Councillor Munter brought Committee’s attention to the second-last paragraph on page seven, which referred to the Summary of Assigned Functions report, and which stated: "Councillor Munter, referring to page 36 Proposed Amendment 14-98.0012 "to allow retail warehouse uses" and another application, currently at the City of Kanata, to broaden retail uses in industrial parks, noted he felt both were inconsistent with the Regional Official Plan (ROP) in terms of development of employment centres and development of the Kanata Town Centre." The Councillor clarified that he did not know whether or not they were consistent with the Regional Official Plan; rather, that he had asked whether or not they were consistent with it. He moved that the Minutes be amended to reflect this, and Committee agreed.

CARRIED as amended

Committee Chair Hunter clarified the issue before Committee is a recommendation to decline to object to the application for a Certificate of Approval by Tomlinson Environmental Services to permit a construction and demolition (C&D) waste processing facility within the approved Springhill Landfill site on Springhill Road in the Township of Osgoode and provided that the Certificate of Approval (C of A) issued by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) is in accordance with the written information provided to the Regional Municipality. He noted Committee is not discussing any expansion of the Springhill Landfill site or any other issues that may have been brought up.

The Committee Chair then read the motions tabled at the meeting of 9 June 1998 amending the staff recommendations:

Moved by Councillor Legendre that should the berm be constructed, that it not affect the Springhill/Osgoode Wetland Complex.

Moved by Councillor Beamish that the Region add comment no. 6 as follows: residual waste from the recycling operations not be permitted to be disposed of at the Springhill site without appropriate "compensation fees" being paid to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa Carleton since this has a direct bearing on the RMOC’s ability to manage environmental issues relating to waste disposal in the future.

Councillor Beamish withdrew his motion and put forward the following motion: That the comments to the Ministry of the Environment be amended to include the following:

The Region notes that the issue of the appropriate compensation to be paid in respect of the Springhill Landfill under By-law 234 and the proposed Tomlinson Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Facility under the Regional Municipalities Act will be dealt with by Regional Council at a subsequent date. While declining to object to the certificate of approval the Region formally expresses its concern at the depositing of residual waste whose origin is from outside the Township of Osgoode at the Springhill Landfill.

Councillor van den Ham referring to Councillor Legendre’s motion, asked if the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) would be commenting on the issue of the wetlands complex with respect to the application.

Mr. Tim Marc, Solicitor, Legal Department, indicated MNR would presumably comment on this, however, he opined, based on comments by Mr. Simmering at the 9 June 1998 meeting, that the application before Committee will not pose any risk or harm to the wetlands complex.

Mr. Hugh Roddick addressed the Committee on behalf of himself and The Friends of the Bog. He gave a brief presentation outlining their reasons for their formal opposition to the Construction and Demolition Waste Processing Facility application for the Osgoode Township Springhill Landfill site (on file with the Regional Clerk).

He felt, judging by past Regional actions, that it was the RMOC’s intention with respect to the Springhill Landfill site that it remain a small municipal landfill and not become a commercial enterprise. It is his opinion that this is one step in many in turning this small municipal landfill, endorsed by the Region through their settlement agreement with commercial landfill operators in Ottawa-Carleton, into a large commercial entreprise, counter to the original intentions of the Township of Osgoode when they let the contract and the RMOC in dealing with the Township.

Councillor Munter noted the delegation raised a concern the Committee discussed in camera at the 9 June 1998 meeting regarding the issue of the compensation fee and how these landfills are used and the deal that the Township of Osgoode got, and felt it is very relevant to this application. He asked staff to comment on Mr. Roddick’s presentation.

Mr. Tim Marc, Solicitor, Legal Department indicated staff share some of Mr. Roddick’s concerns, however, he noted the purpose of the open report before Committee is to provide Regional comments on the technical aspects for the application for the Certificate of Approval and the comments in the report will be forwarded to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). He stated there will be another opportunity to address the expansion of the Osgoode Landfill Site and the question of the compensation fee at a later date and encouraged Mr. Roddick to submit his comments directly to the MOE.

Responding to Councillor Legendre’s questions, Mr. Roddick explained the current site, up until 1997, was a small municipal dump with only a few vehicles going in and a small amount of waste being dumped. With this application there will be an increase from 7,400 tonnes to 7,400 plus 41,000 tonnes per year which will significantly change the scope of activities at the site; change traffic patterns on local roads and change the basic nature of how the landfill works. He added although staff indicate the issues are separate, he felt the issue of Osgoode being excluded in the settlement agreement is because it was to remain a small municipal dump and that cannot be separated from the Region declining to object.

