CONFIRMATION
OF MINUTES
Ratification dU
procÈs-verbaL
Minutes 34 and Confidential Minutes 10 of the Planning and Environment
Committee meeting of Tuesday, 10 June 2008 were confirmed.
CONFIRMED
STATEMENT REQUIRED UNDER THE
PLANNING ACT
Chair Peter Hume read a
statement required under the Planning Act,
which advises that anyone who intends to appeal the proposed Zoning By-law
Amendments listed as Items 4, 5 and 6 on today’s agenda must either voice their
objections at this public meeting or submit their comments in writing prior to
the amendment being adopted by City Council on 9 July 2008. Failure to do so may result in the Ontario
Municipal Board dismissing all or part of the appeals.
STATEMENT
REQUIRED FOR ZONING MATTERS SUBMITTED FOR POST JANUARY 1, 2007
DÉCLARATION POUR LES DEMANDES DE MODIFICATION DE ZONAGE PRÉSENTÉES APRÈS
LE 1ER JANVIER 2007
Chair Peter Hume read a statement relative to the Zoning
By-law Amendments listed as Items 7, 8, and 9 on the Agenda. He advised that only those who made oral
submissions at today’s meeting or written submissions before the amendments are
adopted could appeal these matters to the Ontario Municipal Board. In addition, applicants may appeal the
matter to the Ontario Municipal Board if Council does not adopt an amendment
within 120 days for Zoning and 180 days for an Official Plan Amendment of
receipt of the application.
CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS
renvoiS du conseil municipal
1. Public Delegations - Office of the
Auditor General 2007 Annual Report and 2007 Detailed Audit Reports: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS; ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS IN THE OTTAWA
20/20 GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY; AND POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS
DÉLÉGATIONS
PUBLIQUES - Bureau du vérificateur
général - RAPPORT ANNUEL 2007 ET RAPPORTs DE VÉRIFICATION DÉTAILLÉs
2007 : Processus d’examen des
demandes d’aménagement; ENGAGEMENTS D’ORDRE
ENVIRONNEMENTAL ÉNONCÉS DANS LA STRATÉGIE DE GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE
OTTAWA 20/20 ET PROJECTIONS DE CROISSANCE DÉMOGRAPHIQUE
ACS2008-CCS-PEC-0012 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
That the
Planning and Environment Committee receive public comments with respect to the Auditor General’s reports
(2007 Annual Report and 2007 Detailed Audit Reports), as referred by Council at
its meeting of June 11, 2008.
RECEIVED
LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
COMITÉ
CONSULTATIF SUR LA CONSERVATION DE L’ARCHITECTURE LOCALE
2. Designation of
Devonshire Public school, 100 breezehill avenue north under part iv of the
ontario heritage act
DÉSIGNATION DE L’ÉCOLE PUBLIQUE
DEVONSHIRE, SITUÉE AU 100, AVENUE BREEZEHILL NORD, AUX TERMES DE LA PARTIE IV
DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0128 Kitchissippi (15)
Draft Extract of Minutes
and correspondence were received from the Local Architectural Conservation
Advisory Committee and are held on file with the City Clerk.
Nicholas Olmstead,
Devonshire School Council and Linda Hoad, Hintonburg Community Association were present in
support of the designation as amended.
Councillor Hunter agreed
with the recommendations to exclude the recent gymnasium.
That the Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and
Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the designation of
Devonshire Public School, 100 Breezehill Avenue North under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value,
attached as Document 4, subject to the following:
a. The sequence of spaces comprising
the formal entrance, including the original vestibule screen, the original hall
screen and the corner stone plaques be included in the designation;
b. The 1974 gymnasium not be included
in the designation.
CARRIED
as amended
DEMANDE POUR UNE NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION AU COLLÈGE ASHBURY, SITUÉ AU
204-212, CHEMIN SPRINGFIELD, DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE
ROCKCLIFFE PARK
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0117 Rideau-Rockcliffe
(13)
Draft Extract
of Minutes and correspondence were received from the Local Architectural
Conservation Advisory Committee and are held on file with the City Clerk.
A memo dated June 22,
2008 was also received from David Flemming, Heritage Ottawa.
G.A. Macklin, President of the Rockcliffe Park
Residents’ Association (RPRA), spoke in support of the application with some regret due to the loss
of the heritage home at 204 Springfield Road. He indicated the RPRA continues to work with the applicant in a
collaborative way, particularly on how landscaping will be undertaken. In respect to sidewalks, the RPRA supported
LACAC’s recommendation and also asked that a fragment of sidewalk on the north
side of Maple Lane be eliminated and replaced by a grass verge.
Brian Murphy noted his
opposition to the current proposal, raising concerns with the process in
general, which he characterized as deeply and profoundly flawed. He suggested Ashbury College has been unduly
aggressive by pursuing this project and ignoring the wishes of City Council and
the Community. He added that the
Cultural Heritage Impact Study was biased and rigged.
Mr. Murphy
reiterated that the demolition of the two houses was unnecessary and wasteful,
citing their heritage and housing value.
He recalled that City Council requested that 204 Springfield Road be
saved. He urged the Committee to reject
the new proposal.
David McRobie,
David S. McRobie Architects and Tam Matthews, Head Master of Ashbury College
recalled the long history of Ashbury College, which was founded 117 years
ago. They acknowledged the community
concerns and touched on the consultation that occurred with community
associations, Councillor Legendre, LACAC and City staff. He also highlighted certain elements of the
revised design.
Councillor
Legendre expressed support for the LACAC amendment, suggesting that the
existing configuration of the sidewalk along Springfield Road be maintained in
its current location, with the present width and including an asphalt sidewalk
without any curbs, respecting the Village guidelines. With respect to Maple Lane, he noted a change to his
original comments inserted in the report in order that the curb and sidewalk on
the north side of Maple Lane be eliminated and replaced by a grass verge.
Mr. McRobie
confirmed the applicant concurs with the amendment proposed by LACAC and the
additional change to the sidewalk/curb on the north side of Maple Lane, as
suggested by Councillor Legendre and Mr. Macklin.
Moved by J. Harder:
That the curb and
sidewalk on the north side of Maple Lane be eliminated and replaced by a grass
verge.
CARRIED
The Committee then
considered the LACAC recommendation, as amended.
That the Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and
Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the application for the
construction of a Boys’ Dormitory at 204-212 Springfield Road according to
plans submitted on June 12, 2008, as amended by the following:
a. That the sidewalk, including the
verge, along Springfield Road remain as is, and that no curb be introduced; and
b. That the curb and sidewalk on the
north side of Maple Lane be eliminated and replaced by a grass verge.
CARRIED
as amended
Councillor Holmes stated she supports that the
City undertake Cultural Heritage Impact Statements to ensure a more arms-length
process for studies supporting applications.
PLanning,
TranSIT and thE EnVIRONMENT
urbanisme, transport en commun et environNement
PLANNING
URBANISME
4. ZONING
- 2013 PRINCE OF WALES DRIVE
ZONAGE - 2013, PROMENADE PRINCE OF WALES
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0140 Knoxdale-Merivale
(9)
(This application is not subject to Bill 51)
The following written correspondence was received and is held on
file with the City Clerk:
·
Request to speak form in opposition to
the departmental recommendation from Anthony Bastas received June 23, 2008
·
Email in support of the departmental
recommendation from E.C. Aquilina dated June 23, 2008
·
Email in support of the departmental
recommendation from Janetta and Reggie Ouderkirk dated June 21, 2008
·
Email in support of the departmental
recommendation from Mary and Kathleen Armstrong dated June 20, 2008
Dhaneshwar Neermul, Planner II
provided a PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk.
Michael Segreto, on behalf of the
applicant, spoke in opposition to the departmental recommendation. He indicated long discussions occurred with
the planner and the applicant is prepared to address the issues and hurdles
that exist. He advanced that there are
a great deal of carrying costs on this project. He noted the sixth lot could be eliminated in response to
concerns raised by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. He suggested the proposal is good
intensification and infill development, requesting a favourable decision by
Committee and Council.
Anthony Bastas registered to speak in
opposition to the report recommendation, but was not in attendance.
That the
Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council refuse an amendment to the
former City of Nepean Zoning By-law to amend the R1A - Residential Private
Services Zone zoning for 2013 Prince of Wales Drive to allow the creation of
six residential lots on a private street.
CARRIED
5. ZONING
- 74 STONEHAVEN DRIVE
ZONAGE - 74 PROMENADE
STONEHAVEN
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0121 Kanata South/SUD (23)
(This application is not subject to Bill 51)
Items 5 and 6 were considered
concurrently.
Andrew Boyd registered to speak in support, but
was not in attendance. Mary Jarvis,
Urbandale Corporation was on hand and indicated support for the deferral.
