Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales




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






No declarations of interest were filed.






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.













Upper Flowing Creek



(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.


                                                                                                            TO 26 AUGUST 2010









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.




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.




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




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.





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.






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.







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.




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.



·         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.”



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.



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.



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












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).











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.









10.       Status Update - Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Inquiries and Motions for the period ending 1 JULY 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.









11.       RH Zone - former cumberland - interim control


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









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).




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.









            ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0022-IPD                                           rideau-goulbourn (21) 







ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0115-IPD                       West-Carleton (5), cumberland (19)

                                                                                                 Osgoode (20), Rideau Goulbourn (21)








The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.




Original signed by                                                      Original signed by

C. Zwierzchowski                                                       Councillor D. Thompson


Committee Coordinator                                              Chair