3. ZONING - 467 TERRY FOX DRIVE, 1425 AND 1525 RICHARDSON SIDE ROAD

ZONAGE - 467, PROMENADE TERRY FOX, 1425 ET 1525, CHEMIN RICHARDSON SIDE

Committee recommendation

That Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 467 Terry Fox Drive, 1425 and 1525 Richardson Side Road, from (DR) Development Reserve Zone and (RU) Rural Countryside Zone to multiple urban Residential and Open Space Zones as detailed in Document 2 and as shown in Document 3.

RECOMMANDATION DU COMITÉ

Que le Conseil approuve une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de changer la désignation de zonage du 467, promenade Terry-Fox et des 1425 et 1525, chemin Richardson Side de (DR) Zone d’aménagement futur et (RU) Zone d’espace rural à plusieurs zones résidentielles et zones de parc et d’espace vert, comme il est expliqué en détail dans le Document 2 et indiqué dans le Document 3.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager’s report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 16 September 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0166)

2. Extract of draft minutes of 28 September 2010.

Report to/Rapport au :

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

and Council / et au Conseil

16 September 2010/le 16 septembre 2010

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability/Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités

Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Derrick Moodie,Acting Manager/Gestionnaire intérimaire, Development Review-Suburban Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services suburbains, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424, 15134 Derrick.Moodie@ottawa.ca

Kanata North (4)

Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0166

SUBJECT:	ZONING - 467 TERRY FOX DRIVE, 1425 AND 1525 RICHARDSON SIDE ROAD (FILE NO. D02-02-09-0068)

OBJET :	ZONAGE - 467, PROMENADE TERRY FOX, 1425 ET 1525, CHEMIN RICHARDSON SIDE

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 467 Terry Fox Drive, 1425 and 1525 Richardson Side Road, from (DR) Development Reserve Zone and (RU) Rural Countryside Zone to multiple urban Residential and Open Space Zones as detailed in Document 2 and as shown in Document 3.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de changer la désignation de zonage du 467, promenade Terry-Fox et des 1425 et 1525, chemin Richardson Side de (DR) Zone d’aménagement futur et (RU) Zone d’espace rural à plusieurs zones résidentielles et zones de parc et d’espace vert, comme il est expliqué en détail dans le Document 2 et indiqué dans le Document 3.

BACKGROUND

The entire subject property is approximately 84 hectares in size and is situated north of Richardson Side Road, west of the Kanata Lakes Community and east of the Carp River (see Document 1). The subject land is commonly referred to as Richardson Ridge. The lands are located on the north-western edge of the urban boundary. The site is currently undeveloped and contains the Richardson farmstead, consisting of an existing farm house and accessory buildings in the southwest corner of the site. About half of the land area is open field and pasture land, with the northern portion of the site made up of mature forest and wetland surrounding the Kizell Pond, an Urban Natural Feature. The southeast portion of the site is part of the Carp Highlands and is characterized by vegetation and rock outcroppings typical of the Canadian Shield. Agricultural land is located west of the site, across the Carp River. A residential subdivision is currently under development on the south side of Richardson Side Road, which is commonly known as the Broughton Lands. The applicant is proposing to rezone a portion of the subject property as identifed on Document 1.

A plan of subdivision application was draft approved for these lands on April 30, 2010. One of the conditions of draft plan approval is the rezoning of the lands subject to the plan of subdivision, to permit urban development. The draft approved plan of subdivision includes 423 single-detached dwelling lots, 15 street townhouse blocks, and two blocks for medium density residential development. These multiple dwelling unit blocks are expected to yield 201 street townhouse units and 188 stacked townhouse or apartment units. In addition to residential development, the plan proposes eight open space blocks and two public parks, one block for floodplain protection, and one block for future development. There are also several pathway blocks and a stormwater management block. The portion of the site between Terry Fox Drive extension and the Carp River is within the General Rural Area and constitutes land within the Carp River floodplain that will be conveyed to the City. In addition to the proposed Terry Fox Drive, the plan includes 17 new public streets. Access to the subdivision will be provided by an intersection at Terry Fox Drive and through a connection to the subdivision to the south on Huntsville Drive.

Purpose of Zoning Amendment

The applicant is proposing to amend the current zoning in effect over the subject site to reflect the draft approved plan of subdivision. The proposed uses include detached dwellings, multiple-attached dwellings, stacked townhome dwelling units, open space/park blocks and storm water management facility block.

Existing Zoning

Currently, the lands are zoned Development Reserve (DR) and Rural Countryside (RU). The Development Reserve zone has been placed on the majority of the subject lands that are also within the Urban Area. This zone recognizes lands intended for future urban development. The list of permitted uses is limited to those that will not inhibit future development options. Generally, the existing land uses within this zone are of a low scale and density.

The Rural Countryside zone recognizes lands owned by the proponent that are immediately outside of the Urban Area. They extend west of the Terry Fox Drive extension to the Carp River. The purpose of this zone is to accommodate a range of rural land uses such as agriculture, forestry and country residential lots. These land uses generally require large lots or distance separation requirements.

Proposed Zoning

The applicant is proposing to amend the existing DR and RU zones to a variety of residential zones ranging from Residential First Density subzone, Residential Third Density subzone, Residential Fifth Density subzone, and a Parks and Open Space Zone for the balance of the lands. The applicant is also proposing site specific exceptions for all of the proposed residential zones to reflect the draft approved plan of subdivision and the proposed unit types. As is discussed below, staff recommend approval of the proposed residential and open space uses for the subject site, subject to holding provisions required to address servicing issues and current on-site constraints which will need to be addressed prior to proceeding with development of specific blocks.

DISCUSSION

Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement

Section 2 of the Planning Act outlines those land use matters that are of provincial interest, for which all City planning decisions shall have regard. The provincial interest that applies to this site is the adequate provision of a full range of housing, and the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions. In addition, the Planning Act requires that all City planning decisions be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), a document that provides further policies on matters of provincial interest related to land use development. Section 1.1.1 of the PPS addresses healthy, liveable and safe communities and is particularly applicable in this matter. Specifically, planning authorities are to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of residential, employment, recreational and open space uses to meet long-term needs. Also, Section 1.4 of the PPS requires planning authorities to provide for an appropriate range of housing types and densities required to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area.

The proposed residential uses for the subject site meet the intent of both the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement on the basis that they include a range of residential densities and housing types and are appropriate in an area designated for urban development. The proposed rezoning also ensures the protection of natural features found on the subject site, by way of rezoning these areas to an Open Space and Leisure Zoning designation and limiting any future development on these lands. Holding provisions are proposed on specific lots and blocks to ensure that the development of the lands occurs only once sufficient servicing has been provided.