The following correspondence in
opposition, largely with respect to traffic, was received on both items and is
held on file with the City Clerk:
·
Alistair
Jones (June 24, 2008) · Warren
Gould (June 23, 2008)
·
Neal
L. Hall (June 23, 2008) · C. and
M. Langill (June 23, 2008)
·
Henry
Morash (June 23, 2008) · V. and
B. Nicoletti (June 23, 2008)
·
Leslie
Norkum (June 23, 2008) · Jeff
Noonan (June 23, 2008)
·
M. and
K. Oickle (June 23, 2008) · Croombe
F. Pensom (June 23, 2008)
·
Mandana
Amini (June 22, 2008) · Theresa
Barclay (June 22, 2008)
·
Sheena
Brooks (June 22, 2008) · Gaetano
Ruscito (June 22, 2008)
·
David
Thelen (June 22, 2008) · R. and
M. Toutant (June 22, 2008)
·
Dr.
Roberto Catana (June 20, 2008) · Ivan
Chomiak (June 20, 2008)
·
Mary
Lou Hulan (June 20, 2008) · M. and
J. Kippen (June 20, 2008)
·
Marina
Leullier (June 20, 2008) · Adrian
Mardare (June 20, 2008)
·
Maria
Mardare (Juen 20, 2008) · Marie
Lunney (June 19, 2008)
Moved by P. Feltmate:
WHEREAS the majority of the
community concerns about the plans for 74 and 310 Stonehaven Drive are related
to traffic issues;
AND WHEREAS both the plan of
subdivision and the zoning impact how these issues will be addressed;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT
consideration of the zoning changes for 74 and 310 Stonehaven Drive be deferred
until August 18 so the zoning and plan of subdivision can be discussed at the
same Planning and Environment Committee meeting.
CARRIED
That
the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve an amendment to the former City
of Kanata Zoning By-law 168-94 to change the zoning of 74 Stonehaven Drive from
Residential Type 3A Zone, (R3A) to Residential Type 3A Exception Zone, (R3A-6),
and Residential Type 5A Exception Zone, (R5A-1), as shown in Document 1 and as
detailed in Document 2.
2.
Approve an amendment to the new Comprehensive Zoning
By-law to change the zoning of 74 Stonehaven Drive from R3X, Residential Third
Density, Sub Zone X Zone to R3X [xxxx], Residential Third Density, Sub Zone X,
Exception Zone and R4A [xxxx], Residential Fourth Density, Sub Zone M,
Exception Zone as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
DEFERRED
6. ZONING - 310 STONEHAVEN DRIVE
ZONAGE - 310 PROMENADE STONEHAVEN
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0120 KANATA
SOUTH/SUD (23)
(This
application is not subject to Bill 51)
That the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve an amendment to
the former City of Kanata Zoning By-law 168-94 to change the zoning of 310
Stonehaven Drive from Holding Zone (H), Institutional Zone (I) and Open Space
Zone (OS1) to Residential Type 1B Zone, (R1B),as shown in Document 1 and as
detailed in Document 2.
2. Approve an amendment to
the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 310 Stonehaven
Drive from Development Reserve Zone (DR), Institutional Zone (I1A) and Parks
and Open Space Zone (O1) to Residential Type 1T as shown in Document 1 and
detailed in Document 2.
DEFERRED
7. ZONING - PARTS OF 123
HUNTMAR DRIVE, 1837 MAPLE GROVE ROAD AND 1849 MAPLE GROVE ROAD
ZONAGE
– PARTIES DES 123, PROMENADE HUNTMAR, 1837, CHEMIN MAPLE GROVE ET 1849, CHEMIN
MAPLE GROVE
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0090 Stittsville
– Kanata West/OUEST (6)
(This application is subject to Bill 51)
Email correspondence and
related documentation from Ted Cooper dated June 21, 2008 was received and is
held on file with the City Clerk.
Mark Young, Planner II, was
present to respond to questions. Grant
Lindsay, Manager of Development Approvals Centra/West, accompanied him.
Erwin
Dreesen spoke in opposition. He referenced his email dated June 23, 2008, in which he argued
that the likelihood is very high that following an appeal to the Ontario
Municipal Board, the matter would be sent back to Council because new
information will have surfaced which could materially affect a decision on the
matter. He stated this parcel is
necessary for the subdivision to proceed, suggesting Council should put the
development on hold. The certificate of
approval issued for the subdivision by the Ministry of the Environment
demonstrates that all the Environmental Assessments (EA), including the
watershed study, assumed that stormwater facilities did not include quantity controls. The post-development flood analysis
demonstrated that holding back water would aggravate flood levels. He reiterated that no one knows the size and
shape of the 1:100 floodplain. Mr.
Dreesen called for deferral of this item until the completion of the Carp River
Third Party Review.
Councillor
Qadri pointed out that most of the property in question already received draft
plan of subdivision approval from the City.
In
response to a question from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Dreesen stated that the priority
principle here should be to act on proper information, which is not currently
available, pending the completion of the third party review.
Replying
to questions from the Chair, Mr. Young confirmed that small parcels are to be
rezoned, as the majority of the subdivision is already appropriately zoned
R1-21. Rural commercial is currently
permitted under the CR zoning.
Residential development is already zoned and permitted around this site
for the Fairwinds North community. The
amendment was requested to reflect property boundary changes between the
subdivision and the two existing properties.
Alan
Cohen, on behalf of the applicant, explained that
these lands are 1.5 kilometres away from the Carp River and were draft approved
one year ago. He advanced that this
application seeks to regularise of some rear yards through a landswap. He stated that if the zoning matter is
appealed, the applicant would seek the City’s support on a motion for dismissal
on a planning matter that is being used for other purposes. Miguel Tremblay, FoTenn Consultants,
accompanied Mr. Cohen.
That the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve
an amendment to the former Township of West Carleton Zoning By-law No. 266-1981
and the former Township of Goulbourn Zoning By-law No. 40-99 to change the
zoning of Parts of 1837 and 1849 Maple Grove Road from Rural Commercial
Exception Twenty Seven (CR-27, By-law 266-1981) to Residential Type One
Exception Twenty One (R1-21, By-law 40-99) and to change the zoning of Part of
123 Huntmar Drive from R1-21 (By-law 40-99) to CR-27 (266-1981) as shown in
Document 1 and as detailed in Document 3; and
2. Approve
an amendment to the New Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law to change the zoning
of part of 1837 Maple Grove Road from GM16[1470] H10 – General Mixed Use
Subzone 16 Exception 1470 Zone to R3YY[1455]- Residential Third Density Subzone
YY Exception 1455 Zone and to change the zoning of Part of 123 Huntmar Drive
and Part of 1849 Maple Grove Road from R3YY[1455] to GM16[1470] H10, as shown
in Document 2 and detailed in Document 3.
CARRIED with D. Holmes dissenting.
8. ZONING - 635 AND 655 BRONSON AVENUE
ZONAGE - 635 ET 655, AVENUE BRONSON
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0126 Capital/CAPITALE (17)
(This application
is subject to Bill 51)
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend Council approve:
1. An amendment to the former City of
Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of
635 and 655 Bronson Avenue from CG3 F(2.0) to CG3 F(2.0) [***] to permit
a take-out restaurant as detailed in Document 2.
2. An amendment to the New Comprehensive
Zoning By-law to rezone 655 Bronson Avenue from TM to TM[74] to permit a gas
bar and include the entire site of 635 and 655 Bronson Avenue in one zone
designation as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
9. ZONING - 385 SUSSEX DRIVE
ZONAGE - 385, PROMENADE SUSSEX
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0099 Rideau-Vanier
(12)
(This
application is subject to Bill 51)
Peter Vice, on behalf of the Archdiocese of Ottawa, spoke in support of the recommendation noting the applicant would be
requesting a further extension in three years time. A letter dated June 11, 2008 from Monsignor Kevin Beach accepting
the temporary three-year renewal is on file with the City Clerk.
Brook Burchfield, Angela Rickman and David Small of the Lowertown
Community Association also registered to speak in
support of the temporary zoning. A
petition signed by local neighbours in opposition to permanent parking at the
Sussex Drive Basilica is on file with the City Clerk.
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend
Council:
1. Approve
an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning at
385 Sussex Drive to permit the continued use of parking lot for a temporary
period of three years, as detailed in Document 2.
2. Approve
an amendment to the City of Ottawa Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law to change
the zoning at 385 Sussex Drive to permit the continued use of parking lot for a
temporary period of three years, as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
10. RESPONSE TO INQUIRY ON THE HIRING OF
CONSULTANTS FOR SUPPORTING STUDIES.
rÉPONSE À LA DEMANDE DE
RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT L’EMBAUCHE DE CONSULTANTS EN VUE D’ÉTUDES
COMPLÉMENTAIRES
Moved by D. Holmes:
That the Planning and Environment Committee approve
the consideration of the report by the Committee at today’s meeting, pursuant
to Section 84(3) of the Procedure By-law.
CARRIED with J. Harder and G. Hunter dissenting.
Chair Hume reiterated that
discussion occurred with the Chair and Vice-Chair, who suggested that Traffic
Impact Studies and Cultural Impact Statements be targeted to start the review.
