WHEREAS at the time of publication the Ward Councillor comments section in the report stated that “The Councillor is aware of the application related to this report.”; and
WHEREAS the Ward Councillor provided updated comments which were mistakenly omitted from the final version;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Ward Councillor comments section be replaced with the comments attached as Document 1.
The Committee then received a slide presentation overview of the report from Ms Cheryl McWilliams, Planner III, Planning, Development and Building Services (PDBS) Department. A copy of this presentation is held on file with the Office of the City Clerk. Ms Christine Enta, Legal Counsel, Legal Services Department, was also present to respond to questions.
Committee then heard from the following delegations, as noted:
- John Blais* spoke against the report recommendations, and urged the Committee not to support this proposal. He commented that due to his property’s proximity to the quarry, his family had to deal with issues including blasting, machinery noise, dust and ‘flyrock’ (blast schrapnel). He spoke to the importance of alvars in terms of rarity and biodiversity of flora and fauna, and that despite assertions that damaged alvars could be rehabilitated, the timeframe for this to happen would be excessive.
- Beverly Blais+ introduced a video presentation (“Saving the Burnt Lands Alvar”) speaking to the uniqueness and biodiversity of the local alvar (defined as a rare biological environment based on a limestone plain, covered with a mix of sparse grassland vegetation, forest and sometimes bare rock) and the potential dangers to its flora and fauna that could result from expanded quarry operations. A link to this video is held on file with the Office of the City Clerk.
- Ms Ashley Struthers (Friends of the Burnt Lands) spoke in support of the preservation of the Burnt Lands Alvar and in opposition to quarry expansion. She offered that the need for expanded operation has not been sufficiently established and that remediation of the alvar would take too long. She added that by giving the area an original EP3 Zoning designation, the City has granted the area its highest protection, and further added that alvars are under threat. In conclusion, she recommended that the Committee reject the rezoning application.
- Ms Norma Moore spoke to the dangers of ‘flyrock’ (rock propelled beyond a blast site during quarry operations) and noted that it can be propelled in excess of 1,000 metres, at a velocity exceeding of 640 kph. She said she had reported dangerous flyrock incidents to the Ministry but that the Province had failed to follow up adequately. She reported that the quarry had been found to be in violation of its site plan, that inspections had been infrequent, that residents had suffered negative effects from the quarry’s asphalt operations and that area property values had been reduced as a result.
- Grant Edgar spoke to the need to protect alvars, and expressed concern with the City setting a precedent if the application were supported rather than challenged. He felt that Cavanagh had damaged the lands, which would require remediation; a position that Cavanagh had disputed, along with the notion that the subject lands were part of an alvar. He said that his property and the quarry were all a part of the same forested alvar, which he asserted had been damaged and should be restored to its original state.
- Ted Hendriks noted that despite Cavanagh having been a good neighbour for years, he has had to deal with the effects of blasting, which included a cracked septic tank and the sounds of police gunfire on part of the Cavanagh property that had been leased to the Ottawa Police Service as a gun firing range. He felt that matters would get worse, as problems could arise due to a draw on groundwater and asphalt plant operations in the quarry, potentially leading to a leaching of contaminants, which he said would be nearly impossible to remediate. He felt that governments have a responsibility to protect natural resources now and for the future.
- Dan Mayo said the report contained serious omissions. He noted that a record of Cavanagh violations and past records of non-compliance were relevant factors in whether to give a proponent approval of a development application, and felt that this was omitted from the report. He said that staff had failed to mention an Auditor General’s 2023 review of the Aggregate Industry which he said showed an abundance of non-compliance. He cited examples of a lack of enforcement, damage incurred to neighbouring properties due to quarry operations and the unlikelihood of industry compliance without enforcement. Asked that the City resist the appellant’s application.
- Ken McRae spoke of his opposition to the rezoning application and to issues of biodiversity, noting that he had documented over 100 plant species within the alvar. He disputed that rehabilitation would be undertaken at the conclusion of quarry operations, and that no site alteration had occurred. He reported that a 2016 site visit by a Bylaw Enforcement Officer had recognized significant site alteration, resulting in Cavanagh being directed to stop its operations and to remove a trailer, but that the Provincial Offences Act did not require Cavanagh to comply. He suggested that the significant site alteration that had occurred would take years to rehabilitate.
- Chuck Commanda, an Algonquin from Kitigan Zibi in Quebec and the grandson of Elder William Commanda, spoke to an indigenous perspective and to remind all who were present of their responsibility to be stewards of the land and waters. He said that the subject lands were home to many different examples of flora and fauna and were related through the spiritual interconnectedness of all things. He implored City Council and anyone involved with the rezoning application to consider the flora and fauna.
- The Applicant/Owner as represented by Messrs. Neal DeRuyder+, MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture / Thomas Cavanagh Construction Limited, and Pierre Dufresne, Cavanagh Communities, provided an overview of the application and responded to questions from Committee. A copy of their slide presentation is held on file with the Office of the City Clerk.
Written correspondence was also received from Ms Denise Elliott* in opposition to the report recommendations.
[ Individuals / groups, as marked above, either provided comments (*) in writing or by e-mail; all submissions and presentations (+) are held on file with the Office of the City Clerk. ]
Following questions to the delegations and to staff, and at the conclusion of Committee discussions, the report recommendations were put before Committee and were “Carried”, on a division of 3 ‘Yeas’ to 1 ‘Nay’ as follows: