Transcript: Quarry Expansion Approved Amid Concerns - Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales — le 5 mars 2026 | Summary 612

Quarry Expansion Approved Amid Concerns - Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales — le 5 mars 2026

Sound check. One, two, three, four, five. Sound check. 1 2 3 4 5 Sound check. 1 2 3 4 5 this thing. One, two, three. Test. Test. Check. Check. One, two, three. Good morning everyone and welcome to the March meeting of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and welcome to all those in person and online. I'll ask the committee coordinator to call the role please. Councelor Kitz here. Councelor Ruof. Councelor Skowski here. Vice Chair Kelly present. And Chair Brown, I'm here. You have corner, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Chris. This is a public meeting to consider the proposed comprehensive official plan and/or zoning bylaw amendments listed as items 4.1, 6.1, 7.1, and 7.2 on today's agenda. For the items just mentioned, only those specifically identified in the planning act who make oral submissions today or written submissions before the amendments are adopted may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In addition, the applicant may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal if council does not adopt an amendment within 90 days of receipt of the application for a zoning bylaw amendment and 120 days for an official plan amendment. To submit written comments on these amendments prior to their consideration by city council on the 11th of March, 2026, please email or call the committee or council coordinator. Are there any declarations of interest? Seeing none, uh, confirmation of our minutes, uh, from our meeting of Thursday, February 5th are the minutes of the Ara meeting of Thursday, February 5th, confirmed. Thank you. Item 4.1, official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment 635 and 891 Jeninson Road. There is a presentation and do have delegations. We've also received uh several pieces of correspondence. I'll ask city staff to come up. I believe there's a presentation. No. Thank you very much. And before we get into the presentation, General Manager Wallace, I believe you asked for a moment. Thank you, Chair. I just want to um apologize uh to the committee um the residents who have a strong interest in this file and the applicants for the procedural delays and confusion that has happened over the last few meetings. Um service excellence is something we pride ourselves at the city of being a core value and this has not been a great example of that but I want to assure you that we've made some process changes and uh we will work very hard to avoid this in the future. No, thank you very much for that and I appreciate the uh the opportunity to address that publicly. All right, the team will have go through the presentation and then we'll go into public delegations. So thank you very much. Good morning, chair and committee. Uh, so my name is Cass Gazero. I'm the file lead for this official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment application. Um, I'm a little under the weather today, so I apologize if I'm if I cough or anything. Uh so I'm going to give a short presentation here to outline the existing uh zoning and official plan designations and overlays that are applicable to the site. And I'm also going to outline the proposed amendments to the official plan and zoning bylaw. Uh and given the somewhat complex history of official plan amendments and the associated technical errors related to those amendments, I'm also going to give a brief summary of the previous amendments that are relevant to or that have had an impact on the current proposal. Uh, next slide, please. So, as the slide says, this is a location map. It's a 2025 aerial photo from GIO Ottawa showing the location uh of 635 and 890 Jeninson Road. And I apologize for the color. Um, you can see that the the two parcels are outlined in yellow uh sort of at the bottom half of the site. It's the parcel that looks like a quarry. So, 635 is the parcel on the right. Uh it's sort of a a bootshaped parcel and 8.90 is the parcel on the left and it's uh sort of a upside down L. Uh they're both owned by RW Tomlinson Limited and are part of Tomlinson's current and future Stitzville Corey. Uh so for the purposes of the uh the presentation I'm going to and and for the purposes of reviewing the application, I consider the two parcels as one uh contiguous parcel of land and I'll just refer to it throughout the presentation as the site. So the site is located just west of Stitzville and you can see Stitzville is visible in the upper right hand corner of the map image. The western limit of the urban boundary corresponds with the western limit of Stitzville. Highway 7 runs parallel to the northern limits of the site. And at the very top of the map image, uh you can see a small portion of the Highway 7 and Highway 417 interchange. And there's a a line that you can faintly see running diagonally sort of through the right along the bottom of this site uh kind of up toward the east. Uh and that is the Ottawa Carlton Trailway portion of the TransCanada Trail. Uh as you can see from the image, mineral extraction operations at the Corey are well established on the western half of 890 Jenson Road and continue further west to 91156 Jenson Road. Next slide, please. So to facilitate expansion of the Stitzville quarry, RW Tomlinson is proposing an OPA and ZBA for the portions of 635 and 891 Jeninson Road that will be licensed for mineral resource extraction under the aggregate resources act or the ARRA. And my apologies I uh so I'm just going to refer to the official plan amendment as OPA zoning by amendment as ZBA for the folks listening. So the size of the area proposed for the ARRA license is 117 hectares in total. The extraction area occupies 106 hectares and a buffer area will occupy 11 hectares of land and that's going to go around the perimeter of the extraction area and the limits of the ARRA license area. The buffer will surround the portions of the future extraction area that are not adjacent to existing quarry operations and it will uh be adjacent to the uh wetland on the eastern portion of the property. In order to obtain the ARRA license, among other things, the lands must be reszoned for mineral extraction. Various schedules to the official plan also require amendments to facilitate the license. Schedule B9 to the OP will be amended to add the bedrock resource overlay to the site. And schedules C11A and C11B will be amended to remove the natural heritage features overlay from portions of the site. And next slide, please. So this is a a site detail map and again I've taken it from GIO Ottawa. It shows the portions of the site that are subject to the OPA and ZBA applications and also shows the current zone boundaries, the overlays and designations and the various OP schedules. So the area that is outlined in orange sort of yellow on the screen shows the portion of the site that is actually subject to the ARRA license. Uh the red lines delineate the various zones that are on the site. The darker green areas uh represent I guess on the screen I'm sorry it's a lighter uh almost light blue area um represent the natural heritage features overlay and the blue area represents wetlands. the wetland area on the south of the site within the site boundary is not a proincially significant wetland. Um so the geoa layer does show it as a as a proincially significant wetland or PSW uh which I'll explain a bit later in the presentation. Uh but just because of the layer on Geo Ottawa um I've noted that the blue areas are uh proincially significant and non-significant wetlands. Uh the wetland areas uh to the east of the site, south of the site, and then the little portion north of Highway 7 are part of the proincially significant Goldburn wetland complex. And the black hatched area represents the bedrock resource overlay. Next slide, please. Uh this image is an excerpt of schedule B9 to the OP and shows the site outlined in red. Uh the amendment to schedule B9 will add the bedrock resource overlay to the site corresponding with the area in red. And so that black hatched area that you see on the map is the existing bedrock resource overlay. Um and so the applicant is proposing to uh amend B9 to add the overlay to that area outlined in red. Next slide please. Uh so this map is an excerpt of schedules C11A and C11B to the official plan. Uh the schedules themselves are two separate maps uh showing natural heritage system west and the natural heritage system south. uh but in this case the site appears on both of those maps uh and therefore both schedules require the amendment. The natural heritage features overlay on the site is shown in green and is proposed for removal from within and just outside of the site area. Um you can see it there sort of where the triangle of of the uh the site is and then there's a very very small portion um on the east side of the site which is not visible in the map from from this size. uh the significant designation uh pardon me the significant wetland designation uh should not be showing the map where it appears on the site uh because of a previous official plan amendment but also a technical error um and I'll explain that in the last slide um next slide please and the zoning um is shown here on the map so there's multiple zones on the site uh there's me uh RU which is royal countryside and pardon M me is mineral extraction. Um there's a very small portion of environmental protection zone at the top of the site. Um it kind of crosses over highway 7. And then there's a mineral extraction zone uh subject to the holding or rural exception number one, pardon me, and subject to a holding provision. Uh the holding symbol uh applies only to the permitted uh mineral extraction use. The holding symbol may only be removed by amendment to the bylaw upon compliance with a completed application made to the province for a license to extract mineral aggregates and an approved environmental impact statement uh approved by the city uh submitted when the proposed mineral extraction operation is adjacent to land zone EP3 or environmental protection zone or lands that are designated rural natural feature in the official plan. And so the uh proposed zoning bylaw amendment is or shall reszone all of the lands within the ARRA license area to just an ME zone. So we're lifting the hold um and uh reszoning rural countryside and EP3 to