Councillor Holmes stated her
disappointment that the report did not include some concrete
recommendations. She stated that
approximately 10 years ago, the Planning Department did all the work associated
with traffic studies with sufficient staff members to do the work or oversee
consultants. She emphasized the need
for clear studies that cannot be perceived as biased by the public. Councillor Holmes reiterated the need for
concrete action and recommendations to move forward.
John Moser, Chief Planner
and Director of Planning, confirmed that the Cultural Impact Statement (CIS) at
first view is a good candidate to be done in house. He noted that an overall review is necessary in the context of a
“one stop service” for development review applications. A report is expected by the end of year,
which will include agreed upon Terms of Reference for the CIS.
In response to questions
from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Moser validated that a fee increase would be
required in order to retain a staff person to do this work. Subsequent to a question from Councillor
Desroches, Mr. Moser stated development charges are not affected. With respect to the timelines for review of
applications, he noted the City of Ottawa stacks up well with respect to the
Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative; however, some on-going feedback is
received from the industry with respect to subdivisions.
Nancy Schepers, Deputy City
Manager of Planning, Transit and the Environment, confirmed that the next
report would include concrete recommendations to move forward. She noted that a comprehensive review of the
Planning Branch is underway, including the transfer of staff and a rethink of
provision of the service. Required
resources will be identified as part of the Budget and full implementation will
occur in December.
Councillor Feltmate stated
the public does not have confidence in traffic studies. She asked if the new system under
development includes a lens to ensure the community has more confidence and
trust. She stated that broader planning
problems must be addressed. In
response, Mr. Moser agreed stating staff is looking at the system to ensure
applications are dealt with in a timely manner, while building support and
trust for the process from all stakeholders.
Councillor Doucet asked
about corporate memory in dealing with traffic studies, stating he does not
have confidence in a study undertaken and paid for by a developer with millions
of dollars of profit on the line. He
noted as an example the initial justification of proceeding with development in
Riverside South without the widening of Limebank Road. Mr. Moser confirmed that traffic studies are
reviewed with colleagues in Public Works and Services and
modifications/clarifications can be requested.
Ms. Schepers reminded
Committee that there are different levels of traffic analysis with the
Transportation Master Plan setting the framework. Issues such as timing are at play and transportation often lags
behind. A subdivision cannot occur
without a watermain but not all transportation infrastructure is in place from
the start. Over time, she said there is
an acceptance to allow a lower level of service at intersections.
Councillor Doucet stated
that the City of Vancouver can request many more contributions from developers
to the cost of growth as compared to Ottawa and Ontario. Mr. Moser confirmed a different legislative
structure is in place, including a charter that provides greater powers for the
City to do things differently than other municipalities in
British-Columbia. He noted that
Vancouver also has 25-30 years experience dealing with economic lift.
Chair Hume advised that a
report dealing with economic lift or Section 37 of the Planning Act
would be coming forward to the next meeting.
Councillor Harder commented
that the same pool of consultants would be available to the City as currently
used by the development industry. She
questioned the lack of trust with the current process. She also noted the possible impact to
staffing levels to oversee the studies.
Mr. Moser confirmed two options exist to oversee or undertake the
studies: hire consultants or hire additional staff. Information on these options would be provided in the next
report.
Councillor Harder noted that
staff plays an integral part in the development of Community Design Plans,
which set the table for future large scale development. They are a joint effort between the City and
consultants.
In response to questions
from Councillor Qadri, Mr. Moser explained that Traffic and Parking Operations
does vet traffic studies submitted by applicants. A Protocol exists between the branches for the review and receiving
of comments. He reiterated that the
“one stop service” model would examine incorporating this review function.
Councillor Qadri also
touched on the cumulative effect of development projects on traffic, suggesting
that the City must look at the long-term effect on existing roads and
infrastructure in the community.
Moved by D. Holmes:
That the words “more
detailed information” be deleted and replaced with “firm recommendations for
implementation” in Recommendation 1.
CARRIED
1.
That the Planning and Environment Committee receive
this report for information, and direct staff, as part of the implementation of
“one stop service” to consider the issues related to the preparation and review
of Traffic Impact Studies and Cultural Heritage Impact Statements, and to
return with firm recommendations for implementation in December 2008.
2.
That the Planning, Transit and the Environment
Department bring Guidelines for the Preparation of Cultural Heritage Impact
Statements forward to Planning and Environment Committee for approval by Fall,
2008.
CARRIED as
amended
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY
VIABILITÉ
ECONOMIQUE ET DE LA DURABILITÉ DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
11. AUDIT OF CARP RIVER
WATERSHED - APPROVAL OF TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
VÉRIFICATION DE L’ÉTUDE SUR LE BASSIN HYDROGRAPHIQUE
DE LA RIVIÈRE CARP – APPROBATION DU CADRE DE RÉFÉRENCE POUR L’EXAMEN PAR UNE
TIERCE PARTIE
ACS2008-PTE-ECO-0018 Stittsville-Kanata
West (6)
Rob Mackay, Acting Director of Economic and
Environmental Sustainability, provided a PowerPoint presentation, which is held
on file with the City Clerk. Revised
Terms of Reference and letters from provincial ministries were also circulated
and are held on file. Al Perks,
Principal, R.V. Anderson and John Price, Watershed Management Coordinator,
Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority
(MVCA), accompanied him.
Darlene Conway spoke from her
written presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Her salient points were as follows:
·
The Terms of Reference should include a thorough review of how
provincial floodplain policy was applied to this project.
·
The third party reviewer should undertake independent consultations
with all interested parties including the Auditor General and Part II Order
requesters.
·
A precautionary interim development plan should be prepared that goes
beyond the piece-meal approaches that is currently proposed to conservatively
assess if any development can be allowed to proceed without increasing flood
risk or liability to the City.
·
Public comments were largely and readily dismissed, revealing a
resistance to face what has become increasingly obvious: that the Carp River Restoration Plan as
currently conceived is fundamentally flawed and requires retrenching.
Councillor
Feltmate assumed the Chair.
In response to
questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Mackay stated that a full provincial
policy review is not necessary and would involve up to 11 policy
documents. Mr. Perks added that the
Terms of Reference must be focused on the results and the implications, if any,
of the corrected modeling of the plan.
He reiterated that the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and MVCA are
fully behind the application of the floodplain policy in this case. He suggested the two-zone concept is
underlining the whole project and is embedded in the Terms of Reference. Mr. Lalonde confirmed that his audit
recommended a review of floodplain policy by the City.
In reply to
questions from Councillor Cullen, Ms. Conway corroborated her recommended
changes to the Terms of Reference. With
regard to a precautionary interim development plan, she recognized the enormous
pressure to proceed with development, but a better understanding of the risks
is necessary through a full overview once the adjustments to the modeling are
reviewed.
Based on the
evidence and her experience, she suggested that the flood levels are much
higher than what was documented in the Environmental Assessments (EA). Basement elevations, storm sewer inverts and
infrastructure depend on this information and the City must ensure that any
development that proceeds before a fully approved Carp River Restoration Plan
is conservative with contingencies.
With regard to
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) comments that suggested that the scope of the
review should include all 22-Class EA projects within the Kanata West
development area, Ms. Conway interpreted that once the third party review is
complete, the impacts on all those EAs must be addressed. Discussion should occur with MOE to
determine if any interim development can proceed.
In response to a
question from Councillor Doucet, Ms. Conway spoke to her experience and
knowledge of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) as it speaks to natural
hazards. She reiterated that the first
approach in greenfield development is to direct it away from the floodplain and
that is essentially what the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) has
done in terms of the Jock River. This
example further underlines a very distinct difference between two conservation
authorities on the application of provincial floodplain policy. She suggested consistency with the
application of the PPS is necessary across the City of Ottawa.
In regard to the
designation of the river as a municipal drain, Councillor El-Chantiry
reaffirmed the City of Ottawa’s position that there is no evidence to support
this argument. Ms. Conway indicated
some evidence exists and the Drainage Referee could be asked to rule on the
matter.
Councillor
El-Chantiry questioned the benefit of a municipal drain designation, as opposed
to the EA process. Ms. Conway said that
the Drainage Act is subject to federal acts, including the Fisheries
Act.
Councillor Holmes
asked if the revised Terms of Reference met some of the concerns raised by Ms.
Conway, who indicated that some items were addressed; however the key issues
have not been, specifically in terms of a policy review, precautionary interim
development plan or independent consultations.
Councillor Holmes suggested a possible deferral to ensure the Terms of
Reference are properly reviewed. Ms.
Conway stated she does not support the Terms of Reference as currently
presented. The changes made are not
significant nor do they address previously submitted concerns.
Contrary to
Darlene Conway’s suggestion, Councillor Harder noted that the RVCA never
rejected the lots in the Half Moon Bay Subdivision, but suggested they needed
to be reviewed. In fact, Tamarack
removed the seven lots with a loss of profit of $3 million to allow the project
to proceed without further delays. With
regard to the Jock River, Councillor Harder stated the RVCA has worked
hand-in-hand with the City since amalgamation on working on the floodplain.
