1. OFFICIAL PLAN, zoning and subdivision - 800 Cedarview Road

PLAN OFFICIEL, ZONAGE ET LOTISSEMENT - 800, CHEMIN CEDARVIEW

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

1. Approve and adopt an amendment to the Official Plan of the former City of Nepean to redesignate 800 Cedarview Road from General Rural Area to Country Lot and Open Space, as detailed in Document 2.

2. Approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law 73-92 to change the zoning of 800 Cedarview Road from RU, Rural Agricultural Zone, to RCL, Residential Country Lots Zone, and RCL Block "A", Residential Country Lots Zone, to permit development of detached family dwellings and to Con, Conservation Zone, and to Con, Conservation Zone Block "A", to enable the preservation of wetlands and wetland buffer that will also function as a flood control facility, as shown in Document 3 and detailed in Document 4.

3. Authorize the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to grant draft plan approval to the proposed Plan of Subdivision pertaining to Part of Lots 22, 23, 24 and 25, Concession 4 (Rideau Front), Geographic Township of Nepean, formerly City of Nepean, now City of Ottawa, as shown on Document 5, subject to the conditions detailed in Document 5.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU COMITÉ

Que le Conseil municipal :

1. approuve et adopte une modification au Plan officiel de l'ancienne Ville de Nepean en vue de faire passer le zonage du 800, chemin Cedarview de zone rurale générale à zone de résidence de campagne et à zone d'espaces ouverts, comme le précise le document 2.

2. approuve une modification au Règlement municipal no 73-92 de l'ancienne Ville de Nepean en vue de faire passer le zonage du 800, chemin Cedarview de zone agricole rurale (RU) à zone de résidence de campagne et à zone de résidence de campagne (RCL) bloc A en vue de permettre l'aménagement de maisons jumelées unifamiliales, et à zone de conservation (Con) et à zone de conservation (Con) bloc A, en vue de permettre la préservation des terres humides et d'une zone tampon autour des milieux humides serviront d'installation de maîtrise des crues, comme l'illustre le document 3 et le précise le document 4.

3. autorise le directeur de l'Approbation des demandes d'urbanisme et d'infrastructure d'accorder l'approbation du plan provisoire visant la proposition de lotissement ayant trait à la partie des lots 22, 23, 24 et 25, concession 4 (façade Rideau), canton géographique de Nepean, ancienne Ville de Nepean et maintenant la Ville d'Ottawa, comme l'illustre le document 5, sous réserve des conditions décrites dans le document 5.

Documentation

1. Development Services Department General Manager’s report dated 30 January 2004 (ACS2004-DEV-APR-0077).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 13 April 2004.

Report to/Rapport au :

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

and Council / et au Conseil

30 January 2004 / le 30 janvier 2004

Submitted by/Soumis par : Ned Lathrop, General Manager/Directeur général,

Planning and Development/Urbanisme et Aménagement

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Karen Currie, Manager / Gestionnaire

Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement

(613) 580-2424 x28310, Karen.Currie@ottawa.ca

Bell-South Nepean (3)

Ref N°: ACS2004-DEV-APR-0077

SUBJECT:	OFFICIAL PLAN, ZONING AND SUBDIVISION - 800 CEDARVIEW ROAD (FILE NOS. D01-01-03-0004, D02-02-03-0049 AND D07-16-03-0009)
OBJET :	PLAN OFFICIEL, ZONAGE ET LOTISSEMENT - 800, CHEMIN CEDARVIEW (NOS DE DOSSIERS : D01-01-03-0004, D02-02-03-0049 ET D07-16-03-0009)

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve and adopt an amendment to the Official Plan of the former City of Nepean to redesignate 800 Cedarview Road from General Rural Area to Country Lot and Open Space, as detailed in Document 2.

2. Approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law 73-92 to change the zoning of 800 Cedarview Road from RU, Rural Agricultural Zone, to RCL, Residential Country Lots Zone, and RCL Block "A", Residential Country Lots Zone, to permit development of detached family dwellings and to Con, Conservation Zone, and to Con, Conservation Zone Block "A", to enable the preservation of wetlands and wetland buffer that will also function as a flood control facility, as shown in Document 3 and detailed in Document 4.

3. Authorize the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to grant draft plan approval to the proposed Plan of Subdivision pertaining to Part of Lots 22, 23, 24 and 25, Concession 4 (Rideau Front), Geographic Township of Nepean, formerly City of Nepean, now City of Ottawa, as shown on Document 5, subject to the conditions detailed in Document 5.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement recommande au Conseil municipal :

1. approuve et adopte une modification au Plan officiel de l'ancienne Ville de Nepean en vue de faire passer le zonage du 800, chemin Cedarview de zone rurale générale à zone de résidence de campagne et à zone d'espaces ouverts, comme le précise le document 2.

2. approuve une modification au Règlement municipal no 73-92 de l'ancienne Ville de Nepean en vue de faire passer le zonage du 800, chemin Cedarview de zone agricole rurale (RU) à zone de résidence de campagne et à zone de résidence de campagne (RCL) bloc A en vue de permettre l'aménagement de maisons jumelées unifamiliales, et à zone de conservation (Con) et à zone de conservation (Con) bloc A, en vue de permettre la préservation des terres humides et d'une zone tampon autour des milieux humides serviront d'installation de maîtrise des crues, comme l'illustre le document 3 et le précise le document 4.

3. autorise le directeur de l'Approbation des demandes d'urbanisme et d'infrastructure d'accorder l'approbation du plan provisoire visant la proposition de lotissement ayant trait à la partie des lots 22, 23, 24 et 25, concession 4 (façade Rideau), canton géographique de Nepean, ancienne Ville de Nepean et maintenant la Ville d'Ottawa, comme l'illustre le document 5, sous réserve des conditions décrites dans le document 5.

BACKGROUND

The subject property is located east of Highway 416, north of Strandherd Drive and Fallowfield Road, and west of Cedarview Road. This is an "L" shaped parcel of land that runs along the east side of Highway 416 and is adjacent to the Cedarhill Estates and Orchard Estates residential subdivisions. This parcel of land has an area of 113.61 hectares. Some of the features of this site include an abandoned old quarry at the most westerly portion of the property, and a wetland at the easterly portion of the property that is designated as a Provincially Significant Wetland Area by the former Regional Official Plan. The property is also divided by a 12 metre wide hydro corridor that runs across the northwesterly portion of the site. There is a city park and vacant land to the south. To the north is Lytle Avenue which is developed with detached family dwellings.

Purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments

The purpose of these applications is to permit the development of a country-estate residential subdivision. Proposed are 95 country-estate lots that will be unserviced, requiring private water and septic systems. The proposed Official Plan and Zoning amendments are to the former City of Nepean Official Plan to redesignate the property from General Rural Area to Country Lot and Open Space, and to rezone the property from Rural Agricultural Zone, to RCL, Residential Country Lots Zone, and Con, Conservation Zone. This will allow development of detached family dwellings, and the preservation of wetlands that will also function as a flood control facility.

The exceptions to the residential and conservation zonings will allow reduced lot widths in order to accommodate irregular shaped parcels of land, correct a zoning anomaly in the parent RCL zone to reflect a minimum lot area requirement of 0.8 hectares, and incorporate privately owned conservation lands as part of the lot area.

DISCUSSION

These applications were received prior to April 23, 2003, and, as such, are subject to existing municipal policies prior to that date.

Former Region of Ottawa-Carleton and City of Nepean Official Plans

This property is designated as General Rural Area in Schedule "A" of the Rural Policy Plan of the former Regional Official Plan. The intent of the General Rural Area is to allow non-farm related uses on lands considered to have less resource potential that other parts of the rural area. The plan permits residential development to occur on larger residential country lots having a minimum area of 0.8 hectares (two acres) provided that the development is sensitive to the landscape and environment.

The former City of Nepean Official Plan further directs that residential development on lands designated General Rural Area by the former Regional Official Plan, maintain and not dominate the rural landscape. Conflicts between future rural/agricultural uses and residential uses are minimized, and natural wetlands and woodlots are to be protected. Additionally, residential development shall be designated as Country Lot in the former City of Nepean Official Plan, provided such development does not place demands for urban services and relies totally on private water and septic systems. These residential development proposals are required to provide detailed hydrogeological and terrain analysis to ensure the long term viability of the development prior to their approval.

