|
Recommendation: That, on the
recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Planning, the following
actions be taken with respect to the application of Southside Group of
Companies, relating to the property located at 3804 South Winds Drive:
a) the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated November 26, 2013, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 3, 2013,
to amend the Official Plan to change the designation on Schedule “A” (Land
Use from Environmental Review to Open Space) and to change the delineation on
Schedule “B” (Flood Plain & Environmental Features from Potential
Environmentally Significant Area (Potential ESA) to Environmentally
Significant Area (ESA));
b) the
Approval Authority BE ADVISED that, at the public participation meeting of
the Planning and Environment Committee held with respect to this matter,
issues were raised with respect to the following:
i)
the
quantity and quality of the water supply;
ii)
the
encroachment into Environmentally Significant Areas;
iii)
the
compliance with the Provincial Policy Statement; and,
iv) flooding
concerns;
c) the
Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing
draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision, submitted by
Southside Construction Limited (File No. 39T-09503), prepared by Zelinka
Priamo Ltd., drawing No. SSD/LON/05-01, as red-line amended, which shows 17
single detached lots, a park block, a park and open space block served by two
local public streets, SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in the attached,
revised, Appendix "C";
d) the proposed by-law as appended to the
staff report dated November 26, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council
meeting to be held on December 3, 2013, to amend Zoning By-law No.
Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, as amended in part a), above),
to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM an Agricultural (AG1) Zone, a
Holding Agricultural (h-2•AG1) Zone, an Environmental Review (ER) Zone, a
Holding Open Space (h-2•OS4) Zone, and an Open Space (OS5) Zone TO a Holding
Residential R1 Special Provision (h. h( ).h( ).h( )•R1-14( ) Zone, to
permit single detached dwellings with a minimum lot area of 3000 square
metres (32,292 sq.ft.) and to an Open Space (OS5) Zone, to permit such uses
as conservation lands, conservation works, passive recreation uses which
include hiking trails and multi-use pathways and managed woodlots; it being
noted that the Holding (h) Provisions are to ensure that there is orderly
development through the execution of a subdivision agreement; to ensure the
proposed stormwater management system servicing this subdivision is
constructed and operational to the satisfaction of the City, to ensure
private individual sanitary disposal systems on each lot are installed in
accordance with applicable recommendations and in compliance with the overall
servicing strategy for this subdivision to the satisfaction to the City, and
to ensure private water wells on each lot are in compliance with the overall
servicing strategy for this subdivision to the satisfaction of the City;
e) the
“Estimated Claims and Revenues Report”, provided as Appendix ‘D’ to the
associated staff report, dated November 26, 2013 BE APPROVED; and,
f) the
Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back at a future meeting of the
Planning and Environment Committee on the cost of providing services, such as
water, to the subject lands;
it being pointed out that at the public
participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals
made oral submissions in connection therewith:
·
Richard
Zelinka, Zelinka Priamo Ltd. – expressing support for the staff
recommendation; indicating that this application has been worked on for quite
a long time; advising that this is a Rural Settlement Area; noting that it
does not require an Official Plan Amendment for the Rural Settlement
component; further noting that this is already part of the City of London’s
Official Plan; advising that the Official Plan amendment component of this
recommendation relates to providing details on the extent of the environmental
lands and the appropriate designations for those lands; indicating that the
planned function for these lands is, and has always been since before
annexation, has been Rural Settlement; advising that this designation intends
for there to be large lots on private services; reiterating that the
designation requires private services; noting that this is not an area where
the applicant can come forward and propose anything other than private
services; indicating that, through the initial public meeting, it was
identified that there are residences in the area that have had problems with
their own services, particularly with water and water wells in the area;
advising that, because of these problems, the City of London undertook a
rigorous review process; noting that this is one of the reasons for the long
delay that they have had in coming back; advising that the City was being
very cautious in its approach to this area; indicating that with the multiple
peer reviews, as there had to be a peer review every time new information was
brought forward by the applicant, it was peer reviewed by the City’s peer
reviewer for the hydrogeological information that was brought forward to