ME. And the last slide uh or sorry next slide please. Okay, so this is a summary of all the previous OPAs uh that the site was subject to as well as the proposed OPAs. And once again, I apologize the colors are not great here. Uh so the area outlined in or delineated by the black line is the proposed official plan amendment to schedule B9 to add the bedrock resource overlay to the site. the areas outlined in green uh which corresponds with the big globular shape uh in the triangle area and then um on the east of the site there's a little uh kind of a sliver adjacent to uh the irregular uh site boundary. Those are two uh natural feature areas and the proposed OPA uh related to those areas is to amend schedule C1A and C1B to remove the natural heritage features overlay. Uh so the next two um map areas are related to past official plan amendments and they explain a bit of the um uh the what I've touched on earlier in the presentation related to uh significant wetlands designations still being on the site. So the area that is in blue uh corresponds with uh a wetland area on site which has previously had proincially significant status but uh that status has been removed um and through an OPA uh OPA 5 uh should have been removed from schedules uh C1A and C11B. So, as I note there on the site, um, oh, and and pardon me, also the, uh, green space designation, uh, also on, uh, schedule B9 was also supposed to be removed through OPA 5. Uh, OPA 5 was approved. Um, unfortunately, the green space and and the, uh, natural heritage features over, pardon me, it's a very complicated history. So the the green space and the significant wetlands were not removed from B9 uh C11 or C1A or C1B. Uh OPA 46 was an omnibus OPA uh proposing technical amendments to correct the errors from OPA 5. Um so some background on OPA 5. uh OPFI was a technical amendment to the new official plan to implement an uh Ontario land tribunal decision related to a previous official plan amendment which amended the old official plan. So OPA and and that was OPA 240. So OPA 240 was approved by city council in February 2020 and initially imposed the significant wetlands overlay over various portions of the area around the Goldburn wetland complex including the southern wetland on the subject property. The decision was appealed by the owner and others. Uh however, prior to the OOLT hearing in late 2021, uh Nick Stowe from the city of Ottawa, and Mr. Stow is a licensed wetland evaluator, uh submitted a letter to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry recommended that the recommending that the western and southern wetlands be removed from the provinially significant Goldburn wetland complex. The recommendation was based on the findings of Mr. Stow and Fergus Nickel who is also a certified wetland evaluator. The MNRF accepted the recommendation as did the Ontario Land Tribunal with respect to the lands that were subject to the appeal. So the OOLT decision resulted in amendments to OPA official plan amendment 240 which excluded the southern wetlands from the lands being included under the significant wetland designation. because the OOLT decision was rendered after the new OP was adopted. OPA5 followed in September 2023 to implement the OOLT decision. So I'm sure you can all follow everything that I just said and I can quiz you on it later. So uh so because pardon me. So OPA uh oh and I guess we'll get on to the next one. So that now that that's all been clearly explained. Uh so the next area on the uh on the map there is a very pale yellow shaded area and that is uh that's related to OPA 28 and that shaded area corresponds with uh those two areas that are outlined in green uh that are proposed to be removed from the natural heritage features overlay. Uh so OPA uh 28 was approved by council on September 28th, 2024 and would have removed and actually pardon me remove the significant wetland designation from that western wetland area. So that's the large kind of globular area. Um and that was per the 2021 recommendation of Mr. Stow and also remove the significant wetland designation from the smaller uh piece that's outlined in green uh adjacent to the um the license area. Uh OPA28 also added the natural heritage features overlay to the wet western wetland area and removed it from the eastern wetland. Technical errors following both OPA 5 and OPA 28 resulted in schedules B9, C11A, and C11B not actually being updated to reflect all of the associated approvals. Uh so to be clear, council approved the removal of the significant wetland designation um from all three of the wetland areas on the site, but the maps were never updated to reflect that approval. Um, oh, OPA 46 was approved by council on June 25th, 2025 and contain recommendations for technical amendments to correct the errors from OPAs's number five and 28. Portions of the OPA are still under appeal. However, none of the appeals are related to the technical amendments uh affecting the subject property. So, that concludes the presentation. Um, if there's any questions, thank you very much. We do have five delegations. So, I'm going to invite Mike Wesley, no stranger to the committee, to come head down. You've got five minutes, Mike. Good morning. No, you just have to hit the button at the bottom there, Mike. There you go. Now you're live. All right. Mike Wesley, 7176 Flu Allen Road, Stitzville. Been there 56 years. Um, my issue here is drainage. I want to know if the uh pumping is going to be putting water into flowing creek again as previous uh waters were put and uh if flowing creek is selected then I have a problem. We have enough drainage issues not corrected for years. We don't need more. 2005 the city of Ottawa designates 60 property owners PSW in our area. You don't flood private properties then designate them PSW. And that's what looked like going happening here all the time. I showed Mr. Crocker the owner of the 1000 acres across from me 7 by 50 foot culvert under Fernbank Road. He saw firsthand the amount of water being dumped onto his property without permission from the north. He then called in an excavator in two 2023 2024 that covert got enlarged to 12 feet in diameter or 12 feet wide. Anyways, June 5th, 2005, a huge diversion ditch was excavated over top of a little handdog overflow ditch on the Crocar property. He want to get rid of the water that's being dumped onto them. Connley flu and area now gets 10 times more water than normal because of the diversion as per Robinson consultants report 2006. Culver underfluon road colony was enlarged overwhelming downstream culverts causing flooding and water to back up onto our properties mine mine included. If the original drainage area of upper flowing creek were restored and the diversion blocked up, the base flow in the Conley roadside ditch should be reduced significantly or cease altogether. This is in the Robinson consultant report that the city of Ottawa hires. Terry Hail and I tried to have Flowing Creek made into a municipal drain system but failed due to runaway costs. Lauren Franklin told Terry and I a $250,000 engineer. It it would cost us $250,000 to get between Flewellen and Fernbank cleaned out. And the engineer engineer report came in at 3.5 million. The petitioners that I had signed up in the area, they just couldn't handle the costs. And why should they get have to pay to get rid of other people's water? Plus, they had no they gave no permission for all this water to be dumped onto their properties. So, that's where I have an issue with the Tomlinson group. Uh I I just need to know where the water is going to go. If it's going to go down our way, these drains have got to be corrected and corrected. Now, I've had the city out many many times showing them the flooding issues. They've agreed with me. the culvert under Flu Allen Road dumping water onto the smaller culverts downstream. They can't handle it. So, the water backs up, floods my neighbors properties, then floods mine. Well, I spent thousands of dollars burming my property up and long hours of labor doing all this. The city's done nothing but make things worth with larger culverts up against smaller culverts and flooding private properties. the these this stuff's got to change. That's all I've got to say. All right. Thanks, Mike. We can't pose questions to the applicant now, but we can certainly hold those questions and I can ask them uh when the time's appropriate. So, that's after the public delegations. Oh, yeah. And I've kept you up to speed yourself on all this. And you've done a great job. And nothing's been done. I appreciate you coming out, Mike. Thanks. Thank you. Next we have Ken McCrae. Is Ken here today? Oh, there he is. Welcome, Ken. Good morning. Morning. You've got five minutes. Thanks for coming today. I brought a little something here for you to see. That's a midland painted turtle. That's the remains of it after Thomas and drained their uh small wetland on the uh property next to the Lafarge property line. I sent an email to all members of council on September 17, 2024 opposing the re-evaluation of the western wetland and Tomlinson's proposed stitzville quarry on Jenson Road. The re-evaluation of the western wetland and the natural environment report and environmental impact study carried out by WSP Canada, Inc. and the revised report done by Cambrian are both seriously flawed. They both failed to report the presence of a of this small wetland on the westerly side of Tomlinson's property adjacent to the Leafarge property. How did they miss this wetland? When they had a breeding bird station at or very close to it. And in their breeding bird surveys, it states, "These surveys were completed using a combination of point count surveys and walking transexs. Each survey location consisted of a 50 meter radius circum circular plot with an additional 50 meter radius buffer, i.e. a total of 100 meter radius. A list of all species was compiled and the locations of any species at risk were marked using a handheld GPS. That's a quote from their study. So, how did they miss seeing this wetland and its threatened species at risk landings turtle and midland pated turtles? Incompetence or corruption? They also missed many other species, including at least three species of minnow, Johnny Darter, uh, Brooks Dickleback, and central mud minnow. At least 17 species of birds, at least 16 insect species, at least two mammals, porcupine and beaver, and at least 33 plant species. The WPS study and Cambrian study say no blanding turtles or evidence of nesting was identified on the site or in the study area during targeted surveys following M&RF protocols. No bllandage turtles or evidence of nesting by any species of turtle have been seen on the site by WPP WSP, formerly Golders staff in the 10 plus years that biological monitoring has been occurring in the wetlands and terrestrial habitats on the site. So, they're saying they covered all of the site, which is obviously a lie, or they would have seen the Blandings and Midland painted turtles wetland. Also, I found two baby Midland painted turtles in the wetland after Tomlinson drained it as proof that nesting around that wetland does, or at least did occur. The natural environment report and environmental impact study should be redone by an independent consultant selected by the city. One minute with input from the MR and MECP with Tomlinson paying for the consultant. Perhaps have our VCA staff do it. That wet wetland could be restored by filling in that Thomas and narrow drainage ditch and having several water tankers drive in on the nearby road approximately 200 meters from the wetland and use hoses to pump their water into that wetland. Moving on to the staff report on page 19 at the beginning under the provincial policy statement sections it states staff have reviewed this po proposal and have determined that it is consistent with the provincial policy statement. I disagree with that statement in that section 4.1 of the provincial policy statement states development of site alteration shall not be pres per permitted in fish habitat or in the habitat of endangered and threatened species except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. Tomlinson has not complied with PPS requirements. They intent I'll just get you to wrap up. They intentionally destroyed the habitat of at least three minnow species and killed them. They also destroyed the habitat of threatened species at risk landings turtles and may have killed some. Tomlinson doesn't have an authorization from the Minister of DFO allowing Tomlinson to legally destroy the fish habitat that this wetland provided and to kill this fish that were in it. Ken, yeah, I'm going to call time there. Okay. Thank you very much for coming out. Colleagues, are there any questions for the delegate? Seeing none, thank you very much for coming out today. Thank you. Our next delegate is Sarah Hassnack from Ontario Nature. I believe Sarah is online. We can just promote Sarah, please. Good morning, Sarah. Good morning. All right, you have five minutes. The floor is yours. Thank you very much and and good morning again Joe Chill Brown and and members of committee and and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Uh my name is of course Sarah Hassanak and I'm the conservation campaigns coordinator for Ontario Nature. Uh and as you'll know from our past presentations, Ontario Nature is a registered charity that protects wild species and wild spaces through conservation, education, and public engagement. We represent over 150 member groups across the province, including the friends of Stitzville Wetlands, who of course you'll also be hearing from today. In short, I'm here to recommend that you reject the official plan and zoning bylaw amendments facilitating the proposed expansion of the Tommensonville quarry. Uh, and instead I'm asking you to prioritize protecting the incredibly valuable wetlands present at the site. Uh, as you know, two of these wetlands were previously considered part of the proincially significant Goldborn wetland complex. Of course, they lost this provinially significant status and the strict protection it provides following a decision at the Ontario Land Tribunal and re-evaluation of certain areas under the weakened Ontario wetland evaluation system. Despite changes to their formal designation though, these wetlands are incredibly important to protect. The wetlands and other natural areas at this site support over 350 plant and animal species, including several species at risk and their habitats, making a clear case for protecting them from a biodiversity perspective. But in addition to the biodiversity value, these wetlands provide significant benefits to the surrounding communities. One wetland on the property received the highest possible score for its ability to mitigate floods when it was re-evaluated, indicating that it has an important role in preventing those floods in nearby communities and properties. This is an increasingly critical service as climate change drives worsening flood risks in Ottawa and across southern Ontario. The need to take action to prevent and prepare for floods is also emphasized throughout the city's climate resilience strategy and reflected in comments from the 2024 rural summit shared at the February 5th meeting of this committee and by Mr. Wesley just moments ago. Projecting these wetlands for their flood mitigation value would align with those commitments to climate resilience and to addressing rural residents concerns. This same wetland also received the maximum score for its contributions to groundwater recharge. Another critical service given how many of Ottawa's rural residents rely on groundwater. And the importance of this service for the community is also reflected in several comments summarized in the staff's report expressing concerns about how this proposal may affect groundwater. The staff report acknowledges that if approved, the expansion of this quarry would result in the loss of all natural features on the site. Of course, all the benefits that these wetlands currently provide for people and for nature would also be lost and they would be very expensive to replace. Multiple studies from other parts of Ontario have established that protecting existing wetlands is far less expensive than replacing just their storm water services alone with built solutions. This is especially true when the ongoing maintenance and operational costs of built solutions is taken into consideration. I also want to challenge the narrative that this project will only have short-term implications on the natural features and that a no net loss approach premised on the eventual eventual rehabilitation of the quarry at the end of its life provides meaningful compensation for the losses incurred. There doesn't appear to be any set timeline for when operation of the Cory expansion might be complete, meaning that final rehabilitation efforts meant to compensate for the losses of these natural areas would be occurring at some unknown future date, resulting in an undeniable net loss in the meantime. The final rehabilitation can also be expected to create a different type of ecosystem than what is currently there there due to the lasting impacts of aggregate extraction and challenges of uh rehabilitating uh exact ecosystems. One minute. So even when final rehabilitation does occur, it will be more like losing an apple and then possibly waiting decades before being given an orange to replace it. The orange isn't inherently bad, uh, but it certainly isn't the same thing, and it certainly doesn't make up for the years, uh, waited without either. This is why I'm asking you to reject the, uh, proposed amendments enabling the Corey expansion. Given the existing wetland's significant contributions to uh issues of public interest, including uh safety from floods and environmental well-being, the provincial planning statement does empower the city to prioritize other uh land uses over aggregate operations. So, it's my hope that you'll take this opportunity to make protecting these wetlands for the long-term benefit of people, plants, and animals that depend on them your utmost priority. Uh thank you very much. Thank you very much, Sarah. always appreciate you taking the time to delegate at committee. I'm not seeing any questions from my colleagues, but thank you again for coming out and delegating today. Our next delegate is Janet Stvinga, former mayor of Gilburn Township and City Councelor. Janet, welcome. Thank you very much, chair. I'm here today in another capacity. I'm the president and co-founder of the Friends of Stits and Wetlands, and I'm joined today by our vice president, uh, Bruce Dudley. We are a volunteer-driven, community- based not for-p profofit or corporation dedicated to the protection, the restoration, the regeneration, and rewing of the ecologically significant and the fragile global wetland complex. Our supporters are from Stitzville, Western Ottawa, and across this province. We had hoped today to share a different message with you, one that showcased successful collaboration with the private sector, but unfortunately we cannot. Consequently, we echo the comments from our partner Ontario Nature and we request that you reject the official plan and the zoning bio amendments that allow for the expansion of stit 2 quarry for all the reasons outlined moments ago. Wetlands are increasingly being recognized as ecological powerhouses and none too soon. These vibrant and diverse ecosystems are havens of biodiversity, including many species at risk. They help reduce climate change by storing large amounts of carbon, and they support healthy communities by providing a range of natural infrastructure known as ecosystem services. Yet the findings of the proponent's documentation and accepted by staff are that through mitigation measures and a rehabilitation plan there are no negative impacts are anticipated on the areas of significant woodlands, non-proventially significant wetlands and the adjacent provinially significant wetlands. Yet these narratives are false. When making a decision today, you'll be engaging a significant trade-off and you should not be deliluded. You'll be sacrificing innumerable ecosystem services provided by wetlands and significant woodlands for generations to come. If you could switch to the next slide, please. The significant wetlands, a band around the western wetland, which was formerly designated as a PSW, was once covered this property. This tract of significant woodlands was removed in the winter of 2012 well before 2013 and the approval of the site plan control application for the ashvalt plant and the registration of that agreement on title in February 2014. Yet this remnant portion of significant woodlands is an intact mature mixed conifer forest of cedar spruce and pine. Some cedars in the wetland buffer are likely a hundred years old. These significant woodlands continue to serve as an excellent wildlife corridor in the summer and winter and a travel corridor. The ecological loss of these significant