The Councillor asked if there are any other grounds in which the Region could object to this application other than "technical". Mr. Marc replied staff have examined the application and do not find any reason to object on the basis of the authority to make comments granted to the Region. He added for clarify what is before the Committee is not the question of whether or not the Springhill Landfill Site can accept construction and demolition waste as they currently can. The question before the Committee is what comments the Region should give on whether or not Tomlinson Environmental Services Ltd. is to be granted a Certificate of Approval for a Construction and Demolition Waste Processing Facility.

Mr. McNally added the comments staff are bringing forward deal predominantly with the waste diversion aspects of the operation. There are a number of points the Region want to draw to the Ministry’s attention and consideration as they undertake the technical review and those issues are noted in the discussion of the report. He stated that is the extent of the comments the Region provides during this Certificate of Approval review.

Mr. Marc clarified for Councillor Legendre that enforcement of Regional conditions on the Certificate of Approval is the responsibility of the Ministry to ensure compliance with the conditions they impose on it.

Committee Chair Hunter thanked Mr. Roddick for his comments and introduced the next delegation.

Mr. Steve Simmering, Engineer representing Tomlinson Environmental and Mr. David Cox, Legal Counsel for Tomlinson Environmental for this application addressed the Committee. Mr. Simmering reiterated the application before Committee has nothing to do with the proposal to the Township of Osgoode for a partnership to expand the existing site; this is a separate activity to properly handle construction and demolition waste coming to this landfill. He clarified the facility would receive construction and demolition waste such as concrete, brick, wood glass, etc. from roll-off containers. This waste is presently going to landfill. He opined that Tomlinson Environmental would be improving the process by recycling this waste. He noted and appreciated Regional staff’s efforts to ensure this is a bona fide facility and not just a way to route waste through a false facility to take advantage of arrangements with Springhill Landfill that presently exist. He indicated the end result of projected usage of the site is 46 years of residual capacity and diverting 21,700 tonnes of waste currently going into landfill sites throughout the Region.

Mr. Simmering, with respect to public consultation, advised the Committee that a July 1997 report is available that addresses a fully advertised open house meeting on this application, all done in accordance to MOE requirements. He added the application is available on the Environmental Bill of Rights electronic registry and residents can make comments to the MOE.

In summary, Mr. Simmering stressed this is a bona fide activity which will help waste management within the Region. He noted they have worked and will continue to work closely with Regional staff to ensure it is a proper, beneficial, environmentally correct activity.

Mr. Cox added with respect to Councillor Beamish’s amendment, Tomlinson Environmental has no objection.

Councillor Munter noted his concern along with a number of his colleagues and other landfill operators that the deal the Township of Osgoode received a number of years ago has now developed to the point where there is no longer a level playing field in Ottawa-Carleton. He asked the delegation why they feel this should not be a concern to be factored into the decision being made at this meeting.

Mr. Simmering explained that the matter is not being treated lightly and has been addressed with staff and in the conditions being recommended. He stressed this is a waste reduction activity, diverting not adding waste to Regional landfills with the requirement to pay compensation if the targets are not met.

Responding to Councillor Legendre’s questions, Mr. McNally explained there is very little bona fide construction and demolition waste currently being diverted and Mr. Simmering’s numbers suggest a larger diversion rate. He added once the Certificate of Approval is in place, staff will negotiate the consent and what is an acceptable rate of diversion; preliminary discussions have been in the range of 60%.

Councillor Legendre inquired if there is not enough economic incentive in place in Ottawa-Carleton to successfully divert construction and demolition waste to which Mr. McNally agreed, noting either the cost of recycling it to high or the markets for the recycled products are not there.

In response to Councillor Legendre, Mr. McNally noted it is the Region’s statutory obligation to accept construction and demolition waste material at landfill and staff have tried over the years to promote diversion from landfill. He felt that any amount of material diverted from landfill is a success.

Mr. Marc explained for Councillor Legendre, regarding the issue of Osgoode Landfill Site acting as a transfer station, that the process is legal provided the other aspects of the Certificate of Approval were abided by, namely that the residual was what it was supposed to be under the Certificate. He noted waste brought from outside of Osgoode and processed at a facility within Osgoode then became waste generated within the Township, and could go to the landfill. Mr. Marc emphasized staff had expressed a concern as to whether or not this is what was anticipated back in 1996 when the settlement was reached, with the view that it was not, but felt this was a debate for another day. He said, however, this did not affect the technical comments to be made on the Application for the C of A.