Official Plan

The subject lands are designated General Urban Area on Schedule B of the Official Plan. The General Urban Area designation allows for a variety of uses, including a range of residential uses and densities. All of the proposed uses meet the intent of the General Urban Area Designation (Section 3.6.1). In accordance with Section 3.6.1 of the Plan, all types and densities of housing, as well as employment, shopping, service, leisure and parks and natural areas are permitted within areas designated General Urban Area. The subject rezoning to reflect the draft approved plan of subdivision respects the policies contained in Section 3.6.1, as it provides a range of housing options, and has a strong empahsis on liveability, proximity of higher densities to public transit, the preservation of natural areas, and the provision of parks and greenspace for future residents.

Although the lands are not within the “Developing Community” designation, the policies of that land use designation were used as guidance for the subject subdivision. The proposed development has a net residential density of 32 dwelling units per hectare, which approximates the requirement for the Developing Communities designation of 34 units per hectare.

Urban Design Guidelines for Greenfield Neighbourhood

The design of the proposed plan of subdivision is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines for Greenfield Neighbourhoods. The subdivision has used the “Design with Nature” approach, whereby key natural features have been retained and pathways included to connect the community, greenspaces, and important destinations. The natural landforms and topography of the site have been incorporated into the design. The stormwater management facility is intended to be integrated into the community through the inclusion of pathways connecting to the rest of the pathway and open space network. Higher density uses are located closer to Terry Fox Drive where transit service is proposed and within 300 metres of the proposed parks. The main street provides a direct connection to the adjacent subdivision to the south, which is currently under development. The layout of the subdivision is a “modified grid”, typified by short blocks. Rear yards avoid backing onto major streets, and single-loaded streets have been utilized to eliminate noise barriers and to create a more open and safer streetscape. The proposed parks which are square or rectanglur in shape, front onto two streets and are central to the community and the higher density uses and easily accessible. There are several access points for the many greenspaces.

Details of Proposed Zoning

The proposed zoning amendment to reflect the draft approved plan of subdivision is detailed in Document 2 and as shown in Document 3. The following is a detailed explanation of the proposed zoning amendment.

All lands that are identified as Area A and B are to be re-zoned to Residential First Density, Subzone VV, with a special exception. This zone permits single detached dwellings. The requested exception will increase the maximum building height from 11 metres to 14 metres. This request is being made because there are a number of lots where the grade differential between the front and rear of the lots necessitates walkout home designs. The addition of three metres of building height (or one storey), would ensure all single detached home designs would be suitable for any lot condition throughout the subdivision.

All lands that are identified as Area C and D are to be rezoned to Residential Third Density, Subzone V, with a special exception. This zone permits a planned unit development, three unit dwelling, single detached dwelling, duplex dwelling, linked-detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, and a multiple attached dwelling. The exception will also increase the maximum building height from 11 metres to 14 metres to accommodate grade differentials, and will decrease the minimum lot size from 165 square metres to 140 square metres for a semi-detached and multiple attached dwelling. The lot size reduction is to accommodate shallower lots in this challenging terrain.

The lands identified as Area E are to be rezoned to Residential Third Density, Subzone V, subject to a different exception. Area E is unique to the site. This block will be developed as a rear yard access, private lane ‘courtyard’ style development. Any future site plan application will be subject to the planned unit development provisions. The exception would exclude these lands from endnote number 1 (section 160B) of the Zoning By-law which establishes variable rear and interior side yard setbacks for planned unit developments. Instead, a rear yard and interior side yard setback of three metres would be applied to accommodate a rear-lane townhouse dwelling fronting onto a courtyard.

Area F identified in Document 3 is to be rezoned to Residential Fifth Density, Subzone C, to accommodate proposed stacked townhome dwellings. The Residential Fifth Density Zone also allows for a planned unit development and an apartment dwelling (mid-high rise and low rise).

The lands identified as Areas G and H are to be rezoned to Parks and Open Space Zone O1, where open space, park and stormwater management facility blocks are situated.

The proposed land-use designations and exceptions meet the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law 2008-250. Consideration has been given to providing a mix of dwelling unit types, and the preservation of open space areas. On this basis, the proposed zoning by-law amendment represents good planning.

Heritage Considerations

The Richardson farmhouse has been designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (File Number D09-01-RICH). The farmhouse is proposed to be rezoned Residential First Density Subzone VV Special Exception Zone (R1VV [aaaa]). The farmhouse has been incorporated into the residential subdivision design, and will have frontage on a new public street, as Richardson Side Road is being closed in this location. The lot provided for the Richardson farmhouse will be subject to a heritage overlay. The heritage overlay is being used in addition to the zoning, to offer zoning incentives to reuse the buildings, and to limit the size and location of additions to preserve the heritage character of the original building.

Transportation/Traffic

Staff have reviewed the Transportation Impact Study provided by the applicant in support of both the plan of subdivision and the proposed rezoning, and have found that the existing and proposed transporation network is sufficient to accommodate the proposed development. The future alignment of Terry Fox Drive transects the subject site, and forms the western boundary of the developed portion of the subdivision. There will be one vehicular access from Terry Fox Drive to the subdivision at Street No. 1, and other pedestrian connections along its length. In accordance with the Terry Fox Drive Environmental Assessment, Richardson Side Road from Kanata Avenue to the future alignment of Terry Fox Drive will be closed once the Terry Fox Drive extension is completed to Richardson Side Road. Access to the subject plan of subdivision will be via Huntsville Drive through the neighbouring Broughton subdivision to the south. Co-ordination between City staff responsible for the construction of Terry Fox Drive and the proponents of this plan of subdivision is ongoing.

Concurrent Application

A plan of subdivision was draft approved for the subject lands on April 30, 2010. One of the conditions of Draft Plan Approval is the rezoning of these lands to permit development. The applicant is working with the City to fulfill all conditions of draft approval in order to proceed with registration of the subdivision. Among other considerations, the conditions of draft approval address all of the servicing requirements the applicant must complete prior to proceeding.

SERVICING ISSUES/CONSTRAINTS

Signature Ridge Pumping Station

The subject lands are served by two sanitary pumping stations known as the March Sanitary Pumping Station and the Signature Ridge Sanitary Pumping Station located north and south of the subject land.

The lands that drain to the Signature Ridge Sanitary Pumping Station, have been assigned with an allocated sanitary flow to the pumping station as part of the Signature Ridge cost sharing agreement between all the area land owners that require use of the pumping station to service their sites. The Owner currently has 9.58 litres/second of allocated capacity as part of the Signature Ridge Pumping Station cost sharing agreement. The ultimate upgrades to the Signature Ridge Pumping Station as approved by the Ministry of Environment are expected to provide sufficient capacity for development of the remaining subject lands which drain to the pumping station. In order to limit development on the subject lands beyond what has been allocated, the application of a holding symbol is being placed on the lots and blocks identified as Areas A, C and F (see Document 2), until such time as the pump station upgrades are implemented.

The holding symbol can be removed only once it is shown to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning and Growth Management that the Signature Ridge Pumping Station has been upgraded, and flows beyond the subject land Owner’s current allocation of 9.58 litres/second have been allocated and are available, to provide the necessary sanitary capacity to permit development of Areas A, C and F.