City Council Approved Official Plan

This property is designated as "General Rural Area" in Schedule "A" of the Rural Policy Plan. The intent the General Rural Area is permit land uses that are considered to be characteristic and supportive of the rural community. This designation does permit Country Estate development.

Rationale

The Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have been reviewed in conjunction with the subdivision application and it was determined they comply with the above policies. Proposed through the zoning amendment is a Conservation Zone for publicly and privately owned conservation lands. The propose of the Conservation Zone is to ensure the protection of the significant wetland area and the provision of an adequate vegetative buffer to that wetland, ensuring its viability. The registered subdivision will contain covenants for privately owned conservation lands prohibiting any physical alteration to those lands including the removal of any vegetation. A preliminary Tree Planting and Conservation Plan has been submitted identifying significant wooded areas to be protected. A finalized plan will be required prior to subdivision registration. Further, the subdivision will be phased in order that it can be demonstrated that the existing wells and private sewage disposal systems are functioning in a satisfactory manner, including an assessment of water quality in the shallow aquifer, prior to the registration of the second phase.

Compatibility

The predominate land use in the area can be characterized predominately detached country estate lot residential with some neighbouring public and private recreational uses. There are no lands within the immediate or surrounding area whose function is agricultural or supportive of an agricultural use. As such, the proposed subdivision will not be in conflict with Official Plan directives requiring residential development not detract from the overall rural agricultural landscape, nor will there be potential for conflicts between future rural/agricultural uses and the proposed residential uses.

Design

The design of this subdivision resulted from extensive consultation with the neighbouring Orchard Estates and Cedarhill Community Associations, facilitated by the applicant and the Ward Councillor. The subdivision proposal includes pathway linkages to existing stone dust pathways and a linkage to the an existing city park to the south. The proposed street connection at the most easterly end of Cedarhill Drive is designed to have minimal traffic impacts into Cedarhill Community and is aligned to an existing street within the Cedarhill Community to avoid the need for an additional intersection along Cedarhill Drive.

Noise

The westerly and northwesterly portion of this site abuts Highway 416. A Noise Assessment Study was conducted for this property recommending that a noise attenuation feature consisting of a berm be constructed along the westerly edge of the subdivision. The assessment concluded that no window or wall upgrades beyond the Ontario Building Code standards were required but did recommend a warning clause with respect to daytime noise levels from Highway 416 may exceed 60 dBA, which has been included in the conditions of draft subdivision approval.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority has reviewed the zoning and subdivision applications and has no objections to these applications proceeding to approval. Issues relating to the wetland area have been dealt with though draft conditions of subdivision approval.

CONSULTATION

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. Information signs were posted on-site indicating the nature of the application. The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation. The City did receive a number of negative comments and one resident in opposition to this application.

Staff circulated the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, as well as Plan of Subdivision application, to various technical agencies and City Departments. A number of information meetings were held in the community. Detailed responses to the notification/circulation are provided in Document 7.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

This application was not processed within the timeframe established for the processing of Official Plan Amendments, Zoning Amendments or Subdivision Approval due to the complexity the technical review relating to the wetlands.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 - Location Map

Document 2 - Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Document 3 - Zoning Map

Document 4 - Zoning Amendment Details

Document 5 - Draft Conditions for Subdivision Approval

Document 6 - Draft Plan of Subdivision

Document 7 - Consultation Details

DISPOSITION

Department of Corporate Services, Secretariat Services to notify the owner, Robert Swaita, 34 Taj Court, Ottawa, ON, K1G 5K6, applicant, FoTenn Consultants Inc., 223 McLeod Street, Ottawa, ON, K2P 0Z8, All Signs, 8692 Russell Road, Navan, ON K4B 1J1, and the Program Manager, Assessment, Department of Corporate Services of City Council's decision.

Department of Planning and Development to prepare the implementing by-law and forward to Legal Services Branch, and undertake the statutory notification amendment to the Zoning By-Law 1998 of the former City of Nepean Zoning By-Law.

Department of Corporate Services, Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.

LOCATION MAP Document 1

PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT Document 2

Official Plan Amendment __ /Modifications du Plan directeur

To the Official Plan of the former City of Nepean, now forming part of the City of Ottawa Official Plan

Land use

Utilisation du sol

_______________________________________________________________________

INDEX

________________________________________________________________________

The Statement of Components

PART A - THE PREAMBLE

Purpose

Location

Basis

PART B- THE AMENDMENT

Introductory Statement

Details of the Amendment

Implementation and Interpretation

PART C - APPENDIX

Appendices

THE STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS

PART A - THE PREAMBLE, introduces the actual Amendment but does not constitute part of Amendment No. __ to the former City of Nepean, April 2004.

PART B - THE AMENDMENT, consisting of schedule changes constitutes the actual Amendment No. __ to the former City of Nepean, April 2004.

PART C - APPENDIX, does not form part of the Amendment but is provided to clarify the intent and to supply background information related to the Amendment.

PART A - THE PREAMBLE

Purpose

The purpose of Amendment __ is first to amend Schedule "1" of the Official Plan from General Rural Area to Country Lot and Open Space.

Location

The property is located east of Highway 416, north of Strandherd Drive and Fallowfield Road, and west of Cedarview Road. This parcel of land has an area of 113.61 hectares. Surrounding area development consists of residential development along Lytle Avenue, Cedarhill Estates and Orchard Estates residential subdivisions, and the Cedarhill Golf Course to the east and a city recreational park and vacant land to the south, and Highway 416 to the west. The property is also divided by a 12 metre wide hydro corridor that runs across the northwesterly portion of the site.

Basis

The subject property is designated as General Rural in the former Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and is subject to the Rural policies contained in the former City of Nepean Official Plan. In the Regional Official Plan the General Rural designation is for lands that have less resource potential than other parts of the rural area. The plan permits residential development with the General Rural designations on large country estate lots of not less than 0.8 hectares provided there is evidence of satisfactory private water and septic services on site.

The Rural policies contained within the former City of Nepean Official Plan permits limited cluster residential development on lands designated as Country Lot (CL) and allows for alternative non-urban residential development. The Country Lots designation is considered appropriate provided it does not detract from the predominate agricultural function of the Rural Area. Additionally, any proposal to designate lands shall have regard to the protection of areas of natural heritage, such as wetland in this case.

A conceptual stormwater management plan, and a terrain analysis and hydrogeological study was submitted with the subdivision application. These studies demonstrated that the subject lands can support the subdivision proposal for 95 privately serviced lot. Additionally, a review of the proposal was found to be in keeping with the overall intent of the applicable Official Plan policies and guidelines for country lot subdivision development.

PART B - THE AMENDMENT

1. Introduction

All of this part of the document entitled Part B - The Amendment, consisting of the following attached maps designated Schedule "1" of the Official Plan constitutes Amendment __ to the Official Plan of the former City of Nepean.

2. Details

The following changes are hereby made to the Official Plan of the former City of Nepean, as amended from time to time:

1. That the area identified in Document 1 be amended from a General Rural Area to Country Lot and Open Space designations in Schedule "1" of the Official Plan.

IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION

Implementation and Interpretation of this Amendment shall be made having regard to applicable policies of this Plan.

PART C - APPENDIX

N/A

Schedule "1" - MAP

ZONING MAP Document 3

ZONING AMENDMENT DETAILS Document 4

1. That Areas 1 and 2 be rezoned from RU, Rural Agricultural Zone, to RCL, Residential Country Lots Zone and RCL Block “A”, Residential Country Lots Zone, with Block “A” denoting the following exception to the standard RCL zone:

7.4 Exceptions

1. Despite Section 7.2 on lands zoned RCL Block “A” the following applies:

a) the minimum lot frontage shall be 21.5 metres,

b) the minimum lot area shall be 0.8 hectares (two acres)

c) adjacent lands zoned Conservation Block “A” can be included in the calculation of lot area.