Chair Hunter then read Councillor Legendre’s motion: That should the berm be constructed, that it not affect the Springhill / Osgoode Wetland Complex.

Councillor van den Ham did not believe this Motion was necessary, and served to attract attention to a "red herring". The Councillor noted MNR was never supposed to place any kind of wetlands line through an existing industry according to their books, and having done so, Councillor van den Ham felt the line that went through there was inappropriate. He said he knew there were bona fide wetlands in the area, but did not believe this was the case in regards to the existing landfill site. The Councillor felt MNR would be making comments if it felt it was necessary, but that the comments as proposed by staff covered what was needed to be said.

Speaking in support of his Motion, Councillor Legendre disputed that it drew attention to a "red herring" in arguing where the line was to be placed, but simply underlined the important aspect that wetlands, in the RMOC’s view, were to be respected. The Councillor explained the quantity of heavy material for the berms that were going to be put into place struck him as having the potential of disrupting the underground water flow, and hence, the wetland. He felt his Motion was appropriate, and noted the response that Committee had received from the Tomlinson representative had indicated the location of the berm, had seemed clear to him that it would not affect the wetlands, and that he had had no objection to the Motion.

Councillor Legendre expected to be going in camera to discuss the confidential reports and - believed the entire dossier has gone too far and should be discussed in camera.

Mr. Marc informed the Councillor this issue, as it deals with litigation, will be going to Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee.

Councillor Legendre requested notification when this issue goes forward to Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and added, in terms of declining to object, found it prejudicial. He felt that should Committee later wish to withhold consent, Committee should be objecting at this meeting. He found it inconsistent and asked for Mr. Marc’s comments.

Mr. Marc explained that what was before Committee was the issue of technical comments on the C of A, noting that in a broad sense, what the Certificate was saying was that from the matters the MOE was required to address, it worked. He noted it did not generally matter to the MOE whether waste from one part of Ontario went to another part of Ontario. Mr. Marc said the Ministry’s concern was to ensure that from a technical basis, waste was treated properly, and that this was the issue of the Certificate.

Mr. Marc also noted the issue of the Consent raised entirely different issues. He explained the issue of the Consent was so that the RMOC had the means to ensure the preservation of the landfill capacity found within the Region. He said a chief factor in why the Board approved By-Law 234 in the first place, was that the RMOC was the only entity that must find a way to dispose of waste within Ottawa-Carleton. Noting that if Tomlinson, Huneault, Laidlaw and Osgoode (Recycling) disappeared, Committee and Council would continue to have a responsibility to deal with waste; that the Region had an interest from the Consent aspect to ensure there was a minimal amount of residual waste. Mr. Marc said that even if, technically, the site was sufficient under the C of A, if it had an extraordinarily high amount of residual, it would be within the proper authority of the Region to deny a Consent.

Councillor Munter said he would not support the staff recommendation. He felt that Osgoode had received a deal from Regional Council a number of years ago on the understanding that waste from Osgoode would be dumped within Osgoode, and that as a result, the landfill site would have capacity into the second half of the next century. The Councillor felt Committee was dealing with decisions that would, at a rate of 20,000 extra tonnes a year, diminish the capacity of the site far earlier. He felt it was small consolation that this was already happening, and that people had found a way around the spirit of the original 1992 deal. Councillor Munter said he hoped when the issue came back, that Committee would return to the original intent of Regional Council in 1992.

Councillor van den Ham said he believed what was being said about additional tonnages going into Osgoode, and that Committee had heard some legitimate concerns from area homeowners and residents. He also noted that since Tomlinson had become involved, the existing dump had been cleaned up and had been improved. The Councillor said better equipment had been brought in for improved compaction resulting in additional tonnages being crushed better. Councillor van den Ham felt the existing material was much better handled. He felt that both the Committee and the residents of Osgoode had to recognize that this was a much-improved landfill site, and that when all was said and done, there would not be much difference with the operation, with the C of A approved, or not.

There being no further discussion, Committee considered the following Motions:

Moved by J. Legendre

CARRIED

Moved by D. Beamish

CARRIED

Committee then carried the staff recommendations, as amended.