Mike Wildman,
Manager of Infrastructure Approvals, added that through the development review,
the RVCA was not prepared to render a decision on approval, but at no time
refused the seven lots that were removed as a result of an appeal to the
zoning.
In reply to
questions from Councillor Qadri, Ms. Conway clarified that an independent
consultation would benefit the third party reviewer to receive background on
this project by speaking to all parties.
She also emphasized that provincial policy should be reviewed with
regard to this project. Councillor
Qadri stated that a third party review was requested to assess the technical
aspect related to the flaw in the modeling and not a policy review. Ms. Conway said that the policy concerns are
an important factor in the project and should be examined at the same time.
Erwin Dreesen,
Carp River Coalition, called for the Terms of Reference not to be
accepted. He noted the revised document
does not take into account the MOE’s comments that the review should assess the
impact of the current inconsistencies in the application of one and two-zone
floodplain policies. Mr. Dreesen opined
that the alternative Terms of Reference put forward by Darlene Conway are in
all respects superior and respond to all MOE requirements. He said that it is not acceptable to “put
the fox in charge of the hen house”. He
called for involvement by Ms. Conway and Mr. Cooper, the City’s most
experienced water resource engineers, to ensure the review process is
credible. He went on to say that the
responses to the public input were insulting, with not a single point seen as
valid.
Mr. Dreesen
stated the core of the issue is that neither senior management nor landowners
are yet ready to concede that Kanata West is a fiasco, as the basis for
development has been fatally undermined.
Field surveys were conducted to capture the changed topography after all
the development that has taken place since 1983, but the models that translate
this topography into a determination of the 1:100 year floodplain have been
demonstrated to be deficient in about a dozen ways. He concluded there is no basis to determine how stormwater should
be managed, but conservative conditions can be identified that could allow
development to proceed in the interim outside the floodplain. He also attacked Mr. Price’s response to Ms.
Conway’s written comments on the application of a two-zone floodplain, stating
Mr. Price used muddled language and examples that bear no comparison to
the Carp River situation. He urged
Committee and Council to take the prudent course of action and pry the file
away from the people who have “messed it up in the first place”.
Councillor Harder
commented that a witch-hunt is being undertaken and stated she is not going to
accept it. She stated Mr. Dreesen’s
comments that senior management should not be involved are unfair, asking who
should be involved. Mr. Dreesen
suggested that oversight of the project and the final Terms of Reference should
continue through the Auditor General.
He noted the loss of public confidence in the process, suggesting the
Auditor General is the “only outfit in the City that can still be trusted”.
Councillor Harder
pointed out that the Auditor General is not an engineer and suggested his
comments regarding public confidence were overstated, as only five public
delegations are registered to speak at today’s meeting. She said that the general public is probably
not as mistrusting as he believes they are.
She suggested that senior managers, including Ms. Schepers and her team,
should continue on this file. She
emphasized that strong measures have been taken.
Councillor Cullen
confirmed that Mr. Dreesen does not own property in the area and his interest
lies in public safety with regard to development in Kanata West and the health
of the river as a whole with its restoration to its sufficient outlet at the
Village of Carp. Mr. Dreesen
concurred that he is not opposed to development in the area that is compatible
with provincial policies that seek to protect floodplain. The delegation confirmed that he supports
the Auditor General’s recommendations that include looking into the application
of floodplain policy.
With regard to a
third-party review, Councillor Hunter asked who are the first and second
parties, confirming that the second party is the objector. The Councillor noted that Mr. Dreesen
suggested that two objectors (Mr. Cooper and Ms. Conway) be put in charge of
the third-party review.
Ted Cooper raised the
subsequent specific points noted in his written submission (held on file with
the City Clerk):
·
All of his recommendations concerning the Terms of Reference had been
dismissed. He questioned the rationale
provided by staff for refusing these proposed changes.
·
Only a mere six words have been changed after receiving extensive
comments from the public.
·
He has requested that the Ontario Municipal Board review its decision
with respect to the Trinity lands.
·
Employee accountability to Ottawa taxpayers is the paramount duty as a
professional engineer to serve the interests of the public.
Councillor Doucet
touched on accountability and faulty studies, suggesting the City should seek
damages from other approval authorities and consultants because decisions are
made on the basis of these studies.
In response to
questions from Councillor Cullen with regard to requested changes to the Terms
of Reference, Mr. Cooper concurred with the points previously raised by
Ms. Conway and added that a good definition of existing conditions is
still lacking from which impacts can be assessed. He added that the City previously commented on a report dealing
with existing conditions, requesting that the report not be used for design
purposes.
Councillor Cullen
reiterated that the MOE requested that the review take into account all 22
Class environmental projects within the area and assess the 15 projects
previously approved.
Mr. Cooper noted
the subwatershed plan was completed in late 2004 and some findings on existing
conditions did result; however, there was a study recommendation that the work
needed to be redone. Encroachments to the
floodplain have occurred over time without increased storage provided for all
the developments, which have been approved.
He also noted that along the Carp River, one and two-zone policy is
applied differently on either side of the river.
Councillor Cullen
pointed out that the Terms of Reference speaks to adaptive management. As a professional engineer, Mr. Cooper
opined that it is not responsible to use adaptive management where there are
risks to health and safety, as it is not appropriate to put people potentially
at risk. He reiterated that the City
has developable land available without allowing growth on land subject to flood
hazards.
Councillor
Wilkinson referenced the reply from the MNR, noting that the review is intended
to look at the errors in the calculations.
Mr. Cooper rebutted that even the MNR could not defend the project at
the Ontario Municipal Board, as the modeling errors have since been discovered,
raising flood risk levels.
Councillor
Wilkinson spoke of the Carp River that has changed a great deal over the years,
widening as the streambed has been filled in.
She emphasized the need for a technical study, but disagreed that a
policy review or determination on the river’s status as a municipal drain
should be included. Mr. Cooper remarked
on the inter-related nature of the questions, noting the drainage issue has
regulatory implications and changes the role of the MOE. He noted the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled
regarding the point of sufficient outlet.
According to Mr. Cooper, one of the fundamental problems with the
analysis is the assertion in the models that the watershed drains to Richardson
Side Road. The model predicts that this
area drains following a major storm within 24-26 hours; meanwhile, first-hand
observation shows that it takes one to two weeks. Mr. Cooper reiterated that he brought the issue to the attention
of the Auditor General due to the health and safety risks, as well as financial
implications.
With regard to
Mr. Cooper’s reference of the Hazeldean Co-op, Councillor Wilkinson recalled
that the MVCA was not responsible for the mistake, but rather other engineers
trying a new approach that did not work properly. Mr. Cooper noted the MVCA supported the floodplain development in
that instance.
Councillor Qadri
acknowledged Mr. Cooper’s due diligence on this file. With regard to correspondence with provincial ministries,
Councillor Qadri referenced the MNR’s response that the Carp River Restoration
Project is the responsibility of the MVCA, who have delegated responsibility
for floodplains and other natural hazards.
The MNR also rejected a further operational audit of the MVCA.
Mr. Cooper noted
recent regulatory and legislative changes to the Lakes and Rivers
Improvement Act. He stated his
suspicions about the credibility of the MNR’s positions after previously
failing to find the egregious modeling errors.
He also remarked
that zoning by-laws will come before Committee and Council for this area,
suggesting it would be wise for the policy issue to be sorted out. He touched on a memorandum prepared by MVCA
on the application of two-zone floodplain policy and supported the skepticism
of Ms. Conway on the examples given as justification on the approach.
In response to
Councillor Hunter, Mr. Cooper confirmed that he does not support the Terms of
Reference as they are proposed. He
stated he would not support the results of a review under those terms, as it
would not tackle the main issues, including the Fernbank lands.
Mr. Cooper
disagreed that the river is better protected under the Environmental
Assessment Act than under the Drainage Act. He stated it is disappointing to go through public
consultation on the draft Terms of Reference with limited changes accepted from
the feedback received.
With regard to
reassessing the existing conditions, Councillor Hunter did not agree that a
baseline is not important, suggesting instead focusing on how development near
the banks will impact the vicinity and whether or not the stormwater management
ponds being built to contain the extra runoff are sufficient not to change the
flow downstream.
Mr. Cooper
retorted the Class EAs have proposed six or seven stormwater management
facilities with the understanding, prior to discovering the error, that there
was no need for quantity control. He
surmised that there has not been recognition to provide more quantity control;
rather more storage along the corridor would be provided, resulting in an
on-line stormwater management facility (within the river valley and not on
table lands) that will be subjected to the cumulative impact of future
development.
Councillor Hunter
asked whether or not further Part II Orders would be less likely if the
alternative Terms of Reference proposed by Ms. Conway were adopted. Mr. Cooper indicated bump-up requests of the
EA would be less likely. He stated
his concerns would be addressed if the review dealt with policy application,
the Fernbank lands and providing sufficient outlet.
Michael Green,
Kanata West Owners Group, stated his group has reviewed the public comments
and staff responses for the Terms of Reference. He restated that many comments dealt with the application of
two-zone floodplain policy, interim on-going development and the inclusion of
stakeholders early in the process. He
specified that the two-zone approach was a recommendation of the watershed
study and was addressed during the EA process.