2. That Areas 3 and 4 be rezoned from RU, Rural Agricultural Zone, to Con, Conservation Zone, and Con Block “A”, Conservation Zone, with Block “A” denoting the following exception to the standard RCL zone:

9.6 Exceptions

1. That lands zoned Con Block “A” can be included in the calculation of lot area for adjacent lands zoned RCL Block “A”.

DRAFT CONDITIONS OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Document 5

File: D07-16-03-0009

DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL

EMERALD ESTATES SUBDIVISION,

The City of Ottawa’s conditions applying to the approval of the draft plan of subdivision for Fotenn Consultants Inc. – Emerald Estates Subdivision (D07-16-03-0009) are as follows:

	General
1.	This approval applies to the draft plan of subdivision of Part of Lots 22, 23, 24 and 25 Concession 4 (Rideau Front), Geographic Township of Nepean (formerly City of Nepean), now in the City of Ottawa, certified by Annis, O’Sullivan, Vollebekk Ltd. – Ontario Land Surveyors, dated xx as received, showing 95 lots for single detached dwellings, one block for drainage (Block 118 and 119 from quarry), one block for stormwater management, conservation blocks adjacent to lots 57 to 62 (Blocks 109 through to 116), two blocks for 0.3 m reserves (Blocks 98 and 99), seven blocks for walkways (Blocks 97, 104, 105, 106, 107, and 108) and one block for a potential future street (Block 96).	City (PDD)
2.	The Owner agrees, by entering into subdivision agreements, to satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the City of Ottawa, including the provision of roads, the phasing of the plan for registration, the installation of services, utilities and drainage and the siting of buildings; and that the Subdivision Agreement shall be binding on the Owner’s successors and assigns.	City (PDD)
3.	The development of this subdivision will be phased. Each phase is to contain not more than 40 lots. Prior to the registration of each phase subsequent to the first phase, a report, prepared by a qualified professional, has to submit to the City of Ottawa to demonstrate that the existing wells and private sewage disposal systems are functioning in a satisfactory manner. The report shall include an assessment of water quality in the shallow aquifer, based on the direction of flow. Further, the Owner agrees that prior to the registration of each phase, lots in that phase or subsequent phase will not be offered for sale, nor will the Owner apply for building permits.	RVCA/City (PDD)

4.	The Owner shall provide certification from an Ontario Land Surveyor that each lot on the draft 4M plan is a minimum of 0.8 hectare. This minimum lot area is required to provide nitrate dilution associated with the operation of private sewage disposal systems, and to comply with zoning provisions.	RVCA/City (PDD)
5.	The Owner shall obtain such permits as may be required from Municipal or Provincial authorities and shall file copies thereof with the Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals.	City (PDD)
6.	The Owner shall be responsible for the provision of the following services, including over-sizing, at its cost, to the satisfaction of the City and/or the Province: a) storm drainage system b) roads c) street lights d) landscaping e) street name and traffic signs.	City (PDD)
7.	The Owner shall be required to provide 1.8 metre high black mesh chain link fencing on private property along that portion of the road allowance that is adjacent to an abandoned privately-owned quarry as required by the City of Ottawa. The black mesh chain link fencing may be substituted with decorative metal fencing subject the concurrence of the Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals.	City (PDD)
8.	The Owner shall submit a geotechnical study prepared by a qualified professional engineer which will include but not be limited to recommendation with respect to roadway design, building footings and foundations, the stability of the slopes into the abandoned quarry and the suitability of the existing fill material on-site for use within the development.	City (PDD)
9.	Prior to the registration of this subdivision, the Owner shall acquire the necessary lands with the Hydro Corridor for conveyance to the City of Ottawa in order to provide roadway and emergency vehicle connections acceptable to the Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals. Such lands shall be incorporated as public roads on the final 4M-Plan prior to registration.	City (PDD)
10.	Prior to the registration of this subdivision, the Owner may be required to realign Street Number 1 to provide a separation between the road allowance and Block 100 at the request of and to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals.	City (PDD)

11.	That the Owner provide a guide rail along any portion of the Street Number 1 where it abuts Block 100, to the satisfaction of Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals.
12.	Prior to the registration of this subdivision, the Owner shall provide evidence satisfactory to the Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals that there are no outstanding collect backs or encumbrances associated with a 30 centimeter reserve along Cedarhill Drive that would prevent the lifting of the reserve, and therefore restrict vehicular access from Cedarhill Drive to Street Number Two.	City (PDD)
13.	That the 0.3 metre reserve abutting Cedarhill Drive and Street Number 2 shall be lifted, at the expense of the Owner.
	Fire
14.	The Owner undertakes and agrees to provide and erect or affix, at their expense, such municipal number signs, illuminated or otherwise, in such locations and of such a size, design and colour as submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief of the City of Ottawa prior to occupancy of any buildings, or part thereof, in the subject development, and that any such numbering shall be visible from the street during both day and night.	City (Fire)
15.	a) That all off-site fire hydrants must be fully operational prior to any structural framing and be maintained accessible and operational at all times. b) Where no municipal hydrants are available, the Owner will provide alternate means of water supply for approval as required in Section 3.2.5.7 of the Ontario Building code.	City (Fire)
16.	That public street access must be provided by a road complete with first lift of asphalt prior to combustible framing. Alternatively, at time of the year when asphalt plants are not operational, the minimum road construction must be sub base with full depth base material, topped with granular “A”: gravel or within 2” of finished grade.	City (Fire)
17.	That all on-site roadways be accessible for emergency vehicles at all times during construction (i.e. clear of any and all obstructions).	City (Fire)
18.	That on-site roadway are to be constructed to meet the design requirements of Section 3.2.5.6 of the Ontario Building Code, as amended from time to time for fire access route, where applicable.	City (Fire)
19.	That five (5) copies of final site plan be submitted to Fire Department for official designation of fire access route, where applicable, per City By-law, as amended from time to time.	City (Fire)

