[waterloowarrior]

Building outside the rules
Councillor fears ignoring official plan, experts sets bad precedent

Jake Rupert
Ottawa Citizen

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

OTTAWA - Councillors have voted to approve a construction project on prime farmland outside Edwards, violating the city's official plan and bypassing experts' advice. It's just the latest such decision, part of a pattern that has at least one councillor worried.

The application, by Adrian Schouten, is for creation of two residential lots with wells and septic tanks on Yorks Corners Road. Last week, city planners recommended against the rezoning at a meeting of the agriculture and rural affairs committee.

The planners said it would contravene a provincial policy aimed at protecting good agricultural land, and the city's official plan. Furthermore, there isn't enough groundwater to support homes on the site, and what's there is poor quality. Plans for septic tanks are incomplete, there is plenty of other rural land in the area that could be developed instead, and building on the lots would not leave enough access to the property's remaining farmland, the staff planners said.

The advice was clear: Reject Mr. Schouten's rezoning application. Despite this, councillors voted to accept the application and the matter will go to city council for a vote next week.

In a similar case earlier this year, the committee and council again went against the advice of experts and voted to allow residential construction in an area of West Carleton where the groundwater could be salty enough to pose a health risk.

Innes Councillor Rainer Bloess said allowing such

rezoning needs to stop.

He said provincial and city planning policies are developed, reviewed, and amended constantly by experts because there is public value in having them.

"The goals are to preserve farmland, in this case, because we don't have enough of it," he said. "In other cases, the rules are there to protect health, provide buffers or curb urban sprawl, and there's good, sound logic to aiming for these goals.

"This application looks like development in the wrong way. All the rules in place are being (flouted). If council approves things like this, it means the rules don't mean much, and the rules are there for reasons."

The city's director of planning approvals, John Moser, agrees that there are "valid reasons" behind provincial and city land-use policies, and in this case, they are there to preserve prime agricultural land.

He also said the city should be careful about setting precedents because each time an exception is made, it chips away at the strength of the policy or plan it violates. City planners won't see exceptions as precedents, Mr. Moser said, but it still becomes easier for other approval bodies to fall into the "we did it before, why not again" approach.

Osgoode Councillor Doug Thompson represents the ward that includes the project outside Edwards and he sits on rural affairs committee. He said he understands the concerns cited by Mr. Bloess and Mr. Moser, but he thinks the provincial policy on rural land use is "draconian."

He said it's very hard for farmers to even get lots on their own land to build retirement homes when passing the farm on to relatives.

While that's not the point of the Edwards application, Mr. Thompson says there are already houses on either side of the proposed lots and across the road. As well, the land, although designated as prime agricultural, is configured in such a way that it is too difficult to farm. As far as the water problems, Mr. Thompson said they can be dealt with and the land is suitable for septic tanks.

"When you look at it in total in this area, it makes sense to me," he said. "In many other areas, it wouldn't."

He's going to support the rezoning at council, but he knows there may be a price to pay.

"Every time you sort of tinker with the rules or bend them - and in this case, I admit, that's what we are doing - it leaves the door open a bit wider for people to say, 'Well, you did that there, so why not here'," he said. "But in this particular case, I think it's one that begs for support (of the rezoning application)."

© Ottawa Citizen 2008

here's the staff report
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2008/09-25/03-ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0114-FINAL-1149%20Yorks%20Corners.htm

this proposal clearly goes against the PPS/OP, and there are numerous water issues, and the consultants hydrogeological study doesn't give conclusive evidence that there will be enough/good quality water for these lots. The 'sympathy' of rural councillors is part of the reason these requirements for municipalities to be consistent with the PPS were put in the first place; rural severances keep getting approved because everyone has a sob story. It leads to losses of agricultural land, groundwater issues, loss of rural character, increased conflict between residential and agricultural uses, etc etc. These type of decisions make me question the role of the ARAC and how well they can be trusted to make decisions like this (and calls into question more rural delegation/devolution that people keep calling for). It doesn't matter if Councillor Thomson thinks the rules are draconian, he still has to follow them...

[c_speed3108]

Out where my parents live I have seen a number of rezoning proposals in the rural area get fought tooth and nail with petitions and all the rest.

It falls on the deaf ears of the so-called city planning staff. (if we had a plan we would not need to change it) Perhaps the local councilor votes against it at committee but they still pass thanks to the votes of councilors from clear at the other end of the city and probably have never set foot within 20km of the property in question.

As I have said many times: what we need a comprehensive city-wide property zone that sets out what is permitted where (instead of what is presently there) and only rezone properties once in a blue moon. Then it would be up to developers and businesses and whomever else to buy land that is zoned for whatever it is they are trying to do.