Storm Water Management Facility

The ultimate proposed stormwater management facility for the subject lands is located in the area east of Terry Fox Drive which is currently within the floodplain of the Carp River. Prior to the construction of the stormwater management facility, the lands will have to be removed from the floodplain, in accordance with all relevant approval authorities, and floodplain compensation lands will be required to accommodate the flood storage volume. This is to be implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the Carp River Watershed Subwatershed Study, Carp River Restoration Environmental Assessment (EA), and other relevant studies and reports.

Pending approval of the Carp River Restoration EA and the final Stormwater Management Report, the location of the ultimate stormwater management facility may not be as proposed by the applicant. An interim stormwater management facility is proposed to be located on the high density residential block outside of the current floodplain boundaries, identifed as Area F on Document 3. Area F has been demonstrated to be of a sufficient size to accommodate both the interim and potentially the ultimate stormwater management facility. Therefore, staff are recommending an additional holding zone be placed on Area F, until such time as the development block intended for the ultimate stormwater management facility is removed from the floodplain, and approval is granted for the construction of the ultimate stormwater management facility.

Carp River Floodplain

The approved alignment of Terry Fox Drive, and the construction thereof by the City, requires the removal of a small area of lands east of Terry Fox Drive from the floodplain. In conjunction with the construction of the Terry Fox Drive extension, the floodplain will be reconfigured such that it will be located west of Terry Fox Drive. The City has secured additional lands in the vicinity for floodplain purposes to compensate for the loss of floodplain due to the construction of Terry Fox Drive. The owner will also need to compensate for the loss of any floodplain storage on the lands east of Terry Fox Drive within its plan of subdivsion.

A portion of the lands located east of Terry Fox Drive are currently identified in the zoning by-law as part of the flood plain. Therefore, staff recommend that until such time as the subject lands have been removed from the floodplain to the satisfaction of the Conservation Authority, and the applicant has rezoned the subject lands to remove the floodplain overlay designation, no development on the effected lots and blocks shall be permitted. A condition to this effect has been included in the subdivision conditions of approval. The floodplain overlay prohibits any development on the lands to which it applies, and is not proposed to be altered through this rezoning application.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

Carp River Floodplain / Stormwater Management Facility

The Carp River floodplain mapping identifies the Regulatory (1:100 year) flood level for the effected area as an elevation of 93.3 metres. The floodplain roughly forms the edge of the developed portion of the site as shown on Document 1. All lands west of Terry Fox Drive within Block 455 of the plan of subdivsion will not be developed and will be conveyed to the City. A portion of the floodplain will still extend east of Terry Fox Drive via culverts at the northern end of the subdivision. A condition of draft approval restricts the creation of any development blocks until such time as they are removed from the floodplain to the satisfaction of the relevant approval authorities.

Comments provided by the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) have been addressed through the conditions of subdivision draft approval. There is a draft plan approval condition that does not permit these blocks to be developed until such time as they are no longer in the floodplain. For the areas proposed to be a stormwater management facility shown in the floodplain, the applicant will require MVCA approval prior to proceeding. The interim stormwater management block is of a sufficient size to accommodate the ultimate stormwater management facility.

Included in the draft plan conditions are specific requirements that the Stormwater Management Report be implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the Carp River Watershed Subwatershed Study, Carp River Restoration Environmental Assessment (EA), and other relevant studies and reports. It should be noted that the subject lands are not within the area subject to the Carp River Restoration Environmental Assessment, though a portion of the lands drains to the Carp River. As per City Council direction, certain development applications outside of both Kanata West and the Fernbank lands, which drain to the Carp watershed, can be processed at this time in advance of the final approval of the seven EA projects against which the Part II Order requests were originally filed. Prior to final approval of the Plan of Subdivision, all necessary Certificates of Approval from the Ministry of Environment as well as review by the City Model Keeper for the Carp River Restoration will be required. There is also a specific condition that provides the requirement for the developer to pay into a proportionate cost share of the Carp River Restoration Plan.

Tree Preservation

An Environmental Impact Statement and Tree Conservation Report have been prepared in conjunction with the draft approval of the plan of subdivision. A detailed tree conservation report has been prepared and tree preservation is being proposed where grading permits. The draft approved plan of subdivision includes many areas identified for tree retention, including open space areas and park blocks which will be rezoned as “O1”. The applicant has worked with City staff to ensure that the plan of subdivision incorporates natural features to the greatest extent possible, including tree retention, planting and conservation. A Butternut tree mitigation strategy to be approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources is required prior to registration of the subdivision.

Natural Environment Area

The subject area to be rezoned is adjacent to a City owned and designated Natural Environment Area (NEA). The subject NEA lands contain a variety of significant environmental features that require protection and retention. In 2004 a report was prepared by Dan Brunton to identify the boundary of the NEA as part of an Official Plan Amendment. Community groups have expressed concern that an adjacent buffer identified in the 2004 report is not being imposed on the subject plan of subdivision. The 2004 Brunton adjacency buffer proposal was not approved by Council and no policies were introduced into the Official Plan regarding buffers/adjacency. The Brunton (2004) recommendation is for an increased adjacency area of 50 metres that would require a study to demonstrate no net negative impact would result for the significant features and functions for which the area was identified. The development proposal was supported by an environmental impact statement prepared by Bernie Muncaster in 2009, which indicated no negative impact to the significant features. At the time the NEA lands were surveyed and deeded to the City, the development boundary (including the buffer) was marked and flagged in the field. City staff specializing in environmental management were involved in this process, to help identify the boundaries of the NEA and the appropriate limit for development.

Conclusion

It is staff’s opinion that the proposed uses conform to the relevant Provincial policies and also meet the general intent of the Official Plan, General Urban Area designation, which allows for a range of residential densities and uses. The conditions of draft plan approval for the plan of subdivision address all of the concerns raised through the rezoning process. Holding Zones are recommended to address servicing constraints. As such, it is in staff’s opinion that the proposed residential and open space zoning amendment is appropriate for the subject site.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

The land located in the Rural Area, Area H on Document 3, is being re-zoned from Rural Countryside Zone (RU) to Parks and Open Space Zone (O1), to reflect the floodplain boundaries of the Carp River. As a result, any future development will be prohibited on these lands, and therefore does not have any implications for the rural area.

CONSULTATION

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. A summary of the public comments received is included in Document 4, Consultation Details.

COMMENTS BYTHE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)

The Councillor is aware of the proposed rezoning.

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Should this matter be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, a hearing of one to two weeks duration would likely result. If the above recommendation is adopted, the hearing would be conducted within staff resources.

If the application is refused, reasons must be provided. Should an appeal of the refusal occur, outside witnesses will have to be retained in support of the rationale for the refusal adopted by Council. Dependent on the number of witnesses required (e.g. planning, environmental), it is estimated that the cost would be in the range of $40,000 to $70,000.

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

The proposed rezoning meets the intent of the Cities strategic plan. The proposed zoning for the subject site represents good urban design, includes a variety of housing options, and supports a healthy and active community by ensuring the availability of green spaces for public use.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct financial implications associated with this report.

