ARAC Meeting Sept 4 Concerning Appointing of an Engineer to Review Application for Kizell Drain Connection

ARAC Meeting Sept 4 Concerning Appointing of an Engineer to Review Application for Kizell Drain Connection
Posted on August 29, 2014 | Paul Renaud | Written on August 29, 2014
Comments

Members of the Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee,
 
I am writing to register my objection to your possible approval of this upcoming agenda item on the basis that appointing a consultant is premature and to request that you vote against it for the following reasons:

  1. Any such approval contravenes the City’s promise not to process any approvals concerning KNL’s SWM plans prior to the publishing and public review of (a) the Phase 2 AECOM Report and (b) KNL’s revised Master Servicing Plan for its apparently unsustainable development proposal in the South March Highlands.  This promised has been repeatedly been communicated to the public on behalf of City Council by Marianne Wilkinson.  Approval of a consultant is the first approval in the approvals process and is off-side of this promise.
  2. Proceeding to evaluate an application to connect a SWM system to Kizell Drain in the absence of an approved Master Servicing Plan is piece-mealing of the approval process in contravention of the Planning Act.  The Master Servicing Plan should be approved first, in a top-down manner, followed by phase by phase plans requiring approval under either the Planning Act or any other legislation such as the Muni Drains Act.  KNL should be required to revise and publish its Master Servicing Plan first in accordance with its obligations under the Planning Act.
  3. KNL’s conditions of subdivision development require it to communicate its plans to the public prior to commencing any phase of development – this includes the revised Master Servicing Plan which was found by the City’s independent AECOM Phase 1 review to contravene its development approvals.  KNL has not performed this public consultation and should not be permitted to circumvent its conditions of subdivision development.
  4. KNL’s conditions of subdivision approval require compliance with the MoE’s CoA and KNL is currently in non-compliance of that instrument for its existing phases of development.   KNL should be obligated to fix its current mess first before proceeding further.  Consequently, MoE authorization for how KNL’s existing phases of development will be brought into compliance is required prior to any further planning action on the part of the City.
  5. To the extent that KNL’s unpublished and unapproved plans require modification to Beaver Pond dam, according to OReg 454/96, a prior approval of plans and specifications for these changes is required under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement At by the MNR.  The LRIA regulations govern any modification to a dam even if it is part of a muni drain.  According to the MNR Area Supervisor, neither the City nor KNL has filed such an application.  Why waste taxpayer’s money on evaluating a proposal which may fail to meet MNR approval?

 In view of the above, any expenditure required to hire a consultant is premature until such time as KNL operates in compliance with the Planning Act, its Conditions of Subdivision Development, and is Certificate of Approval for SWM for existing facilities.  Instead, this money would be better applied to the City’s funding envelope for acquiring environmentally sensitive land, or alternatively, remain unspent in this fiscal year for the benefit of the taxpayers who will soon be voting on your re-election.
 
With Fortitude,

Paul Renaud
City of Ottawa Resident

About The Author

Paul is a local high-tech executive, field naturalist, and is well-known as an environmental spokesperson for the Coalition to Protect the South March Highlands. He is also an active supporter of indigenous rights... More