7. PROPERTY ACQUISITION, URBAN NATURAL
FEATURE - DCR/PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
|
That Council approve:
1. The acquisition in fee simple of approximately
3.04 ha of vacant land owned by DCR Phoenix Development Corporation, described
as being part of Lot 22, Concession 9 in the Geographic Township of Goulbourn,
City of Ottawa, shown as parcels 1 and 3 on Annex "A", for the
consideration of $1,182,825 plus GST.
2. WHEREAS
the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and Planning and Environment
Committee will recommend to Council a wetland policy for the rural areas;
AND
WHEREAS the wetland policy for within the urban boundary should be compatible;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that all acquisition of wetlands in the rural areas be deferred
until Council has adopted a policy for same;
AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council should review the reserve funds available
for environmental land acquisition;
AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that policies for acquisition of wetlands within the
urban area continue until this policy is amended.
Que le Conseil approuve :
1. l’acquisition
en fief simple d’un terrain vacant d’une surface d’environ 3,04 ha appartenant
à DCR Phoenix Development Corporation, décrit comme faisant partie du lot 22,
concession 9 dans le canton géographique de Goulbourn, Ville d’Ottawa, et
indiqué comme les parcelles 1 et 3 à l’Annexe « A », pour la somme de
1 182 825 $, plus TPS.
2.
ATTENDU QUE le Comité de
l’agriculture et des affaires rurales et le Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement recommanderont au Conseil une politique sur les terres humides
pour les régions rurales;
ET ATTENDU QUE la politique sur les terres humides à l’intérieur des limites urbaines doit être compatibles;
IL EST DONC RÉSOLU que toute acquisition de terres humides dans les
régions rurales soit reportée jusqu’à ce que le Conseil ait adopté une
politique à ce sujet;
ET IL EST DONC AUSSI RÉSOLU que le Conseil devrait examiner les fonds de
réserve disponibles pour l’acquisition de terres environnementales;
ET IL EST DONC AUSSI RÉSOLU que les politiques relatives à l’acquisition
de terres humides à l’intérieur du secteur urbain continuent d’être en vigueur
jusqu’à ce que la présente politique soit modifiée.
Documentation
1. Chief Corporate Services
Officer’s report dated 10 January 2006
(ACS2006-CRS-RPM-0007).
2. Extract of Draft
Minute, 17 January 2006.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
Comité des services organisationnels
et du développement économique
and Council / et au Conseil
10 January 2006 / le 10 janvier 2006
Submitted by/Soumis par : Greg Geddes, Chief Corporate Services
Officer/Chef des Services généraux
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : Gordon MacNair, Acting Manager, Real Estate
Services
Real Property Asset Management/Gestion des
actifs des biens immobiliers
(613) 580-2424 x 21217,
Gordon.MacNair@Ottawa.ca
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve the acquisition in fee simple of approximately 3.04 ha of vacant land owned by DCR Phoenix Development Corporation, described as being part of Lot 22, Concession 9 in the Geographic Township of Goulbourn, City of Ottawa, shown as parcels 1 and 3 on Annex "A", for the consideration of $1,182,825 plus GST.
RECOMMANDATION DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité des
services organisationnels et du développement économique recommande au Conseil
d’approuver l’acquisition en fief simple d’un terrain vacant d’une surface d’environ
3,04 ha appartenant à DCR Phoenix Development Corporation, décrit comme faisant
partie du lot 22, concession 9 dans le canton géographique de Goulbourn, Ville
d’Ottawa, et indiqué comme les parcelles 1 et 3 à l’Annexe « A »,
pour la somme de 1 182 825 $, plus TPS.
The subject property forms part of a larger privately owned parcel of vacant land located in the south end of the Village of Stittsville, fronting along the south side of Fernbank Road, west of Etta Street and Stittsville Main Street. The subject lands are part of a greater parcel that was at one time designated as a Provincially Significant Wetland complexed with what is known as the Upper Pool Creek Wetland. The wetland complex was protected from development under the provisions of the “Significant Wetlands South and East of the Canadian Shield” policy of the Provincial Policy Statement.
