That the Planning and Environment Committee confirm the Minutes of the Meeting of 09 September 1997.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ITEMS

- Committee Coordinator’s report dated 30 Sept 97

Jim Miller, Director, Engineering Division, Environment and Transportation Department (ETD) and Mark Surtees, Project Manager, Environmental Projects Branch, ETD appeared before the Committee. Mr. Miller informed Committee that, in a first for a Regional project, the Carlsbad Springs Project had been recognized by the Canadian Consulting Engineers’ Association (CCEA), and that the Award of Excellence in the Water Resources and Energy Production category had been awarded to the consulting firm of Ainley-Graham. Mr. Miller then introduced Messrs. Terry Hardy, President of Ainley-Graham and John Krug, the firm’s project manager. Mr. Miller added the project has been nominated for the Schreyer Award, the premier award from the CCEA, the winner of which will be announced on October 23, 1997.

Mr. Miller provided an overview of the project, which will provide the community with a supply of safe, potable water over a 50 square kilometre area in Carlsbad Springs and the surrounding area. He noted the new trickle feed system included innovations such as the in-house tank, steady-flow, new material usage and construction techniques. Mr. Miller then introduced a short video on the construction techniques, which he felt were instrumental in achieving the CCEA award, and contributed to the project’s success.

Following the video presentation, Mike Sheflin, Commissioner, ETD, noted the overall cost of the newly-installed system was approximately 25 percent of that of a conventional one. He emphasized the project’s cost-effectiveness had helped bring about a service which had not seemed possible a number of years earlier.

The Committee Chair congratulated the project team for their use of an innovative process, and for working with the ward councillor and community in bringing about a workable system.

Councillor Beamish advised that most of the residents who had previously been opposed to the installation of the system were now connected to the water service.

RECEIVED

-Director, Engineering Division, Environment and Transportation Department report dated 25 Sept 97

- Committee Coordinator’s report dated 30 Sept 97

The Committee Chair announced that the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP) would present an award to the Region’s Planning and Development Approvals Department (PDA).

Pamela Sweet, Director, Policy and Infrastructure Planning Division, PDA, introduced Ms. Rachel Corbets, Executive Director of the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP), and Mr. Patrick Déoux, President-Elect of the CIP.

Ms. Corbets announced she was pleased to be able to recognize the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton for winning an Honour Award in the CIP’s 1997 Murray Zides Awards for Planning Excellence Program. She explained the annual awards, named for a fellow of the Institute, honour planning projects judged on their excellence, innovation, impact on the field of expertise, implementation potential and presentation. She said out of five projects recognized this year, one award had been given to the Region’s Planning and Development Approvals Department for its work on the Regional Official Plan (ROP) Review. The awards had been presented at the CIP’s annual conference in St. John’s., Nfld., on 22 July 1997. Ms. Corbets then introduced a video which gave a brief overview of the CIP Awards Program.

Following the video, Mr. Déoux, on behalf of the CIP, presented the award to Ms. Sweet and Nick Tunnacliffe, Commissioner, PDA.

In accepting the award, Mr. Tunnacliffe recognized the contributions made by staff of both the Planning and Development Approvals and Environment and Transportation Departments towards the ROP Review. He noted significantly more work had been done in less time on the current Review than on the 1988 version, including complete reviews of the Water and Waste Water Master Plans and of natural environmental and riverfront systems. Mr. Tunnacliffe also lauded the Planning and Environment Committee for its participation in the process.

Committee Chair Hunter added the latest Review process had involved a new community vision process and development strategy, which through cooperative efforts had resulted in a greater concensus and a clearer Regional Official Plan. The Committee Chair thanked staff and Committee members for their efforts.

Councillor Hill said although she had not participated in the development of the previous Regional Official Plan, she wanted to commend staff for their hard work on the current one, and particularly for their efforts in accommodating the needs of rural residents.

The Committee Chair offered his thanks to the representatives of the Canadian Institute of Planners for their attendance and for the video presentation, which he felt captured the highlights of Ottawa-Carleton’s Regional Official Plan.

Councillor Legendre said he wished to introduce the following Motion which he felt built on, and promoted, the new Regional Official Plan’s environmental aspects:

Moved by J. Legendre

That as part of its preparations for the 1998 Budget proposal, staff prepare a report on revisions to the current environmental land acquisition policy in order that the policy support the Region’s new Official Plan.