He also referenced comments from the Auditor General and the MNR. Mr. Green suggested the application of the
two-zone approach has been sufficiently reviewed and confirmed as appropriate;
therefore it should not be included in the Terms of Reference. With respect to an interim plan for on-going
development in Kanata West, he recalled that City Council already passed a
motion with direction in this regard.
He noted that a project advisory committee would be set up to achieve
specific consultation and information-sharing goals.
He also argued
against seeking status as a municipal drain, suggesting the EA provides much
more in terms of public consultation and federal fisheries approval is still
required. The Kanata West Owners Group
recommended staff be directed to proceed with the next steps to initiate the
selection of a third-party reviewer.
In response to
Councillor Cullen, Mr. Green quoted the Auditor General’s report: “On the basis
of the review of the provincial policy and the Official Plan of the City of
Ottawa, it can be concluded that the two-zone concept was applied following
provincial policy.”
Councillor Cullen
questioned the quotation, as it did not fit with the recommendations of the
Auditor General. Mr. Green responded
that the Auditor General stated that provincial policy was followed in
principle. Councillor Cullen said that
words were being cherry picked by excluding, “but does not take into account
the technical guides”.
John Riddell,
Novatech Engineering, spoke on behalf of Fernbank Community Design Plan
landowners, requesting that the Fernbank lands not be added to the review. He added that this issue was previously
debated with City staff and through the Kanata West process. Kanata West documents show that Fernbank
lands, under developed conditions,
were not included in the analysis because of the timing issues, as the lands
were not designated when the process began.
Mr. Riddell indicated it would be the responsibility of the Fernbank
landowners to update the model and assess the impact on the Carp River. The reports that contain those references
were approved by all the agencies and City Council. He further said that the Terms of Reference for the Fernbank
Community Design Plan also clearly indicates that the Carp River model would be
updated through the community design plan and the impacts of the Fernbank lands
would be addressed within that process.
In response to
Councillor Qadri, Mr. Riddell confirmed that approximately 30 per cent of the
Fernbank lands drain into the Carp River and 70 per cent into the Monahan
Drain.
The Committee
recessed and returned at 1:45 p.m. with Councillor Hume in the Chair. He reviewed the amendments before the
Committee and then proceeded to questions to staff.
In response to questions from Councillor Qadri, Mr. Mackay stated
provincial policies were applied correctly to this project according to the
Ministry of Natural Resources in a letter dated April 2007. Mr. Mackay confirmed comments from the
Auditor General were received and included where possible. The revised document circulated at the
meeting tracks changes resulting from comments received by the Auditor General
and provincial agencies and ministries.
Mr. Mackay acknowledged a difference of opinion with the Auditor General
with respect to scope.
Mr. Perks reiterated that the team did carefully consider all comments
received and adjustments were made. He
advised that many comments cross correlate with existing elements of the
document.
With regard to adaptive management, Mr. Perks opined that it is the
appropriate strategy for watersheds of this nature, because urban area
watershed data is seldom available when commencing a project of this
nature. He noted that the Terms of
Reference also call for a report at the end of each phase of work, addressing
any impact on the Carp River Restoration Plan.
In response to questions from Councillors Qadri and Holmes, Alain
Lalonde, Auditor General, stated he provided comments on the first draft on
June 18, 2008 and would require more time to review the revised document
submitted today. He recalled that the
original direction was for the review to address the issues raised in his
report. He could not confirm if his
original comments were addressed in the revised document.
With regard to a question from Councillor Holmes pertaining to
liability, Christine Enta, Legal Counsel, indicated that litigation does occur
where citizens have sued the conservation authority, the City and the developer
for construction that occurred as far back as 30 years ago for issues
related to problems with home and property.
She advised that decision-makers, such as those previously mentioned,
could be held liable under current legislation if there is situation involving
property damage or any issue of that extent.
The number of successful litigations against the City is not readily
available and a review would be required to confirm the figure.
Mr. Lalonde concurred with Councillor Desroches’ assertion that his
original recommendation was to correct data at the consultant’s expense;
however, Council directed management to undertake a third-party review and the
Auditor General was asked to review the Terms of Reference.
In response to
questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Mackay and Mr. Perks confirmed that comments from the MOE are reflected in items
17, 18, 21 and 27 of the revised document; however, in relation to the
application of a two-zone policy, staff is of the opinion it has been properly
applied as confirmed in a letter from the MNR.
It has not been included in the Terms of Reference. The MVCA will be communicating with the MOE
indicating that it is within its jurisdiction, through delegated authority from
the MNR, to speak to the application of the policy. Mr. Mackay responded that a detailed phasing plan for development
occurring in Kanata West is not included in the Terms of Reference because
Council recently approved a direction regarding the need for a comprehensive
analysis prior to development.
Subsequent to further questioning from Councillor Cullen, Ray Kostuch,
Manager, Office of the Auditor General, summarized comments made on the draft
Terms of Reference:
·
With respect to the model, the scope was too
narrow, as the review will only look at the corrections. All aspects should be included, including
the Fernbank lands in developed state.
Existing data with regard to calibration should also be considered.
·
Soil barring capacity should be included to
determine if they can sustain the load of the fill.
·
The review should quantify the sediment to
determine what is going downstream and the impact.
·
The City should look at the two-zone concept
to determine if it wishes to apply it uniformly around the City or not based on
the practices of other conservation authorities.
Mr. Perks confirmed that the first comment is addressed in item 4, which
encompasses the entire models. The
calibration process and the potential of new data can be assessed under item 8. With regard to geotechnical matters and
soils, they are covered in phase 2, item 20.
Geotechnical investigation will also be brought forward through the
design process. Sedimentation is
considered under item 25. Mr. Perks
noted that a qualified firm carrying out the review would provide their
additional input and evaluation on how they interpret the Terms of Reference
and an advisory committee will work with them.
He said quantitative assessments have already been looked at in some of
the background studies and the reviewer should evaluate that information and
advise whether it is sufficient.
With regard to the Fernbank lands, Mr. Mackay advised that the Terms of
Reference do ask the reviewer to provide an opinion as to whether these lands
should be included or not in the analysis.
Mr. Lalonde asserted that it remains a question of language and his
office believes that the additional work should be done with regard to soil,
sediment and modeling. The two-zone
policy should be reviewed by the City to determine how it is applied across the
City, which spans three conservation authorities. Mr. Kostuch stated the review does not address the Auditor
General’s recommendation that the evaluation of flood fringe for development
includes examination of all potential hazards.
He referred back to the issues of slope stability, sediment flow and
soil sensitivity.
Councillor Cullen pointed out that there appears to be scope for
improving the Terms of Reference with respect to comments emanating from the
MOE and the Auditor General’s comments.
Councillor Doucet commented on building on floodplain and measures
required at a later date to ensure the safety of residents. Mr. Perks stated that a project has a start
and an end date and the best available practices of the time must be utilized
to manage water, develop the land and deal with infrastructure. He remarked that this project achieves that
goal; further, the review is intended to correct the errors and assess whether
the results can be used to implement a plan that has been six years in the
making.
Councillor Wilkinson understood that the purpose of the review was to
evaluate the corrected modeling. Mr.
Mackay stated that Terms of Reference reflect the proper scope and does not
support broadening the review to encompass a full policy analysis, modeling
rework and implementation plan.
Councillor Wilkinson questioned the impact of a wider review on existing
homes, as the area is currently under development. Mr. Mackay confirmed that hundreds of units have been built on
interim services. He concurred that the
two-zone issue is a planning matter and an Official Plan Amendment will come
forward in the fall, looking at the policy and its application going forward.
Other recommendations from the Auditor General are being acted upon
through other measures and actions. A
panel of experts, which included three water resource engineers, planning staff
and managers, reviewed the Terms of Reference and the comments received.
In response to questions from the Chair, Mr. Mackay indicated that in an
ideal world all comments would be accommodated, but the panel wanted to be
respectful of taxpayers money and the timing.
The MOE will review the Part II Order requests and make a determination. They will also receive the third-party
review findings. The MOE has refused to
appear at Committee to answer questions.
Councillor Feltmate touched on the discrepancy between the comments of
the MNR and the MOE. Mr. Price
confirmed that the MVCA has delegated authority through the MNR to apply
floodplain policy. A Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) exists under delegated authority between various ministries
and conservation authorities. If the
MOE has an issue with the way this conservation authority applies floodplain
policies, they should be directing those inquiries directly to the MVCA as the
delegated responsible agency. The MOU
also directs that disputes be discussed with the MVCA and MNR, with the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing playing a role.
In response to further questions from Councillor Feltmate, Mr. Price
advised that the application of a two-zone floodplain is a planning matter,
which involves the re-designation of the flood fringe lands through the Planning
Act with an appeal mechanism through the Ontario Municipal Board. A Board of Directors directs conservation
authorities and delegations can appear at public meetings.
Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, added that the Ontario Ombudsman could
receive complaints; or, a letter from the Chair to the appropriate Ministers
may also be a course of action to address any concerns. Councillor Feltmate indicated she would be
moving a motion in that regard.
In reply to Councillor Holmes, Ms. Enta confirmed that staff has
undertaken an extensive review and the river does not have status as a
municipal drain at this time, despite some evidence with respect what may have
happened in 1908. The originating
by-law establishing the drain is not available. The only person that can label it as a municipal drain is the Drainage
Referee under the Drainage Act. Ms.
Enta specified that only the majority of adjacent landowners must challenge its
status before the Referee and those landowners would adsorb the costs. Such a process has not been undertaken in
several decades.
Mr. Mackay clarified the recommendation is that the City pay the full
cost of the review to ensure objectivity.
Councillor Hunter referred to the two points in contention from the
MOE. Mr. Price confirmed that two-zone
areas do exist on the Carp River that are recognized.
Mr. Perks stated that an interim development plan is not required,
as Council already provided direction.
He added the preparation of an interim development plan along these
lines is not achievable and would extend the time and cost of this review. Further, there is no guarantee sufficient
water level and flow rate monitoring would be possible, as it takes time to
establish a stream flow gauge, gather the data and use it.
Responding to Councillor Cullen, Mr. Marc identified the benefits of
status as a municipal drain. First, the
cost of rehabilitation of a municipal drain can be spread, subject to the
process under the Drainage Act, amongst those that abut the drain. Second, works under the act are not subject
to the EA process and specifically excluded from the Environmental
Assessment Act. It was the view of
staff that by following the EA process, the broader concerns of the public were
received and able to be addressed, as opposed to the petition process, which is
limited to the abutting property owners that have petition rights. Certain policy implications would have to be
addressed either way, including fish habitat.
Dixon Weir, Director of Water and Wastewater Services, concurred with
Mr. Marc on the implications of status as a municipal drain.
With respect to the cost of the Carp Restoration Plan, Mr. Marc advised
that those financially assisting in the work go beyond those who are abutting
the drain, including those that are members of the Kanata West Owners Group. It would be a different group that would not
necessarily be gaining development rights, if it were a municipal drain. Mr. Weir indicated it would also apply to
on-going maintenance costs in the future.
Mr. Mackay added that the Carp Restoration Plan touches on much more than
cost and fish habitat. The Department
of Fisheries and Oceans has commented positively on the project. With respect to funding, he confirmed that
under the restoration plan, the developers pay 70 per cent of the costs and the
City pays 30 per cent.
Councillor Holmes spoke to the general issue of allowing development in
the floodplain, touching on the increasing effects of climate change. She said that she wanted the Terms of
Reference to be as complete as possible and would be voting accordingly on the
amendments coming forward.
Councillor Doucet stated rapid change is required in order to keep up
with the devastating effects of climate change. He noted for instance the number of freezes and thaws that occur
in one winter. He also sought to make
the Terms of Reference as comprehensive as possible.
Councillor Hunter spoke against a third-party review, noting that the
Ministry of the Environment would be undertaking a comprehensive review as part
of the EA and Part II Orders. He also
touched on development in floodplains, noting it is permitted under law with
mitigating measures.
Councillor
Feltmate commented that the review is necessary to restore public
confidence. She also suggested the
Terms of Reference should be kept as rigid as possible and not be too
broad. She presented two motions.
Councillor Qadri
said that further delays would not be acceptable and the Terms of Reference
should be focused and complete. He
noted that some homes are already built and it is important to move forward.
Councillor Harder
concurred with Councillor Hunter that a third-party review was not
necessary. She questioned highjacking
the process and expressed support for staff and the various approval agencies.
Councillor
Wilkinson added that the Terms of Reference should focus on a technical review
and should not start again all the work.
She urged that this process move forward in order for the public and
Council to receive valuable information.
Councillor Cullen
spoke in support of the Doucet motion, noting the City’s duty to protect the
public interest. He referenced the
recommendations of the Auditor General and called for the third-party review to
be comprehensive and to include a review of those aspects suggested by Ms.
Conway. He added that the Ministry of
the Environment regulates municipal drains.
Chair Hume
congratulated Mr. Mackay and his team for their work in the preparation of the
Terms of Reference in such a short timeframe.
Moved by P.
Feltmate:
That letters be sent to the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and Ministry
of Natural Resources (MNR) to address jurisdictional issues and conflicting
requests with regard to the Terms of Reference for a third-party review for
Kanata West.
CARRIED with C.
Doucet and D. Holmes dissenting.
Moved by P.
Feltmate:
That minor adjustments to the Terms of Reference, as a result of further
consultation with MOE, MNR and the Auditor General (AG), to the City Manager
and that any changes made be communicated to City Council.
CARRIED
Councillor Doucet presented the following motion and later withdrew
bullet 6. Councillor Hume called the
vote on each recommendation.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Terms of Reference be amended in order that:
1. A
review be undertaken of how the provincial floodplain policy was applied to the
project.
2. The third-party reviewer
consult with the Auditor General and Parts II Order requesters.
3. The
Fernbank lands be included in the modelling.
4. A
pre-cautionary interim development plan be prepared.
5. That the two-zone policy be
reviewed as per the Auditor’s General report.
6. The
status of the river as a municipal drain be determined.
That a review be undertaken of how the provincial floodplain policy was
applied to the project.
LOST
YEAS (3): C.
Doucet, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate
NAYS (6): S.
Desroches, J. Harder, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, P. Hume
The third-party reviewer
consult with the Auditor General and Parts II Order requesters.
CARRIED with G. Hunter dissenting.
The Fernbank lands be included in the modelling.
LOST
YEAS (2): C.
Doucet, D. Holmes
NAYS (7): S.
Desroches, J. Harder, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, P. Feltmate,
P. Hume
A pre-cautionary interim development plan be prepared.
LOST
YEAS (3): C.
Doucet, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate
NAYS (6): S. Desroches, J.
Harder, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, P. Hume
That the two-zone policy be
reviewed as per the Auditor’s General report.
CARRIED
YEAS (6): C. Doucet, D. Holmes, B. Monette, S.
Qadri, P. Feltmate, P. Hume
NAYS (3): S. Desroches, J. Harder, G. Hunter
Replace
Recommendation 1 with the following:
Approve the
amended Terms of Reference for a third-party review of the Carp River
Restoration project as presented by staff to PEC on 24 June 2008 and attached
to this motion.
CARRIED with J.
Harder, G. Hunter and B. Monette dissenting.
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve the amended draft Terms of
Reference for a third-party review of the Carp River Restoration Project as
presented on 24 June 2008 and amended by the following:
a.
The third-party reviewer consult with the Auditor General and Parts II
Order requesters;
b.
That the two-zone policy be reviewed as per the Auditor’s General
report.
2. Direct staff to
proceed with a Request for Proposals to secure a qualified third party
engineering firm;
3. Authorize
the City Manager to approve the selection and hiring of the pre-qualified third
party engineering firm to undertake the work outlined in the approved draft
Terms of Reference and to approve the funding through delegated authority to an
upset limit of $300,000; and
4. Establish
a new project authority in the amount of $300,000 to be funded from the
Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund.
6 Delegate minor adjustments to the
Terms of Reference, as a result of further consultation with MOE, MNR and the
Auditor General (AG), to the City Manager and that any changes made be
communicated to City Council.
CARRIED as amended
with J. Harder and G. Hunter dissenting.
12. TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR DRINKING WATER
SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEES
CADRE DE RÉFÉRENCE POUR LES COMITÉS DE PROTECTION DES
SOURCES D’EAU POTABLE
ACS2008-PTE-ECO-0017 CITY WIDE/À
L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Councillor
Doucet explained that he is the City of Ottawa’s representative on the
Raisin-South Nation Source Protection Authority. He expressed concern that the body is not sufficiently focussing
on impacts to the Ottawa River.
Carol
Christensen, Manager of Environmental Sustainability, stated that Councillors
Leadman and Cullen also represent the City on the two other source protection
committees. She emphasised that the
role of these bodies under the Clean Water Act is to assess all threats
to the water system.
She
added that other mechanisms could also be utilised in this regard, specifically
a task force set-up between Québec and Ontario, which will examine
trans-boundary environmental impacts.
Dixon
Weir, Director of Water and Wastewater Services, Public Works and Services,
indicated that similar concerns were raised at all three source protection
committees and supported comments made by Ms. Christensen.
Chair
Hume presented a motion, moved by Councillor Feltmate on his behalf, with
regard to formally accepting the responsibility for a study to be wholly funded
by the Province.
Moved
by P. Feltmate:
WHEREAS
the Ontario Clean Water Act, 2006 and Ontario Regulation 287/07
prescribe the preparation of assessment reports and source protection plans by
local source protection committees;
AND
WHEREAS the Province requires that any tasks that are assigned to municipalities
by the local source protection committees must have the formal consent of those
municipalities by way of a council resolution;
AND
WHEREAS the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Committee has consulted with
the City in the development of its Terms of Reference, and has assigned the
"Ottawa River Surface Water Vulnerability Study" to the City;
AND
WHEREAS the City has begun work on the assigned study with $178,000 in funding
provided by the Ministry of the Environment;
AND
WHEREAS the total estimated project cost is $254,000;
BE
IT RESOLVED that Council approves the undertaking of the assigned study, at an
estimated total cost of $254,000 to be funded in its entirety by the Ministry
of the Environment, with an estimated completion date of December 31, 2009.