woodlands along with what was once present is irreplaceable. The destruction of the western and southern wetlands and the resulting release of stored carbon along with the removal of the opportunities for future carbon sequestration also contradict the city's recently adopted climate ready Ottawa strategy and the priority areas including building resilient communities and natural environment. Also, do not take comfort in the 30 meter buffer around the eastern portion of the Goldburn wetland complex. Science is telling us that wetland buffers should be increased to ensure they meet fundamental ecological requirements. We're looking at 120 to 150 m, not 30 m. Just over a month ago, in honor of the World Wetlands Day, the Nature Conservancy of Canada announced that it had safeguard 91 hectares of its marble forest wetland in the southern reaches of Ottawa through the federal ecological gifts program. We understand the city was involved in this exciting initiative. Yet today the committee is considering a report that will destroy wetlands and the vibrant and diverse ecosystems which are havens of biodiversity. Further although the proponents report identified significant wildlife habitats on site, they did not assess the broader landscape travel impacts the broader level impacts of disrupting wildlife quarters that connect these habitats to the wider wetland complex. Documentation from the proponent notes blanding turtles habitat yet none were cited. However, we know blanding turtles are present. These findings were communicated to the proponent. We recommended further targeted studies for species known to be present in the broader wetland complex but not identified in the initial assessment including blanding stles eastern metalark and boba link. We also recommend that additional information be required as to the proponent proposed proposed mitigation strategies. Regrettably, these observations and our recommendations were dismissed. Again, science is leading the way. Environmental DNA or Edna has become an important tool for tracking the potential occurrence of rare or endangered species that may be elusive or scarce that regular sampling or monitoring will not pick up. It's particularly valuable in areas with fragmented wetlands. The project area also encompasses an Alvar ecosystem. Again, this is not noted in the supporting documentation. Do not be persuaded that the final rehabilitation of the mineral aggregate operation will negate any negative impact. Again, science is telling us that current restoration practice fails to recover original levels of wetland restoration functions even after many decades. Should you choose to support this application, we ask for your support in making the following requests for Tomlinson to build community confidence. One is to re-engage the Francesa wetlands. Two, to establish a community-based working group. three to explore involvement in a local approach for assessing carbon uh carbon storage. Time precludes us from speaking to these requests in detail, but we have provided councelor Brown with a more wholesome understanding of our request and well in advance. We look forward to responding to any questions that the committee may have. Thank you. Thank you very much, Vice Chair. Thank you very much, chair. Thank you for being here today, Janet. Um obviously, this is something you're very passionate about and dedicated to, which I admire. Um and and I your last comment about you know should the committee um support this and I I believe that the application um does have support here today but so let's let's chat about um that last comment in terms of continued engagement with the community um with friends of the Stitzville wetlands. How do you see that moving forward? What would you like to see in terms of an ongoing relationship or dialogue and what would be the goal? Okay. Um the goal is to raise community confidence. Uh regrettably, uh the lines of communication went dead well over a year ago despite repeated requests to have a conversation. Um interesting enough that yes, acknowledge that we were on very different sides. Uh but um what is interesting and I will reference um in the submission of letters originally there was a letter that basically said uh do not support this whatsoever and that was provided by a partner Ontario Nature in conjunction with an environmental defense. We were asked to join on sign that letter. We chose not to and we advised that of Thomasson because we wanted to speak to them about it. We raised concerns though um but regrettably when we raised those concerns um there was offense taken and consequently the the lines of communication just stopped regrettably. So what we're asking then is to build that community confidence again. And what we're asking is for Thomasson to re-engage with Francis Stitzville to provide us um as an organization an under an opportunity to better understand um through revised versions of their operational plans that were submitted to the city in late December. the rehabilitation plan, the cross-section plan, uh to create uh better understanding of um the restrictive covenant on the easternly wetland that was referenced in reports. The off-site compensation with the National Capital Commission that we know has been cited. This has been uh we've learned this through the uh conversations we've had with Along Ontario. We'd like to actually be apprised of these things. We're also requesting that they explore with Francisville the opportunity to partner with us and the conservation authorities to effectively monitor and manage invasive fragammites within the Rita Valley Mississippi wersheds. We understand that they're doing that intending to do that with the nature with the national um capital commission but here's an opportunity to do it within this particular watershed. We also want to um further communicate that uh maybe there might be an opportunity for other wetland habitat improvements beyond the project area. So actually looking within the golden wetland complex. So that's the first one that establishing opening those lines of communication. The second one is actually to formalize those lines of communication by establishing a community- based working group. there are people uh beyond the friends of states of wetlands that are concerned with in the community and I mean concerns even raised by Mike Wesley today and I'm very familiar with Mike because I've dealt with him um I've spoken with him often when a mayor and as an Ottawa city counselor but there are concerns within the rural community as well so the opportunity to establish community based working group it could be also including um the representation by the alongquans and interesting enough they did cite that in their correspondence which I understand was copied uh to this committee. I don't know whether you actually received a copy of it though. Um they would also include of course community environmental and regulatory representatives including the friends of wetlands, the conservation authority and we could actually work with Tomlinson to actually um provide to look at the responses with regards to environmental performance and the monitoring. There's a lot of monitoring underway but it's an opportunity to bring transparency public transparency to that monitoring process. as not whether it be the surface water monitoring, the groundwater monitoring. Um also further clarity about the progress in the final rehabilitation be to be taking part in that um when that comes forward. Um there's also of course the mitigation measures that are being referenced um and making sure that we again understand about them and see that they're being undertaken. So the third element that we're asking for is quite innovative and quite creative and this is something that's uh recently well it arised it began with our conversations with Carlton University as part of our mission statement and our goals our goals are to develop collaborative relationships with the private sector with the public sector with universities and colleges and we've been developing a fabulous relationship with the University of um Carlton through their geography department with regards to how they can use remote sensing to measure the health of wetlands. There is an an opportunity for um currently right now the city of Ottawa has a proposal that's working its way through the approval process involving Carlton University to develop a local approach for determining carbon storage and carbon sequestration. Uh my understanding through our contact through uh Carlton University as well as our city contact is they're looking at publiclyowned wetlands uh to do that. here is an opportunity should you uh approve this where we're going to see the loss of some very wetlands that were significant no longer but still that value is it's just the bar is changed by the provincial policy changes but to actually do some testing so we can determine what is the carbon sequestration potential what is this carbon storage within those particular wetlands that will be stored that will be one of many sites that are looked at across the province So again, it's an opportunity if we're going to lose the wetlands, can we not use that information to contribute to a better knowledge of the science so we can protect our wetlands? Thank you for that very thorough answer. I'll pass it back to the chair. Thank you very much, Janet. If you could talk a little bit about the advocacy work that you do not only with city council but with the province of Ontario, I think that would be valuable as well because ultimately we're here today because of changes the province makes. And so could you fill committee in on some of the work that you've done with the province on advocating for the wetlands here in the west end of the city? So certainly we are communicating regularly to the province indicating that their policies um are having a detrimental impact. You'll hear more about that in the item on the omnibus. Um we'll be speaking a little bit more about that Sarah and I. Um but what's also I mean greatly disconcerting too um that and we have signed a joint letter with the uh Ontario nature with regards to the proposed amalgamation the proposed merger of the conservation authorities. As you know, conservation authorities um through their um act have regulatory authority through not just provinially significant wetlands, but even wetlands that were previously provinially significant or just in some cases all wetlands. It depends upon the conservation