The Councillor said he wanted Committee’s approval, to allow staff the necessary lead time to prepare a report prior to 1998 budget preparations.

The Committee Chair ruled the Motion out of order as being inappropriate to the item being dealt with, but said the Motion could be held and entertained under "Other Business".

Councillor Legendre felt his Motion was appropriate, as the discussions included the new Regional Official Plan, which he felt his Motion would serve to strengthen. Councillor Legendre therefore challenged the Chair’s ruling and a vote to sustain the Chair was "Carried" as follows:

RECEIVED

HERON-WALKLEY LANDS

- Regional Solicitor’s and Planning and Development Approvals

Commissioner’s joint report dated 06 Oct 97

Hunt club enclave (zaidan) subdivision

- Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner’s report dated 06 Oct 97

Roger Hunter, Regional Planner, Planning and Development Approvals Department provided the Committee with an overview of the staff report.

Responding to questions from Councillor Legendre concerning the design standards of the noise barriers to be used along Conroy Road, Mr. Hunter advised that staff have reviewed and accepted the noise studies undertaken by the developers, with respect to Conroy Road. Brendan Reid, Manager, Projects and Infrastructure Planning Branch, Planning and Development Approvals Department added the noise barriers used along Hunt Club Road are of top quality and meet Provincial standards; the same standard will be used by the Region when it starts reconstruction along Conroy Road. As well, the developer of the lands will utilize the same type of noise barriers to ensure consistency along Conroy Road.

The Committee then heard from the following delegations.

Barbara Barr a resident of South Keys, felt there were a number of things wrong with developing the subject land. For example, she noted that McEwen Creek (which originates on the subject site) is not mentioned in the material provided by the City of Ottawa. She questioned whether the Creek would be protected and what the effect of development would be on the Creek. She felt if the City of Ottawa does not have a very good plan for the Creek, then development should not be allowed on the blocks of land that the Creek runs through.

Ms. Barr went on to say the proposed development deviates substantially from the key principles contained in the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan, that are intended to guide future growth and change in Greenboro. She gave as examples of these principles that were not followed were the formation of a citizens’ committee and a continuous pedestrian pathway system. She felt if the City of Ottawa does not adhere to the development principles of its Official Plan, the Region should force Ottawa to amend its Official Plan before proceeding with the development.

Finally, Ms. Barr pointed out the new development will not have its own schools or recreational facilities. The existing facilities in Greenboro are already at capacity and she questioned how the additional residents will be accommodated.

Councillor Beamish asked staff to comment on the points raised by Ms. Barr concerning McEwen Creek and how it would be protected through the subdivision agreement. Mr. Hunter noted the creek would be protected through conditions imposed by the City of Ottawa. He stated the developer has agreed to wait for the Conroy Swamp study to be completed and are prepared to transfer ownership of all of the headwaters of Conroy Swamp to the City of Ottawa, which would then be protected through public ownership.

Councillor Beamish asked how one could be assured that development will not adversely affect the swamp. Mr. Hunter noted a study will be undertaken to determine what effect development would have on ground water recharge; and then, depending on the results of that study, certain techniques including best management practices will have to be employed.

With respect to the issue of schools in the development, Mr. Hunter, in response to questions posed by Councillor Beamish, advised the application was circulated to all of the school boards and they indicated, with the exception of the Ottawa Board of Education, they could accommodate the increase in student population in the existing schools. The Ottawa Board of Education agreed to a $100 levy per dwelling unit to help defray the cost of providing accommodation elsewhere and this condition is included in the Regional subdivision agreement.

Bob Brown, began by advising the Committee that he only became aware of the meeting from the advertisement in the weekend newspaper. He felt this was insufficient notice for the community and did not allow them time or opportunity to formulate a strategy. Mr. Brown went on to express his agreement with the statements made by Ms. Barr. He noted that bicycle paths, which are beneficial to persons with disabilities (particularly those having to use wheelchairs), are absent in the proposed plan. On the issue of intensification, Mr. Brown noted no studies have been undertaken to determine the social impact (e.g. crime, recreational facilities, etc.) of such a large development.

Responding to questions from Councillor Stewart, Mr. Brown advised if the community had been given advance notice of this meeting, it would have had the time to discuss the issue and prepare a more organized response. Councillor Stewart asked staff if the Region has met its legal obligation in terms of public consultation and notification. Mr. Hunter advised that normally approval of subdivision agreements are delegated to staff; in this instance, Councillor Beamish had requested that this matter be brought to Planning and Environment Committee and Council for approval. He went on to say that as this subdivision falls under the old Planning Act, once the conditions of draft plan approval have been issued, the only ones that can refer the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board are the applicant, the City of Ottawa and the Region.