20.	That the Owner shall meet all the requirements of the City’s Fire Department with respect to the identification, maintenance, snow removal and signing of fire routes.	City (Fire)
21.	That written confirmation, at time of building permit application, of the building classification to be used for construction be provided to the Fire Department as specified in Articles 3.2.2.20 and 3.2.2.83 of the Ontario Building Code.	City (Fire)
22.	That a plan showing proposed Fire Department connections, annunciator panel and off-site hydrant locations be submitted to the fire Department for comment/approval.	City (Fire)
	Zoning and Official Plan
23.	Prior to registration of the plan of subdivision, the proposed plan of subdivision must conform with the local Official Plan and a Zoning By-law approved under the requirements of the Planning Act, with all possibility of appeal to the OMB exhausted.	City (PDD)
	Parks
24.	The Owner shall convey Block 103 to the City for park purposes. The Owner shall pay the City cash-in-lieu of the 5% of the land included in the plan of subdivision, minus the area of Block 103. Such amount shall be determined by the Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals.	City (PDD)
25.	The Owner shall design and construct a basketball court that incorporates a portion of the paved pedestrian pathway leading from Cedarhill Drive to Street Number One, to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals.	City (PDD)
	Sidewalks, Walkways and Fencing
26.	The Owner agrees to convey at no cost to the City Blocks 97, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, having a minimum widths of 6.0 metres, for pedestrian walkways.	City (PDD)
27.	The Owner agrees to design, and construct paved pedestrian walkways within Blocks 97, 104, 105, 106 and 107 to the satisfaction of Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals. This design shall include, but not be limited to marker lights at roadway intersections, split rail cedar fencing, and plant material.	City (PDD)
28.	The Owner agrees to convey at no cost to the City Block 102 for the construction of a pedestrian walkway/emergency vehicle access.	City (PDD)
29.	The Owner agrees to design and construct paved pedestrian pathway/fire lane leading from Cedarhill Drive, through Block N on Plan 4M-278, Block 102 on the draft plan of subdivision and the Hydro Corridor, and connecting with Street Number 1, to the satisfaction of Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals. This design shall include, but not be limited to marker lights at the intersections of public streets, split rail cedar fencing, plant material and break-away bollards.	City (PDD)
30.	Prior to the registration of the subdivision, the Owner shall use best efforts in acquiring a pedestrian surface easement over the Hydro Corridor identified on the draft plan of subdivision that will in turn be then conveyed City of Ottawa.	City (PDD)
31.	The Owner shall submit and implement a pedestrian walkway plan that reflects walkway realignments resulting from the construction of Street Number 1 within the Hydro Corridor and implement the necessary associated works of the walkway realignment to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa.	City (PDD)
32.	The Owner acknowledges and agrees that Blocks 97, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107 and 108 for walkway dedication, and Block 101 for stormwater management purposes do not form part of the parkland dedication calculation.	City (PDD)
	Archaeology
33.	The Owner shall adhere to the procedures of the “Contingency Plan for the Protection of Archaeological Resources in Urgent Situation” as approved by the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation in the archaeological Resource Potential Mapping Study of the City.	City (PDD)
	Tree Preservation
34.	Prior to final registration, a revised Tree Planting and Conservation Plan is to be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa and the Rideau River Conservation Authority and must clearly demonstrate how residual trees along the side and rear yard lot lines are to be protected, such that potentially only 25 percent of the surface area of each individual lot on the subject property is physically disturbed/altered in the development process. The plan shall include in tree protection the following clause: “Waste of volatile materials, such as mineral spirits, oil or paint thinner shall not be disposed of with dripline of a tree. Emissions from equipment shall not be directed in such a way as to come into contact with the foliage of a tree. Flooding or deposition of sediment shall be prevented where located.” In addition, the revised report shall include a satisfactory wildlife “escape route” to be maintained adjacent to natural areas throughout all tree removal and construction activities.	RVCA/City (PDD & TUPW)
35.	The Owner shall to eliminate safety hazards, any future privately-owned trees or woodlands adjacent to Lots 47 and Lots 57 to 61 inclusive must be pruned and/or removed under supervision by Forestry staff prior to conveyance, to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa.	City (TUPW)
36.	The Owner agrees to develop each lot in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the detailed Tree Planting and Conservation Plan and to inform future Purchasers regarding their obligation to implement the specific tree saving measures applicable to the lot they are purchasing, through all Offers of Purchase and Sale and Agreements, to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa.	RVCA/City (PDD & TUPW)
37.	That the Tree Preservation Plan approved by the Planning and Development Department and the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority shall become part of the contract documents package issued for tender and construction purposes.	RVCA/City (PDD)
	Highways/Roads
38.	The design of all road intersections, including geometric, intersection spacing, grades, the conveyance of the necessary sight triangles and required 0.3 m reserves necessary for lot access control (Blocks 98 and 99), shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals.
39.	The Owner agrees to convey at no cost to the City Block 96 for the purposes of a future street dedication, with the intention of completing a street connection through to O’Keefe Court to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa. The construction of roadway, at a future time, will be the sole responsibility of property owner to the south, should such a roadway be desired in any future development of that property. All costs associated with such road constructions and road opening shall be borne by the future development to the south.	City (PDD)
40.	The Owner shall dedicate the proposed streets to the City. Rights of way for all roads shall be 18 metres designed to municipal rural, standards; but additional right of way shall be provided where required as a result of a major road cut, fill or design feature.	City (PDD)
41.	The Owner shall provide sight triangles (5.0mx5.0m minimum), at the intersections of all streets, which shall be dedicated to the City of Ottawa as public highway.	City (PDD)

42.	All streets shall be named to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa.	City (PDD)
	Stormwater Management
43.	The Owner agrees to convey at no cost to the City Block 101 for purposes of stormwater management and the conservation of the wetland area.	City (PDD)
44.	Prior to the commencement of construction of any phase of this subdivision (roads, utilities, any off site work, etc.) the Owner shall: a) have an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a Professional Engineer in accordance with Current Best Management Practices, b) have such a plan approved by the City of Ottawa, and c) provide certification to the City of Ottawa through a Professional Engineer that the plan has been implemented.	City (PDD)
45.	On completion of all stormwater works, the Owner shall provide certification to the City of Ottawa through a Professional Engineer that all measures have been implemented in conformity with the Stormwater Site Management Plan and the sequence of its implementation in relation to the construction of the subdivision, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals and the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.	City (PDD) RVCA
46.	Prior to registration, or prior to an application for a Certificate of Approval for any stormwater works (whichever comes first), the Owner shall prepare a stormwater Site Management Plan which shall identify the sequence for the implementation of the Plan in relation to the construction of the subdivision and be in accordance with Stormwater Best Management Practices to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals and the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.	City (PDD) RVCA
47.	The total rate of post-development run-off measured at the entrance(s) into the drainage outlets (either surface or sub-surface) shall not exceed the rate of pre-development run-off.	City (PDD) RVCA
48.	The Owner agrees that the finalized stormwater Site Management Plan shall identify and include works to address off-site drainage improvements to the City of Ottawa recreational facility (Lytle Park) to the south resulting from existing surface runoff conditions originating from the subject lands to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals.	City (PDD)

49.	That the Owner provide to the City of Ottawa an easement over Lot 47 to ensure that the drainage outlet from the quarry and baseflow to the wetland is protected over the long term, to the satisfaction of the the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals and the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.	City (PDD) RVCA
	Construction	City (PDD)
50.	Footings of all buildings shall be constructed above the normal water table to prevent moisture problems in basements and to minimize the demand on the sump pump system.
51.	The Owner shall grade, landscape and install erosion control measures on any portion of the proposed lots or adjacent lands in the possession of the Owner which have been filled or where the natural vegetation has been disturbed which, in the opinion of the Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals, is creating a nuisance, hazard and/or eyesore.	City (PDD)
	Rural Servicing
52.	The Owner shall have the hydrogeology and terrain analysis that was accepted for the original draft approval reviewed by a qualified hydrogeologist. The review shall assess the risk to the groundwater on the site or on adjacent lands that my result in the migration of septic system effluent or from anything else affecting the ground water regime at the site. The study shall be revised to reflect any changes, and shall be approved by the City of Ottawa and the RVCA.	City (PDD)
53.	The Owner agrees that all well construction, including test wells, shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the approved Hydrogeological and Terrain Analysis Report, and that certification by a Professional Engineer will be provided to the City of Ottawa in this regard. The Owner shall advise all prospective lot purchasers, in the Agreements of Purchase and Sale, of these certification requirements. The Owner also agrees that the Subdivision Agreement with the City of Ottawa will require lot Owners to provide this certification by a Professional Engineer, prior to final inspection by the City to permit occupancy of buildings.	City (PDD)

	Fisheries	RVCA
54.	The Owner acknowledges that part of Lot 47 and Blocks 100 and 101are fish habitat. In accordance with Section 35 of the Fisheries Act no person shall undertake any activity in, on or near waters containing fish habitat that may result in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.
	Environmental Constraints	RVCA
55.	Prior to registration of this subdivision, the Owner shall have a report prepared by a qualified professional ecologist or biologist which shall: a) document the environmental impacts of the excavation work in the wetland and the watercourse, including short and long term impacts on water levels in the wetland, b) develop a wetland restoration plan that addresses restoration for all disturbed areas, and c) provide an implementation and monitoring strategy for the wetland restoration plan. The wetland restoration plan shall be to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa and the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.	City (PDD) RVCA
56.	Prior to registration of this subdivision, the Owner shall implement the wetland restoration plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals and the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.	City (PDD) RVCA
57.	Within one growing season of the implementation of the wetland restoration plan, the Owner shall submit a follow-up report prepared by a qualified professional ecologist or biologist that evaluates the status and effectiveness of the restoration plan implementation, and identifies any deficiencies and prepares recommendations addressing the deficiencies, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals and the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.	City (PDD) RVCA
58.	The Owner shall implement the recommendations of the follow-up report to the wetland restoration plan within one growing season and shall provide a security deposits to the City for a related wetland security works, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals and the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.	City (PDD) RVCA

59.	The Owner agrees that all wells must be drilled in compliance with Ministry of the Environment Well Regulations (Ontario Regulation 903) so as to minimize the risk of contamination to the well and the groundwater aquifer. The construction and grouting of the well shall be supervised by a certified professional.	RVCA
	Noise Attenuation	City (PDD) RVCA
60.	The Owner shall: a) have a noise study prepared and certified by a Professional Engineer (expertise in the subject of acoustics related to land use planning). The study shall be to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa and shall comply with MOEE LU-131, Noise Assessment Criteria in Land Use Planning, the City of Ottawa 's Standards for Noise Barriers and Noise Control Guidelines, and be in accordance with the current version of the APEO Guidelines, for Professional Engineers providing Acoustical Engineering Services in Land Use Planning; b) implement the specific noise control measures recommended in the approved Noise Study and any other measures recommended by the City of Ottawa including, as applicable, the City of Ottawa 's "Standards for Noise Barriers" as may be amended; c) prior to the construction of any noise control measures, provide certification to the City of Ottawa through a Professional Engineer that the design of the control features will implement the recommendations of the approved study; d) prior to the registration of the plan of subdivision, provide financial security in the amount of 100% of the cost of implementing the recommended noise control measures; and e) prior to final building inspection, provide certification to the City of Ottawa, through a Professional Engineer, that the noise control measures have been implemented in accordance with the approved study.