ensure that the lots that were being proposed are adequate for the private
services and to make specifications, particularly with respect to two points;
noting that one of the points is that the water wells are going to have to go
to the deep aquifer; advising that people on the shallow aquifer are having
problems and will have to go to the deep aquifer in this area, which will
support a 22 lot subdivision readily and tertiary treatments for sanitary
purposes on each of the lots; noting that this is not the conventional septic
system, but rather a tertiary treatment system which is a higher level of
treatment for each lot; having determined that these private services could
be supported on the original 22 lots, the applicant turned around and reduced
it to 17 lots so that there is an extra margin of comfort on this whole
matter; advising that the larger lots are also in keeping with the
surrounding area; identifying that Condition 90 in the proposed plan of
residential subdivision needs further discussion with the Fire Department and
staff; expressing concern with Condition 33 ii) as the statement is
self-contradictory in that the applicant is required to put in the cadillac
of tertiary treatment systems and, yet, this system requires there to be a
conventional footprint system on each lot as well; requesting that Condition
33 ii) be referred back to staff to allow them to have further discussion to
resolve that apparent inconsistency; expressing concern with Condition 54,
which is a Condition for the applicant to provide cash-in-lieu to cover the
cost of removing the cul-de-sacs at the edge of development for Street “A”
and South Winds Drive; noting that the applicant will have to remove the
cul-de-sac at South Winds Drive at his own expense; indicating that the
anomaly is that the two cul-de-sacs that are being built as part of this
subdivision do not lead into lands that are designated residential, do not
lead into lands that are designated Urban Reserve; advising that they lead
into Agricultural lands; indicating that there is no expectation, not just in
the near future, but not even for the long-term future of this municipality,
that those lands will go into residential development; reiterating that they
are asking that the cash-in-lieu for the removal of the cul-de-sacs be
removed from the Conditions; requesting that this be considered further by
staff before the Conditions are approved; advising that additional wells have
been drilled in this area; advising that reports have been completed
indicating that the deep aquifer has a tremendous volume of water; indicating
that the hydrogeotechnical reports demonstrate that, even with the 22 lots
that were originally proposed, the expectation is that the water level within
that aquifer would go down less than an inch at full usage; reiterating that
there has been additional work done, which, he believes, the residents were
concerned about; advising that the City required that the additional work be
done; advising that an Environmental Impact Study has been completed for the
stormwater management pond and there has been considerable attention paid to
the stormwater management outlet; indicating that the optimal route has been
identified through the study of this area; indicating that the stormwater route
will be an old tractor trail that goes down the side of the slope; advising
that this is the optimal route because it does not require major disturbance
of the slopes in this area; advising that the City of London and the Upper
Thames River Conservation Authority are requiring that there be an additional
study at the detailed design stage; noting that this stage is when the storm
outlet has all of the final engineering details and it also has to go through
an Environmental Impact Study as well to ensure that everything has been done
properly; advising that there is no requirement that all Environmentally Significant
Area lands be in public ownership; advising that all Environmentally
Significant Area lands in this area are all private ownership and a large
portion of those lands will remain in private ownership; advising that there
will be no lot lines differentiating the property from the Environmentally
Significant Area; advising that there will be clear monumentalization, as
required by the City, to ensure that there is a clear understanding of where
the Environmentally Significant Area starts; reiterating that this is not a
redesignation of Agricultural lands, this is a Rural Settlement Designation
that has been applied to this area since the lands were in the Township of
Westminster; reiterating that this is the intended use for these lands;
indicating that this area is being used as it is intended to be used, the
same as a huge portion of the lands in the urban areas within the City of
London are used; advising that fire services are provided at a different
level of service as there are no hydrants; advising that this is appropriate
for rural settlement areas; indicating
that the developer has reviewed the proposal, which is why it has taken so
long to come back; indicating that the applicant has reduced the number of
lots; and, reiterating that this application has been supported by staff, by
peer reviewers and by the consultants who provided the initial comments.
