to be included within the EP3 subzone. In addition, it is recommended that a small area of the land under appeal, approximately 0.26 hectares in size, be rezoned from RU to EP3, based on the ecological significance of the vegetation, topography, soil and geological conditions. Lands that are not owned by the appellant, 1030 Huntmar Drive and an unaddressed parcel owned by the City located on the east side of Huntmar Drive, would also be affected by the proposed amendments. A portion of 1030 Huntmar Drive would be rezoned from EP3 to RU, based on the findings of the site visits with regard to the ecological significance of the land. Within the unaddressed parcel of land east of Huntmar Drive, a small area would be rezoned from EP3 to RU, while another small area of land would be rezoned from RU to EP3, see Document 3 – Details of recommended zoning and Document 4 – Site-specific lands affected map.
Both the City and the appellant agree that portions of the lands adjacent and directly to the north of the existing EP3 boundary have been disturbed by grazing activity. Given the degree of disturbance, it is considered appropriate to adjust the boundary between the zones. It is the appellant’s position that a larger area of land has been disturbed to the extent that it should no longer be included within the EP3 Subzone. City environmental staff and the planning consultant hired by the City do not agree with this evaluation, and as such, do not support the rezoning of a larger area of land as proposed by the appellant, see Document 5 - Map showing boundary proposed by appellant and boundary proposed by City. The appellant’s proposed boundary as shown in Document 5 has been shown with the greatest possible degree of accuracy given the file format the mapping information was provided in.
The recommendations of this report represent a proposed refinement of the current boundary between the EP3 and RU zones, based on the findings of the site visits. Regarding the boundaries of land designated Natural Environment Area in the Official Plan, policy 9 of Section 3.2.2 states that when more up-to-date information becomes available, an adjustment to the interpretation of the Natural Environment Area boundary may be warranted. Minor changes to the boundaries do not require an amendment to the Official Plan. Major changes would, however, require an Official Plan amendment. The zoning amendment recommended in this report is considered by staff to be a minor amendment. Staff does not consider the boundary proposed by the appellant to be a minor modification. An Official Plan amendment would therefore be required to effect such a modification.
CONSULTATION
The appellants, the owner of the unaddressed parcel on the east side of Huntmar Drive and the owner of 1030 Huntmar Drive have been notified of the date of the public meeting and of the changes recommended in Documents 3 and 4. The Ministry of Natural Resources is aware of the recommendations in this report.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)
The Ward Councillor is aware of the recommendations in this report.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Adoption of this report will resolve an outstanding appeal to By-law 2008-250. The Board is scheduled to hear this matter on 19 October 2010.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct Financial Implications associated with this report
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Information from Muncaster Environmental Planning
Document 2 Methodology for determining the new zoning boundary for the South March Highlands Natural Environment Area
Document 3 Details of recommended zoning
Document 4 Site-specific lands affected map
Document 5 Map showing boundary proposed by appellant and boundary proposed by City
DISPOSITION
Regarding
Recommendation 2, Planning and Growth Management to prepare the implementing
by-law, forward to Legal Services, and undertake the statutory notification.
Legal Services to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.
DOCUMENT 1
INFORMATION
FROM MUNCASTER ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
DOCUMENT 2
METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING THE NEW ZONING BOUNDARY FOR THE SOUTH MARCH HIGHLANDS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AREA
Dr. Nicholas Stow (B.Sc., Ph.D., CCEP)
July 19, 2010
The new zoning line delineates the edge of the Natural Environment Area (NEA) protecting the South March Highlands Candidate ANSI on Richcraft’s Huntmar property, as determined in the field.
The boundary of the NEA was determined during two site visits by qualified ecologists. The eastern half of the boundary was determined in the field on May 10, 2010, during a site visit by Mr. Dan Brunton (on behalf of the City of Ottawa), Mr. Bernie Muncaster (on behalf of Richcraft), Ms. Amy MacPherson (City of Ottawa) and Dr. Nicholas Stow (City of Ottawa). It represents the consensus of Mr. Brunton, Ms. MacPherson and Dr. Stow. Mr. Muncaster, representing the landowner, participated in the May 10 site visit and observed the determination of the boundary, but withheld his opinion regarding its ecological validity. The western half of the boundary was determined in the field on July 13, 2010, during a site visit by Mr. Dan Brunton and Dr. Nicholas Stow. Mr. Muncaster was not present during this site visit. The boundary on this date represents the consensus of Mr. Brunton and Dr. Stow.
The underlying ecological feature for the NEA is the South March Highlands – a ridge of Precambrian bedrock extending generally southeast from near the Ottawa River at Fitzroy Harbour into the north edge of the urban boundary at Kanata. In the vicinity of the Richcraft property, the edge of the South March Highlands is defined by the Hazeldean Escarpment, which is formed by the Hazeldean Fault. The Hazeldean Escarpment runs generally east-west across the property, and is marked by a well-defined change in topography and surficial geology. The escarpment rises abruptly from south to north, climbing approximately 30 m over less than 100 m on its steepest slopes. South from the foot of the escarpment, the surficial geology consists of relatively flat Pleistocene sedimentary rocks overlain by clay soils of the Carp River valley and floodplain. North from the foot of the escarpment, the surficial geology consists primarily of Precambrian metamorphic rocks, covered in shallow till soils or pockets of organic soils (in wetland areas) with abundant exposed rock outcrops.
Because the most defining characteristic of the South March Highlands is its Precambrian bedrock, the boundary of the NEA was determined first on the basis of physiography: i.e. surficial geology, landform and topography. The NEA boundary was then adjusted on the basis of vegetation, using two subjective criteria: (a) the extent of non-native vegetation; (b) the likelihood that areas of non-native vegetation would revert to dominance by native vegetation in the short or medium term. The evaluators adjusted the boundary of the NEA to exclude adjacent areas of non-native vegetation if, in their professional opinion, those areas were unlikely to revert to native vegetation cover without intensive intervention and restoration. In general, these areas of non-native vegetation were connected to the lower, flatter lands of the Carp Valley by more gentle slopes and showed evidence of past disturbance by livestock and other human uses.
During both site visits, the NEA boundary was recorded in the field by Dr. Nicholas Stow, using a WAAS-enabled GPS (accuracy ~ 3 m). Dr. Stow used the GPS to create a track of his visit as he walked the edge of the NEA and to create waypoints to record specific locations. Dr. Stow then downloaded the GPS data on his return to the office, where GIS technicians of the City of Ottawa converted the GPS data into ESRI shapefiles for use ArcMap 9.3.1. Dr. Stow then used the converted GPS data to create a new zoning line in ArcMap 9.3.1 following the boundary of the NEA. The new zoning line was reviewed and agreed to by Mr. Brunton.
DOCUMENT 3
ETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING
Proposed changes to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the lands located at 820, 870, 940 Huntmar Drive, unaddressed parcel east of Huntmar Drive, 1030 Huntmar Drive, as shown in Documents 4:
1. The subject lands shown as Area A in Document 3 are rezoned from EP3 to RU.
2. The subject lands shown as Area B in Document 3 are rezoned from RU to EP3.
DOCUMENT 4
SITE-SPECIFIC
LANDS AFFECTED MAP
DOCUMENT 5
MAP SHOWING BOUNDARY
PROPOSED BY APPELLANT
AND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BY CITY
