Material received from the City and dated June 8, 2007 re: RONA application (375 Didsbury Road) is posted below.

Letter.jpg – (Zoning By-law amendment & Plan of Subdivision proposal)

proposal_summary_pg1.jpg   pg2.jpg   pg3.jpg   location map.jpg   comment sheet.jpg

21 June 2007 — Erwin Dreessen writes:

Public Meeting on the RONA application

A Public meeting on RONA’s application has been called.  The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 31, 2007, from 7 to 9 p.m. in the John G. Mlacak Centre Hall (2500 Campeau Drive, Kanata).

I contacted planning staff.  Read our correspondence here.  Key points:

– Would this development intrude into the 1982 flood plain?

– How would the area be drained of stormwater?

The Ward Councillor, Marianne Wilkinson, wrote:

“At [the public meeting] I’ll be asking for a clear position on both the former flood line, how the proposal fits into that and on the remedial measures on the Carp.  I understand the land being dedicated as open space is in the flood plain but is not clear on its particular boundary.”

I also received from staff:

–   Serviceability Report by Stantec, dated April 12, 2007 (9 pages + 3 maps)

–  Large-format draft Plan of Subdivision

The Stantec report reveals that the area would drain to a stormwater pond 250 m south of the site …which is at 94.5 m, while the Rona site is (or rather will be, once they’ve raised the site to above the 100-year floodplain of the Carp River) at 93.98 m.  Therefore “A private mechanical stormwater pump or lift station will be necessary…”

Just north of the site is an existing stormwater pond.  As designed in 1994, this pond would serve to drain this area but it was NOT constructed to accommodate this drainage.  Says the report: “…it is uncertain to what extent the pond would need to be expanded to accommodate the development, or whether any financial obligations toward the original pond developer would arise as a result of a service connection to the facility.”

25 July 2007 — Mik Svilans writes:

RONA’s application in Carp Floodplain

The residents of Briarbrook have had an expensive and frustrating heritage with flooding for many years now. The question of who picks up the tab when flooding damage occurs is largely unresolved.

Contemplating a ‘private mechanical stormwater pump or lift station’ seems plain madness.

The general amnesia of Ottawa City planners and administration is remarkable. Just two years ago in 2005, development (by KNL) on the Kizell Drain, a man-made flooded pasture, was said to be impractical, resulting in a common cat-tail swamp being designated as an ‘Urban Natural Feature’ at the cost of high quality forest in the West Block, north of Kizell Drain, being condemned to destruction for urban development.

Now in 2007 the Carp River flood plain, perhaps 10-20 times larger in area and with a longer history of inundation is suddenly suitable for urban development. Go figure.

For reference, according to Dillon (consultants for the City), the headwaters of the Kizell Drain, a tributary of Watt’s Creek flowing into the Beaverpond, have been proposed to have water elevations as follows:

100 year storm elevation, Kizell Pond – 94.30 metres
2 year storm elevation, Kizell Pond – 93.90 metres

The elevation numbers we are being given just don’t seem to jive.

The other end of Kizell Drain (aka Kizell Pond, a euphemistic name conjured up by the developers) flows into Carp watershed.

Mik Svilans

31 July 2007 — Erwin Dreessen writes:

Outcome of the Public Meeting

Only about four members of the public attended. I was the only person to make comments, which I did on behalf of the Carp River Coalition.

Planner Sally Switzer explained that this was the legally required meeting in the Plan of Subdivision approval process. A later public meeting on the rezoning application would be held before Planning and Environment Committee.

Kevin Harper of IBI Group had forgotten his notes but briefly explained the proposed Plan of Subdivision. Phase I (the most easterly portion) would see a Rona store and its parking lot. Next to it, in Phase II, would be a campus-style business park. The most westerly part would be dedicated as part of the Carp River corridor, 50 metres wide from the midpoint of the River, as proposed in the Carp River restoration plan.

I made four points:

1- Kanata West owners’ desire to proceed is understandable but nothing can happen until the Minister of the Environment makes a decision about the Part II Order Requests filed last July. (For more on these Requests, see “Carp River: Kanata West.”) But why does the City play along with what apparently is an attempt to put pressure on the Minister to reject these Requests? To this Sally replied that such speculation is unfounded. The City must process applications as they come in.