CARRIED as amended

REGULAR ITEMS - PLANNING

- Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner’s report

dated 2 Jun 98

- Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner’s report

dated 9 Jun 98

Mr. Nick Tunnacliffe, Commissioner, Planning and Development Approvals Department, explained this report arose after he had received some questions about how the Region would fit into the City of Ottawa’s process regarding Lansdowne Park, and indicated possible places where the Region would have input. The Commissioner noted this was a City-driven process. As Lansdowne Park was City land, the Region’s involvement was through either the approval of a Local Official Plan Amendment (LOPA), or subdivision, if required, and then potentially, depending on which proposal was successful and what it might contain, the potential of a Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA).

Mr. Tunnacliffe said the site was designated Major Community Facility in the Regional Official Plan for two reasons: 1) The Central Canada Exhibition, which is held there and is a major draw, and which, if it were to relocate, would require a ROPA, presumably, to designate the new location, and; 2) by virtue of the fact that the football field, arena and associated trade show space, etc., which makes it a major Regional draw. Mr. Tunnacliffe noted if the facility was to be demolished entirely, or significantly reduced, there might be a requirement to take away the Major Community Facility designation at Lansdowne Park itself. The Commissioner said that until it was known which proposal was successful, and what exactly it contained, nothing more definite could be established. He noted this was the point at which the Region would have input, likely to be some months down the road.

Responding to questions from Councillor Munter, the Commissioner replied that he had not yet had an opportunity to see the two proposals in the public domain currently under consideration, but had read about them in the newspaper. He noted that if the proposals were going to get rid of the football stadium, the C.C.E.A. and the hockey arena and trade show space, then the site would require an amendment to the Regional Official Plan to remove the Major Community Facility designation. Mr. Tunnacliffe said that if something were to be left, staff would have to study the proposal, its scale, perform analyses, and then report back to Committee, noting that staff had not yet been involved in the process.

Mr. Tunnacliffe confirmed for Chair Hunter that the area was designated General Urban Area with Waterfront Open Space along the canal, and with an overlay to indicate the location of the Major Community Facility. He also confirmed that housing, as allowed in any General Urban Area, did not need a special designation.

Councillor Munter noted that the Region was the approval authority in terms of an amendment to the City of Ottawa Official Plan, but asked Mr. Tunnacliffe if the Region’s scope was narrow and specific.

Mr. Tunnacliffe replied that the LOPA would have to conform to the Regional Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statements, but that in the Urban Area, this was not particularly onerous. The Commissioner also said there would have to be conformity on policies regarding infrastructure and transportation, so the Region would be satisfied that whatever demands were going to be placed on Regional systems could be met.

Councillor Stewart felt that if the Region viewed this facility as a major Regional draw, it would be more up-front and less costly and time consuming for the Region to state its intentions at the outset, rather than disapproving a designation or rezoning that would change the Official Plan designation, after a long and involved City process.

Mr. Tunnacliffe said the difficulty with this was that the City of Ottawa was driving the process at the moment, one the City wished to follow through with and come to a conclusion. Following this, presumably, the City would be approaching the Region if Official Plan Amendments were required.

Councillor Stewart said she was aware of this, and had also been contacted by developers wondering if the Region was going to put the brakes on the process at the last moment. She reiterated that she felt if the Region was the approval authority, it should decide up front what it was or was not going to allow.

Responding to questions from Chair Chiarelli regarding appeal processes and time frames involved, assuming the City of Ottawa would have adopted a LOPA on January 1st, 1999, Mr. Marc outlined the following scenario, dealing with the prospect that a ROPA was determined to be required.

Mr. Marc noted that under this process, the Region would have to deal with the amendment within a 90 day period (April or May of 1999). A decision would then be made by Regional Council, either in favour or not, following which there would be a 20 day notice period of the decision. During that time, people could appeal the decision to the OMB or not. If appealed, it would go to the OMB to get on a list by June of 1999. Mr. Marc noted the Board’s timetable has improved, but offered there is a six month time frame between the time a matter is listed and a hearing is convened, which would bring the process to January of 2000. Mr. Marc also noted the ROPA would not have to go to the Ministry for approval, as the Region has been exempted from Ministry approval.

Chair Hunter acknowledged the presence of Micky Green, Chairman of the "Revive the Pride" campaign, who wished to address Committee on this issue, and emphasized this was an information report for discussion by Committee about the process the City of Ottawa would potentially be following, were they to pursue a redevelopment proposal for Lansdowne Park. The Chair noted that his hesitancy with hearing the speaker was not with what the speaker had to say, but rather one of process; that the speaker was on one side of an issue that might necessitate the holding of an Official Plan hearing where all parties were to be heard, on issues of whether Lansdowne Park should be redeveloped, the nature of the redevelopment etc; properly the forum of an Official Plan hearing. Committee Chair Hunter reminded the speaker he had been given the opportunity to speak on an understanding that the parties representing development interests who wanted to change the nature of Lansdowne Park were going to make their presentations as well. Subsequently, the proponents had withdrawn their request to do so. He also reminded the speaker that his comments would not form part of the public hearing process; they would form part of the minutes of this meeting but not of the Region’s decision-making process on the development of Lansdowne Park.

