Background

In 1991 in opposition to significant opposition from residents and environmental groups, the township of West Carleton approved a draft plan for a subdivision on the top and side of the Carp Ridge just north of the Thomas Dolan Parkway and Carp Road Intersection.  The plan allowed approximately 35 houses to be built.  After getting the approval, the original company, owned by the farmer that held the land, did not think they could make money on the project once they had satisfied environmental rules in place at that time, so nothing was done with the property.  The approval was kept alive until last year when the land was purchased by a professional developer who has activated the plan.

Significant work can be done on the site with only that draft approval including the building of roads and the clearing of trees. To get the full approval they need to get additional environmental tests done and approved by the City with the assistance of the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) who examine such studies for the City of Ottawa planning group.

This area is in the heart of the ridge and the questionof the impact of 35 homes, its residents and its cars, RVs and snowmobiles can only be imagined for the most part.  That being said, the water quality aspects of the project are the most troubling to local residents and there must be clear proof that their water supply will not be affected by this planned development. 

You would have to travel several kilometers to identify 35 homes in that area.  The subdivision would be a very large addition to the load on the environment.  According to Susan Murphy, an environmental impact specialist with the City of Ottawa ( susan.murphy@ottawa.ca ), any development on the land will require that the developer pay to have several significant studies done. The first study is an environmental impact statement that would identify the significant natural features and species of the area and describe the proponent's plans for ameliorating any damage to them.   This is underway (June 2004).

	Satellite image of Carp Ridge (Development area superimposed)

The second group of studies are a series of tests relating to the ground water in the area. This includes drainage in the underlying rock and the impact of new wells and the sewage systems of the homes that would be built on the area's groundwater.

These are underway and the following section describes where we are in process and how it may proceed. In the Development Information section you can find a document titled "Geology and Water on the Carp Ridge". It will help you to understand the complex hydrogeology of this area.

That's the good news.  The bad news is that with an old draft approval in place there are severe limits to how the current rules regarding environmental and water impact issues can be applied in this case.  Regardless of its age and the origin of that draft approval, its being in place means that both legal interpretations of the sales agreement and the planning staff's willingness and resources to examine the impact in depth have a huge influence on how much can be expected of the developer. As an example of how the City's planner and the City's legal staff view their constraints, they have ruled that   the most recent standards that can be applied are those of 1999.

Update 11 January 2005

The studies were completed by the developer's paid engineers and submitted to Jeff Ostafichuk, the City of Ottawa lead planner on this development in early December.  We have spoken to him and he has been very helpful and responded to each of our requests for information. ( jeffrey.ostafichuk@ottawa.ca , 580 2424  x31329).

The developer also submitted a draft revised site plan (the site plan shows exactly where he plans to place the houses and septics) and it is still of serious concern to local residents and the Carp Ridge Society's members.
Many of the lots appear to have too little usable ground for a safe installation of septic systems and the wetland habitat is still under extreme pressure.

The City passed the completed studies over to the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority ( http://www.mvc.on.ca/ ) for review.  Under the Planning Act, Conservation Authorities must be given notice of planning applications (unless they tell municipalities that they do not want to be circulated).  The MVCA has a specific Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Ottawa that details the types of applications they want to see and the areas, over and above natural hazards, that the MVCA   will provide expertise.   John Price is the Watershed Management Coordinator at the local MVCA and he can provide additional information on their mandate and resources (613) 259-2421 ( jprice@mvc.on.ca ). He kindly prepared a detailed description of how they will work on the Carp Ridge development and you can view it on this site.

Part of the land is up on the hard rock of the ridge itself and this cannot have housing or septic put on it. In addition, the areas that the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority has deemed to fall within the high water marks of the fish containing waters on the property must have a 30 metre setback (a protective distance within which no development can be done with the exception of infrastructure such as roads which are exempt from this protection) for any housing or septic.   We are very disappointed to learn that they deem the creek that passes from the pond across the property and out to the Carp River to be seasonal. Because of that the houses can be built 30 metres from the centre line of the creek.

That ensures that its natural character will be destroyed as it becomes part of peoples landscaping in each lot it crosses. It is in flood each spring and that water can't be let spread across a subdivision's lawns and gardens so it will be filled and shaped to accommodate the spring water. No longer will it spread into a substantial seasonal wetland that supports waterfowl, deer and other animals.