In keeping with the Provincial Policy, City Planners refused to approve an application for another development on lands known as the Westwood Subdivision that contained part of the Fernbank wetlands. The proponents of the Subdivision appealed the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board that ruled the Fernbank Wetlands should not have been part of the wetland complex, was locally significant only and not protected under the Provincial policy. The OMB decision was that the subdivision should be approved and that at least a part of the wetland site would be able to be developed.
DCR Phoenix Development Corporation subsequently submitted an application requesting that the City Council Approved Official Plan, the Regional Official Plan and the Goulbourn Official Plan be amended to redesignate the wetland portion of the subject site from Significant Wetlands to a less restrictive environmental protection designation. A report recommending the amendments is scheduled to be heard by the Planning and Environment Committee on 24 January 2006.
A Zoning by-law amendment application was also submitted requesting to change the current Wetland and Future Development zoning to a Residential and Natural Environment zoning. The purpose of the application is to implement the Official Plan Amendments and permit the development of the remainder of the lands.
The total development site consists of 28.3ha of land designated in the City of Ottawa Official Plan as General Urban and Significant Wetlands. Part of the lands were designated as Provincially Significant Wetlands but the designation was changed due to the ruling of the OMB on the Westwood Subdivision and have lost their protection under the “Significant Wetlands South and East of the Canadian Shield” policy of the Provincial Policy Statement.
The parcel subject to acquisition consists of 3.04 ha of vacant land made up of two areas of property subject to a proposal for development by the landowner, being an upland forest site shown as Parcel 1 on Annex A, and a wetland site shown as Parcel 3 on Annex A. The City has assessed the natural features on the sites using the evaluation framework of the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study (UNAEES). The result of this evaluation placed the sites’ natural features among the urban natural areas considered to have a “High” overall ecological significance relative to the 191 sites identified within the City's urban area. In the Greenspace Master Plan Public Consultations Details report to Planning & Environment Committee on 24 May 2005, City staff presented a draft implementation strategy whereby all high and moderate rated urban natural features be protected, where feasible.
A report (ACS2006-DEV-APR-001)
scheduled to be heard by the Planning and Environment Committee, 24 January
2006, will recommend an amendment to the Official Plan to designate part of the
subdivision lands from Significant Wetlands to Urban Natural Feature. In
keeping with this draft implementation strategy, staff is recommending that
Council purchase that portion of the property which is being proposed for
development within the wetland as well as the upland forest area of the
feature. This report recommending
acquisition for this "High" rated Urban Natural Area is meant to
complement the recommendations of the 24 January 2006 report to Planning &
Environment Committee.
Negotiations
to purchase the 3.04 ha locally Significant Wetland and upland forest portion
of the subdivision have resulted in an agreement being reached with the owner
for the total consideration of $1,182,825 plus GST. This amount is supported by two independent appraisals, one
commissioned by the City, the other commissioned by the developer.
The appraised values for the property are based on a residential use despite the Urban Natural Feature designation in the Official Plan.
CONSULTATION
The Ward Councillor is aware of the proposed development on the site, and is in support of the property acquisition. Planning and Growth Management have provided the justification for the purchase in report ACS2006-DEV-APR-0001 pursuant to their policy with respect to the preservation of significant Urban Natural Features.
The acquisition of this property will protect environmentally sensitive lands from development.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Funds have been provided in the
2006 Capital Budget (reference page 342) and are available in Internal Order
900138.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
Approved Budget to $ 15,551,000
Total Paid and Committed $ (13,024,460)
Balance Available $ 2,526,540
This Request including GST $ (1,265,623)
Balance Remaining $ 1,260,917
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
DISPOSITION
PROPERTY ACQUISITION, URBAN NATURAL FEATURE - DCR/PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
ACQUISITION DE
PROPRIÉTÉ, caractéristique
naturelle
urbaine – DCR/PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
ACS2006-CRS-RPM-0007
Steve Finnamore, Director, Real
Property Asset Management; Gord MacNair, Manager, Real Estate Services; Ned
Lathrop, Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management; and Cynthia
Levesque, Program Manager, Environmental Management, appeared before the
Committee on this item. Mr. Finnamore
provided a brief overview of the staff report.