Micky Green, Chairman of the "Revive the Pride" campaign, introduced Messrs. Rose and Slattery, also of the campaign, and gave Committee a brief presentation regarding the group’s efforts to return CFL football to Ottawa (on file with the Regional Clerk).

Following his presentation, Mr. Green asked if he could submit his 18,000 signature petition, and was told by the Chair that although he could do this, he might wish to save it to present at either a Regional Official Plan or a Local Official Plan public hearing where it would form part of the public record.

Mr. Green then asked if a submission at this point would constitute the document being placed in public record from where they could be referred to at the time of a subsequent public hearing.

Mr. Marc said he believed if there was any intent on referring to them as part of some Official Plan Amendment process, the appropriate time to file them would be during that process.

Mr. Green said he appreciated Committee’s position on this issue, but stated his concern that the process might not be before the Region before the year 2000. He believed that if this was allowed to continue in this manner, one municipality could unilaterally have an impact on the entire Region. Mr. Green also felt that Regional taxpayers might be owning these facilities in three to four years if one-tier government were adopted. He said he wanted to have the petition recognized as the voice of 18,000 Regional taxpayers on the issue.

At Councillor van den Ham’s request, Mr. Green outlined the petition’s main statement: "We the undersigned declare that the facilities at Lansdowne Park including the Ottawa Civic Centre and Frank Clair Stadium, including the south side stands, are invaluable to the commercial, cultural, recreational and sports fabric of our community. We strongly demand that local politicians do what it takes to save these local assets from destruction. Likewise, we vow to remember those who act to save these facilities..."

Noting that the Revive The Pride campaign had amassed over 18,000 signatures, Councillor van den Ham then asked who spoke for the other 300,000 plus Regional taxpayers.

Mr. Green acknowledged the Councillor’s question as valid, and added his belief that no one issue would have the input of the entire taxpayer base. He also issued a challenge to either of the proponents to develop a similar level of support from within the community.

Chair Hunter believed Councillor Stewart had raised a good issue, and opined that if there was a Regional Official Plan issue here, perhaps the City of Ottawa should bring its application up front before getting too far into the development approvals process.

Mr. Tunnacliffe said he would encourage pre-consultation and discussion. He offered that as the City was making its decision over the summer, and as their staff came to a conclusion, they might want to submit an application early, as the Planning and Development Approvals Department would begin to process it straight away.

Councillor Stewart noted the Park was already committed to certain events into the future for a number of years. She asked what would happen if the City and the Region had made a decision, approved by the OMB, to get rid of the Major Community Facility designation, and subsequently wanted to change it at a later date.

Mr. Tunnacliffe said assuming the facility had not been demolished, but the Region had gone through the planning process, and had taken the Major Community Facility designation off, he presumed the designation would be put back on again through another amendment, if it was the will of Council.

Councillor Stewart congratulated Mr. Green for bringing the issue forward and for collecting the 18,000 signatures. She said the petition was impressive, and underscored the Regional nature of the facility as well as its substantial heritage in the City of Ottawa and the Region of Ottawa-Carleton. The Councillor thanked Mr. Green and wished him luck with his group’s efforts to bring back Rough Riders football to Ottawa.

Chair Chiarelli thanked the Commissioner for his report and asked if he was advising that Committee, Council or staff should be doing nothing with respect to this issue until the City formalized an application for an Official Plan Amendment.

Mr. Tunnacliffe informed that this was the normal process to date, and that if Committee or Council wanted staff to take action, staff would have to be directed to do so through Committee. He outlined that the normal process would be for an applicant to go through the planning justification for whatever they want to do, and then to bring forward a request to amend the Official Plan.

Further responding to questions from Chair Chiarelli regarding possible collaboration with City of Ottawa planning staff on such issues as traffic studies or traffic input, Mr. Tunnacliffe noted Regional staff would be cooperative around the issues relating to Regional interest, which are primarily the Official Plan regulating the Major Community Facilities and Regional Infrastructure. He said the applicant needs to know about the requirement for water and sewer, and what the Region’s view of the transportation impact might be.