authority. So, I'm not sure whether you're referencing that work. Um but in addition to that uh letter that we sent through the friends of uh it's the wetlands with Ontario Nature as well as 93 organizations across Ontario. I put on another hat and that hat is as a former source protection chair for the Mississippi RTO um wershed. I was appointed by the Minister of Environment um the first of 19. This was of the initial efforts after the Clean Water Act. Many of you might recall that um in the year 2000 May when Walkerton crisis happened, seven people died and 2,000 people became very ill. There's a subsequent inquiry from Justin just Justin um Justin O' Conor that recommended development of source protection areas to protect water at source. I had the privilege to be um appointed along with 19 in this inaugural undertaking uh which was groundbreaking not just for Ontario but groundbreaking globally. We had inquiries even as far as China about the work that we were doing. Um, also my hat that I wore was the former vice chair of the Rita Valley and of course as the mayor and a city councelor too greatly concerned about this and how this merger of conservation authorities and we can speak later about that. I've we've shared our correspondence. It was correspondence that's actually been signed by over 74 individuals with decades and decades of watershed experience um from professionals including former ministers who actually served with the conservative government. So um as recently as yesterday even though again um again I'm used to silence but uh in terms of telephone lines but I think councelor Brown you know me to being very tenacious and yesterday last night I received a a a email correspondence that our correspondence to the premier had been forward to the minister of municipal municipal environment conservation protection and we will now be we are looking at scheduling meeting with our delegation not of 74 of us but of a smaller group subset to advocate on behalf of municipalities on behalf of our conservation authorities and behalf of millions the vast majority of Ontarians who are covered by 36 conservation authorities. So um as I say there's a lot of changes that are happening at the province which impact municipalities directly that remove tools within your toolbox. I can't even imagine sitting in your shoes and and your seats at this time. I'd be deeply frustrated um by the fact that many of those things that those tools that I had accessible to me that we had as a council have been taken away from you. So, I appreciate today that you have a challenge before you in terms of making a decision. uh we acknowledge that but we're asking you that in making that decision should you support it to please request it is if I could say and I have spoken to Mr. Pierce earlier, not just today, but also in February about our requests, not as in great detail as I did today with councelor Kelly, but um this is an opportunity for us to open lines of communication, to build trust and confidence in our community, and frankly, if I could say to show a corporate leadership that Thomasson speaks, that they do. Um now, it's an opportunity to show it in a much bigger way than they have in the past. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate your delegation. I don't see any other questions from my colleagues, but uh I will say that yes, councelor Gower and I are looking at drafting a joint letter together so we can support that community engagement going forward. So, thank you very much for coming out today. Thank you very much. Our next delegate, Rob Pierce and Neil Dutder from Tomlinson. So, gentlemen, I'll invite you to come on down. We'll get your presentation up on the screen. Thank you very much for coming. Five minutes. Floor is yours. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Rob Pierce, senior vice president of the Tomlinson Group. With me today is Neil Doiter, our planning consultant from MHBC. I'll provide some very brief introductory comments and then we'll hand over to Neil. Tomlinson has been operating our existing Stitzville quarry for over 20 years and has done extensive ecological surface water and groundwater monitoring on site during this time frame. We strongly feel that we are putting forward an innovative and very well thoughtout plan that will see 158 acres of natural features created through progressive rehabilitation more than exists on site today. Since filing our application three years ago, we've had extensive efforts to address and resolve agency, public, and indigenous comments. We have sign off after technical review by several agencies including the RVCA, Ministry of the Environment, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ministry of Transportation, Archaeological Signoff, Hydro Ottawa, and today a city of Ottawa staff recommendation for zoning and OPA approval. This application before committee today is part of a parallel process under the Aggregate Resources Act where we're also applying for our quarry license to be issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources which normally won't happen until the land is zoned appropriately. Once we have the license, it's much like a driver's license where if we aren't following license requirements, including regular monitoring and reporting, we can face penalties and even suspension of the license. This is a key part of Tomlinson's business which we take very seriously. I'll now hand it over to Neil to provide a few more details. Thanks Rob. Good morning Chair Brown. Members Vyra if I can go to the third slide please. Uh next slide. Yeah perfect. So as Rob noted these applications were submitted just over three years ago. So this included a license application to the province under the aggregate resource act. Um, just a couple things about the proposal itself. This is not an increase in the amount of extraction that's proposed. The tonnage limit that's currently in place for their existing Corey, which is outlined in blue, remains the same. The hall route remains the same, and the truck entrance remains the same. Next slide, please. With respect to the zoning amendment, a couple things that I do want to highlight. Um, and as staff noted, several portions of this site are already zoned for extraction. They're already included within the city's bedrock resource area. The majority of the site would be reszoned to from rural to mineral extraction. Uh, the environmental protection zone limits had already previously been updated to reflect the uh the approved limits of the Goldburn Wetland Complex. Next slide, please. A little bit about the operation itself. And I do want to sort of speak to some of the comments that you've heard this morning. It's really important to note this is a 100 plus hector site. Does not get all extracted at one time. Doesn't get stripped and disturbed all at one time. There is a phasing plan. There are limits and in terms of how much of an area can be open before rehabilitation has to occur. So when we're talking about the on-site wetlands that are located on the property, they remain in place until they're required for extraction. uh progressive rehabilitation has to follow as each phase of extractions completed. Next slide please. Specific change we want to highlight is uh a proposal to immediately create wetlands in the southeast corner uh of the site. This was been done in consultation and collaboration both with agencies and indigenous communities. It allows for the creation of just over five five acres of wetlands immediately. Um, with respect to the overall proposal, we think this offers a great opportunity for partnerships, education, but then also understanding wetland creation and how it's working on the landscape. Next slide, please. This is a rendering of the final rehabilitation plan. Um, you'll see the south half of the site is focused on the creation of woodlands and the wetland features and importantly the design that we've come up with with respect to the rehabilitation. Um, a lot of work has gone into it, a lot of consultation with partners, with uh with members of the public, with review agencies, with indigenous communities. And one of the important principles that I do want to highlight is is that it does meet the city's requirement for no net loss. So, currently there's about 113 acres of natural features on site. Um, and through rehabilitation that will be increased to 159 acres. And on this slide here, we do have the breakdown for the features. Uh, next slide, please. Now, Neil, I it was my fault. I neglected to give you your one minute uh warning, but I'll give you about a minute and a half to wrap up if you could. Thank you, Chair Brown. I'll be very quick on the the the changes and highlight the the key ones. Um specifically with respect to the changes that have occurred over the last three years, there's been a lot of work paid attention with respect to rehabilitation. How does it occur in a quick manner? What are the mechanisms in place to ensure that's occurring? What are the monitoring and mitigation aspects from that? that's been reflected in the plans. Uh as Rob noted, there's been significant uh number of signoffs through the technical reviewers. Um and there there's also been additional monitoring place with respect to groundwater uh blasting, surface water. Um all of which have been incorporated on on the updated site plans. Uh next slide, please. Uh in our opinion that this application is consistent with the provincial planning statement. It conforms with the city's official plan. You know, as we've noted, all agency and technical review comments that have been received through this application have been resolved. And ultimately, Tomlinson supports staff's recommendation to approve the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment. And with that, Chair Brown, Rob and I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much, Vice Chair. Thank you very much uh for the presentation and for being here today. I wanted to see if you could expand a little bit on the drainage and water issues that were raised by a previous delegate in terms of directing water towards other properties and and what the effect of that is. Can you expand a little on the drainage plan and and ways that you can mitigate that uh effect through through the chair to councelor Kelly? Thank you for the question. um you know within this local landscape drainage has been a significant consideration right there's no doubt that you know over the years um there have been