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

This application was processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendment applications.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Location Map

Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 3 Zoning Schedule

Document 4 Consultation Details

DISPOSITION

City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the owner, applicant, OttawaScene.com, 174 Colonnade Road, Unit #33, Ottawa, ON K2E 7J5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code: 26-76) of City Council’s decision.

Planning and Growth Management to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services and undertake the statutory notification.

Legal Services to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.

LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT 1

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 2

1. The Zoning Map of by-law 2008-250 will be amended as follows:

a. The lands shown as Area A on Document 3 rezoned from DR to R1VV[aaaa]-h.

b. The lands shown as Area B on Document 3 rezoned from DR to R1VV[bbbb].

c. The lands shown as Area C on Document 3 rezoned from DR to R3V[cccc]-h.

d. The lands shown as Area D on Document 3 rezoned from DR to R3V[dddd].

e. The lands shown as Area E on Document 3 rezoned from DR to R3V[eeee].

f. The lands shown as Area F on Document 3 rezoned from DR to R5C[ffff]-h.

g. The lands shown as Area G on Document 3 rezoned from DR to O1.

h. The lands shown as Area H on Document 3 rezoned from RU to O1.

i. The lands shown as Area I on Document 3 rezoned from DR to R1VV [aaaa], and a heritage overlay will be added to the lands

2. Section 239 will be amended to add the following:

a. a new exception numbered (aaaa) including the following provisions:

- a maximum building height of 14 metres

- all permitted uses are prohibited until the holding symbol is removed.

- the holding symbol can be removed only at such time as it is shown to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning and Growth Management that the Signature Ridge Pumping Station has the necessary capacity to permit development of the property above the average flow of 9.58 litres/second threshold as referenced in the Signature Ridge Pumping Station Cost Sharing Agreement dated August 7, 2007, and the necessary upgrades to the pumping station to provide sufficient capacity for the development of Areas A, C and F have been designed, approved and constructed.

b. a new exception numbered (bbbb) including the following provision:

- maximum building height of 14 metres

c. a new exception numbered (cccc) including the following provisions:

- maximum building height of 14 metres for semi-detached and multiple attached dwellings.

- minimum lot size of 140 square metres for semi-detached and multiple attached dwellings.

- all permitted uses are prohibited until the holding symbol is removed.

- the holding symbol can be removed only at such time as it is shown to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning and Growth Management that the Signature Ridge Pumping Station has the necessary capacity to permit development of the subject lands identified as 467 Terry Fox Drive, 1425 and 1525 Richardson Side Road above the average flow of 9.58 litres/second threshold as referenced in the Signature Ridge Pumping Station Cost Sharing Agreement dated August 7, 2007, and the necessary upgrades to the pumping station to provide sufficient capacity for the development of Areas A, C and F have been designed, approved and constructed.

d. a new exception numbered (dddd) including the following provisions:

- maximum building height of 14 metres

- minimum lot size of 140 square metres for semi-detached and multiple attached dwellings

e. a new exception numbered (eeee) including the following provisions:

- Endnote 1 of Table 160B does not apply and the interior side yard and rear yard setbacks for a PUD is 3.0 metres

f. a new exception numbered (ffff)including the following provisions:

- the following land uses are prohibited: detached dwelling, duplex dwelling, linked-detached dwelling, multiple attached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, three-unit dwelling.

- all permitted uses are prohibited with the exception of a temporary stormwater management facility until the holding symbol is removed.

- the holding symbol can be removed only at such time as it is shown to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management, that the Signature Ridge Pumping Station has the necessary capacity to permit development of the subject lands identified as 467 Terry Fox Drive, 1425 and 1525 Richardson Side Road above the average flow of 9.58 litres/second threshold as referenced in the Signature Ridge Pumping Station Cost Sharing Agreement dated August 7, 2007, the necessary upgrades to the pumping station to provide sufficient capacity for the development of Areas A, C and F have been designed, approved and constructed, and at such time as an ultimate stormwater management facility to serve the subject lands, has been constructed. Removal of the holding symbol cannot occur until both the necessary upgrades to the pumping station and the ultimate stormwater management facility have been constructed to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management.

ZONING SCHEDULE DOCUMENT 3

CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 4

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 amendments.

As a result of the public notification and consultation process specific concerns were raised by both neighbouring residents and the community groups pertaining to tree removal, building height, on-site archaeological potential, density targets, green space and the provision of pathways and natural buffer strips, stormwater management and the carp river floodplain.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Comment

We are very concerned that the new builder(s) will cut down all the trees, specifically those which exist in the buffer zone between the new development area, Kanata Estates, and the new area to be developed. Please let us know what is the plan regarding the trees and vegetation in this area.

Staff Response

The design of the pathway and the removal of trees to construct the pathway in the six-metre open-space corridor between Kanata Estates and the subject lands has yet to be determined. A detailed tree preservation plan has been provided for final staff review prior to any tree removal on-site. Some trees may need to be removed in the six-metre open space corridor in order to construct a pathway. There is also a 20-metre unopened road allowance located between Kanata Estates and the proposed six-metre open space corridor.

Comment

When the builder asks for an additional 3 metres of height, does that mean they propose to have:

a) Models with a basement and 2 additional levels where the basement may be a walk out basement, or

b) Models with a basement and 3 additional levels where the basement may be a walk out basement.

Staff Response

The applicants have clearly identified that it is not their intent to have three-storey homes anywhere in the subdivision. Their intent is to have two-storey dwellings with walkout basements to the rear yards. They recognize, however, that there may be cases where there are reverse back split dwellings, three-storey front elevations and two-storey rear elevations. It is somewhat dependant on the detailed grading design.

Comment

There are some very old/tall white pines near the old First Line Road/Hydro Cut; Some may be located within the planned 6 metres of open space, while others might be within the proposed rear yards. The builder should take steps to preserve these tall/old trees even if they are outside the 6 metre open space buffer, in particular between Kanata Avenue and Blocks 340 and 60.

The builder should not be permitted to build any homes that are three stories (including walkout) in both the front and back of the home.

Staff Response

Some of the trees located in the six-metre open-space corridor may need to be removed in order to construct a pathway. The applicant has provided a Tree Conservation Report for the City’s approval which identifies which trees are to be removed. The applicant is working with the City forester to determine which trees can be retained, where grading does not propose a constraint to tree retention.

The requested amendment to the height limitation is required to accommodate rear and front walkout conditions depending on detailed grading design. The applicant is not proposing to construct any dwellings which are entirely three storeys at both the front and rear of the dwelling.