·
Joe
Liberatore, 3920 South Winds Drive – indicating that he was going to rehash
everything and go through the Notice process because very few of his
neighbours are represented here because of the inopportune way that they
received the Notices; advising that he received it by accident when he came
back from work; advising that they have a lawyer from McKenzie Lake, who is
representing one of the other owners who cannot be here because of illness;
reacting to what was said, when the comment was made about shallow wells
being lost, it was not a shallow well; noting that 113 feet is not a shallow
well; advising that it is a deep well and it was his well that was lost;
advising that, when the well was lost, the first thing he did was go to the
Ministry of the Environment; indicating that the Ministry of the Environment
advised him that all of the guidelines were met and there is nothing that can
be done; advising that he drilled a new well; advising that he drilled the
new well an extra 20 feet, at his own expense; enquiring as to what guarantee
is there, that when these 17 wells go in, that none of them are going to lose
their water again; indicating that the reference relating to the applicant
reducing the number of lots from 22 to 17, everyone is forgetting that the
area of the lots remains the same; indicating that the highest water use will
be in the Summer for irrigation purposes; noting that you will be using an
astronomical amount of water, the same as the 22 lots; indicating that the
reduction in lots from 22 to 17 does not alleviate all of their concerns
because it does not; indicating that at the last meeting, it was left that
they were going to get some kind of study from the former City Engineer;
noting that he was in contact with Mr. McNally; indicating that they were
looking at bringing in the cost of water for the residents that have been
there since the City of London’s tax grab when they were taken over from the
Town of Westminster; apologizing for his frank speaking; expressing
frustration that when you pay City taxes for 20 years and you have had no
improvements, except that they are allowed to gift wrap two bags of garbage a
week and deliver it to the street, that is the improvement that they have
received; indicating that they should be treated like any other tax payer in
the City; enquiring as to where the report from Mr. McNally is; realizing
that Mr. McNally is no longer here, but someone from the City should have met
with them, advised them of the cost and what the City can do; reiterating
that nothing has happened; and, advising that they then receive the Notice
advising of the public participation meeting on this matter.
·
Steve
Gibson, McKenzie Lake – indicating that the concern has always related to the
water supply; advising that when his client advised him of this public
participation meeting yesterday, he has had discussions with the City
representative; advising that he is looking to receive the peer study;
indicating that the information has not been provided to the landowners;
indicating that, at this point, the primary concern has not been answered as
to the supply and the quality of the water and the effects of the difference
between the number of lots, whether it is 17 or 22; advising that the
original objection about the water supply has not been answered to the
satisfaction of the residents along South Winds Drive.
·
Sandy
Levin, 59 Longbow Road – advising that he was one of the people who reviewed
the Environmental Impact Study; indicating that he has some questions and concerns
to try and clarify, particularly the redline changes, to see if they have
addressed some of the concerns; indicating that, it appeared, in the Environmental
Impact Statement, that the backyards of some of the lots included lands that
were designated Environmentally Significant Area; indicating that, even
though there are some conditions of approval regarding future tree removal,
encroachment into Environmentally Significant Area lands is very difficult to
enforce, as Members of the Committee know; indicating that Condition 21 on
Page 168 of the Planning and Environment Committee Agenda does not require
fencing; noting that, in the Condition, monumenting is sufficient; advising
that, this suggests to him that it still includes Environmentally Significant
Area lands, which makes it easier to encroach and also makes it more likely
that invasive species from those lots will end up in the Environmentally Significant
Area; expressing appreciation that there is a requirement for all subdividers,
who build adjacent to parts of the natural heritage system, to prepare a
booklet of educational material; reminding the Committee that the brochure
also come with lots of other material that new homeowners get; noting that it
is only in the hands of the new homeowner, not any future owners; advising
that work still needs to be done on how to make the information more readily
available, not only to the people immediately adjacent to the Environmentally
Significant Area, but also to those who enjoy them; realizing that there was
a discussion about this earlier today; advising that, with respect to the
Stormwater Management Pond, which also remains to be seen, another Environmental
Impact Statement is going to be required; enquiring as to why the
Environmental Impact Statements would not have been done at the same time; and,
indicating that it is not clear, at this point in time, whether the storm works
are also going to be located in the Environmentally Significant Area.
·
Valerie
M’Garry, 37 Milmanor Place, Delaware – see attached submission. (2013-D14A/D12)
|