To be filed at the Office of the City Clerk
City of Ottawa
December 9, 2004
APPEAL Concerning Amendment No. 16 to the Official Plan of the City of Ottawa
As moderator of the Kanata Forum (kanata-forum.ca) I have been supporting the development of
a natural heritage park for Ottawa. Such a park will preserve an outstanding Canadian Shield
forest located at what is presently the western urban boundary of the city. Most of the land is
owned by the city or is subject to agreements that will provide for city ownership, but some
components of the park are not properly connected together or have not yet been subject to
review. With that objective I wish to appeal the following sections of Amendment 16 to
the Ottawa Official Plan:
1) Section 2.1 which deletes Section 3.11 and any reference to it elsewhere in the Official Plan
2) Section 2.2( a) which amends Schedule "A" Rural Policy Plan of the Ottawa Official Plan by removing
the Special Study Area boundary and note as identified on Schedule "A" to Amendment 16.
3) Section 2.3 that amends Schedule "B" Urban Policy Plan of the Ottawa Official Plan by
a) removing the Special Study Area boundary and note
b) changing the designation of part of the land within the Special Study Area from a Natural Environment
Area to Urban Natural Features
d) changing the designation of the land on Lot 6 and Lot 7 to General Urban and associated Schedule "B"
to Amendment 16.
A - Any revisions to the Official Plan and Urban and Rural Policy Plans for lands lying to the east of the
unopened First Line Road
B - Any extensions to the Urban Boundary other than what is required to enclose lands that the Board
concludes should be designated as General Urban
The following are the general grounds for this appeal:
1) Most of the land within the Special Study Area consists of a large forest located on Lots 6 an 7. This
forest is important to water quality and flood control in the adjacent Carp River, and to air quality and water
quality in the Kanata region of Ottawa. It should be subject to provincial and Official Plan controls
relating to retention of significant forests, maintenance of forest cover, achieving connectivity of green
spaces, and any revisions should be subject to the policies laid out in Ottawa's Official Plan including
Section 2.1 Maintaining Environmental Integrity bullets 2-4 (p.16); Section 2.4 bullets 2-5 para.2, p.34;
Section 2.4.2 and Section 2.4.5 particularly sections a) i) and b)
2) Given that Lots 6 and 7 comprise the majority of the lands in the Special Study Area, no valid rationale
has been provided for designating any of this ecologically important area as urban. A recent report "Where
Will We Live" does not support the need for this additional development area, and the public reviews that
formed part of the Study did not support such a change
3) I have appealed the neighbouring development (Official Plan Amendment No. 77 to the Official Plan
of the former city of Kanata). Because the escarpment comes close to the eastern edge of the Special Study
Area both of these amendments need to be adjusted to provide for adequate connectivity for flora and fauna.
The studies carried out by Brunton for both areas show that there are important ecological features that
should be protected.
4) The change of these lands to urban will have impacts on water, wastewater and transportation services.
As noted in 3) above I have appealed the neighbouring Kanata Official Plan amendment No. 77 and one
of the grounds for that appeal relates to inadequate transportation studies. Ref. Section 5.2.2 Policy 1 c).
5) The drawings that form part of Schedule A and Schedule B are incorrect, but the City has not responded
to my request for accurate drawings, and it has not provided adequate means for the public to review
and make presentations on what is proposed in Amendment 16. I am particularly concerned that the
confirmation of Terry Fox Drive as the urban boundary may result in the inclusion, without specific mention,
of a portion of the City owned South March Area within the urban boundary. If that is so we object on the
grounds that no such inclusion was identified in the reports.
6) I appeal the parts of Amendment 16 listed above and such other and further grounds as I may
advise and the Ontario Municipal Board may permit.
Ronald W Tolmie