With regards to servicing for the site, the Commissioner also explained that the developer would be responsible for the infrastructure on the site, and that the Region was responsible for water right to the development. Mr. Tunnacliffe said he presumed there would be a local sewer involved which would intervene between the site and the Regional collector sewer.

Chair Chiarelli asked if the Department had developed any preliminary assessment as to the nature of servicing and/or costs that might be required on the part of the Regional Municipality to service a site that would contain in the order of 2,000 or 2,500 residential units plus hotel, etc.

Mr. Tunnacliffe replied the Department had not, however, he did not believe it would be significant in the sense of significant costs related to the amount of development proposed. He noted there would be some costs, but they would not be significant on a per-unit basis.

The Commissioner also confirmed for Councillor Munter that Committee or Council could not turn down a ROPA until there was a ROPA application, and that a Motion could not be passed saying a proposal would not be considered or rejected until there was actually a proposal to reject. He noted the other alternative was to have staff investigate changing the Plan ahead of time.

Mr. Tunnacliffe indicated in response to Chair Chiarelli’s question, that anyone including either proponent in this issue can initiate a ROPA.

Mr. Tunnacliffe stated with respect to zoning changes at the City of Ottawa, Regional staff would be circulated and can provide comment to the OMB regarding conformity with the ROP in response to Councillor Beamish’s questions. He further noted, staff have designated authority to appeal if there is a problem.

Councillor Stewart asked if staff are doing everything possible to work with the City of Ottawa on this issue to which Mr. Tunnacliffe said the City’s position appears to be that this is their process and once it is completed they will come and talk to the Region. He added the developers have been in touch with PDA staff when preparing their proposals.

Councillor Legendre inquired if the Region has the authority with respect to zoning when next to a Regional Road. Mr. Marc confirmed and explained the Region has authority over zoning within 45 metres of the boundary of a Regional Road. He noted that that authority has never been exercised.

Committee Chair Hunter thanked the delegation for their comments and there being no further discussion, the Committee received the report.

of transportation Committee

- Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner’s report

dated 4 Jun 98

Councillor Holmes addressed the staff report and thanked the Planning and Development Approvals Department (PDA) for their efforts in putting it together. She noted it has been a longtime concern of hers that the Region continues to be unsuccessful in land use planning in order to provide an increase in ridership for OC Transpo and to successfully move people onto public transit and achieve a 73% increase for the year 2021.

She remarked on the number of temporary parking lots in the central area, City of Ottawa, which, as there is sufficient money return, become permanent and those lands are then not redeveloped.

Councillor Holmes noted the City of Ottawa has also recognized this problem and the staff report indicates the City has begun a study on this issue. She is hopeful that the Region will be able to provide comments for the study.

Regarding the matter of actual zoning of the central area, City of Ottawa zoning, and the amount of parking in zoned locations throughout the Region, the Councillor hoped that the Region will pursue an appeal of the City of Ottawa’s new zoning by-law 2020Z to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to ensure parking requirements in the by-law will be beneficial to OC Transpo and the Region’s transit goals in the Regional Official Plan (ROP).

Councillor Holmes indicated she is looking forward to seeing future action, whether it be appeals to the OMB or working with the area municipalities to bring them into conformity with the ROP.

Mr. Tunnacliffe stated the Region has appealed the City of Ottawa’s zoning by-law 2020Z in eight areas; two of them related to issues Councillor Holmes brought up. He informed the Committee staff will bring a report forward at a future meeting for confirmation of the appeal.

Committee Chair Hunter noted some area municipalities have appealed the ROP as they felt it is too intrusive into their areas of municipal jurisdiction.

There being no further discussion, the Committee then received the staff report.

- Response to Inquiry No. P&E-8 (98)

- Director, Engineering Division, Environment and Transportation

Department report dated 22 Jun 98

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen, referring to a report resulting from an inquiry she made at the 9 Jun 98 Planning and Environment Committee meeting, asked that the rules be suspended in order for staff to present their response.

Chair Hunter noted the report concerned the Trail Road Leachate Pipeline Project. The Chair stated that Committee had asked for it to come to this meeting, but that it had not been included with the agenda as it had not been prepared in time for agenda printing.

Chair Chiarelli moved that the rules be suspended to consider the item and to have the presentation made.

Moved by Chair Chiarelli

CARRIED

Mr. McNally gave a brief overview of the staff report.

Mr. McNally noted that the report before Committee recommends that the Department undertake a peer technical review of leachate management options focusing on onsite treatment technology including any new technologies that may have progressed since the original 1995 study. The report suggests that over the next couple of months the leachate management assessment from 1995 will be reviewed and the technical results from that study will be brought back and tabled with Committee in the Fall and, once tabled, take it back to the residents and receive their comments on the review.