	Utilities	City (PDD)
61.	Such easements and maintenance agreements which may be required for electrical, gas, telephone and cablevision facilities or for drainage purposes, shall be provided and agreed to by the Owner, to the satisfaction of the appropriate authority; and that the Owner shall ensure that these easement documents are registered on Title immediately following registration of the final plan; and the affected agencies are duly notified.
62.	The Owner shall be required to coordinate the preparation of an overall Composite Utility Distribution Plan showing the location (shared or otherwise), and installation, timing and phasing of all required utilities (on-ground, below-ground or above‑ground) through liaison with the appropriate electrical, gas, water, sewer, telephone, and cablevision authorities and including on-site drainage facilities. The Composite Utility Plan shall be to the satisfaction of all the affected authorities and shall be prepared and approved prior to the installation of any of the service lateral connections for any of the affected utility(s).	City (Legal) Hydro (One) Gas Bell Cable
63.	The relocation or removal of any utility facility, including electrical, gas, water, sewer, telephone, cablevision, etc., required as a direct result of development, shall be at the cost of the Owner and to the satisfaction of the appropriate utility authority.	City (Legal) Hydro (One) Gas Bell Cable
64.	The Owner shall enter into separate agreement(s), if required, with the utility company(s) (i.e. Hydro Ottawa, Bell Canada, Consumers Gas, Rogers Cablevision, Canada Post, etc.).	City (Legal) Hydro (One) Gas Bell Cable
65.	Any development in conjunction with the subdivision must not block vehicular access to any Hydro One facilities located on the right of way. During construction, there will be no storage of materials or mounding of earth or other debris on the right-of-way.	City (Legal) Hydro (One) Gas Bell Cable
66.	The easement rights of Hydro One and its legal predecessors are to be protected and maintained.	Hydro (One)
67.	The Owner shall grade all streets to final elevation prior to the installation of the gas lines, and provide the necessary field survey information for the installation of the gas lines, all to the satisfaction of Enbridge Consumers Gas.	Hydro (One)
	Canada Post
68.	The Owner shall inform all prospective purchasers, through a clause in all agreements of purchase and sale, as to those lots or blocks identified for potential Community Mailbox(s), and shall indicate the proposed Community Mailbox locations(s).	Post
69.	The Owner shall relocate an off-site community mailbox to the west of its current location subject to the approval of Canada Post, and to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals.
70.	The Owner shall provide curb depressions at the community mailbox site location(s). They are to be two meters in width and no higher than 25mm.	Post
71.	The Owner shall provide a paved lay by at the community mailbox location, when required by the Municipality.	City Post
72.	The Owner shall advise all prospective purchasers that Canada Post does not intend to provide door-to-door mail delivery. It is anticipated that mail delivery will be provided through a system of permanent communal boxes.	City Post
73.	The Owner shall meet the requirements of Canada Post for postal delivery facilities if applicable, to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa.	City Post
	Purchase and Sale Agreements and Covenants on Title	City Post
74.	The Owner shall insert a clause in the Purchase and Sale Agreement with prospective purchasers stating that: “The Purchaser acknowledges that school accommodation problems exist in the Carleton Board of Education’s Elementary schools and the Carleton Roman Catholic School Board'’ elementary and/or secondary schools designated to service in this area, and that at the present time this problem is being addressed by the utilization of portable classrooms, and that such a problem will not be alleviated until such time as Provincial funding is made available to construct additional pupil places."

75.	A warning clause will be inserted into the subdivision agreement and in all offer of purchase and sale agreement for lots 6, 33 through 40, 42, 44, and 71 through to 81, to read as follows: “Purchasers/tenants are advised that despite the inclusion of noise control features in the development and within the building units, sound levels due to increasing road traffic may on occasion interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the City of Ottawa’s and Ministry of the Environment’s noise criteria.”
76.	A warning clause will be inserted into the subdivision agreement and in all offer of purchase and sale agreement, to read as follows: "The City of Ottawa does not guarantee the quality or quantity of the groundwater. If, at some future date, the quality or the quantity of the groundwater becomes deficient, the City of Ottawa bears no responsibility, financial or otherwise, to provide solutions to the deficiency, such solutions being the sole responsibility of the homeowner".	OCDSB OCSSB
77.	The Owner shall insert a clause in the Purchase and Sale Agreement for those prospective purchasers abutting Block 100 stating that: “Purchaser acknowledges that Block 100 is a privately-owned quarry and the City does not accept any responsibility for the use or maintenance of this quarry. “	RVCA/City (PDD)
78.	The Owner shall insert a clause in the Purchase and Sale Agreement for those prospective purchasers of Lot 47 and Lots 54 to 60 inclusive stating that: “Purchaser acknowledges that the watercourse on Lot 47 and the wetland in Block 101 are fish habitat. In accordance with Section 35 of the fisheries Act, no person shall undertake any activity in, on or near waters containing fish habitat that may result in the harmful, alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.”	RVCA
79.	The Owner shall insert a clause in the Purchase and Sale Agreement for those prospective purchaser of Lot 47 stating that: “Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that development and site alteration shall not occur within 30 metres of the normal high watermark of the watercourse”	RVCA

80.	The Owner shall insert a clause in the Purchase and Sale Agreement for those prospective purchaser of Lot 47 and Lots 54 to 61 stating that: “Purchaser acknowledges that the unnamed watercourse that convey flows from the quarry (Block 100) to the wetland (Block 101), is subject to the “Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation” (Ontario Regulation 166/90 under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C. 27). The Owner requires written approval of the Conservation Authority prior to the straightening, changing, diverting or interfering in any way this watercourse. Any application received in this regard would be assessed with the context of approved policies for the administration of the regulation, including those for the protection of fish habitat.”	RVCA
81.	That the Owner shall provide to the purchasers of Lot 47 and Lots 54 to 61 inclusive an information package on the function of the wetland and buffer, and guidance on best management practices that may require a permanent fence to ensure the long term viability of wetland. The information package shall be prepared by an ecological/biological consultant and shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals and the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.	RVCA
82.	The Owner shall insert a clause in the Purchase and Sale Agreement for those prospective purchasers of Lot 54 to 61 inclusive stating that: “Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that a portion of their property functions as a wetland buffer that shall be maintained in their natural unaltered state, in perpetuity (no mowing, no spraying with pesticides and/or herbicides, no regrading, no filling, no dumping, no removal of vegetation etc.).”	RVCA
83.	The Owner shall insert a clause in the Purchase and Sale Agreement for those prospective purchasers of Lot 47 and Lots 54 to 61 inclusive stating that the Tree Preservation Plan approved by the City of Ottawa and the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority as follows: a) The lands subject to this agreement shall be left in a natural state and not maintained (no mowing, no spraying with pesticides and/or herbicides, no regrading, no filling, no dumping, no removal of vegetation etc.). b) That buildings and structures will not be permitted within these lands. c) The planting of native species of trees and shrubs will be permitted to enhance the vegetative cover within these lands, and the planting of non-native and invasive plant species are not permitted. d) The cutting, pruning and removal of trees which present a safety concern will be permitted. e) The lands subject to this agreement shall remain in it’s natural state in perpetuity. That the said Agreement of Purchase and Sale shall contain the purchaser’s acknowledgement of receiving such notification.	RVCA/City (TUPW)
84.	The Owner shall provide perspective purchasers a Homeowners Awareness Package highlighting the advantages and responsibilities of a home or landowner living in proximity to a natural area.	RVCA
85.	The Owner shall insert a clause in each Agreement of Purchase and Sale and in Deeds for lands upon which fences have been constructed stating that: "Purchasers are advised that they must maintain the fences as constructed by __________ along the boundary of this property to the satisfaction of the City of Ottawa. The Purchaser agrees to include this clause in any future Purchase and Sale Agreements."
86.	The Owner shall include statements in the subdivision agreement and in all Offer of Purchase and Sale Agreements with prospective lot purchasers in wording acceptable to the City of Ottawa, advising: “that the sodium levels in well water may exceed 20 mg/l. The City Medical Officer of Health recommends that persons with cardiac problems (hypertension, etc.) discuss this matter with their family physician.”	RVCA
87.	Any person who, prior to draft approval, entered into a purchase and sale agreement with respect to lots or blocks created by this subdivision, shall be permitted to withdraw from such agreement without penalty and with full refund of any deposit paid, up until the acknowledgement noted below. The Owner shall provide the City Legal Services Branch an acknowledgement from those purchasers who signed before the plan was draft approved, that the plan had not received draft approval by the City of Ottawa. The Owner agrees that the purchase and sale agreements signed prior to draft approval shall be amended to contain a clause to notify purchasers of this fact.