The MVCA has studied the developer's road plan for the site and concluded that they can be built without damage to the fish habitat.  We don't understand how filling the wetland for the roadbed and essentially damming the water flow at all points except a culvert under the road will not destroy the existing natural area forever.

The site plan for the housing troubled the MVCA and it appears that the developer has been asked to increase the setback around the pond. The work by the conservation authority had identified fish species in the waters of the pond which affords them increased protection. We will post more information on this when its available. For more information on this click on this link to a note from John Price.

The water studies that were done are intended to deduce if the development will have good wells and that those wells and the septic systems of the houses will not effect neighboring water quality and quantity before the approvals can be given and construction begin in earnest.  

This is a VERY disturbing issue as the developer's proof of neighbouring well safety is only be based on the result of several test wells drilled on his land.   His engineers have produced a "model" of how they predict the
water will behave below ground.  We have serious concerns over the details of these tests such as how far apart test wells were and whether they accurately portray the placement of wells in the subdivision. 

The MVCA's initial comments on the detailed hydrology and environmental studies were given to the city in December and the developer has been asked for more study and minor changes to his site plan to respond to the MVCA concerns.

This is a VERY disturbing issue as the developer's proof of neighbouring well safety is only be based on the result of several test wells drilled on his land.   His engineers have produced a "model" of how they predict the
water will behave below ground.  We have serious concerns over the details of these tests such as how far apart test wells were and whether they accurately portray the placement of wells in the subdivision.  Unfortunately we have no way of knowing.

The MVCA cannot release the study itself to the public because it is deemed the property of the developer who paid to have it done.   Anyone who takes issue with the MVCA's comments cannot have access to the basic facts with which they made their decision.   They can release only very specific data that supports their comments. Obviously this may be a major point of contention in this issue.

It appears that we must simply trust that the MVCA and the city's engineers hold the studies up to the strictest possible scrutiny. We have been assured by our own engineering consultants that this is a critical point. Much of the engineering is based on inherently imprecise models and the test work must be accurately calibrated to the eventual use of the site (do the test wells for example, accurately reflect the area's water table's ability to support the load that 30 homes could put on it in peak situations? 30 homes cooled by water source heat pumps as sprinklers water their lawns and washing machines and dishwashers purr away inside the houses would place an immense load on the water table).

Two city committees of volunteers are reviewing the studies. The Greenspace Advisory Committee and the Environmental Advisory Committee both are curretly looking over the developer's work. They have no real power but they do make recommendations to the city's planner. Again we can only hope they have enough sway to ensure that all these issues are addressed to our satisfaction.

The March Rural Association raised a relevant concern at an Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meeting.   They are greatly concerned each study for a proposed development is carried on in isolation from those that came bfore.   They want to see more connections being made. Is this the project that will break the proverbial camels back in the area of the development?   The next one ?

The City will have several options once these are submitted and they may be submitted by now.    They can turn down the package, they can approve the proposal and proceed with or without their forestry staff providing advice to the developer, or they can ask for more studies or site plan changes to ensure the development complies with the comments from the MVCA.   Its possible it could end with bargaining where particular trees or stands of trees are traded off to allow the jigsaw puzzle of lot layouts to be accommodated in a manner that still allows the development to proceed.   

Another possibility that would also depend on our councilor's support would be for the entire matter to be sent back to the City's Planning and Environment Committee of council.   They would study the issue and rule on a motion that would be determined before they took on the project. We have been advised by the planner that a return to Planning and Environment would only happen in exceptional circumstances.Its important to remember that the Planning and Environment Committee is not to be considered another level of the approval process that will see the case if the developer or the community are unhappy with a decision by the planners.   It can only get involved if a true environmental dispute is revealed.  

If our councilor Eli El-Chantiry ((613) 580-2475 ( Eli.El-Chantiry@ottawa.ca ) asks for it, the City can hold a public information meeting but we have been told this is more an opportunity for the City to explain process issues and progress than a venue for public input. Elli has ensured us there will be a meeting and we will post information on the site and notify anyone who has registered with us (link graham).

Mr El-Chantiri does not support our most firm recommendation for what should happen next. We want the city stop the development and use an established fund to compensate the developer. The money is set aside for exactly this kind of situation. Eli feels the planner and the the conservation authority working with the paid representatives of the developer should decide what risk our area is made to endure.

Allan Joyner
832-0901