Committee Chair Hunter noted the absence of financial discussion in the report and asked what the costs would be for the peer technical review.

Mr. McNally responded staff anticipated doing a brief request for proposals and felt the costing on the assessment is expected to be less than $50,000.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen recalled one of the questions in her inquiry regarding the timing and expansion of the West Rideau Collector and notes the report does not respond to that question.

Mr. McNally indicated staff felt examining the onsite treatment options would be the most time consuming and started there. He added staff will be working on the other questions in the inquiry over the next couple of months.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen respectfully requested the Committee to pursue the avenue proposed by staff on this matter. She felt the leachate pipeline was not presented to the community in a way that Regional Government would be proud of to go through public consultation on a issue as important as this one is. She agreed the technology as assessed in 1995 has advanced somewhat and the Region should take the time to look at it to assess their viability both from an environmental and financial perspective.

Councillor Legendre was unclear on the new technologies that are being referred to in the report. He understood it could be piped, trucked or treated on site and, if treated on site, it still must go off site.

Mr. Dave McCartney, Manager, Environmental Projects Branch, Engineering Division, said staff have recently become aware of some technologies involving a form of evaporation and separation inside a reactor vessel of the pollutants and the water. He noted this option might possibly allow pre-treatment of the leachate prior to discharge into the wastewater collection system.

The Councillor, referring to the community comments on Annex A, noted a number of residents’ concerns about health and safety. He asked, being an underground pipe, why health and safety is an issue.

Mr. McCartney said his impression from the public meeting were concerns about a break in the pipeline resulting in leachate leaking onto their property and the health risks associated with that.

Councillor Legendre, in terms of the pipeline, notes one of the proposed routes goes along roads adjacent to which there is farm land and then it enters a community along a rail line and inquired if it is an active rail line. Mr. McCartney said the rail line is currently active and there is also a utility corridor that runs along the rail line.

Councillor Legendre felt that since there is a community there, there would already be local sewers in the area and asked if the Region could, rather than put another pipe in, get permission to connect to the local sewer at that point.

Mr. McCartney indicated there are a couple of issues involved the first being it is a forcemain (pumped uphill) so it would have to come to a point where it can flow into the system and there would have to be enough capacity in the sewer system to be able to take the volumes expected and he felt there could be possible legal and assumption issues relating to a Regional sewer connecting to a local sewer and then connecting back to a Regional sewer.

Responding to Councillor Legendre’s questions regarding capacity, Mr. McCartney noted the leachate alone would not present a capacity problem, however, there is also the contaminated ground water from the Nepean facility which is a much larger volume that also needs to be dealt with.

Mr. Marc, in responding to Councillor Legendre’s questions on connecting to the local sewer, noted there may be more concern from the residents with this scenerio with respect to leachate backing up into basements and he felt the City of Nepean would not consent to the Region discharging leachate into the local sewer.

Mr. McCartney indicated the option of tankers dumping the leachate into a nearby Regional sewer was considered in an internal report looking at the economics and staff found that in spite of the savings in the cost of hauling, there would be considerable costs for a facility that would have to go through a full environmental assessment requiring security, monitoring, property, etc. He added the total costs would be in excess of the costs of piping the leachate.

Councillor Legendre opined that a small transfer station, meeting all environmental rules etc. would not be as costly. Ms. Schepers noted there have been remote facilities in the past in the Region that have been shut down due to complaints from the neighbourhood and felt this is not something the Region should be encouraging and have had issue with in the past with respect to dumping into the closest manhole. It is something that was considered as part of this proposal and was deemed to be more expensive to deal with the issues that have arisen in the past and that this Council has dealt with in the past.

Councillor Stewart noted the report is silent on what the leachate contains and asked if it can be measured and a copy provided to her office. She also questioned the R.O. Pickard Centre’s ability to adequately treat the leachate and put it into a Class 2 water system.

Ms. Schepers indicated staff could provide a copy of the analysis of the leachate to the Councillor. She noted the Pickard Centre is a secondary treatment facility and is not designed to treat everything that the leachate contains, however, the Certificate of Approval continues to be met and the biosolids land application guidelines which do address some of the parameters that are in there with respect to release in the Ottawa River which is not a Class 2 water system.