88.	That the Owner shall advise prospective purchasers to test the water quality of the wells regularly for bacterial, septic and chemical (especially fluoride) contamination and to disinfect the wells as required. Any exceedances shall be brought to the attention of the City of Ottawa’s Medical Officer of Health to obtain advice in this regard. Owners shall follow a well management program to minimize the potential for contamination of the groundwater. The guides entitled “How Well is Your Well” and “Water Well Best Management Practices” should be consulted in this regard. These documents are available from the City of Ottawa and the Landowner Resource Centre.	RVCA
89.	That the Owner shall advise prospective purchasers that a site specific investigation on each lot will be required to determine septic system design requirements in accordance with Part 8 – Sewage Systems of the Ontario Building Code, as administered by the Ottawa Septic Systems Office.	RVCA
90.	That the Owner shall advise that prospective purchasers should regularly inspect the septic system and follow a septic management program to minimize the potential for contamination of groundwater by operation of the septic system. The guides entitled “ Septic Systems Do’s and Don’ts” and “Septic Smart Guide” should be consulted in this regard. These guides are available from the Ottawa Septic Systems Office. Tertiary treatment systems should be considered as an option to reduce nitrate and phosphorous levels from the septic effluent.	RVCA
91.	That the Owner shall advise that prospective purchasers should regularly test the well water for bacterial and chemical parameters and to disinfect the wells as determined necessary.	RVCA
	Financial Requirements
92.	Upon draft plan approval, City services within the plan of subdivision may be installed provided appropriate financial security, insurance, and a letter of indemnity are posted to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
93.	The developer, his heirs, successors and assigns shall pay Regional Development Charges & former City of Nepean Development Charges prior to the issuance of any building permits. Prior to applying for building permits, the Owner agrees to show evidence to the City that Regional Development & former City of Nepean charges are paid in accordance with the Regional Development Charges Policy approved by the former Regional Council on August 4, 1985. The City shall not issue permits unless such evidence is produced to the Building Department.
94.	Survey Requirements
95.	The plan of subdivision shall be referenced, where possible, to the Horizontal Control Network, in accordance with the City requirements and guidelines for referencing legal surveys.
96.	The Owner shall provide the final plan intended for registration on diskette or compact disc in a digital form that is compatible with the City of Ottawa computerized system.	City (Surv)
97.	The Owner shall provide and dedicate such easements to the City or to the appropriate utility which may be required for electrical, gas, water, sewer, telephone and cablevision facilities or for drainage purposes.	City (Surv)
98.	The draft final plan shall be submitted to the Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals, for approval prior to the commencement of the Subdivision Agreement.	City (Surv)
99.	Closing Conditions	City (Surv)
100.	The Owner shall inform the purchaser after registration of each lot or block of the Development Charges that have been paid or which are still applicable to the lot or block. The applicable Development Charges shall be as stated as of the time of the conveyance of the relevant lot or block and the statement shall be provided at the time of the conveyance. The statement of the Owner of the applicable Development Charges shall also contain the statement that the Development Charges are subject to changes in accordance with the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Education Development Charges Act.
101.	At any time prior to final approval of this plan for registration, the City may, in accordance with Section 51 (44) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, amend, delete or add to the conditions and this may include the need for amended or new studies.	City (Leg)
102.	At any time prior to final approval of this plan for registration, the City may, in accordance with Section 51 (44) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, amend, delete or add to the conditions and this may include the need for amended or new studies.	City (Leg)
103.	Prior to the registration of the plan of subdivision, the City is to be satisfied that Conditions 2 to 101 have been fulfilled.	City (Leg)
104.	If the plan of subdivision has not been registered within three years of the date of this draft approval shall lapse pursuant to Section 51 (32) of the Planning Act, 1990. Extensions may only be granted under the provisions of Section 51 (33) of said Planning Act prior to the lapsing date.	City (Leg)

105.

The draft final plan shall be submitted to the Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals for approval prior to the commencement of the Subdivision Agreement.

City (Leg)

DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION Document 6

CONSULTATION DETAILS Document 7

NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS

Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendments. A number of public information meetings were held within the community where a number of issues relating to this development’s impact on the wetland, cut through traffic within existing area subdivisions, park dedication, and storm and well water qualities were raised.

The formal public hearings for the subdivision, Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw are being held at Planning and Environment Committee.

COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS

“I have lifted delegated authority re: this application because it is important that some of the zoning issues be discussed in tandem with the subdivision agreement. For over 1 year executive members of Cedarhill, Orchard Estate, and Lytle Community Associations along with City staff, the applicants, Fotenn consultants, myself and my staff have worked hard to develop what we believe to be a sound response to this application.”

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS

Orchard Estates Community Association

The Orchard Estates Community Association provided the following comment:

The Orchard Estates Community Association respectfully requests that the cash-in-lieu of parkland funds be paid to the City by the developers be dedicated to the improvement of Lytle Park. The current facilities, particularly the play structure, at the Park are in a state of disrepair resulting in increased vandalism and parental concern that the park is not a safe place for their children. Improvements to Lytle Park would benefit not only the nearby residents of Emerald Estates, Orchard Estates, Cedarhill Estates, but also many residents and sports association in the city that share in the use of the park.

With the exception of the above noted, the Orchard Estates Community Association fully supports and is in agreement with the Draft Plan of Subdivision conditions for 800 Cedarview Road, and look forward to welcoming our new neighbours.

Response

The 5% cash-in-lieu of parkland fee is placed in a general parks development account and is to be used towards park development on a citywide basis. Allocation of funds for park development is done though a City Council budgetary approval process.

Cedarhill Community Association

The Cedarhill Community Association provided the following summarized comments:

Generally, the community association was supportive of the development and appreciated the efforts which have been made to ensure that the development will be compatible with the rural residential character of our community and respect character of both Cedarhill and Orchard Estates.  The following are a number of points which that community association would like to see in a revised plan of subdivision:

1. That Street No. 2 be realigned farther east so that the Cedarhill community mailboxes can remain in their present location. 

R: The preferred option is to provide an aligned intersection with an existing cul-de-sac within the Cedarhill subdivision which is reflected in the draft plan of subdivision recommended for approval. The mailboxes will be re-located by the owner.

2. That the emergency access to the 800 Cedarhill Road subdivision be provided from Lytle Avenue and not off of Cedarview Drive so that the environment and characteristic of the Cedarhill community is preserved.

R: The proposed emergency access off of Cedarhill Drive is adjacent to a park. As a result of this subdivision, additional lands will be added to that park and within the emergency access will be a basketball court that had been requested by the community.

3. That the realignment of Street No. 1 not impact the Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW).

R: Should any further realignment of Street No. 1 occur, it would be subject to a satisfactory review from the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) to ensure an adequate buffer is maintain to the Provincially Significant Wetlands.

4. Any plans or designs for the emergency assess on Block 102 should be stone dust, not paved, and be subject to the approval of Cedarhill Community Association. 

R: The preferred surfacing for an emergency access into this subdivision is asphalt. This is necessary for emergency vehicles. Incorporated into the emergency access design will be a basketball court which had been requested by the community through a number of public information meetings.