As additional information, he noted the total development consists of
28.3 hectares of land and indicated the developer would be conveying
approximately 40% of the total land (i.e. Blocks 171, 174, 175 and 207) to the
City at no cost, as part of the subdivision agreement. Parcels 1 and 3, totalling approximately 3
hectares are the subject of this acquisition report. If approved, the total amount of land that will be in the
ownership of the City will be 14.4 hectares – more than 50% of the total land
mass.
Mr. Lathrop addressed some of the
planning aspects of this matter. He
opined the Committee should view this acquisition in a similar context to that
of the Trillium Woods development. The
City lost its appeal at the Ontario Municipal Board and had to purchase that
environmentally significant land in the same manner. He noted this land is within the urban boundary and is an area
that is under threat of development.
The developer has agreed to donate the majority of this wetland but the
only way the City can preserve and protect the remainder, is through
acquisition. Mr. Lathrop noted the
subject land rates very highly in the City’s wetland policy (i.e. in the Urban
Natural Features Study) and as a result staff are recommending the purchase of
this parcel of land.
The Committee then heard from the
following delegations.
Bob McKinley, Chair, Rural Task
Force indicated he
found himself somewhat conflicted on this issue (i.e. his personal point of
view as opposed to his role as Chair of the Rural Task Force). He said he has been in the rural development
business for the last 30 years and was a strong advocate of dealing with the
conflict of protection of environmentally sensitive land, while respecting
property rights at the same time.
Mr. McKinley advised the subject
land is 69.7 acres in size and the deed, registered on 1 June 2005 (six months
previous) shows that the entire parcel of the wetlands and the development area
had a purchase price of $1,128,119.20 ($16,157 per acre). He pointed out the staff recommendation is
to purchase 3 acres of this land, at an average consideration of more than ten
times the purchase price six months earlier.
Mr. McKinley also provided an example of another transaction for similar
land in Stittsville. That sale of
137.97 acres, which closed on 1 May 2003, had a purchase price of $16,105 per
acre. He felt the significant
discrepancy between these recent acquisition costs and the staff
recommendation, merited further explanation.
Mr. McKinley went on to say that one
of the significant issues the Rural Task Force’s Policy Sub-Committee must deal
with (i.e. arising out of the Rural Summit), is how property rights come in
conflict with the legitimate obligation to protect the environment. This discussion is scheduled to begin on 24
January 2006 and he urged the Committee to defer this item for a few weeks to
allow for this discussion and subsequent consideration by the Agriculture and
Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) and Council.
He said although this parcel of land is in an urban area, it impacts the
rural area because this acquisition would require one-third of the total amount
of money available to purchase wetlands on a City-wide basis. Meanwhile, he said much larger parcels of
wetlands in the rural area, are not being given any consideration until or
unless some comprehensive strategy for acquisition and/or protection evolves.
Nick Tilgner advised he was before the Committee
as both a landowner affected by a potential wetland designation and as a member
of the Rural Task Force. He indicated he
shared Mr. McKinley’s concerns with respect to the cost of this land, although
he would be happy to sell his wetland property to the City for the same
price. Mr. Tilgner stated his main
concern was that the City had asked some 60 landowners affected by the
potential of Provincially Significant Wetlands to wait (e.g. stop development
proposals, etc.) for the City to conclude its discussions with the Province
(i.e. find out how the wetland survey was done, points of process etc.).
Mr. Tilgner then made reference to
the map of the subject property and noted the defining line of the wetland runs
through Parcel 2 and into Parcel 3. He
stated the City had a 120 metre setback distance from a define wetland and he
wondered how this development would be allowed to proceed. He asked that the Committee defer its
decision on this matter until such time as the City and Province can further
discuss the methodology of the entire Goulbourn Wetland Complex.
Ken McRae (a copy of Mr. McRae’s speaking notes are held on file with the City Clerk) Mr. McRae indicated he was supportive of the City having a policy to purchase environmentally significant lands. However, in this instance, he was concerned about the potential impact on the remaining part of the wetland on the south side of Fernbank Road. He posited that unless conditions have been imposed on the purchase, to ensure it is conditional upon a stormwater management plan, stormwater management facilities, and a road crossing of the wetland (i.e. Westridge Drive) that will have no net negative impacts on the wetland, first being finalized and receiving all necessary government approvals, then he felt this purchase to be premature.