The Councillor asked if the technology is available to treat the leachate and put it into a Class 2 water body. Ms. Schepers indicated that would be part of the analysis of on-site treatment and wanted to remind councillors that part of the pollution control at source has always been the Region’s approach as outlined in the Sewer Use By-Law, Take It Back Programs, etc. and if those are effective the parameters of the leachate will change over time.

Councillor Stewart felt the public should be adequately informed of what is in the leachate if they are making decisions or having input on treatment alternatives. She added since the leachate maybe pumped into the Rideau River after some form of treatment, residents need to be informed of the makeup of the effluent which will flow through the heart of the Region instead of getting it to the other treatment centre where it exits into the Ottawa River which is an entirely different volume water body and somewhat to the east of the Region. Ms. Schepers agreed staff would endeavour to communicate that as part of the process.

Councillor Munter noted he felt the Region needs to do much a better job communicating with residents than what has been done on this issue which is contentious and has alarmed the residents. Ms. Schepers agreed.

Councillor Beamish, regarding the leachate, asked if it is just from the operating cell of the landfill site and the old Nepean Landfill site.

Mr. McNally confirmed this was correct and noted in Stage 3, which has the bottom liner, when the waste breaks down it produces gases and liquids. In addition to this, the area is open for 5 or 6 years when working in that area, therefore, when it rains and snows it adds moisture that collects in the bottom liner of that stage which is where the leachate is. He confirmed the capped cells do not add to the leachate problem.

Mr. McNally explained the Region has operated Stage 3 from the beginning of 1991 until early 1996 without drawing any liquid off and at that point the level was such that for operational reasons it had to be moved off and a long term solution needed to be looked at.

Councillor Beamish asked if there was something that could be done to reduce the volume of leachate. He wondered if an entire surface had to be used and built up, and if it was possible to work from one end, while covering the rest and sealing it to reduce the amount of precipitation going into the site except at the immediate stage being worked on.

Mr. McNally said he believed it was a matter of trying to do things in reasonable sizes. He noted the Trail Road landfill is currently in four stages, but that no analyses had been performed to determine that four was the right number. He offered that it could, perhaps, be cut down into smaller sizes, but that one looked for efficiencies of the operation on the site and appropriate economies as a bottom liner or cap were put into place.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen said she wanted to speak to the costs associated with this approach and wanted to share new information with Committee. She acknowledged there was a cost associated with this option, but believed it was necessary to consider the costs associated if the Region did not go this route. She said residents had already told her they intended to go the OMB if the Region were to proceed with Option 1. The Councillor also noted another complication with Option 1, the railway corridor, is that at its last Planning Committee meeting, the City of Nepean had rezoned a piece of property where this pipeline would have to go through, and had put a restriction on saying the pipeline could not go through.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen said that with regards to public consultation and the newspaper advertisement, the residents felt the Region tried to spring the issue upon them without informing them and without any consultation. She said it was necessary to keep in mind is that staff were almost ready to bring forward the Trail Road Landfill Site Optimization Report to Committee, and she believed the report should be tabled with Transportation Committee at the same time so that when Committee made a decision on what process or technique would be used to deal with the leachate, the report would be tabled to provide the information needed to make the decision on what the long term implications are from a fiscal perspective.

The Councillor believed this route, requiring more research, would provide "short term pain for long term gain", and would provide all the information needed to make a decision. She also advised that in listening to Committee’s questions, she requested that when the item returned to Planning and Environment Committee, that staff have a full presentation on the Landfill Site and what the Region was dealing with in terms of leachate and leachate management.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen also believed that in terms of public consultation and perception, The (Ottawa) Citizen had not been helpful. She noted that she, Regional staff, and the CAO had met with Citizen staff to indicate dissatisfaction with the newspaper’s coverage of the issue because she felt they did not put the facts on the table and blew the issue out of proportion. The Councillor added The Citizen would be running subsequent articles and have indicated they will try to correct their wrongs if possible. In closing, Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen asked for Committee’s support in proceeding with the staff report. She believed it made good sense to have all the facts on all available options before making a major financial decision.

The Committee Chair read the following Motion from Councillor Munter: that staff be directed to proceed with the investigation of options outlined in the Response to Inquiry No. P&E 8 (98).

There being no further discussion, the Committee considered Councillor Munter’s motion.

Moved by A. Munter

CARRIED

1. Surface Water Quality Programme - 1997

- Director, Water Environment Protection Division, ETD memo dated 5 Jun 98

2. 1996 and 1997 Annual Sewer Use By-Law Compliance Report

- Director Water Environment Protection Division, ETD memo dated 5 Jun 98