[clynnog]

Out where my parents live I have seen a number of rezoning proposals in the rural area get fought tooth and nail with petitions and all the rest.

It falls on the deaf ears of the so-called city planning staff. (if we had a plan we would not need to change it) Perhaps the local councilor votes against it at committee but they still pass thanks to the votes of councilors from clear at the other end of the city and probably have never set foot within 20km of the property in question.

As I have said many times: what we need a comprehensive city-wide property zone that sets out what is permitted where (instead of what is presently there) and only rezone properties once in a blue moon. Then it would be up to developers and businesses and whomever else to buy land that is zoned for whatever it is they are trying to do.


I was before ARAC and City Council a few weeks ago and it was an eye opener. The local Councillor told me in very vague terms that he had to 'fall on his sword' which turned out that he would vote against the proposal as that is what his constituants wanted. Planning Dep't and all agencies were in favour of the application and after 2 public meetings the supposed position of the residents that they were going to fight this 'tooth and nail' etc went from a petition of 75 people to nobody coming to ARAC or Council in opposition. Despite this at ARAC the vote was 4-2 I believe (one Councillor not there) and I doubt if any Councillor other than the local Councillor ever went to the property in question.

[clynnog]

here's the staff report
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2008/09-25/03-ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0114-FINAL-1149%20Yorks%20Corners.htm

this proposal clearly goes against the PPS/OP, and there are numerous water issues, and the consultants hydrogeological study doesn't give conclusive evidence that there will be enough/good quality water for these lots. The 'sympathy' of rural councillors is part of the reason these requirements for municipalities to be consistent with the PPS were put in the first place; rural severances keep getting approved because everyone has a sob story. It leads to losses of agricultural land, groundwater issues, loss of rural character, increased conflict between residential and agricultural uses, etc etc. These type of decisions make me question the role of the ARAC and how well they can be trusted to make decisions like this (and calls into question more rural delegation/devolution that people keep calling for). It doesn't matter if Councillor Thomson thinks the rules are draconian, he still has to follow them...

To me, the lack of any credible technical advice that these lots can be serviced etc should be proof enough that this should not have been approved. I'd be interested to see the minutes of the ARAC meeting to see how much arm twisting went on. You are right that many rural councillors see that traditional farming is a hard slog in the soil and climate conditions in Ottawa but the PPS was put in for a reason.

I'd be surprised if they can get a building permit for this one.

With the press coverage this has got, it may be hard to convince all of Council to approve this...I'd be surprised if some of the left leaning councillors will go for this.

[waterloowarrior]

As I have said many times: what we need a comprehensive city-wide property zone that sets out what is permitted where (instead of what is presently there) and only rezone properties once in a blue moon. Then it would be up to developers and businesses and whomever else to buy land that is zoned for whatever it is they are trying to do.

well we just got our new comprehensive zoning by-laws and the latest OP update is being worked on, but anyone still has the right to apply for an official plan amendment and/or zoning bylaw.

an OP is a 'living document' and zoning is the implementation of the OP and secondary plans, but is not meant to be inflexible.

and it's very hard to have updated zoning throughout a city, as there are always new planning ideas, new OP policies, new areas are opened for development, neighbourhoods change, and updated local plans are always happening; zone changes are a necessary part of Ontario's current planning framework.

[waterloowarrior]

City rejects plan to build houses on farmland
The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, October 08, 2008
OTTAWA - City council has overturned a rural-affairs committee vote and refused an application to build two houses on prime agricultural land just outside the village of Edwards. The application violated city and provincial land-use rules designed to protect agricultural land, and city planning experts had serious concerns about the quality and quantity of ground water in the area.
Despite these concerns, city council's rural-affairs committee approved the houses two weeks ago, but a majority of councillors said with so much evidence against the application, they couldn't support it.
The application, made by Adrian Schouten, was rejected by a vote of 15 to eight.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

[waterloowarrior]

Repairs to ditch threaten to drain west-end wallets
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Repairs+ditch+threaten+drain+west+wallets/1683271/story.html
Small group of resident, farmers fighting city over $700,000 bill

BY DAVID GONCZOL, THE OTTAWA CITIZENJUNE 10, 2009 10:45 PM


OTTAWA-West-end homeowners and farmers are facing huge bills to fix damage to a drainage basin — damage likely worsened when the Department of National Defence quietly changed municipal drainage patterns on its JTF2 site at Dwyer Hill.

A small group of nearby homeowners and farmers have been slapped with most of a $700,000 bill from the City of Ottawa for the work, with one farmer facing a $31,000 assessment and several others left with bills of between $12,000 and $15,000.