Mr. McRae went on to note that according to the map in the staff report, Block 207 (which is in the wetland) is proposed to have a stormwater management pond. He made reference to an e-mail from Glen McDonald of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) which pointed out the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) specifically does not allow stormwater ponds in wetlands (regardless of whether or not they are Provincially Significant Wetlands) because of the potential impact on the wetland. Further, Mr. McDonald also expressed concern that no assessment had been done to demonstrate the proposed SWMP will not have an adverse impact on the wetland and that the City was asking the RVCA to approve draft conditions for the subdivision without a copy of the revised draft plan. In their initial comments, the RVCA had also expressed concern about the potential disturbance by the proposed subdivision on a watercourse in the wetland, which they believed to be a source of recharge to the groundwater aquifer.
In concluding his remarks, Mr. McRae opined a hydrogeological and terrain analysis should have been carried out prior to the Committee’s consideration of this purchase and before the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) considers the Official Plan Amendment (i.e. scheduled for 24 January 2006). He urged the Committee to either defer approval of this purchase or impose sufficient conditions on it."
Metin Akgun, Vice President,
Stittsville Village Association (SVA), expressed the SVA’s support, in principle,
for this proposal to acquire this piece of land. He felt that Stittsville was in need of more greenspace and this
purchase will preserve a very unique wetland.
Mr. Akgun noted the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study,
considers this land to be of high ecological significance. He stressed this land was in the urban area
(and not in the rural area) and felt it should be considered on its own
merits. Mr. Akgun did not feel further
delays to this purchase were warranted and expressed concern that such delays
could result in the loss of this opportunity to retain this piece of urban land
with unique characteristics. .
Iola Price, Chair, Ottawa Forests
and Greenspace Advisory Committee (OFGAC) provided a written copy of her speaking notes,
which are held on file with the City Clerk.
Ms. Price expressed OFGAC’s support for the purchase of these two blocks
of land and the purchase of wetlands in general because they help the global
ecosystem function. She pointed out the
staff report does not speak to the fact that other land in the same wetland (i.e. Parcel 2) is being provided to the City at no cost (although additional
detail is contained in the report dealing with the Official Plan amendment and
zoning change scheduled to be considered by PEC on 24 January 2006). The conveyance of this land to the City will
ensure that connectivity (for water and wildlife) will be maintained and the
integrity of the wetland will be assured (assuming that the development to the
north does not dry up the wetland in the future).
Ms. Price went on to say that although
Council is being asked to approve the purchase of this land at residential
prices, the addition of the wetland Parcel 2 (at no cost) does bring down the
price on a per hectare basis. She also
pointed out that two additional blocks of land (i.e. Blocks 174 and 175) will
also be conveyed to the City (at no cost) along with Block 207 which is
proposed to be used as a stormwater management pond. The location of the stormwater management pond will be addressed
later in the development approval process, along with the Westridge Drive location. She noted she had received assurance from
Councillor Stavinga that Parcel 1 (the upland forest) will be managed as a
forest for passive use and will not be cut down. Ms. Price also indicated she would be seeking assurance that
there will be no acceptance of Cash-in Lieu of parkland and that if possible,
the required 5% parkland set-aside will be taken as land and added to either of
the parcels of land being purchased or “gifted” to the city.
In conclusion, Ms. Price stated OFGAC
applauds any decision to acquire wetlands and she urged the Committee to
support this purchase now and not defer consideration to a future date.
William Buchanan, Manager of
Planning, DCR Phoenix Development Corporation advised the Committee his company’s initial
purchase of this property was made over two years ago in May 2003 and the
transaction simply closed six months ago.
He said during those two years, DCR has worked diligently to come up
with a plan that is satisfactory to all parties, including the City and the area
residents. When he was given
responsibility for this project, the first thing he did was consult with the
MOE to determine the boundary of the wetland area and it was based on this
information that Mr. Buchanan developed the plan for this subdivision. As a planner with more than 30 years
experience, he said more of the site than what is proposed could be developed
(and more money achieved) but DCR has chosen not to do this.