Councillor Beamish stated many of the concerns raised by the speakers are the responsibility of the City of Ottawa (i.e. internal bicycle paths, walkways, recreation facilities) and have been dealt with through the subdivision agreement with the City. He felt the confusion experienced by the citizens supported the need for one level of municipal government. The Councillor referred to the Region’s Official Plan which encourages development inside greenbelt (where the infrastructure is in place) and noted this is the first large experience of intensification. He noted that through community meetings held in the summer, the concerns of the residents were brought to the City of Ottawa by Councillor Deans and addressed to a large extent in the City’s subdivision agreement. As well, Regional issues such as sound barriers, the widening of Conroy Road, Phasing, etc. have been addressed in the Region’s subdivision agreement. Councillor Beamish acknowledged that many people, including the developers, are not completely happy with the outcome but felt it to be the best possible compromise.

Alan Cohen, representing the developers of the subject land, Richcraft Homes and Claridge Homes. Ted Phillips of Richcraft Homes and Paul Rothwell of Claridge Homes were also present; Mr. Cohen noted that draft plan approval issued by the City of Ottawa years earlier had lapsed, which required the developer to hold another series of public meetings, meetings with Regional and City staff and provide updated studies. Mr. Cohen, speaking to points raised by previous speakers, noted representatives of the school boards attended the public meetings and reiterated their position that no new schools would be required. With respect to McEwen Creek, Mr. Cohen noted it is not defined at all within the subject lands, while Conroy Swamp is. He stated Conroy Swamp is currently being studied for its environmental significance and the developer has agreed that if it is environmentally significant the more than 12 acres will be transferred to the City of Ottawa. In addition, the storm water management study will look at the entire issue. Mr. Cohen advised that noise attenuation meets Regional and Provincial standards. With respect to pathways, every residential block is joined by paths and the developers have given greater than the required 5% of parkland.

Responding to questions from Councillor Beamish, Mr. Phillips advised that to his knowledge, there is no creek (i.e. McEwen Creek) on the subject property. He noted that Conroy Swamp drains into a creek south of the major trunk sewer (the water going in equals the water going out) and there will be no change to it. Councillor Beamish asked if it would be possible to contact Sue Costello at the City of Ottawa, prior to this matter being considered by Council on 22 October, to find out more about the creek and what the city has done to address this issue in their subdivision agreement.

Mr. Phillips noted the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) have been consulted on this piece of land and both have required certain studies to be undertaken as a requirement of development. He advised that Sue Costello has been very involved in the process and that she, the RVCA and the MNR are satisfied with the conditions that have been imposed. He stated if the Councillor so wished, he could obtain something in writing from Ms. Costello.

Responding to further questions from Councillor Beamish, Mr. Phillips noted the two blocks of land identified for development are no where near the purported creek. He noted that prior to building permits being issued on the blocks of land slated for development, the storm water management plan and all water quality/quantity issues will have to be dealt with to the satisfaction of the RVCA, the MNR, the Region and the City.

Tom Gaber, took issue with the comment made by the previous speaker concerning McEwen Creek and questioned why they would put a culvert over a non-existent creek. He noted a representative of the RVCA has inspected the creek and could verify its existence. Mr. Gaber went on to speak to the issue of insufficient notification and inadequate consultation process. He noted the subject land is not a vacant lot; rather it is a 200 acre wildlife corridor and the community feels it is being annihilated (socially, economically and environmentally) by development (both on the subject land and land on Johnson Road).

With a background in criminology, Mr. Gaber expressed great concern about the lack of consideration given to the of costs this development will have in terms of crime. He noted that adding 1100 school aged children to the area without adequate support, schooling and youth services will result in serious social problems. Mr. Gaber advised the Chairperson of the Ottawa Board of Education has indicated the only way the local school system can accommodate this number of students is to bus them outside of the community.

Mr. Gaber went on to point out this proposed development has caused property values in neighbouring communities to decrease by 21%. He felt this to be very bad planning from the standpoint of social, economical and environmental issues and he urged the Committee to carry out more consultation.

Committee Chair Hunter questioned how the Community could be surprised that this land would be developed, given the residential development surrounding the subject property. Mr. Gaber replied it is the community’s position that there is no need for development, the wildlife corridor should be preserved and there is no money available to provide the required infrastructure. He felt in this instance, the rights of the property owner are superceding the rights of the established, surrounding community.

Councillor Stewart pointed out the owner of the subject property has established rights to develop on the land and in order to stop development, the Region would have to acquire the land at fair market value. She asked the delegation if this was an option to the community. Mr. Gaber noted he was not against development, however, he felt there should be a balance between the right of the developer to develop and the right of the community to maintain certain characteristics, quality of life, etc. He felt the research carried out at the City level was inadequate and that the costs to the adjacent communities (e.g.. crime, property values, etc.) have not been taken into account.

Councillor Beamish pointed out, the developers had draft plan approval for this subdivision from both the City and the Region, however, they agreed to enter into new negotiations to address the community’s concerns. The developers could have chosen not to do so and stayed with the original conditions of draft plan approval.

Councillor Munter asked staff when these lands were designated for development. Nick Tunnacliffe, Commissioner, Planning and Development Approvals Department, advised they were first designated in the Regional Official Plan in 1974, however, the City of Ottawa Official Plan committed the land for urban development prior to this (i.e. late 1960’s, early 1970’s).

Kathy Wallace, advised she lives across from the proposed development and noted when she purchased her home eleven years ago, she was told this land would not be developed. She stated that because she lives so close to this land, she and her neighbours should have been individually notified. With respect to McEwen Creek, Ms. Wallace noted it goes all the way from Johnson Road to Conroy Road and there are five beaver dams on it. She said the creek dries up every year but it always comes back. Ms. Wallace stated the community wants to be prepared for the time when the developer wants to build on the remainder of the land and she asked that they be notified in advance. In conclusion, Ms. Wallace questioned why this piece of property is so important to everybody that it has to be built upon.

In reference to Ms. Wallace’s question, Chair Hunter stated the subject land has no more importance than other developed land in the area, it is merely a question of its time for development having arrived.

Having heard from all public delegations, the Committee turned its attention to the staff recommendation.

Councillor Beamish asked that staff contact City of Ottawa staff in the Environmental Branch of the Planning Department to obtain more information on McEwen Creek and the process for site plan approval of this development.

Councillor Beamish then went on to point out the conditions the Region is dealing with are not really in dispute. He acknowledged that if the Committee were debating the issues that fall under the City of Ottawa’s responsibility, there would have been greater debate. However, representing Regional interests, the subdivision agreement serves the residents of community as well as can be expected. He noted that he would be talking with Councillor Deans to see what can be done through the site plan approval process.

OWNER: marc joseph seguin

- Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner’s report dated 18 Sept 97

7. LAND ACQUISITION - NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AREA (MARLBOROUGH FOREST)
OWNER: JAMES LEWIS SMITH

- Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner’s report dated 09 Sept 97

8. NAMING NEW REGIONAL ROADS IN THE TOWNSHIP OF

WEST CARLETON AND THE CITY OF GLOUCESTER

- Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner’s report dated 16 Sept 97

Moved by J. Legendre

CARRIED

Councillor Legendre noted in the Natural Environment section of the new Official Plan, there are policies that could support an acquisition policy different than what is currently in place (i.e. targeted at the Marlborough Forest and the river front corridors). In this regard, the Councillor put forward a motion asking that staff prepare a report to see if the current acquisition policy is sufficient to support the new Official Plan. He stated he would like to see the report come forward with the 1998 Budget, so that if in fact it is found that there are some missing elements, resources can be so allocated.

Commissioner Tunnacliffe stated staff are already reviewing this matter and confirmed it would be very easy to write a report and bring it forward with the budget.

Councillor Stewart sought assurance that development pressure on such land would be one of the things taken into account; not just the significance of the land but whether or not it is in imminent danger of being developed and in need of protection. Commissioner Tunnacliffe confirmed these sorts of things would be examined in the staff report.

Committee Chair Hunter pointed out the possibility that the new Official Plan and Provincial Policy statements could allow the Region to achieve the objectives of environmental protection without acquisition.

Moved by J. Legendre

CARRIED

Councillor Legendre then put forward the following motion, asking that it be treated as a Notice of Motion.

Chair Hunter suggested this motion be referred to both the Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner and the Environment and Transportation Commissioner, and they would then bring it forward to the appropriate Committee (i.e. either the Planning and Environment Committee or the Transportation Committee). Councillor Legendre agreed.