The farmers and homeowners say they never asked the city to fix the Dowdall Drain, but the city contends that a picnic-table meeting between locals and city staff in 2005, about the regular flooding of a roadway in Heron Lake Estates, constituted an official petition. Residents say they were told nothing about expensive studies that were conducted over the last four years until they each received their shares of the bill last month.

The two-kilometre drain is essentially a small stream flowing quietly through farmland and Heron Lake Estates before emptying into the Jock River. Under Ontario’s Drainage Act, anyone who owns land along the Dowdall Drain must pay for the studies and upgrades.

At a meeting Monday night of area residents and city officials hosted by Rideau-Goulbourn Councillor Glenn Brooks, engineer Andy Robinson presented the results of his four-year study and tried to lay out his plan to fix the drainage problems. Frustrated residents let loose with a unrelenting four hour attack.

Robinson now says, given the opposition, the city should only fix the annual flooding problem where the drain flows through Heron Lake Estates.

He said the city could face legal action if it does not fix this problem, where inadequate culverts become overwhelmed by spring runoff.

The drainage basin includes the property of farmer Ron Mayhew, who fought a long battle with the Department of National Defence over his treatment at the hands of the elite military unit JTF2, whose base is next to his farm. The dispute included a fight over a trench Mayhew found dug across his property, draining water from the base. In 2002, he received a legal notice from the city ordering him to clear blockages in the drainage basin connected to the trench, which he insisted he’d had no part in digging or permitting. The city eventually paid the bill.

Another part of the drainage problem apparently arose from changes to the Dowdall Drain by Goulbourn Township, prior to amalgamation.

Dave Western, president of the Heron Lake Community Association, said no one can understand why they are being forced to pay for an enormous culvert “that could accommodate mayor Larry O’Brien’s underground (transit) tunnel.”

Similarly, farmers outside of Heron Lake Estates, like Annette Anderson, say they have no drainage issues, but she will be paying $21,000, which was the cost of building the entire Dowdall drain in 1969.

Jack MacLaren of the Ontario Landowners Association said “shoddy” engineering of the culvert at Heron Lake estates and changes to the drain by former Goulbourn Township officials are both now the responsibility of the City of Ottawa, which should pay for any costs under Robinson’s report.

“The Department of National Defence were bad neighbours to Mr. Mayhew and they were bullies … and to the city and to the drainage superintendents and to all their neighbours. They just went ahead and trampled around on Mayhew’s farm and they went ahead and redug the ditch anyway they wanted to suit their needs and they just didn’t think they needed to consult anybody. They were immune to laws like the Drainage Act. They interfered with drainage on Mayhew’s property, changed the drainage for the municipal drain and DND just walked away and left the problem in Mr. Mayhew’s hands,” said MacLaren.

City council’s agricultural and rural-affairs committee is to decide tonight whether to accept the Robinson report and whether to recommend that council vote to proceed with the work.

Brooks, the local councillor, said Wednesday he will propose that the city only fix the bottleneck of water flow from Heron Lake Estates to the Jock River and split the cost between the city and the 40 property owners who live there. Under this plan the farmers upstream would not have to pay for the improvements.

However, he said, he was unsure whether the city can ignore Ontario’s Drainage Act to proceed with his plan and a legal opinion would be required. The committee meeting takes place tonight at 7 p.m. at the Alfred Taylor Centre, 2300 Community Way, North Gower.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen



http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2009/06-11/02-ACS2009-ICS-WWS-0007%20-%20FINAL%20-%20Dowdall%20MD.htm

[waterloowarrior]

New wind farm rules won’t hurt North Gower project
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/wind+farm+rules+hurt+North+Gower+project/1683240/story.html
Regulations to keep turbines a least half kilometre from buildings already met

BY LEE GREENBERGJUNE 10, 2009 10:28 PM


TORONTO-New rules forcing wind farms to keep their giant turbines at least half a kilometre from the nearest building will not affect a proposed local wind project, according to the firm behind it.

Luke Geleynse, vice-president with Kemptville-based Prowind Canada Inc. says a wind farm planned for the North Gower area had always intended to put its 8-10 turbines (which stand 120 metres tall) at least 550 metres from the nearest house.

On Tuesday, the McGuinty government suggested that distance will be the new minimum buffer between turbines and homes. Louder and larger windfarms could face setbacks of up to 1.5 kilometres.

“From Day 1, we’ve been counting on these setbacks,” Geleynse said, scoffing at predictions the new setback will stop some wind projects. “I don’t think this is going to affect much of the wind development in Ontario.”

The proposed new regulations also set 40 decibels as the target noise level at the nearest dwelling. That should sound like a quiet office or library, according to officials.

“To exceed 40 decibels means you’re placing too many turbines too close to buildings,” says Geleynse.

York University professor Mark Winfield, an energy expert, says the large buffers could put affect wind projects in southern Ontario.