Drawing the Committee’s attention to
Annex A of the staff report, Mr. Buchanan referenced the Park Block on the east
side of the map. He said DCR has
provided 5% of the land total for park purposes and did not have to include
this parcel as part of the subdivision or they could have developed this land
for at least one single-family dwelling.
Instead, they chose to add this parcel to the lands being dedicated to
the City.
In conclusion, Mr. Buchanan noted his company has worked with the various community associations and the Ward Councillor from the outset and said he was more than satisfied with the end result before the Committee.
Written correspondence from the following individuals and/or organizations in support of the staff recommendation, was previously distributed and is held on file:
§ Robert Taylor
§ Christine Hartig, Goulbourn Wetlands Group
§ Eric Maniloff
§ Quentin Bistrow
§ William Buchanan, Manager, Planning, DCR Phoenix Development Corporation
§
Shad
Qadri, President, Stittsville Village Association
Having heard from all delegations,
the matter returned to Committee. The
following is a summary of the main points raised during questioning of staff:
§
When
the developer entered into negotiations for this land, it was still designated
as Provincially Significant Wetlands and the purchase price reflected this
fact;
§
The
Ontario Municipal Board ruling on the Westridge lands occurred in 2004, after
the negotiations for the purchase of the subject lands took place;
§
An
appraisal for the Westridge lands (2003 to 2004) indicate that land was valued
at $140,000 per acre;
§
Over
40% of the total land mass will be conveyed to the City at no cost (as part of
the subdivision agreement);
§
60% of
the land proposed to be purchased by the City is solid developable land;
§
Two
independent appraisals (one on the part of the proponent and one for the City)
were carried out and both of those appraisals were within 5% of each
other. Negotiations for the purchase of
these lands was based on those appraisals and a purchase price of $157,000 per
acre was agreed upon;
§
The
legal basis on which an appraisal must be based is highest and best use of the
land. Both judicial and administrative
case law indicates that when a municipality acquires land of this nature, it
has to pay pursuant to the highest and best use – based on the Official Plan,
zoning and on the intended and probable use of the land. The subject lands are three months away from
draft plan approval, therefore it is the City Solicitor’s opinion that
compensation would have to be paid for this land based on residential use;
§
A
decision on this parcel of land in the urban area is independent from the
policy discussions regarding wetlands in the rural area;
§
The
City has a policy that dictates that when environmentally significant land (and
especially wetlands), is under threat for urban development, it is a priority
for acquisition. Staff felt strongly (through the subdivision and draft plan
approval process) the developer had a right to develop this land and unless the
City acted on the purchase, the opportunity would be lost forever;
§
Staff
estimate the discussions with the Province and other stakeholders on the rural
wetlands issue will take some time (e.g. sometime later this year). Deferral of this matter pending the outcome
of these discussions would result in a much longer delay than a few weeks;
§
Because
the of the OMB ruling regarding the Westridge lands, the subject lands are not
considered Provincially Significant Wetlands and therefore the 120 metre “flag”
(requiring an impact study to be undertaken) does not apply;
§
Staff
will ensure that appropriate conditions are imposed on the development to
protect the integrity of the wetlands (e.g. re the stormwater management pond,
the impact of the extension of Westridge Drive, etc.). These issues will be further discussed at
Planning and Environment Committee on 24 January 2006;
§
The
agreement of purchase and sale (between the City and DCR Phoenix) was signed on
13 December 2005. Because this land is
in the urban area and the development is fully serviced (sewer, water, etc.),
staff did not see this as a rural issue and therefore felt it did not require
consideration by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee. Council has defined “rural issues” as those
relating to the Rural Area as designated in the Official plan. The subject land is in the Urban Area as
designated in the Official Plan and is therefore outside of the jurisdiction of
ARAC;
§
The
compensation fund for the purchase of environmentally significant lands is
City-wide (i.e. it is not broken down between urban and rural areas);
§
Staff
will be bringing forward to the Rural Task Force (on 24 January) for
consideration and recommendation to ARAC and Council, a process on how to move
forward on the issue of wetlands in the rural area;
§
The
rural area begins immediately below this property and there are contiguous
wetlands to the south west of the subject property. Parcel 1 is part of an upland area that extends into the rural
area;
§
If the
Committee and Council were to defer this matter for six to eight weeks to give
the Rural Task Force an opportunity to look at this, the Developer (because
they have the right to proceed with the development approval process) would
have the right to forward this on to the Ontario Municipal Board on
appeal. ;
§
Staff
expressed their opinion that approval of the subject acquisition would not
adversely affect any future decisions in terms of rural or urban wetland
policies;
Councillor Jellett noted he had
intended to put forward a motion of deferral on this matter. However, because staff had indicated their
opinion that this was a “one-off” event to prevent the loss of this
environmentally significant urban land and because of staff’s assurances that
approval would not impact the upcoming discussions on rural wetland policies,
he felt deferral was not necessary. He indicated
he had questions of staff that would have to be dealt with In Camera and
put forward the following motion in this regard.
