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:

My name is Ted Cooper. I am a water resources engineer with 20 years of experience throughout Ontario. I am here today to voice my concerns as a private citizen in opposition to the proposed use of the Carp River floodplain in the proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment.

I have eight specific concerns about the proposed rezoning:

1. The proposed zoning will expand uses to permit garden centers to be located in the flood fringe. If in fact Two Zone Floodplain Policy is being applied to this development, this would mean that fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides could be subject to flooding. In my opinion such a use is inappropriate.
2. The 2002 Zoning By-law Amendment refers to supporting analysis in the Carp River Subwatershed Plan. The analysis in the Subwatershed Plan on Pages 144-148 uses a 100m corridor – not an 88m corridor as referred to in the 2002 Committee Report. The Subwatershed Plan shows flood levels rising 0.13m at Palladium Drive and 0.18m at Poole Creek. With an 88m-corridor flood levels would rise even higher. This is inconsistent with Provincial Floodplain Policy that states new hazards are not to be created and existing hazards are not to be aggravated.
3. Since the 2002 By-law, Smart Technologies and the Sensplex have built on lands abutting the Carp River at the locations where flood levels are shown to increase (see Attachment No 1). The recent Zoning By-law makes no reference to any determination how these recent developments could be affected by the increase in flood levels caused by 20 Frank Nighbor.
4. Since the 2002 Zoning Bylaw Amendment was passed, Council approved the Subwatershed Plan in 2005 that recommended all of the floodplain mapping and analysis needed to be re-done. It is submitted this is anything but a vote of confidence about the basis on which the 2002 Bylaw was passed.
5. Since the Approval of the Subwatershed Plan, the City and Kanata West Owners Group completed the Carp River Restoration Project Class Environmental Assessment. During this work, consultants modelled the flood levels in the Carp River produced by the Hurricane Frances rainfall recorded on September 9, 2004. This model predicted a flood level 23cm lower than what was observed in the area of 20 Frank Nighbor (see Attachment No 2). How much certainty is there that the model can predict impacts of future alterations and development, when it is under-predicting current flood levels? The Class EA also predicted the impact of planned development of floodplain on flood elevations (see Attachment No. 3).
6. Earlier this year I discovered a substantial error in the work completed in both the Subwatershed Plan and in the Class EA. This error involves including 600 Ha of the Jock River watershed in the analysis of flows in the Carp River (see Attachment No. 4). A 600 Ha error translates into an error of 20% of the Carp River watershed at Frank Nighbor Place. So not only did the model under-predict the flood level during Hurricane Frances, it under-predicted the level despite using an inflated watershed area by 20%. Just how far-off the model actually under-predicts flood levels is unknown. Despite bringing this substantial error to the attention of the City, MOE, MNR, and MVCA in June, I have heard absolutely nothing from these agencies in response to this error.
7. Since August 2005, when the OMB ruled that development of the Del Brookfield Westpark lands could proceed, no steps have been taken to account for the impact of urbanization of the additional 200 or more Ha on flood levels in the Carp River. According to the Technical Guide for Floodplain analysis, as well as the Provincial Policy Statement, the watershed is to be used as the basis of planning, and therefore the impact of development in Kanata West on the Carp River flood levels should not be proceeding in isolation from the impact of the Fernbank Community when its development is now a certainty.
8. This Committee received an opinion from a City lawyer at the May 2006 Committee Meeting about the Kanata West Class EA that the City would not be liable if flooding was to occur in the future:

With respect to responsibility issues if future flooding should occur in communities in this area, Legal Counsel commented that if studies have been performed based upon the best available information, there should not be flooding. Should it occur and claims be brought forth against the City of Ottawa, the City could point to those studies and say that, based upon the information available at the time and reasonably exercised professional judgement, that all due diligence was shown and there is no liability on the part of the City.

Given the error in watershed area used in the analysis, and given what is known about future urbanization of the Fernbank lands, is the Committee confident that the studies have been performed based on the best available information and that if there was flooding the City could demonstrate due diligence has been shown?

I would be pleased to respond to any questions,

Thank-you,

Ted Cooper, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.
500 Lake Clear Road
Eganville ON K0J 1T0
613-754-2562

Recommendations:

1. 20 Frank Nighbor Zoning Bylaw Amendment

• That Zoning for the Building noted as Retail in the Conceptual Site Plan, and for the east parking area on the Conceptual Site Plan be approved.
• That Re-Zoning for the area that includes Building A and the parking area in front of Building A be deferred, and that all existing zoning for the west side of the site be placed in a Holding Zone until deficiencies with the Hydrotechnical analysis have been addressed, that the outstanding Part II Order Requests for the Carp River Restoration Plan Class EA have been resolved, and that improvements to the Carp River have been implemented.

2. Carp River Restoration

• That the hydrotechnical studies be revised and updated to utilize the actual watershed area, include the impact of the development of the Fernbank Community, and ensure the models are based on calibration to available flow monitoring data
• That a Hearing be arranged with the Ontario Drainage Referee to resolve uncertainty about the status of the Carp River as a Municipal Drain, and the issue of the point of sufficient outlet – based on the previous ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal that held the point of sufficient outlet in an agricultural setting was downstream at the Village of Carp.
• That an Addendum to the Carp River Restoration Class EA be prepared based on the revised hydrotechnical analysis.
• That an Interim Phasing and Stormwater Management Plan be prepared for Kanata West to allow / guide development on an interim basis while the technical, legal, and design issues related to the Carp River are satisfactorily resolved.