“It clearly complicates the deployment,” he says. “It means the locations these things can go into will be restricted.”

The proposed regulations fill in some blanks in the Green Energy Act, legislation aimed at boosting Ontario’s renewable energy production.

The proposed wind farm in North Gower would produce 20 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 6,000 homes.

But some local residents are concerned about the possible side effects caused by low frequency noise emitted from the turbines. They say a study shows those sounds — imperceptible to the human ear — may cause epilepsy, depression and other disorders.

It is a concern echoed by other community groups and is vigorously disputed by the wind industry.

Environment Minister John Gerretsen says the new setbacks, which increase the minimum buffer by 100 metres, are designed to deal with those concerns.

“Our position on that is that at 40 decibels we feel that the health and safety of people with respect to low frequency noise has been addressed,” he said in an interview. “So that’s what we’re going with.”

Prowind is leasing a four kilometre by eight kilometre swathe of farmland from “six or seven” farmers for the North Gower project, Geleynse says.

The farmers, who will continue to till the land, will be paid a percentage of the electricity generated by the turbines.

The North Gower wind farm is still undergoing a provincial environmental assessment. Once complete, the public can comment before the province makes a final decision on approval.

The public can comment on the proposed setbacks on Monday in Ottawa at the Tudor Hall on North Bowesville Road between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Proof Sheet]

Repairs to ditch threaten to drain west-end wallets
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Repairs+ditch+threaten+drain+west+wallets/1683271/story.html
Small group of resident, farmers fighting city over $700,000 bill



A small group of nearby homeowners and farmers have been slapped with most of a $700,000 bill from the City of Ottawa for the work, with one farmer facing a $31,000 assessment and several others left with bills of between $12,000 and $15,000.

The drainage basin includes the property of farmer Ron Mayhew, who fought a long battle with the Department of National Defence over his treatment at the hands of the elite military unit JTF2, whose base is next to his farm.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen



http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2009/06-11/02-ACS2009-ICS-WWS-0007%20-%20FINAL%20-%20Dowdall%20MD.htm

Ron Mayhew is the farmer on the lands next to DND who got the royal shaft from DND...they tapped his phone, tried to bully him off his land, followed him etc and he kept his composure throughout...we need more people like him to stand up to groups like DND.

It seems to me from reading this article that the group who should be getting the bill are DND and not the residents nearby. DND in messing with drainage on Mayhew's property, caused downstream problems on the Heron Lake estates lands.

[Dado]

Repairs to ditch threaten to drain west-end wallets
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Repairs+ditch+threaten+drain+west+wallets/1683271/story.html
Small group of resident, farmers fighting city over $700,000 bill

BY DAVID GONCZOL, THE OTTAWA CITIZENJUNE 10, 2009 10:45 PM

It's not hard to see why rural people get annoyed at the City at times with nonsense like this.

"The farmers and homeowners say they never asked the city to fix the Dowdall Drain, but the city contends that a picnic-table meeting between locals and city staff in 2005, about the regular flooding of a roadway in Heron Lake Estates, constituted an official petition. Residents say they were told nothing about expensive studies that were conducted over the last four years until they each received their shares of the bill last month."

Since when in the bureaucratic City of Ottawa does a picnic-table meeting constitute a petition, much less a rationale to actually do something? And what of the City's painful consultation process that it usually carries out before doing anything? Aaaah... I see the difference: the City does that when it might spend 'its' (i.e. taxpayers') money, but when it's going to spend your (i.e. residents') money, well, then it naturally doesn't need to consult anyone. Makes perfect sense, really.


What does the City want to do? Give Randy Hillier ammunition?

[Proof Sheet]

It's not hard to see why rural people get annoyed at the City at times with nonsense like this.

"The farmers and homeowners say they never asked the city to fix the Dowdall Drain, but the city contends that a picnic-table meeting between locals and city staff in 2005, about the regular flooding of a roadway in Heron Lake Estates, constituted an official petition. Residents say they were told nothing about expensive studies that were conducted over the last four years until they each received their shares of the bill last month."

Since when in the bureaucratic City of Ottawa does a picnic-table meeting constitute a petition, much less a rationale to actually do something? And what of the City's painful consultation process that it usually carries out before doing anything? Aaaah... I see the difference: the City does that when it might spend 'its' (i.e. taxpayers') money, but when it's going to spend your (i.e. residents') money, well, then it naturally doesn't need to consult anyone. Makes perfect sense, really.


What does the City want to do? Give Randy Hillier ammunition?

I'd love to see the meeting minutes of a 'picnic table' meeting:yuck:

This will give ammunition to the Carleton Landowners Association etc to defuse themselves from the rest of the City of Ottawa