5. The Cedarhill Community Association strongly objects to a general 5% cash payment in lieu of the 5% requirement for parkland and indicated that it should be used towards increasing and enhancing the natural green space within the area.

R: Within country lot estate developments, the practice is to not require parkland facilities, but rather to collect funds which can be applied to parks and facilities that serve the broader community.

6. All pedestrian trails should be stone, not paved, and marker lights should be consistent with the rural character of the community.

R: The proposed paved pedestrian linkages are within the subdivision with one linking to an existing paved pedestrian pathway to the south and to the west.

7. Drainage improvements affecting Lytle Park should be subject to consultation with Orchard Estates Community Association and Cedarhill Community Association. Marker lights will be located internally in proposed subdivision and will not have an impact onto the adjacent neighbourhoods.

R: This condition was at the request of People Services and is to address the current moisture problems. It is of a technical nature in order to enhance the seasonal usability of the baseball fields. The nature of the improvements will not interfere with the function of the park that would necessitate consultation with the local community associations.

8. Subdivision condition number 54 notifies perspective property owners of the neighbouring fish habitat and is subject to the Fisheries Act should be registered on title.

R: There is no need to separately register this condition on title when the subdivision containing the condition is itself registered on title. Additionally perspective purchasers are required to be notified that this condition exists by the vendor.

9. The City it appears is not prepared to give any assurance to the prospective owners regarding the quantity of the groundwater. What assurance is there for existing owners who are already dependent on this source of water and who may be adversely affected by the increase in demand from this development?

R: The City can not guarantee ground water quality that could be compromised from unforeseen events occurring on private land such as accidental chemical spills. This is a standard condition for all rural subdivisions. As well, it should be noted that the neighbouring subdivisions have access to municipal water services, and are not dependent on wells.

Subject to the foregoing, the Cedarhill Community Association is prepared to support the draft subdivision conditions.

PUBLIC

The following are summarized comments to the Offical Plan, Zoning and Subdivision applications were received from the general public:

1. Street No. 2 should be realigned away towards the west so as not to detract for the existing entrance feature to the subdivision and not to create a potential safety conflict with respect to an existing community mailbox location.

R: The existing entrance feature to the Cedarhill Community is located within the Road allowance and is not believed to be located on privately owned lands. Therefore it should not be affected as the result of the development of this subdivision. Although the location of Street No. 2 is not anticipated to create a traffic safety concerns with respect to the communal mailbox, the applicant has agreed to conditions of subdivision approval have included a possible relocation of the mailbox should it be deamed necessary.

2. The shallow soil conditions may present problems in providing adequate private septic systems.

R: The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, who is responsible for the review of private septic systems, have reviewed the required studies analysing the feasibility of private septic systems and are satisfied with the study’s conclusions for draft subdivision approval to be granted.

3. This area has a significant wildlife habitat that needs to be protected.

R: The Provincially Significant Wetland will be dedicated to the City for its protection along with a buffer to the wetland to ensure its integrity. With respect to wildlife dislocation, the Tree Planting and Conservation Plan submitted by the applicant is required to be revised as a condition of subdivision approval in order to provide an exit route for wildlife as development proceeds.

4. The rezoning of rural lands within the Greenbelt for residential development is not appropriate and to do so will become a detraction to the rural area.

R: This subdivision is not occurring within the Greenbelt and is designated as General Rural by the former Regional and new City of Ottawa Official Plans. The proposal to permit residential development has been reviewed and determined to be in keeping with applicable Official Plan policies as discussed in the body of this report.

5. The potential for ground water containment is at a higher risk here due to blasting activities from the construction of Highway 416 and the previous blasting from the quarry activity have created fissures in the area rock formation that will allow surface contamination seeping into the ground water.

R: The RVCA required additional ground water testing to determine whether there were any signs of salt contamination from Highway 416 or nitrate contamination from the neighbouring golf course. The results were found to be negative suggesting that this area is not at a higher risk for contamination from existing sources. Further, as a condition of subdivision, ground water quality will be revisited after the build out of the first 40 lots to determine whether there were any negative impacts resulting from the development occurring.

6. This development will result in intense deforestation that will result in the infiltration of noise and pollutants from Highway 416.

R: A noise attenuation berm will be required along the westerly portion of this subdivision will mitigate current and projected noise levels emanating from Highway 416 for both this subdivision and the neighbouring residential development. A Tree Planting and Conservation Plan has been submitted by the applicant and accepted by the City’s Chief Forester that will minimize the amount of tree clearing occurring through the development of this subdivision.

7. These applications do not provide for walking trails, or park space and will devastate an existing walking trail within the existing community.

R: The plan of subdivision does provide for pedestrian linkages to the existing path network. There will be a modest expansion to an existing park within the neighbouring Cedarview Community and a basketball court added to it. The remainder of the parkland requirement will be taken as cash-in-lieu of parkland. As a condition of subdivision approval, the applicant is required to reinstate the existing walkway where it is interrupted by the construction of Street Number 1.

OFFICIAL PLAN, zoning and subdivision - 800 Cedarview Road

PLAN OFFICIEL, ZONAGE ET LOTISSEMENT - 800, CHEMIN CEDARVIEW

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0077 bell-south nepean (3)

Chair Hume began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal the proposed Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments and Subdivision to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council or the proposed subdivision is granted draft approval by the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.

Prescott McDonald, Planner, Ned Lathrop, General Manager, Planning and Development Department (PDD), John Moser, Director, Development and Infrastructure Approvals, Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals, Larry Morrison, Manager, Infrastructure Approvals, and Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Development Law, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 30 January 2004. Subsequent to a comprehensive presentation by Mr. McDonald, staff responded to questions and the following summarizes the points:

· According to the policies of the OP, the extension of water services outside the urban area is only permitted if there are existing problems within those areas. The proponent provided a hydrogeology analysis; lots are two acres in size and can accommodate the wells and septics, therefore there is no technical justification to expand the urban water service. The existing subdivisions (Cedarhill and Orchard Estates) are an anomaly, as a serviced area (not a village), outside the urban area.

· In the event there are problems with wells, the City could outline, in a condition, its intent to proceed with a Local Improvement (LI), but the City could not make it mandatory.

· Septic tank technology, including the types of beds that can be used, has improved considerably with the ability to treat on smaller tile fields and beds. Traditionally, there has been a balance between large lots and the ability for a septic tank to function. In some villages lot size was reduced to a minimum .5 acre at one time. But, that is now increasing to ¾ acre, if not larger. There is an attempt to balance the area required to distribute the effluent vs. the amount of density. That also has to be balanced with terrain analysis issues where septic beds are put into suitable terrains vs. unsuitable terrains, which also can increase lot sizes. On balance, the minimum two acres with the technology available for septic tanks in the rural area would mean it would be sufficient; soils and hydrogeology reports support the use of septic systems in this area.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

John W. Bienko referenced the Ottawa Environmental Strategy 20/20 Plan, which is a component of the City Growth Management Strategy. The proposed rezoning refutes every word of Goal #1. His presentation covered the main points of his letter dated 28 February 2004, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Additionally, Mr. Bienko submitted the following: The Draft Conditions of Sudivision Approval – Document 5 contains a number of warning clauses – 75, 76, 80, 88, 90, 91 – that were not in the original documentation and only emerged as a result of his submission. The warnings specifically identify the significant levels of risk to future residents, which are not acceptable to the health and quality of life of their community. In the latter part of the 20^th Century, former Reeves and Mayors planned a wonderful, natural green space for the people, now PDD will replace this with a concrete jungle. The rezoning of 800 Cedarview Drive must be denied. It does not comply with Sections of the former City of Nepean By-Laws 39-81, 73-92 and the Ottawa 20/20 Environmental Plan. During the first week of March the City dispatched a work crew, trucks and water pumpers to pump the swamp water dry for the developer. The bulldozer will de-forest and de-vegetate 50% of the 113 ha. of rural zoned lands causing irreparable harm to the biosphere, devastating existing rich habitat wetlands, coniferous and deciduous trees, streams and water courses, flora and fauna. Parkland and connecting paths between trail number 11 on the Cedarhill golf course and trails #1 and 5 on the Stoney Swamp, as designated by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), have been abandoned by the plan.