2- The KW Concept Plan recommended that applications for plans of subdivision and rezoning come forward together. Is that the case here? Sally: The two applications were circulated at the same time. However, there is not yet a draft of the Conditions of the Plan of Subdivision nor is there a zoning map showing what would change as the detailed zoning is not clear yet.

3- Does this development intrude in the regulated flood plain (as defined in 1982)? To this Larry Morrison (consultant with Stantec) replied that he thought it did. After the meeting he explained that he had seen a map that showed the flood plain to extend to the northerly portion of the site (where part of the business park would be).

4- Why is stormwater being pumped up 0.5 metres and 250 metres south instead of into the existing stormwater pond just north of the site? Larry replied that this was a financial decision. While he admitted that this is not the most straightforward solution, he also said it was not uncommon to pump stormwater. He also alluded to some problematic issues with the existing pond — a creek runs through it which is apparently fish-bearing. I was further assured by a colleague of Larry’s that there is no precedent for the City taking over a pumping facility that serves a commercial development.

It became evident that this development cannot proceed until the Minister makes her decision on the Part II Order Requests — not only because of the flood plain issue but also because of the connection with the Signature Ridge Pumping Station for the sanitary sewers (a KW project also subject to a Part II Order Request) and because the discharge from the stormwater pond to the south into the Carp River would require an MOE permit which will not be forthcoming while their Minister’s decision is pending.

We sought an undertaking that the Plan of Subdivision would not be draft-approved until the Minister has made her decision on the Part II Order Requests. I explained that if such approval is given before the Minister’s decision, we would be compelled to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board so as to preserve our rights. It clearly seemed the Councillor’s preference to hold off on such Draft Approval. She would consult further but at this point we do not have the requested undertaking. In a follow-up e-mail, with a copy to the Councillor at her request, I asked that we be circulated on the draft of the Conditions of the Plan of Subdivision.

29 August 2007 — Erwin Dreessen writes:

Follow-up to Public Meeting

On August 5, I wrote to Ms. Darlene Conway, water resources engineer at the City:

“Last week, on behalf of the Carp River Coalition, I attended a public meeting on a development proposed by RONA near the Carp River in Kanata West. …

At the meeting, Mr. Larry Morrison of Stantec stated that it is not uncommon to pump stormwater up into a higher-elevation pond or outlet. This is what is proposed here, about 0.5 m, 250 m away. I wonder if you, from your experience as a water resource engineer with the City, could confirm that such practice is indeed not uncommon?

A colleague of Mr. Morrison’s assured me that there is no precedent for the city ending up having to take responsibility for this pump & lift system, which is presented as being a strictly private facility. Again, could you confirm that this is the case?

Finally, and this is the Coalition’s main concern, Mr. Morrison expressed his “belief” that part of the development would intrude into the 100-year flood plain as determined in 1982. Yet no information about where the floodline is was made available and there seemed to be some uncertainty about its exact location. (Of course, the uncertainty could be deliberate, as the parties are expecting to see the newly defined flood plain corridor confirmed through pending approvals; indeed, this project cannot go forward unless those approvals are forthcoming.) Are the 1982 flood plain maps publicly accessible? We know that the Hazard designations in the City’s Zoning By-law do not necessarily coincide with the regulated floodline.“

On August 28, having returned from vacation, Ms. Conway replied:

“In response to your question regarding the use of stormwater pumps, I can confirm this is not a common or preferred practice in the City. Drainage by gravity is always preferable and all physically feasible options to achieve this should be thoroughly explored before pumping is considered or recommended. There are a number of existing stormwater pumps in the City but many of these were built in retrofit situations to address existing flooding problems or there were topographic constraints that precluded gravity drainage.

I discussed with our Operations staff your concern regarding the possibility of the City having to take on the maintenance and operation of a private facility in the future and it was confirmed that this has not occurred in the past.

With respect to your question whether the site encroaches into the floodplain, this information should be available publicly and I suggest you contact John Price at Mississippi Valley Conservation (613-259-2421) directly to confirm the location of the regulatory floodline.

As I am not directly involved with this file, if you have any more application-specific questions about the proposed servicing, please contact Rob Phillips, Program Manager, Infrastructure Approvals (580-2424, ext. 27604).”

I am following up with Rob Phillips and planner Sally Switzer, as well as MVC’s John Price.