Comment

Suggests preservation of at least some of the most significant natural features of the Richardson Lands and Richardson Farm (at the intersection of Terry Fox extension and Richardson Side Road).
Lack of vision and no consideration for the ecological and natural values of this unique landscape and forest.
Great opportunity for really great people’s place (potential Ottawa’s Stanley Park) to be enjoyed by future generations of citizens of Ottawa in the middle of Kanata.
Developers should be held accountable to the same environmental laws and standards as other businesses.
Plans do not comply with the city Official Plan policies, Environmental legislation protecting heritage, ecological, and geological values (as per City Official plan regarding preserving the natural land form features – in natural areas policy and tree preservation act).
Developers should not be grandfathered when new provincial legislation protecting the environment is passed.
There are also ecologically sensitive hidden ponds joined together in the woods on this hill.
City of Ottawa, the Ontario Government and the NCC, should work together to save the lands for present and future generations to enjoy it. The city does not need to spend millions of our tax dollars to create something like Lansdowne Park. Keep it natural.
Supports lower (or smarter) density of housing.
Proposes Richardson farm could be taken over by NCC to create historical farm similar to Upper Canada Village with farm animals or perhaps National Zoo.
The area is worthy of hosting the world championships for mountain biking, cross country skiing and many other sport disciplines which require this kind of the landscape.
Terry Fox extension is altering this landscape as is the adjacent construction site.
Losing any available recreational public space in our community.
Does not want to drive across the river for leisure with nature.
Argues that Kanata is no longer a liveable community
Developers are converting greenery and fantastic landscape into gravel, destroying its beauty, into another Barrhaven, another area of faceless rows of houses, without any vision, with no green space left. Why are they allowed to clear cut such jewel forest and not build around it? There is so much potential here for a world class community.
Proposes to swap some of the “very unattractive greenbelt fields” for this land in Kanata, working in concert with the province and the NCC.

Staff Response

The subject lands (Richardson Lands) were evaluated as part of the Kanata Special Study area and the study did not recommend this particular tract of highland forest for preservation when the designation of the lands was changed in the Official Plan. Staff have reviewed an Environmental Impact Statement for the subject lands and are satisfied with the proposed rezoning of the subject lands to reflect the draft approved plan of subdivision.

The City does have a significant landholding in this area called the South March Highlands Conservation Forest which consists of 457 hectares of municipally owned land. The management plan for this area is currently underway and more information is available at http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/south_march_conservation/index_en.html. The comparison to Stanley Park is interesting and perhaps a bit unfair since direct comparisons between the two are difficult. The South March Highlands are different in many ways (park development/landuse, population density, history (Stanley Park was dedicated in the 1890, landform, location, access, etc) but staff would like to point out that area of land protected in the South March Highlands Conservation Forest is over 50 hectares larger than Stanley Park.

Regarding landform preservation and the size of the open space blocks, the City needs to balance the need for open space against City Standards for road grade and drainage which are all in place to ensure a safe environment for future residents. Further we need to acknowledge that these lands were not identified for preservation in the Official Plan or the Natural Features Strategy and that some form of residential development was always envisioned for the subject lands.

Comment

A number of concerns were expressed regarding the proposed stormwater management strategy and sanitary capacity issues.

Staff Response

The draft conditions for the subdivision include the requirement to complete stormwater management reports/plans that are in line with the relevant documents, such as the Carp River Restoration Environmental Assessment, and Third Party Review.

There are no concerns with water capacity, and sanitary sewer capacity at the Signature Ridge pumping station will be addressed through the inclusion of the “h” holding provision as discussed above. Other utilities, such as Hydro, have been involved in the subdivision and rezoning processes and the applicant will have to make any upgrades to their services as required.

Comment

Ensure that all Conditions of Approval which affect the approval of registration, are met prior to land-clearing or construction taking place, particularly those which are developing in the South March Highlands or adjacent lands and the Carp River Watershed (not just the portion studied by Kanata West and the CRRP)

Staff Response

There are specific conditions of draft approval of the subdivision that relate to tree removal and the environment, and these will be addressed accordingly.

Comment

Concerns were expressed concern regarding the Archaeological Assessment Reports that were prepared in support of the subject application which have been approved by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. The following outlines the concerns expressed:

I would like to reiterate that the lands already blasted and crushed flat to the south east of the proposed development had identified Paleo Indian sites - specifically BhFx-29, known to the developer but subsequently incorrectly identified and described in the assessment you have on the current area (Richardson Ridge). This site would actually be very close to the boundary of the new proposed development.

I understand that your team are not archaeologists, but depend on the reports you get from MTC. Following is a part of an email from Jim Sherratt concerning his interpretation of their role (my bolding):

"As I have previously stated, the Ministry of Tourism and Culture is not an approval authority. It is the approval authority that ensures that all the necessary requirements, such as the completion of an archaeological assessment, have been fulfilled prior to development."

"The role of the Ministry is specific to the archaeologists licensed under the Ontario Heritage Act. As I stated in my reply on July 7, 2010, our role is to ensure that a licensee completing an assessment under their licence has followed the process and has met the minimum requirements of the 1993 technical guidelines. This is done through the review of the archaeological assessment reports submitted by the licensee for work they have completed. We issue letter of acceptance to the licensee following the completion of our review.

Additional Comments –

You should have received a copy of this assessment by Dr. Robert McGhee by other channels, but in case you did not, I have attached it. Although this critique is of the KNL (Beaver Pond) study, it is none-the-less very significant in the case of 467 Terry Fox Drive, since the Stage 3\4 assessment of the 467 Terry Fox site states that "Whether there were early Paleo-Indian sites located along the shores of the cold Champlain Sea ... appears unlikely (Jackson and Hinshelwood 2004; Jackson et al. 2004) ....

Since the Stage 1\2 assessment was performed by Dr. Lawrence Jackson, he is quoting himself as the authority in this matter, and as such is disregarding the earlier work of Marcel Laliberte (1998), who came to exactly the opposite conclusion, and also the work of Swayze (2005) and others who have reported significant finds adjacent to these properties.

Jackson in 2009 did not acknowledge the existence of the Swayze sites, although these are surely registered with MTC. I sent an email to MTC on the 17th asking about this oversight. I was hoping that they would have replied by now, but since they have been totally unresponsive, I will send you a copy of that email following this one.

Futhermore, Jackson specifically did not test the Rock Ridge, i.e. the very spot where Paleolithic sites might be expected to be located based on my understanding of the Swayze work and comments by Dr. McGhee. You can confirm this by referencing Jackson's report Figure 4: Methodology map ...”

We believe, therefore, that the destruction-of-artifacts risk has not been sufficiently mitigated, and that further oversight is required.

Additional Comments –

I have identified serious discrepancies and oversights in the archaeological reports on which the city is basing its actions with respect to both the KNL (Beaver Pond) and the Richardson Ridge development. The MTC clearly erred in not detecting these discrepancies, and I have sent an email to MTC, on which you were copied, asking how these oversights could have occurred. In the case if the KNL study, it was completed (2003) prior to the new information available from the Broughton Lands (2005). No such defense is applicable in the Richardsons Ridge study, and I await MTC's response on these issues.

However, the City opens itself up to charges of negligence in protecting our heritage information if it fails to act appropriately by demanding new archaeological studies on these sites with the foreknowledge of the findings of the Broughton Lands study, and by archaeologists with the appropriate background and training to know how to find and identify Paleo-Indian artifacts.

