Planning and Environment Committee, Meeting of 9 October 2007, (Agenda 18), Item 3
Zoning – 20, Frank Nighbor Place
Ref. ACS2007-PTE-APR-0158
Mr. Chairman, Members of Committee:
I would likely have appeared here on behalf of the Carp River Coalition, but the short notice and the intervening Thanksgiving weekend have made it impossible to secure approval from the constituent members – representing the Friends of the Carp River, Ottawa Riverkeeper, The Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital and the Ottawa Group of the Sierra Club of Canada – so I am speaking to you today in my own name only.
On the surface, the item before you is simple and straightforward: expand the range of allowed uses on land that in 2002 was approved to be designated as the “flood fringe”, as distinct from the Carp River “floodway”.
One doesn’t have to scratch deep, however, to see a horrendous mess revealed. You have an option today to put a stop to the nonsense, or at least opt for a more prudent course of action.
I retrieved the 2002 report to your predecessor committee, Planning and Development Committee, for its meeting of 25 July 2002. The Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed study was then under way – it would not be approved by Council until 2005. But already the 2002 staff report could quote from it, to the effect that it pointed to an opportunity for a 2-zone flood plain along the River, and, that a 100-metre corridor (the “floodway”) should be maintained.
Right there, the report said that, in this particular spot (20 and 50 Frank Nighbor Place) only 88 to 100m would be feasible – the Corel Centre on the other side having allowed only 30m.
Later, the Carp River Restoration study, accepted by Council in 2006, posits a 75m corridor at this portion of the River. (It shows the incursion over the 1983 flood line as “approved”.)
And from what I can make out, the flood level analysis that was done for Kanata West assumed such a 75m flood way.
What “comprehensive analysis of the Carp River system and the potential for a two zone” the 2002 report refers to is unclear – no details or references are provided. It clearly could not be the watershed plan itself because that did not get published until 2004, nor the work for Kanata West which didn’t get completed until four years later. I somehow doubt that the City commissioned simulations of flood level analysis using the actual corridor widths proposed.
The project now has site plan drawings, so presumably it could now be determined what the corridor width would end up being, but the new staff report doesn’t help me here.
While this particular property is outside the Kanata West lands, it is intimately connected with it because development of this fringe depends on implementation of the Carp River Restoration project.
As you know, that project is in limbo, sitting on the desk of the Ontario Minister of Environment, there having been no decision on Part II Order Requests dating from July 2006.
It is as frustrating to the Coalition as it is, I’m sure to all other stakeholders in this file, that no decision has been forthcoming. I suspect that it has something to do with the very serious unresolved questions that have arisen about the whole project:
– for one thing, the Ministry of Natural Resources is in denial: There is a record of conversation between EAAB and Ron McGirr of MNR dated September 25, 2006 wherein the latter asserts that the proposals for Kanata West are in a one-zone, and have to be, because when there is channelization of a watercourse involved, it is automatically one-zone.
– meanwhile, all the work done for the Kanata West development assumes 2-zone, as per the recommendation in the watershed plan (be it with different assumptions on the width of the corridor).
– then there are the serious errors in the calculation of the watershed, the exclusion of the Fernbank lands, and the absence of calibrated models (i.e., absence of monitoring data), to name just some of the very serious objections that have been raised,
and one can understand that the Minister of Environment has reason enough to not just cave in and deny the Requests.
But one thing is clear: MNR insists that there is one zone in Kanata West, while the watershed plan and all the analysis that followed is predicated on there being two zones, a floodway and an flood fringe.
Here is another thing: back in 2002, when The Regional Group got this 2-zone approval ahead of the pack, the staff report says that they consulted with the affected land owners and Mississippi Valley Conservation. I.e., there was no public consultation. Nor does the report give any indication that the rules were followed – specifically, that, in a 2-zone application, the MNR Regional Engineer needs to sign off. (This is a requirement of the Province’s Technical Guide and was also confirmed in a Ministry response on the EBR web site (No. PB06E6012, dated June 2006.) City staff should provide proof of such sign-off. If it can’t get this from the Conservation Authority, it should contact the MNR Regional Engineer directly. If no MNR Regional Engineer sign-off was obtained, then this 2002 rezoning is ultra vires.
When we come to today’s application, an expanded list of possible uses again brings into question wether this would constitute appropriate land use. I refer specifically to the prospect of having a garden centre be part of “Building A”; if it is flooded despite “floodproofing”, this raises serious issues about contamination of the River due to pesticides, etc.
So it would seem to be the prudent course to get sign-off from the MNR Regional Engineer before allowing this expanded land use.
Mr. Chairman, Members of Committee, the whole approach to 2-zone flood plain policies in the City of Ottawa is fundamentally misguided – no wonder that an Official Plan Amendment on the City’s Flood Plain Policy is stalled. (This OPA would essentially outlaw flood fringes except in Constance Bay and 3 specific areas. That is also how the draft Consolidated Zoning By-law reads.)
It is clear that, contrary to what is happening here, the application of 2-zone policies as foreseen in the Provincial Policy Statement is intended primarily to assist existing, historically grown developments, not to create more developable land in greenfield areas. The technical guidelines under the Conservation Authorities Act even prohibit Conservation Authorities from proposing 2-zone for that reason. Yet here, with the approval of MVC, 2-zone in greenfields is not only promoted but in fact translates into simply filling in the flood plain – the ultimate form of “floodproofing”.
A recent OMB Decision (Decision No: 2371, August 23, 2007) involving a school property in Sudbury points the way to what you might consider is a sensible interpretation of the PPS and a sensible compromise. The Board found that, where the development is limited to passive non-structural use, which does not affect flood flow levels, it could be allowed in the fringe. So it allowed a playground, an access road and a parking lot to be located on the floodplain, provided that the access road is floodproofed and the playground and parking areas remain at the existing elevation. The school building would have to be located outside the fringe.
I urge you to pursue a more prudent course –
Finally, before you go ahead and approve this application, you may wish to consider whether you are meeting the due diligence test that Mr. Marc in May 2006 advised you would exonerate the City from liability. Personally, I believe that his assurance flies in the face of certain jurisprudence I have seen, but even if it were not, it seems to me there is room here for more due diligence.
Thank you for your attention.
Erwin Dreessen