CARRIED
That
Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:
1. Endorse:
a) The comments
on the Terms of Reference for the Raisin-South Nation Source Protection Region
contained in Document 1 for submission to the Raisin-South Nation Source
Protection Authority and authorize staff to modify the submission to delete any
comments made redundant by changes to the Terms of Reference prior to
submission to the Raisin-South Nation Source Protection Authority, and
b) The terms of
reference for the Rideau Valley Source Protection Area.
c)
The terms of reference for
the Mississippi Source Protection Area.
2. Approve
the undertaking of the Ottawa River Surface Water Vulnerability Study,
at an estimated total cost of $254,000 to be funded in its entirety by the
Ministry of the Environment, with an estimated completion date of December 31,
2009.
CARRIED
as amended
BUILDING
CODE SERVICES
services du code du bâtiment
13. SIGN
BY-LAW MINOR VARIANCE - 199 SUSSEX DRIVE
DÉROGATION MINEURE AU
RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES - 199, promenade sussex
ACS2008-PTE-BLD-0027 Rideau-Vanier
(12)
Lloyd Phillips,
on behalf of the Aga Khan Foundation Canada, was present in support of
the recommendation. He requested that
this matter go forward to Council the next day in order to allow the stone sign
to be installed in time for the Aga Khan’s visit to Ottawa in September 2008.
That Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council approve the application to vary setback
provisions within Sign By-law 2005-439, to permit a ground sign within 0.3
metres to the front property, 0.5 metres to the side property line and 0.5
metres from a driveway, for the property at 199 Sussex Drive
CARRIED
14. SIGN BY-LAW MINOR VARIANCE - 1390 CLYDE
AVENUE
DÉROGATION MINEURE AU
RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES -
1390, AVENUE CLYDE
ACS2008-PTE-BLD-0019 College/collège (8)
Email
correspondence dated June 23, 2008 from Carol Essenburg is held on file with
the City Clerk.
That Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council approve the application to vary Sign
By-law 2005-439, to permit an illuminated identification ground sign situated
at 1390 Clyde Avenue to be installed with a sign face area of 16.75 square
metres, instead of 14 square metres and with a setback of less than one metre
to a parking area.
CARRIED
15. SIGN BY-LAW MINOR
VARIANCE - 2200 CARLING AVENUE
DÉROGATION MINEURE AU
RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES - 2200, avenue carling
ACS2008-PTE-BLD-0015 Bay/Baie (7)
Councillor Cullen
requested that the Ward Councillor be circulated and informed on sign variance
applications.
Adam Thompson,
Novatech Engineering Consultants Inc., was present in support of
the application.
That Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council approve the application to vary Sign
By-law 2005-439, to permit an illuminated video screen information sign within
28 metres of a residential use, instead of the required 30-metre setback, for
2200 Carling Avenue.
CARRIED
16. SIGN BY-LAW MINOR VARIANCE - 2636 INNES
ROAD
DÉROGATION MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES -
2636, CHEMIN INNES
ACS2008-PTE-BLD-0024 INNES (2)
Tony Gatti, The Gatti Group, was present in
support of the recommendation.
That Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council approve the application to vary Sign
By-law 2005-439, to permit additional tenant identification to the existing
round sign, resulting in a total signage area of 28.4 square metres for this
shopping centre sign instead of the maximum permitted area of 20 square metres,
as shown on Document 2.
CARRIED
17. SIGN BY-LAW MINOR VARIANCE - 2020 TRIM
ROAD
DÉROGATION
MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES -
2020, CHEMIN TRIM
ACS2008-PTE-BLD-0022 Cumberland
(19)
Adam Thompson,
Novatech Engineering Consultants Inc., was present in support of
the application.
That Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council approve the application to vary Sign
By-law 2005-439, to permit an illuminated menu board sign within 18 metres of a
residential use and a video screen information sign within 20 metres of a residential
use, instead of the required 30-metre setback, for the location at 2020 Trim
Road.
CARRIED
PUBLIC WORKS AND
SERVICES
TRAVAUX PUBLics
WATER AND WASTEWATER
SERVICES
SERVICES
DE L’EAU POTABLE ET DES EAUX USÉES
18. Protection of Municipal Drinking Water from Cross‑Connections
protection de l’eau potable municipale
contre les jonctions fautives
ACS2008-PWS-WWS-0009 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend Council direct staff to develop a
Cross-Connection Control Program in accordance with the parameters set out
herein with a report back to Council on the program and implementation details.
CARRIED
19. Management
of hydrants on private property
Gestion des bornes-fontaines sur les propriétés
privées
ACS2008-PWS-WWS-0006 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
That the Planning and Environment Committee and the
Community and Protective Services Committee recommend Council approve:
1.
An annual fire
prevention campaign focused on owner responsibility for the inspection and
maintenance of private hydrants.
2.
The mandatory
registration and tagging of private hydrants.
3.
A mandatory
training program for persons accessing or performing work on hydrants in
Ottawa.
4.
The consultation
program set out herein regarding detailed design of the private hydrant program
and a draft by-law with a subsequent report to Council prior to implementation.
CARRIED with G. Hunter dissenting.
20. WATER QUALITY MODELLING OF THE OTTAWA
RIVER
Modélisation de la qualité
de l’eau de la rivière des Outaouais
Dixon Weir, Director of Water
and Wastewater Services (WWS) provided a detailed PowerPoint presentation (held
on file with the City Clerk) and was accompanied by:
·
David
McCartney, Manager, Wastewater and Drainage Services, WWS
·
Felice Petti, Manager, Strategic and Environmental
Services, WWS
·
Alain
Gonthier, Manager, Infrastructure Management, Infrastructure Services
·
Darlene Conway, Senior Project Engineer, Planning,
Transit and the Environment
Chair Hume called for an accelerated
aggressive approach with investments made sooner, noting the federal
governments desire to provide funding.
Mr. Weir responded that given
the magnitude of the funding required, there is an appropriate need to develop
priorities and strategies that will ensure money is spent to achieve the
greatest benefit. At the Chair’s
direction, an interim scope report will be forthcoming in the last quarter of
2008, ahead of the 2009 Budget cycle.
Richard Hewitt, Deputy City
Manager of Public Works and Services, stated that the work effort that will be
required. He recognized the importance
of the issue and the interest in moving forward in light of recent events. He cautioned that this is a risk management
exercise and suggested absolutely no discharge into the river is not likely
doable within a feasible amount of money; however, a substantive reduction of
the risk could be achieved. With
combined systems, it is essentially impossible to introduce in a retrofit basis
a major system; however, the goal is to capture to the extent possible the
amount of flows based on precipitation and trying to design to minimise the
impact of flows beyond that capability.
In response to questions from
Councillor Legendre, staff provided the following clarification:
·
The original Certificate of Approval for R.O. Pickard
Centre required disinfection throughout the year; however the Region requested
that it be done only from May to December each year.
·
The objective of the environmental effects monitoring
is determine the extent of the impact of e.coli and chlorine on fish.
·
Environmental effects monitoring include measuring the
impact on fish, sediment, and benthic invertebrates, which are bugs. A baseline
report on high-level findings was presented in Fall 2007. Once the 2008 sampling and monitoring are
complete, a report will come forward to this committee.
·
Weekly water sampling occurs at 28 beach sites
complimentary to the daily sampling that occurs within the swimming buoys by
Public Health.
Councillor Holmes noted that the
capital cost of wastewater services over a 10-year period is about $800
million. She asked if staff had similar
numbers for the sewer separation program.
Mr. Gonthier estimated that
finalising the combined sewer separation outside the area that will remain as
such represents approximately $200 million.
Many of these works are undertaken as integrated projects at the same
time as water and roadwork.
Mr. Hewitt added that to achieve
absolute separation, storm outlets would be required to the river. This is increasingly difficult to do due to
the Ministry of the Environment’s requirements. Stormwater quality and quantitative control measures would also
be required. In these areas of the
City, it is extremely difficult to find land area to construct and provide
those facilities. It may be best to
keep some combined systems in place with holding tanks to capture overflows to
send to the treatment plant, similarly to Vancouver. A storage facility has been looked at for many years (known as
the central storage tunnel) but a much cheaper solution through real time
control was in fact appropriate and would meet the requirements. Such a central storage tunnel would cost in
the order of $100 million.
Councillor Holmes presented two
motions regarding eliminating overflow and funding for separating sewers and
providing storage tanks for stormwater.
Councillor Monette focussed his
questions on water monitoring/modelling.
In response, staff provided the following information:
·
Water modelling will provide the ability to prioritise
where significant capital funding will be allocated to go beyond compliance.