In meeting with city staff on Wednesday, I called these issues to their attention. Unfortunately, the city does not have an archaeologist on staff, and the planners depend solely on MTC to screen these reports. MTC is itself overburdened, and seems unable to give the level of oversight required. MTC actions in this regard have been criticized by members of the Ontario and the Canadian Archaeological society. In talking with the V.P. of the CAA, she stated that there was great concern within CAA over the dismissal of one archaeologist on the Broughton lands and commissioning of a new report. In her opinion, that should not have been accepted by MTC and represented a very bad precedent. It should certainly not be accepted by the City.

MTC problems must not be an excuse for the city to be lax in its oversight of the developers, who clearly do not want the added nuisance and expense associated with full stage 3\4 activities on their development sites. The city planners are aware of this, but the response I got from Don and Mark was that they would "ask MTC". MTC has yet to acknowledge the problems that I have identified, and in fact have not responded to several questions put to them, so I don't have any faith that MTC will come clean on this.

The appropriate action from the city is to invoke the clauses in the developer agreements that allow you to request new studies before further development activity occurs on these sites, based on the availability of new information.

I would also suggest you touch base with your Legal people, since there are now, as I understand it, laws on the books that could make destruction of sites a serious offense. I don't know that this applies, but you might want to have someone look at this.

Staff Response

The Owner has provided Archaeological Assessment Reports, prepared by a qualified professional which have been reviewed and accepted by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. Staff are not the approval authority for archaeological assessment, and rely on the expertise of provincial staff regarding these matters. The City does not provide any review of these reports. The draft conditions of subdivision approval include a requirement to follow a “Contingency Plan for the Protection of Archaeological Resources in Urgent Situations”.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS

March Rural Community Association

The following comments and concerns are those of the March Rural Community Association regarding the subject rezoning application:

1. Setbacks/ Buffer zones

A buffer zone has been provided along the north edge of the subdivision plan, between the backyards of single-family homes and the Compensation lands -Block 448. At some points this is a mere 8 to 10 m. deep. It will also contain a recreational pathway, 3 m. wide, which will be 3 m. from backyard fences (Condition 74). This buffer will therefore be a minimum of 2 to 4 m. deep. This clearly does not meet Ottawa’s Official Plan requirements for a 50 m. buffer, in order to satisfy the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement requirement of “no net impact” on the EA/ Compensation lands. The City commissioned Dan Brunton to assess this Special Study area in 2004, and in his report (page 29) he provides the following justification for a 50 m. setback from the EA/ Compensation lands-

“These would be “adjacent lands”, that would provide a transitional zone between the EA wetlands, woodland and wildlife habitat. This is justifiable, given the high ecological sensitivity of this granitic-based landscape, and with soils more vulnerable to disturbance and less capable of supporting disturbance-tolerant natural vegetation than soils that are clay and loam, as is otherwise common in the Ottawa valley.”

Muncaster’s Environmental Impact Study for the Richardson Ridge subdivision (2009) states that the Compensation lands are generally considered to be a mature maple swamp, they also include a Provincially Significant Wetland. The MVCA must therefore be consulted to ensure that the plan includes sufficient protection through a no-development buffer. In our experience this is typically 150 m.

If the Open Space Block 448 is zoned as is, the narrow depth will result in a loss in the ecological features and functions of these EA lands. An expanded buffer zone to the full 50 m. will minimize the impacts of nearby development, including degradation of wildlife habitat, increased noise and artificial light, invasive plants, predation of native flora and fauna.

Staff Response

The purpose of the Brunton (2004) report was to identify the boundary of the natural environment area as part of an Official Plan Amendment. The Brunton proposal for 50 metre adjacency area was not approved by Council and no policies were introduced into the Official Plan. The Brunton (2004) report recommendation is for an increased adjacency area of 50 metres that would require a study to demonstrate no net negative impact would result for the significant features and functions for which the area was identified. The development proposal was supported by an environmental impact statement that indicated no negative impact to the significant features.

At the time the compensation lands were surveyed and deeded to the City, the development boundary (including the buffer) was marked and flagged in the field. City staff specializing in environmental management were involved in this process, to help identify the boundaries of the NEA and the appropriate limit for development.

2. Storm water Management Pond

a) Ultimate SWM pond location- Block 453

The attached maps show a stream flowing from the Compensation Lands (which apparently include a mature Maple swamp), through the area noted as the Storm water Pond, under the new Terry Fox Drive extension, and into the Carp River.

The Official Plan, Section 4.7.3 includes a requirement to maintain the natural course of the stream that flows west from the Compensation lands to the Carp River. (See Appendix 1.) Brunton’s Special Study Area report (pg. 30) also recommends a 30-metre no development buffer in this area (which would be within Block 453 on this plan). We therefore question the wisdom of placing the Storm water Management Pond in Block 453. If the high uplands across the Richardson ridge and the swamp in the Compensation Lands cannot drain naturally through this stream, then this will impact the ecology of the EA lands.

Indeed, we have a general question in this regard - How could the ultimate SWM pond be expected to function properly, given that it would be located within the Carp River floodplain? Surely the floodplain must remain undeveloped, so that it is available for flooding. Otherwise the SWM pond and/or the Carp River will overflow.

We also request reassurance that the storm water management plan has been planned in concert with the findings and recommendations of the recently released reports re Kanata West and the Carp River Restoration Plan.

b) Interim SWM location - Block 452

Condition #29.3 requires the Storm water management plan to be approved before construction commences.

This application for rezoning was apparently on “hold” while Regional developed a plan for an interim SWM pond - on the Block designated for High Density (yellow block on rezoning map, Block #452). Did the MVCA and MOE approve this new location?

We wonder how the City or the Province can see into the future regarding storm water management along the Carp River, until the upstream issues are resolved. The MRCA respectfully asks that the “hold” that was placed on this development should therefore continue until we are certain that underlying problems have all been resolved.

Staff Response

There are specific conditions in the draft subdivision approval that address the requirement for stormwater management reports/plans. Any alteration of the Carp River floodplain will require the approval of the Carp River Restoration EA project and would be subject to numerous other approvals/permits from the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority.

The proposed location for both the interim and ultimate storm water management ponds on Blocks 453 and 452 have not been approved by the MVCA or the MOE. City and MVCA staff have reviewed both scenarios; and if approval for the storm water management pond is not supported on Block 453, the alternate block (452) can adequately accommodate the ultimate pond outside of the existing Carp River floodplain. Only a small portion of Block 452 is located in the existing Carp River floodplain, there is sufficient land outside of the floodplain to construct the ultimate pond if the applicable authorities do not allow for construction of the pond in the existing floodplain.

A holding provision will be placed on Block 452 until such time as the City, Provincial Authorities and the MVCA are all satisfied with the ultimate Storm water management plan for the subject lands. The interim pond can proceed outside of the existing Carp River floodplain without lifting of the holding provision, provided it receives approval from provincial authorities and the MVCA. The interim pond will be constructed outside of the existing floodplain, and can be constructed in any zone and or location. The most appropriate location for the interim storm water management pond is Block 452 on the basis that it is an adequate size, and may ultimately be the location of the ultimate pond. Staff do not support a holding provision to limit construction of an interim pond in this location.