Mr. Bienko presented the following motions:

1. Whereas FoTenn Consultants represent the owners and provide City planning services to the City, there is a definite conflict of interest;

Therefore a forensic investigation is in order of all principals and parties connected to this re-zoning process, directly or indirectly.

2. Whereas the applicant has contravened several conservation and rural zone by-laws which have not been made known to the Committee as Councillors;

Whereas the rezoning does not comply with the former City of Nepean By-law 39-81, 73-93 and the Ottawa 20/20 Environmental Strategy;

Whereas the City of Ottawa Official Policy states any changes or development on these lands not detract from the predominant agricultural function of the rural area;

Whereas there is extensive and irreversible risk to the conservation of rural lands and the health and quality of life of the residents, he submitted the rezoning must be denied.

3. If the rezoning is passed the City of Ottawa will file immediately an appeal to the OMB and the Federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Board on behalf of the residents of Cedarhill, Orchard Park and Lytle Avenue and pay the costs thereof in full.

As a result of the assertions made during the presentation, Councillor Cullen received confirmation the application adhered to policies in both the former and new OP.

Peter Foustanellas agreed with the comments made by Mr. Bienko. The area is complete with wildlife and birds that cannot be replaced.

Christine Fex had two concerns as a resident of Lytle Avenue. Her well is on the south side of her property, which could have it back onto a septic system. Secondly, there is a small parcel that comes onto Lytle Avenue that she feared will be used as an access route resulting in considerable traffic on their dead end street. 20 children under the age of 10 benefit from the street being a dead end.

As a result of the presentation, staff advised that a minimum distance would have to be respected between the well and septic system, which is spelled out in the terrain analysis and hydrogeology report. This has been reviewed and approved by the Conservation Authority (CA). That information could be provided to Ms. Fex. On the question of access to Lytle Avenue, Mr. McDonald advised there was no intention to have an access from Lytle Avenue to the subdivision. It would remain a dead end. Chair Hume also received confirmation the City would have to approve all roads in the subdivision and that any opening of a roadway would involve a public process.

Councillor Harder advised that Ms. Fex’ concerns were discussed throughout the one year process and Mr. Brunskill (from Lytle) has been engaged.

Pam Mackay, Cedarhill Estates and Orchard Estates, and John Brunskill, Lytle Avenue. Ms. Mackay advised there were 200 one-acre country estate lots between the two subdivision of Cedarhill Estates and Orchard Estates with 80% of the property owners participating in the community associations. Less than 10 individual property owners have raised any opposition to the application. One year ago there was an application to rezone a portion of this land commercial, which was felt to be detrimental to the rural neighbourhood and the community’s ability to enjoy their property. The community believes the two-acre country estate lot proposal is more compatible. There was extensive consultation beginning with the first meeting in May 2003; the community associations have had an opportunity to make detailed comments and to review all the documents submitted in support of the application. In addition, the associations had their own experts conduct independent review of the environmental issues. The community is satisfied with the response and manner in which the application has been finalized. There are no major unresolved issues. Therefore, the community associations are recommending approval of the application.

Mr. Brunskill added that Lytle Avenue encompasses 13 homes that have expressed some slight individual concerns and there is no opposition to the application.

Councillor Harder received confirmation the covenants that would be placed on the subdivision would match that in existence in the Cedarhill and Orchard Estates. These entail a minimum size home, protection of the open space character of the rural residential lots, etc. The number one concern was that the character of the area be protected and there be a seamless flow from one neighbourhood to the next.

Ray Swanson had an individual concern, owning the property that backs onto one of the access roads. Presently he had a beautiful deer infested wood behind him and asked if there was an opportunity to reassign that road one lot to the west therefore allowing him to have a backyard as opposed to a road.

In response, Councillor Harder commented that issue was addressed at length and the location was deemed to be the best after taking into consideration all the issues.

Jane Bain did not oppose the development, but did have many of the same concerns raised by Mr. Bienko and Mr. Foustenallas. Ms. Bain was concerned with noise levels, specifically since the 416, and the increased traffic on Cedarview Road, which at one point was to have been a cow path. She did not agree with the access road coming into Cedarhill. It is currently very hard to egress Cedarhill and will be made that much more difficult with the increase in traffic.

Councillor Harder explained in detail that although the issue was examined there is a restriction on the number of entrances that can access a road within a specific distance.
Mr. McDonald advised that traffic along street #2 was considered to be minimal and offers alternative access into the subdivision should a portion of street #1 become blocked. There is also a second access that is non-vehicular in the vicinity of a City park that can access further into the subdivision should a street become blocked. Councillor Harder reported that p. 46 speaks to the noise issue.

Miguel Tremblay, FoTenn Consultants, advised that the lot displayed by Mr. McDonald did provide some discomfort to the residents of Lytle Avenue and has been removed from the Plan of Subdivision altogether and is not subject to this application for that reason. It is a legal lot of record and may be sold at a later time and a house may be built on the property with possible setback variances. A noise study concluded that essentially driving by the 416, a ridge forms a noise barrier and the property tapers down and is at grade with the 416. The noise study recommended a berm or wall be installed. Typically, trees do not provide the kind of noise buffer provided by an unobstructed/uninterrupted structure. The intent is to bring the noise decibel level down from 65 to 60 to 55, which is the MTO standard. In order for the applicant to register the subdivision the noise wall must be installed. In effect, residents of Cedarhill and Orchard Estates will benefit from a reduced noise level. A hydrogeological study and terrain analysis has concluded there is no interference or water quality or quantity issue. The former Regional OP (ROP) Policies allow the applicant to build 40 lots in Phase I. Following that, they must revisit their studies and confirm there continue to be no well or quality issues before Phase II (40 lots) can be registered. The development will not encroach on the Stoney Creek Swamp. The provincially significant wetland area will be preserved. The wetland boundary was confirmed by their consultant and reconfirmed by MNR and the Rideau Valley CA (RVCA). It will be conveyed to the City as part of their storm water improvements leaving the City as the guarantor of the wetland. There are additional covenants that protect the rear of these lots preventing any encroachment or clearing within those lots. Mr. Tremblay pointed out a waterway that flows from the existing quarry to the wetland, which will be partly under private ownership and the reason for the private covenants. These covenants will be registered on title, but are not part of the City’s package since the City does not require private covenants. It is above and beyond that required, in part to provide a level of comfort to the adjacent subdivisions and for marketing purposes. Their target market is essentially similar to the residents of the existing subdivisions. With respect to the preservation of trees, fish habitat and open space, this is a two-acre lot subdivision with approximately 11% building coverage and by no means a concrete jungle. The streets are rural cross sections with ditches and limited lighting. The intent is to maintain and enhance a rural character, which defines this area.

The Committee also received an e-mail dated 12 April 2004 from Kathryn Ascah, in opposition, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter returned to Committee.

In response to Councillor Holmes, Mr. McDonald explained there had been pumping by the golf course for watering in the past, with MNR permission, to lower the wetland area to the water level, which had been a previous practice. Under City ownership there would be more control as to the amount of water that could be taken from the wetland area.

Councillor Harder explained that considerable time and effort was expended on this application and noted that Orchard Estates and Cedarhill Estates residents have worked diligently to maintain that rural designation. She trusted their stewardship and that of the RVCA, the MNR and everyone engaged on the application. Having said that, she moved the staff recommendation be approved.

The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve and adopt an amendment to the Official Plan of the former City of Nepean to redesignate 800 Cedarview Road from General Rural Area to Country Lot and Open Space, as detailed in Document 2.

2. Approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law 73-92 to change the zoning of 800 Cedarview Road from RU, Rural Agricultural Zone, to RCL, Residential Country Lots Zone, and RCL Block "A", Residential Country Lots Zone, to permit development of detached family dwellings and to Con, Conservation Zone, and to Con, Conservation Zone Block "A", to enable the preservation of wetlands and wetland buffer that will also function as a flood control facility, as shown in Document 3 and detailed in Document 4.

3. Authorize the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to grant draft plan approval to the proposed Plan of Subdivision pertaining to Part of Lots 22, 23, 24 and 25, Concession 4 (Rideau Front), Geographic Township of Nepean, formerly City of Nepean, now City of Ottawa, as shown on Document 5, subject to the conditions detailed in Document 5.

CARRIED with Councillors D. Holmes and A. Cullen dissenting.