·
The water modelling of e.coli counts at Mooney’s Bay
and Britannia have assisted in identifying the source of the pollution. In the case of Britannia, $700,000 was
saved, as circulation pumps were not required.
Gull wiring was utilised instead to specifically address the source of
the pollution.
·
The modelling program will not be completed by the next
budget.
·
The three-year environmental effects monitoring
focussed on the discharge from the R.O. Pickard Centre. Combined sewer overflow monitoring will
begin this year. A report is expected
in early 2009.
·
Baird and Associates was selected based on its
experience with the intake protection zone work, which was done through a
Request for Proposals. Staff felt it
made sense to continue with the same firm that also undertook the work at
Westboro Beach. The firm is located
locally but does international work.
The cost estimates were better than the costs associated with the
earlier work. The model is proprietary.
Councillor Monette concurred
with Councillors Hume and Holmes on the need to be more aggressive in the
approach to sewer discharge. He
suggested that no sewer discharge should be the City’s ultimate goal and cost
should not be a factor. He reiterated
that the federal government’s initial $20 million is only the tip of iceberg
and serious talks need to occur with all levels of government. He noted the residents of Ottawa have spoke
loud and clear for the cleaning up of the Ottawa River. In closing, he urged all councillors to take
a tour of the R.O. Pickard Centre.
Mr. Weir confirmed that although
the project will not be finished in time for Budget 2009, putting a place
holder in the budget will allow to move forward given the choices that need to
be made in 2009.
Councillor Desroches noted that
the City of Ottawa is not the only municipality that takes and discharges into
the Ottawa River. He suggested the City
of Ottawa should not be the only contributor as others also contribute to the
problem.
Mr. Weir responded that the City
of Gatineau also discharges to the river and strategically the modelling will
allow the City to demonstrate the degree of impact to encourage others to also
address impact.
Councillor Desroches also
suggested some flexibility should exist with development charges to address
this issue and impact on the overall system as infill and new development
occurs. Mr. Weir undertook to bring this
suggestion back to staff directly involved with the development charge by-law.
Councillor Desroches also noted
the federal government must assist with the problem, in part because it had a
role to play in approving combined water/sewer systems through the EA process.
In response to questions from
Councillor Doucet, Mr. Weir confirmed the sewers from developing communities
such as Riverside South bypass the downtown through the South Ottawa
Collector. Sewers in new communities
are paid for through development charges paid for by new homebuyers and
developers.
Councillor Doucet presented a
motion with regard to the federal government’s role.
Councillor Bellemare commented
that the R.O. Pickard Centre is a state-of-the-art billion-dollar secondary
treatment facility. He noted tertiary treatment
facilities exist in other municipalities.
A municipality in Alberta of 80,000 is undertaking a tertiary system for
approximately $130 million. Modified
disinfection, enhanced phosphorous removal filtration and biological nutrient
removal all go beyond secondary treatment.
In response, staff confirmed
this study would look into long-term options with regard to tertiary and
secondary treatment options. Mr.
McCartney clarified that tertiary treatment is also called enhanced biological nutrient
removal, such as Calgary. It also
includes filtration methodology with membranes or sand. He reiterated that staff would be looking at
all options at a high level in terms of funding, environmental benefit and
priority setting.
With regard to spatial expansion
constraints at the R.O. Pickard Centre, Mr. McCartney noted space is available
to essentially double the size of the plant, but a tertiary process could take
all that land. Other options include
more land or another facility.
Moved by D. Holmes:
That a report come forward
to Planning and Environment Committee, at the same time as the interim report
in Fall 2008, providing information on the cost, process, staffing effects,
etc. on the ability of the City of Ottawa to eliminate any overflow to water
bodies from the combined sewer areas.
CARRIED
Moved by D.
Holmes:
WHEREAS
the estimated cost of separating sewers and providing storage tanks for
stormwater is over $1 billion;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that $20 million be established in the 2009 Budget to match the
$20 million provided by the Federal Government for prevention of sewer
overflows to the City of Ottawa water bodies;
AND THAT
the $20 million federal contribution be considered as a down payment in order
to address the total cost of river cleanup.
CARRIED
Moved by C. Doucet:
WHEREAS the Ottawa River
forms the western inter-provincial boundary between the provinces of Québec and
Ontario;
AND WHEREAS the federal
government has responsibility for interprovincial matters, such as fish
habitat, border crossings, including bridges and roads, etc.;
AND WHEREAS no province
has complete authority for the health and security of the Ottawa River;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
that, through the Director of Water and Wastewater Services and the Committee
Chair, the Federal Government be requested to exercise stewardship in the
protection and sustaining of this essential waterway.
CARRIED
That the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council direct staff to:
1. Retain W.F. Baird & Associates to
evaluate the current state of the river, determine the impacts of inputs (i.e.
CSOs, storm water inputs, creek discharges, R.O. Pickard Centre effluent
discharge), and assist staff with the evaluation of water quality improvements.
2. Bring forward a report to Planning
and Environment Committee, at the same time as the interim report in Fall 2008,
providing information on the cost, process, staffing effects, etc. on the
ability of the City of Ottawa to eliminate any overflow to water bodies from the
combined sewer areas.
3. Establish $20 million in the 2009
Budget to match the $20 million provided by the Federal Government for
prevention of sewer overflows to the City of Ottawa water bodies. That the $20 million federal contribution be
considered as a down payment in order to address the total cost of river
cleanup.
4. Request, through the Director of
Water and Wastewater Services and the Committee Chair, that the Federal
Government exercise stewardship in the protection and sustaining of this essential
waterway.
CARRIED
as amended
MOTION OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY
GIVEN
MOTION AYANT FAIT L’OBJET D’UN AVIS PRÉCÉDENT
Councillor/ Conseiller Doucet
21. THIRD AVENUE AND
PERCY STREET – PROVISION OF CURB RAMPS – MOTION
AVENUE
THIRD ET RUE PERCY – AMÉNAGEMENT DE BATEAUX DE TROTTOIR - MOTION
ACS2008-CCS-PEC-0011 capital (17)
A memorandum
dated June 20, 2008 from Richard Hewitt, Deputy City Manager of Public Works
and Services, was circulated and is held on file with the Clerk.
John Moser, Chief
Planner and Director of Planning, indicated that the specific streets should be
specified in the motion for consistency.
Moved by C.
Doucet:
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend to Council that if residents of Third
Avenue and Percy Street can prove the front yard parking or access has been
in place prior to January 1985, and provided there is no community or neighbour
objection, curb ramps will be provided for these residents.
CARRIED
as amended
NOTICE OF MOTION (FOR
CONSIDERATION AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING)
AVIS
DE MOTION (POUR EXAMEN LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE)
Moved
by P. Feltmate:
WHEREAS drowning is
the second highest cause of injury-related death for Canadian children ages 1
to 4 and swimming pools are involved in nearly half of all drowning and
near-drowning incidents for children under 14 years;
AND WHEREAS there
have been 83 reported drowning incidents seen in the Children’s Hospital of
Eastern Ontario Emergency Department between 1999 and 2007 resulting in the
death of 14 children, which represents an average of 2 deaths per year ;
AND WHEREAS of the 9
drowning and near drowning incidents seen in 2007 at the Children’s Hospital of
Eastern Ontario Emergency Department, 56% of these drowning and near-drowning
incidents occurred in backyard swimming pools;
AND WHEREAS Public
Health has indicated that implementing a four-sided fencing by-law for new pool
owners is the most effective means to prevent swimming pool drowning and
near-drowning;
BE IT THEREFORE
RESOLVED that Council approve the funding of $50,000 in the 2009 Budget for
undertaking a review, public consultation and development of new approaches or
options for improving the City’s Pool Enclosure By-Law, including the
requirement to install 4 sided fencing around pools, and an implementation plan
of the by-law changes.
OTHER
BUSINESS
AUTRES
QUESTIONS
Richard Hewitt, Deputy City
Manager of Public Works and Services, noted that the City of Ottawa scored
extremely high in the Ministry of the Environment's Chief Drinking Water
Inspector's Annual Report of drinking water systems covering the 2006-2007
period.
DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS
Councillor
Feltmate submitted the following written inquiry.
An application for a minor
variance that recently went to the Committee of Adjustment would have allowed
reduction in the parking requirement of 33% from what is required under
existing by-laws and 28% from what is required under the Comprehensive Zoning
By-Law. It would also have allowed the density permitted under the current
by-law to be doubled. The concern this raises is what guidelines staff are
given in deciding whether a proposal should be dealt with as a minor variance
rather than a zoning change.
1. Are the criteria for determining
whether an application should go forward as a zoning change or minor variance
and what are those criteria?
2. Is the final decision on whether to
request a minor variance or zoning change made by the applicant?
3. If an applicant chooses to proceed with
an application as a minor variance, even though planning staff have recommended
it be a zoning change, does that automatically result in a recommendation that
the minor variance be refused on the grounds that the application should be
addressed through a zoning change?
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
The meeting
adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
Original signed by Original
signed by
Robert Tremblay Councillor
P. Hume
Committee Coordinator Chair