3. Archaeological Assessment Reports - Lawrence Jackson, Dec/08;May/09.

At a recent meeting with other community residents, City Planning Staff were made aware that the archaeological reports prepared by Dr. Lawrence Jackson for this subdivision contain major omissions. The Ministry of Culture has been advised of this, as well.

Jackson states his assumption in his reports (2008, 2009) as follows:

“Whether there were early Palaeo-Indian sites located along the shores of the cold Champlain Sea…. appears unlikely…” He then cites his own research to back up this assumption. In fact, there is evidence on record that the rocky upland areas were islands when the Champlain Sea covered this region, and likely supported occupation by early postglacial sea mammal hunters, approximately 10,000 years ago, during the postglacial period. (Correspondence shared with City of Ottawa, Dr. Robert McGhee, August 6, 2010.)

Given that the archaeological potential of this land requires further investigation, the MRCA requests the Planning and Environment Committee to insist that an adequate assessment of pre-contact archaeological resources be conducted, so that every measure can be taken to document and preserve these artifacts. This will also be required before any site works shall take place, as per Condition #82.3.

We also note that Condition # 84 allows the City to adopt a zoning by-law under Section 34 of the Planning Act to prohibit or restrict any land use activities or the erection of buildings or structures on land which is the site of a significant archaeological resource.

Staff Response

The Owner has provided Archaeological Assessment reports, prepared by a qualified professional which have been reviewed and accepted by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. Staff are not the approval authority for archaeological assessment, and rely on the expertise of provincial staff regarding these matters. The City does not provide any review of these reports. The draft conditions of subdivision approval include a requirement to follow a “Contingency Plan for the Protection of Archaeological Resources in Urgent Situations”.

4. Wildlife Strategy

Condition 76 suggests that wildlife be encouraged to move north to the Compensation Lands, when construction begins. This is wetland/ maple swamp area and is likely not a suitable habitat for most species currently living in the Richardson forest. The larger SMH Conservation Park would likely be more suitable, but this would require crossing Terry Fox Drive extension, and wildlife fencing is being built along that road.

Question - What is the development plan for the relocation of wildlife? Is the developer open to consultation with community experts in wildlife rescue, regarding their strategy for moving wildlife from the area prior to commencing construction?

Staff Response

A wildlife strategy has been prepared by the applicant’s environmental consultant, and is satisfactory to the City.

5. Completion of Terry Fox Drive

Condition #29 requires that Terry Fox Drive must be completed as far as Street 1.

Question - What is the impact of the legal challenge re Terry Fox Drive, and the court case that has been postponed until November?

Staff Response

The first phase of the plan of subdivision will be accessed by Huntsville Drive, located to the south. Registration of this phase is not dependent on the completion of Terry Fox Drive to Street number 1.

6. Open Space zoning along Carp River

We note that Open Space zoning is requested for lands along the Carp River (i.e. Block 469). This land is within the Rural Area, as it sits outside the urban boundary of Terry Fox Road. We question how this zoning decision should be made, in consultation with the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee? We also would like reassurance that any planning for use of this open space would be made in consultation with rural residents, particularly our MRCA community association, as we typically recommend that rural open space would remain passive, and would not be developed into sports fields.

Staff Response

The subject lands are located within the Carp River floodplain as such; no development is permitted on these subject lands. They are to remain passive open space and are being recognized as such through an open space zoning designation. On the basis that no development is being proposed within the rural area, and the Open Space zoning designation further enforces the flood plain designation subject to these lands, approval of the proposed rezoning by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee is not warranted.

Beaverbrook Community Association

In Brunton’s 2004 report, Natural Environment Area (NEA) boundary in South March Highlands Special Study Area, setbacks between development and the Natural Environment Area (NEA) are discussed. Brunton and the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (Ontario 1999) recommended: “a 50m ‘Adjacent Lands’ zone abutting Significant Woodland and Significant Wildlife Habitat . . . particularly in light of the uncommonly sensitive nature of the South March Highlands landscape, therefore, establishment [of] a comparable no-net-impact zone of 50m in width is both appropriate and ecologically justifiable along the NEA boundary in the SSA [Special Study Area]” (Brunton 2004: 29).

Distance between development and the Natural Environment Area is not discussed in the Muncaster’s Environmental Impact Statement and Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan, except in the form of a buffer (2009: 15). No numerical distance is provided.

A recreational pathway “to be three metres wide and of stonedust construction” is planned for the buffer (Muncaster 2009: 15).

Given the ecological sensitivity of the South March Highlands, a significant distance between the development and the ‘Compensation Lands’ should exist. The buffer zone should function as an ecological buffer, in order that the natural environment area is not compromised.

I request the following:

A minimum of 50 metres between the Natural Environment Area (NEA) and proposed development. This setback is recommended by Brunton (2004) and the Natural Heritage Manual (Ontario 1999): “a 50m ‘Adjacent Lands’ zone abutting Significant Woodland and Significant Wildlife habitat . . . particularly in light of the uncommonly sensitive nature of the South March Highlands” (Brunton 2004: 29).

That no recreational pathway exists within the buffer. Existence and use of pathway may compromise the purpose of the space to act as a “buffer” between development and the ‘Compensation Lands.’ Unless the buffer can be increased significantly, the pathway should exist on land owned by the developer, not on the buffer.

Staff Response

The purpose of the Brunton (2004) report was to identify the boundary of the natural environment area as part of an Official Plan Amendment. The Brunton proposal for 50 metre adjacency area was not approved by Council and no policies were introduced into the Official Plan. The Brunton (2004) recommendation is for an increased adjacency area of 50 m that would require a study to demonstrate no net negative impact would result for the significant features and functions for which the area was identified. The development proposal was supported by an environmental impact statement that indicated no negative impact to the significant features.

The provision of the pathway will help guide the use of the area and direct people away from the environmentally sensitive core of the UNF. The pathway will allow the community to keep an eye on the natural area and help prevent unauthorized use.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS

Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee

Comments on the site plan, landscape plan, tree preservation-protection plan:

The EIS and Preliminary Tree Conservation Report recommended retention of trees in open space blocks and at the rear of the larger lots backing onto Richardson Side Road and the First Line Road Allowance. A list of trees – as examples – of trees to be retained and preserved is provided in the Preliminary Tree Conservation Report.

Observation 1. The list of trees to be preserved as identified in the Preliminary Report has been reduced in the final Tree Conservation Report despite the fact that 2 parks have been added and Richardson Side Road is to be closed off in the area where the “retained trees” were eliminated from the list and despite the fact that existing grades at the rear lot lines are to be retained.

Recommendation 1: The OFGAC recommends that the large trees at the rear lot lines along the (to be deleted) Richardson Side Road be retained as per Preliminary Tree Conservation Report.

Staff Response

The applicant has identified some trees along Richardson Side Road, and adjacent to Open Space blocks for preservation should grading permit.