Moved by Councillor R. Jellett
That the meeting of the Corporate Services
And Economic Development Committee move In
Camera to consider this item, pursuant to Section 13(1) c) A proposed or
pending acquisition of land for the purposes of the City, of the Procedure
By-Law (205-431).
CARRIED
Upon resuming in open session, Councillor Stavinga put forward a motion, which she felt would address some of the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Rural Task Force and landowners within the Goulbourn Wetlands complex. She urged the Committee to support this motion.
Speaking to the staff recommendation, Councillor Stavinga noted this had been a significant issue in her community. She spoke of the existence of pockets of wetland within the Village of Stittsville (i.e. an urban area) and noted that Council in 2003 carried out a land swap with another developer, for Provincially Significant wetland to the north of this property, that would have been threatened by intense development. As well, Council rejected a subdivision application for land immediately to north of the subject property, as it contained Provincially Significant Wetland. Unfortunately, the OMB overturned Council’s decision and as a direct consequence of the OMB decision, the framework was laid for the subject subdivision.
Councillor Stavinga advised that DCR Phoenix has shown tremendous corporate stewardship in dedicating 40% of the lands to the City. Further, they worked with her and staff to negotiate the sale of the subject land to the City and have respected the City’s Official Plan policies and the objectives of protecting these lands in perpetuity. Councillor Stavinga opined this was a winning solution for the City, the community, the developer and most importantly the environment. She urged the Committee to support her motion and the staff recommendation unanimously.
Mayor Chiarelli stated he felt it very important to send a signal to the Rural Task Force and ARAC that their position will be respected. He said the motion to defer any acquisition of wetlands in the rural area until a policy has been evolved is the right thing to do. As well, he noted the importance of making the rural policy compatible with the existing policy for the urban area.
Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga
WHEREAS
the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and Planning and Environment
Committee will recommend to Council a wetland policy for the rural areas;
AND
WHEREAS the wetland policy for within the urban boundary should be compatible;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that all acquisition of wetlands in the rural areas be deferred
until Council has adopted a policy for same;
AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council should review the reserve funds available
for environmental land acquisition;
AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that policies for acquisition of wetlands within the
urban area continue until this policy is amended.
CARRIED
That the Corporate Services and Economic Development
Committee recommend Council approve:
1. The acquisition in fee
simple of approximately 3.04 ha of vacant land owned by DCR Phoenix Development
Corporation, described as being part of Lot 22, Concession 9 in the Geographic
Township of Goulbourn, City of Ottawa, shown as parcels 1 and 3 on Annex
"A", for the consideration of $1,182,825 plus GST.
2. WHEREAS the Agriculture and
Rural Affairs Committee and Planning and Environment Committee will recommend to
Council a wetland policy for the rural areas;
AND WHEREAS the wetland policy for
within the urban boundary should be compatible;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that all
acquisition of wetlands in the rural areas be deferred until Council has
adopted a policy for same;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council
should review the reserve funds available for environmental land acquisition;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that policies
for acquisition of wetlands within the urban area continue until this policy is
amended.
CARRIED as amended