Observation 2. The current and applicable City Guidelines require the Tree Conservation Report to describe the area and nature of vegetation loss on the site (due to the planned development) and how it will affect the natural systems on site and on the surrounding landscapes. This was not done; and had it been done, the report would have had to admit that virtually no vegetation outside the “open spaces” will remain because the bedrock that covers most of the development site will be blasted and ground down to provide enough depth to bury sanitary sewers and stormwater sewers underneath houses and streets and to ensure that no street grades are more than 5% as per the City of Ottawa guidelines.

Recommendation 2: The OFGAC recommends that the EIS and Tree Conservation Report be corrected to reflect the extent of vegetation loss on the site and the fact that there will no longer be any natural systems (outside the open areas) left on the site. Also, the Tree Conservation Report is to be corrected to discuss the impact on the remaining open areas by destroying, through blasting, the natural systems. The corrected report needs to explain how the “retained” vegetation and ecosystems are expected to survive with the changes in drainage and loss of connectivity.

Staff Response

The applicant has provided a more detailed tree conservation report and plan.

Observation 3. The EIS and Tree Conservation report fails to point out that the submitted drainage plans will significantly alter traditional drainage patterns. Historically and currently, some water drains into bedrock folds to support upper wetland/pond vegetation and trees (See Annex A – Figures 1 and 2) and some of the water is draining towards the “compensation” lands to support the vegetation on those lands. The developer’s plans are to drain all the development lands directly into the Carp River.

Recommendation 3: The OFCAG recommends that the EIS and Tree Conservation Report assess the impact of the proposed drainage plan including the impact of denying the “compensation” lands their normal inflows of water from the highlands and the impact of eliminating the highland wetlands/ponds.

Staff Response

This will be addressed through the final stormwater management report.

Observation 4. The “Final Tree Conservation Report” identifies 11 butternut trees as non-retainable that can be removed without compensation and one healthy butternut that is to be removed with compensation.

Recommendation 4: The OFGAC supports the request by the OFGAC DAR made at the 18^th August a meeting with Staff for an independent site visit of the lands for the purpose of confirming the butternuts that were found and to confirm that there are no other butternuts on the subject property. Two recent independent DAR site visits conducted by OFGAC DAR volunteers have inventoried sizeable and healthy butternuts that somehow have been missed by the experts submitting the proponent’s Tree Conservation Reports. In light of these recent events, the OFGAC recommends that an independent site visit be conducted to inventory significant trees and butternuts that are an endangered species protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Staff Response

MNR staff have been on-site and have confirmed the extent of Butternuts present. City staff have also been on-site and confirmed tree protection fencing around Butternuts and transition areas. A revised Tree Preservation Plan has documented the additional Butternut trees located by MNR and City staff. An independent site visit is not necessary, nor is it possible given the liability issues associated with private property.

Observation 5: The EIS does not adequately address the need for a protective buffer between lands that will be developed and conservation lands (compensation lands).

Recommendation 5: The OFGAC recommends a minimum 30 m buffer, and preferably a 50 m buffer, (this was requested by the SMH people) where the “public path” is no closer than 20 m from the protected (compensation) lands.

Staff Response

The purpose of the Brunton (2004) report was to identify the boundary of the natural environment area as part of an Official Plan Amendment. The Brunton proposal for 50 metre adjacency area was not approved by Council and no policies were introduced into the Official Plan. The Brunton (2004) recommendation is for an increased adjacency area of 50 m that would require a study to demonstrate no net negative impact would result for the significant features and functions for which the area was identified. The development proposal was supported by an environmental impact statement that indicated no negative impact to the significant features.

The provision of the pathway will help guide the use of the area and direct people away from the environmentally sensitive core of the UNF. The pathway will allow the community to keep an eye on the natural area and help prevent unauthorized use.

Are there other natural features that should be preserved (outcrops, wetlands etc.)

Observation 6: Although there are blocks of “open spaces” identified in the subdivision plans that are to remain in their natural state, no inventory of the outcrops and upper wetlands/ponds has been made nor is there a ranking of the relative merits of each area for preservation. As a consequence, the OFGAC is unable to advise at this time on the question of whether the most significant natural features are being preserved or destroyed.

Recommendation 6: The OFGAC recommends that a descriptive inventory of natural features including outcrops and wetlands/ponds be undertaken and a recommendation by the developer be submitted that identifies the most significant natural features for retention.

Staff Response

The Environmental Impact Statement describes natural features on the site.

Recommendation 7: The OFGAC recommends that important natural features be preserved including outcrops and upper wetlands/ponds.

Staff Response

The draft plan of subdivision includes several open space blocks that will retain certain natural features. The EIS indicates that regionally rare species on the site are located within the open space blocks that will be retained.

Is there potential or need for tree or greenspace protection during post development phase and if so, describe it.

Yes. The open spaces that are to be left in their natural state need protection.

Recommendation 8: The OFGAC recommends that there be walking trails constructed through the open areas in a manner that ensures controlled access and promotes conservation (without destroying/altering) of the natural areas.

Staff Response

The draft conditions of subdivision approval require pathways to be constructed through several of the open space blocks to create a pathway network. Although the design of these pathways has not been finalized at this time, the intent is that they follow the natural topography.

Comments on the impact of the proposal and on plans to protect greenspace and other important natural features on the site:

The zoning change as proposed requires almost complete destruction of the natural features and environment including its trees and all other vegetation. This destruction is guaranteed as a result of the technology to be employed to blast the outcrops of bedrock and reduce grades to 5% or less as per City directives.

Recommendation 9: The OFGAC recommends against the complete destruction of natural landscapes through blasting.

Staff Response

The Tree Conservation Report has identified mitigation measure/best management practices to be implemented during blasting to limit impact on the natural environment.

Observation 10:

Plans to protect greenspace and important natural features on the site and are inadequate as there has been no effort made to identify that the most important natural features and even the smallest viable components of important representative and rare species found in this area are to be preserved.

Specifically, as no inventory was taken of the complete lands, it is only happenstance that some rare plants were found in areas designated as open areas from a sub-division perspective. There has been little consideration given in the planning of the subdivision to the protection of rare plants, bird habitat or wetlands/ponds, soil and water.

Recommendation 10: The OFGAC recommends that the developer make a greater effort to “plan with nature”, as per the City of Ottawa policy and consider larger, higher density eco-buildings designed to enhance and blend with the landscape and to make greater efforts at preserving the natural features and vegetation, and then resubmit its zoning and subdivision plans.

Staff Response

The draft plan of subdivision is designed to retain several open space blocks in their natural state, such that the each portion of the subdivision is in proximity to open space. Additionally, open space blocks have been incorporated along the eastern, northern and western boundaries of the site where it abuts an existing undeveloped corridor (Hydro corridor), an Urban Natural Feature (the “compensation” lands), and the Carp River, respectively. The subdivision includes several blocks of medium-density development such as multiple attached and stacked dwellings, which will reduce the overall land requirements.