issues with respect to the you know the previous delegate um ultimately what happens with this quarry is the water that collects is discharged in the gold wetland complex and as part of that it it essentially acts as a storm water management pond and then the pump runs when it needs to um as part of that there is uh what's called an environmental compliance approval which uh monitors and regulates the amount of water that can flow into the wetland. Um also water quality considerations to go along with that. Um you know as part of the drainage in the existing quarry operations you know there were studies undertaken to assess you know the impacts from the quaries the impacts of the twinning of highway 7 beaver activity and the the study that that was undertaken on behalf of the city in in around 2016 or 2017 um did conclude that the the quaries were not contributing negatively with respect to downstream flooding. Um there's a variety of factors you know obviously to consider with respect to that. Um the other thing I would note with respect to this application and obviously expanding a footprint for the quarry um downstream drainage and flooding was certainly an area that the RBCA looked at and we spent a lot of time working with the RBCA with respect to that to ensure that any of those impacts would be minimized and certainly we're happy and pleased to be here today to see that the RBCA is is is happy with the plans and and addressing those matters. Thank you very much uh to both of you for being here. Thank you very much. Colleagues, I do have one question. Uh, when you talk about the license being like a driver's license, how it's not just a one and done, can you expand on that a little bit and talk about some of the the requirements you need to meet in order to keep that license in good standing? Uh, through you to chair Brown. Yes. So if if the city approves the zoning and you know the ministry would then be in a position where they could issue a license for the quarry as soon as the site becomes licensed it's then regulated by the province. So all site activities that are occurring on site are then regulated through the ministry of natural resources. Um things with respect to you know water whether it's quality quantity or blasting or noise then get regulated through ministry of environment conservation and parks. So, uh, the one thing I would note, you know, specifically for this proposal, um, there's a lot that's been put on the site plans about monitoring and providing annual reports, mitigation plans, and all of that, um, is included with respect to providing it to the province, but also ensuring that the city and and RVCA and others are made aware of that. So, I guess, Chair Brown, the the the simple way to look at it is any activities that occur on site then become regulated through the province. There are provisions under the aggregate resource act to ensure that operators such as Tomlinson are following their site plans and their license and certainly there's you know penalties that can be issued through the the aggregate resource act if they don't. No and thank you very much for that and I think that's important context that this really is a a provincial jurisdiction. We're in a provincial lane and we're playing our part but ultimately this gets kicked back to the province. But yeah, Mr. Sheriff, if I can add, we have an environmental compliance group internally at Tomlinson who goes out to sites, reviews sites, work with our works with our operational teams to ensure compliance. We also submit annual compliance reports. So, it it is something that, you know, we we are a large operator. Uh, you know, you might have seen a couple red and white trucks around the city. Um, so we we take this very seriously. when I say it's it's table stakes, you know, if we're not operating in compliance, our our business is is drawn into jeopardy. Well, thank you very much, Vice Chair. Sorry to jump back on the board. I just wanted to follow up on um some of the comments from Miss Dinga and uh and I know that there's been communication between Tomlinson and and the friends of the Spitzville wetland and that perhaps it um broke down at some point during the the conversation. Uh could you comment on her requests and and what may be uh possible in terms of um continuing the conversation with uh with the community on um you know moving forward with the application and what that could potentially look like from your perspective. Uh counselor through the chair what what I can say today and that that that request was you know um Mr. Stinga had verbally, you know, communicated that to me a few weeks ago and then obviously we hear it here today. You know, I would like to see what, you know, what comes, you know, forward from from the committee. Um, you know, I think we're we're in a place here. We have done very extensive consultation over over the past the past three years. Um, and I think going forward, we we'll see what letter comes in from you uh and the uh and the uh committee here today. Um, and we'll we'll take it under advisement at this point. Thank you very much. All right. Well, thank you very much for coming out today. I will say that I've been very pleased with the communication between Tomlinson and my office given this is in my ward and I appreciate the openness and the willingness to engage with me when I've had concerns to explain some of the documentation to make sure that I've at least been able to arrive here today with a more fully informed opinion. It doesn't always happen with other operators in the city and I I do really appreciate the opportunities that we've had over the past few months to engage on this. So, thank you very much. I'll ask uh city staff to come back to the table. Dr. Stow, I think you're here. There you are. Um I'll ask Dr. Stow to come to the table just in case there are any questions uh with regards to uh the wetlands and some of the more sensitive components to this. So, I'll ask my colleagues if there are any questions to city staff. Vice Chair, obviously this committee is no stranger to uh contentious applications on things and there's been a few in my ward as well and related to this obviously well actually one very similar. one thing that we've discussed on on some of them not related to quaries, but I wanted to see if that was an option moving forward or if it's something that the city is thinking about or if it's even in the city's lane given the provincial um role, community benefit funds um and those types of um benefits for the community that are most affected by these types of applications. Is that something that's considered um when it comes to mineral extraction or or that world at all? And and if not, is that something that would be considered in the future if it's even within the municipalities's um wheelhouse to to implement something like that? Chair, I can offer that the ministry has um certainly laid the uh expectation that they are the authority on aggregates. Uh it's been made very clear to municipalities across the province. I'd certainly encourage legal to to speak to that within the aggregate licensing um framework. There is a provision where there is a contribution to city roads um through that, but it's it's standardized and and set. But certainly if there's legal comment about our authority to implement something like that, I'd encourage legal to uh provide that. Thank you very much for your explanation. Uh Mr. Moody question. Um, we've heard a little bit about the two different streams, two levels the government can staff provide a little bit more context about the city's lane. What is the municipality required to do in this situation? Uh, thank you, chair. So, our role in this is the uh official plan amendment application and the zoning bar amendment application. And basically we're looking at can the can the land support the use that's being proposed and does it align with the applicable policies under the PBS. Um and then does the zoning align with the official plan. So we're really looking at at can the can the parcel itself or can the land itself support the proposed use. And I'll add chair that uh extraction sites are not subject to site plan approval as other types of projects are within the city. And that you know when you refer to staying in your lane essentially the site plan approval process that municipally usually we would do is done through the aggregate resource act uh extraction license. Yeah. Thank you very much for that. And Dr. Stow during Cass's presentation she talked about the wetlands and you're a trained and certified wetland evaluator. Can you speak to some of the work that you did on this file to inform staff's recommendation? Yes, chair. Um, first, as was referred to in the presentation, uh, historically, I did do some work on this on this property when the status of the wetlands on it were being considered by uh the province. Um, I was asked to come in and provide an opinion on whether the wetlands on the property qualified as significant or not. um it was a matter of interest to the city. So I agreed to come in and provide opinion and I provided the opinion that uh the wetlands on this property uh should not be included within the golden wetland complex. Um that uh opinion was uh ultimately accepted by the Ontario Land Tribunal and formed a basis of the tribunals's opinion that the wetland should no longer be deemed as part of the wetland complex and so would no longer be significant. Um I have provided uh some advice to planning on the application of provincial policy to the current application. Um particularly the assessment of no negative impacts on uh the other wetlands and natural features and the province provides very clear guidance on how we uh assess uh no no negative impacts with respect to quaries. There is an exception that says that when assessing impacts of quaries, we may consider progressive long-term rehabilitation of the site where feasible. And um uh it is certainly in my opinion feasible in this case. Um and so uh it's my opinion that the application has met that uh provincial uh requirement. No, thank you very much for that. I appreciate the explanation. Seeing no further questions, thank you very much to staff for uh the work you've put into this and the work you've done here today. I'll just remind committee that we have received some written correspondence and that's been uploaded to the SharePoint folder. The report recommendation reads as follows. That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee one recommend council approve an amendment to schedule B9, schedule C11A, and schedule C11B of the official plan as detailed in document two. Number two, recommend council approve an amendment to zoning bylaw 2008-250 for part of 635 Jenson Road and part of 891 Jenson Road as shown in document three and detailed in document 4 to permit a quarry expansion. Three, recommend council direct staff to incorporate an amendment into the new comprehensive zoning bylaw 20266-50 for part of 635 Jenson Road and part of 891 Jenson Road as detailed in document five and four. Approve the consultation details section of this report. Colleagues, are the report recommendations carried? Thank you very much and thank you to everyone who came out today to delegate on this item. Our next item is 5.1 draft economic development rural plan. Vice chair, I believe you have a a motion you'd like to read in at this time. I do. I will read it in uh and then I have a couple questions about it if that's okay. Yeah, I'll get stopped to come up to the table. Be it resolved that the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee approve that the rules of procedure be waved subject to subsection 834A of the procedure bylaw uh to receive a staff presentation on the draft economic development rural plan. Thank you colleagues. Is that carried? Thank you very much vice chair. While we tee up the presentation, why don't you go ahead and ask? Yeah, I just uh I just wanted to to I I I obviously was willing to move this um so that we could have this today, but I was a little confused as to how we ended up there um the day before the committee. So, can we ex just explain um how this process went and why we're waving the rules today? I can share. So the rule that we're waving is just that uh presentations generally that aren't accompanied by a report require a waiver. My understanding is uh the point of the presentation today is to give an overview of the plan to allow a consultation period and that a report would follow. So the only waiver we're doing is that a report hasn't been provided at this point but it will be provided subsequently. So that's the only part that we're waving is that there's no accompanying report at this time. one is expected later in the process. Okay. And the there was originally a report um attached to it, right? So because that is no longer there and a report is coming at another meeting, that is why we're waving the rules. Yes. Correct. Correct. Chair. Um today we're presenting the draft plan for you. We're then going to proceed with a 30-day public consultation which we'll describe in a bit more detail through the presentation and look forward to bringing back a final plan for committee's consideration on May 7th. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you, Vice Chair. Jamie Ian, floor is yours. Good morning. My name is Jamie Hurst. I'm the program manager of economic development in the strategic initiatives department. Joining me today is my colleague Ian Scott, economic development officer and the lead on this file. We're pleased to be here to provide a presentation on the draft economic development rural plan. Next slide, please. The economic development strategy and action plan approved by council in April 2024 identified rural economic development as a priority and committed to updating the 2020 rural economic development strategy to reflect emerging economic priorities. While economic fundamentals are shared across urban and rural contexts, rural or Ottawa businesses experience distinct challenges and opportunities requiring approaches that are tailored to rural realities and developed in collaboration with rural businesses. Next slide, please. The draft economic development rural plan builds on past initiatives including the development of the rural business toolkit, rural tourism itineraries, rural internet connectivity advocacy, and the creation of Ottawa's innovation farm formerly known as the smart farm operated by Invest Ottawa. It aligns with municipal, provincial, and federal strategies and policy directions and reflects the outcomes of the 2024 Ottawa Rural Summit, which reinforce the importance of improving rural service delivery, strengthening rural representation, and establishing dedicated rural leadership within city departments. Next slide, please. The draft rule plan has been developed through a process that combines research, data analysis, and consultation, ensuring that the draft plan is evidence informed, grounded in local perspectives, and aligned with the city's priorities. Next slide, please. The plan focuses on the five rural wards. As part of the research and data phase, we looked at who lives and works in rural Ottawa. About 17% of the city's population lives in rural areas. Rural Ottawa is economically active with strong incomes and higher than average rates of self-employment reflecting strong culture of entrepreneurship. At the same time, the population is aging which underscores the importance of policies that support workforce development and business succession. Next slide, please. The rural economy is anchored in four key industries. Agriculture, tourism and recreation, retail and services, and development and construction. Each playing an important role in supporting rural Ottawa's growth and vitality. Our review of these sectors helped identify priority areas of opportunity, which we'll highlight more shortly. Next slide, please. More than 40 one-on-one interviews were conducted with various interest holders, including rural counselors, business owners, business improvement areas, community organizations, and city departments. Input from these discussions was consolidated to identify shared themes, key challenges, and emerging opportunities. Next slide, please. Consultations highlighted that infrastructure gaps are limiting rural business growth in tourism. We also heard that planning frameworks and city policies don't always reflect rural realities. On marketing and promotions, interest holders feel that many urban residents and visitors don't know about the attractions and businesses in rural Ottawa. They emphasized that coordinated marketing and promotion would help increase visitor traffic and spending for the agra food sector. Interest holders shared that long-term viability depends on diversification, value added production, and supporting farm succession. We also heard optimism about growth potential in tourism, film, and events sectors that could expand with the right supports. And finally, interest holders shared the need for stronger peer networks and more localized service delivery. There is a clear interest in piloting decentralized support models that can be tested in rural communities and scaled over time. Next slide, please. Insights from the research and consultations inform the draft's vision, strategic priorities, and recommendations, all aimed at the goal of fostering a strong rural economy that reflects the realities, priorities, and character of rural businesses and communities. Next slide, please. The draft rule plan contains 12 recommendations that would be implemented within existing economic development services resources beginning in 2026 and continuing through 2027. For each recommendation, we provided actions as well as identified the key consultation themes being addressed. The first recommendation is to establish a permanent rural business liaison position within economic development services. This individual will lead implementation of the rural plan and importantly serve as a clear direct point of contact for all rural business needs. The second recommendation is to collaborate with the rural affairs office to strengthen the integration of rural business perspectives. actions include establishing a process to assess and incorporate rural economic impacts and considerations into relevant city initiatives as well as reviewing rural commercial development applications highlighting their economic implications to inform decision-making. The third recommendation is to pilot the delivery of decentralized business support services across all rural wards. We're looking to host quarterly in-person business pop-up clinics in each ward and we'll be doing so in coordination with service delivery partners such as Invest Ottawa's Small Business Entrepreneurship Center as well as the city's business ambassador service. The fourth recommendation is to strengthen engagement with rural businesses to address economic challenges and connect them to city supports. For this, we're proposing to establish a volunteer rural business advisory group that meets once a quarter, as well as to contribute more information on rural business services, programs, and opportunities through the rural affairs e newswsletter. Next slide, please. Recommendation five is to collaborate with local business associations to facilitate networking and mentoring opportunities. Six is to strengthen marketing and promotions of rural Ottawa in collaboration with Ottawa tourism and our colleagues in city communications. Seven is to secure provincial and federal funding for projects that support rural business growth and expansion. And eight is to promote rural Ottawa as a filming destination in collaboration with our partners at the Ottawa Film Office. Next slide, please. Recommendation nine is to promote rural Ottawa as a destination for corporate and entertainment events, including weddings. 10 is to commission a baseline evaluation and benchmark study of Ottawa's rural economy in order to inform future programming and services in this area. 11 is to assess competitiveness and capacity of employment lands to support projected economic growth and identify locations for future industrial development. And finally, recommendation 12 is to explore expanded onfarmm diversified uses to simplify ancillary development and strengthen long-term farm viability. Next slide, please. Following today's presentation and meeting, the draft plan will be posted to Engage Ottawa for a 30-day public comment period in order to provide rural businesses and other interest holders with an opportunity to review and provide feedback on the draft recommendations and actions. Staff will consolidate and consider the feedback received and look forward to returning to ARACK with a final version of the plan for consideration at the May 7th meeting. We look forward to bringing forward a focused actionoriented plan that reduces barriers, builds on rural strengths, supports emerging opportunities, and lays a strong foundation for future rural economic development programs and services. That concludes our presentation and we'd be pleased to take any questions that you have. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councelor Skolowski. Thank you, chair, and thank you staff for this uh for this work on this plan. Uh there's a lot of good material here and I appreciate the effort uh to move these kind of move from broad goals to actions. Um I want to recognize some some positives right away. The idea of permanent rural business liaison is really important. Having a champion that'll make connections and proactively reach out to businesses across rural Ottawa will certainly fill a gap and it's something that I'm hearing is desperately needed. Um I'm also really happy that this draft will be published on Engaged Ottawa. So, uh, I think stakeholders having the opportunity to shape the final plan will be really important. Um, this is a good place to start and build from. I have several suggestions to offer that reflect the conversations that I've had with business owners and community leaders uh, which I'll share with you as part of the consultation process over the next uh, you know, several weeks. But, um, but also I'll I'll share a couple highlights here uh, today. Um the plan in my view still feels heavy on support and promotion and light on barrier removal. The consistent message that I get from uh rural businesses is the need to remove barriers that stop investment from happening in the first place. So these barriers are very specific. There are zoning constraints, approval timelines, fees, servicing limitations, inconsistent interpretation, gaps in the experience with well and septic innovations. So the final plan will really need to tackle this. Um, also in this draft, I don't yet see a clear main street rebuild pathway for legacy village lots that are constrained by servicing rules. So, we do need a strategy to reinvigorate our main streets as barriers do kill projects before they start. So, also the plan notes that implementation will be within existing resources. Um I think we need to be explicit about what we can afford and what needs more resources and build in a mechanism to be uh either that through a budget ask in the future uh years or to um identify how our plan matches up with grants and and really actively solicit those funds. I'm really pleased that the need to build up data was included in this draft. So we certainly need information to inform our decision- making around growth. Um, we also need to build a way that progress is regularly reported to ARACK. Um, so I think it's really important to send a message uh that we're serious about change. The rural community has seen plans and strategies before, but they'll need signs that there that this one's different. So, I do have a few questions for you. Um, so I did recently dust off the 2020 uh rural economic development strategy and see that it includes a suite of actions that were uh outlined um for the immediate and long term that are similar to what's being presented here. Can you tell me what actions have been taken since the draft was developed in 2020? Jar, I can help. Excuse me, I'm getting a bit of a cold. I can help um respond to that. So um Jamie mentioned a few of them at the beginning. Um so they were the rural tourism itinerary type work. So that piece with Ottawa tourism attracting residents. Um we did quite a lot of work on rural connectivity. So internet connectivity. Um that piece as well. Um we developed the toolkit for businesses in rural areas. And um there was also some work on um the diversified farm uses. That plan um was brought forward during COVID. So it was it took a little bit of time to get it up and running. I think the focus that we're trying to switch to here where it's very sort of projectbased is much more of a kind of comprehensive boots on the ground like you spoke to um with the rural business liaison and some more sustained rural economic development rather than that kind of peace meal projectbased. Thanks. I think I think that's good. Um, I think there's certainly value in having a person dedicated to that kind of outreach and and I've heard that certainly we've heard that Ian as well. Um, I I have another question. What kind of data are we collecting today to help us understand the rural economy and are we collecting any? I get the impression that we're still baselining. So, we're not uh the data that we're relying on for the development of this draft plan is is primarily Statistics Canada data. um that we're accessing through Environics. I'm I'm certainly thinking always about the decisions that we're going to take about growth in rural Ottawa and if we don't have the data to help inform those kinds of decisions. I I fear that we're going to miss the mark. So, I'm I'm glad to hear that we're looking ahead to um building up that data base. Um can you clarify how many FTEEs work on economic development for the city of Ottawa today? chair. So we have we're split up. Um we have eight economic development officers. So they focus on um all our economic development work whether it's economic diversification um BAS our knowledgebased industries working with our partners and then also as part e economic development services we have the nightlife office um the 200th anniversary office and also um the byward market um office around the byward market public ground plan but the core group in economic development is 10 people so this would add a new person to that team essentially dedicated. No, what we would be doing is taking one position and just dedicating that person to rural work. Okay. And so can you clarify how different that role is from um the rural affairs office sort of work? Yeah. So that role would be primarily outreach more on that like the pure ecdev stuff. So working with the businesses, working directly with the BAS with the focus on investment attraction, business support, but of course working handinhand with the rural affairs office, but very kind of that ecdev um business focus. Great. And um can you just confirm does Invest a maybe I'm not sure if you can answer this, but do you know whether invest Ottawa has a dedicated rural business support today akin to what other rural Ontario municipalities get from the community futures development corporations? No, they do not. They don't. No. Okay. So, I'm trying to understand whether we're kind of building from scratch or we have something to build on. So, it sounds like there might be opportunity there. Yes. Correct. They don't have a they do kind of citywide. The only thing that would be dedicated to to rural is the smart farm and the innovation farm, but nothing directly in the rural areas. So what the plan is proposing is taking some of that support from invest Ottawa getting out into the rural areas in a quarterly you know meeting fashion and then if we feel and we're getting the uptake that we need I think at that point it would be um bringing forward for future consideration whether we need more dedicated support beyond kind of those quarterly meetings and those supports. um the the because of the size of Ottawa, I think it makes the distribution of all those services difficult and we know from consultation a lot of the businesses don't know about Invest Ottawa or think they're mostly techbased. So, um there is some work to do there to get them out there. Great. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to leave it there. So, I appreciate the work done to get us to this draft. I'm seized with our declining villages and the loss of our banks. We heard at the rural summit how important it is to move the needle on rural economic development. I think this is our chance to uh prove that we're listening and to act. Of course, uh rural residents and businesses expect a final plan that reflects rural input, is actionable, and that builds in accountability. So, we can't go another 25 years without seeing measurable improvements. Um this is really important stuff. So, thank you. Thank you, councelor, vice chair. Thank you very much, chair. Um, I see that uh Rody Bolivar is in the in the audience. He is the executive director of the CarPro Corridor BIA. And uh amongst um other uh initiatives and and concerns they have around economic development in in rural Ottawa, um one thing that often gets brought up is the need for transportation in rural areas uh and in particular in the Carpro corridor to serve those businesses and get employees to those businesses. um what what have you been hearing as you've been making the rounds in rural Ottawa and discussing these issues with stakeholders and what do you see in terms of um potential solutions for that in the future or do you think um that this plan will be able to address that uh that gap that needs to be filled? Chair, we absolutely heard through the consultations that transportation is a challenge. It's a challenge for employees uh getting to places of work in our rural communities. It's also a challenge for residents and visitors who want to frequent businesses and attractions that are in those rural communities. Um we've identified and we highlighted that we heard that through our consultations. Um this Transportation of course is uh is not our wheelhouse uh per se here in economic development. While everything is very interconnected, um we're very uh we're very available and and we'll look to speak to or connect with our colleagues uh in transportation services to explore opportunities to address some of these challenges. And I think having the establishment of the rural business liaison officer who can really be that um point of contact inhouse at the city for rural business needs will be really helpful in that regard. Well, I know there's a few people in the audience today including Mr. Scrimmer uh who uh who may have some some feedback to uh to tie into that discussion as well. Uh my second question, I'm not sure exactly who it's for. Um this is in regards to the the rural office. So that that was something that came out of the rural summit was bolstering that office. Um we've we've doubled the capacity in that office very recently on what would be an A-Rack meeting without pointing out Laurel McCrae in the audience. Um just just wanted to throw that out there. Um so where where will this person work from? Uh will they work in the rural office? And if if that's not the plan, do you think that that could be achieved? um so that rural residents and rural business owners have a you know a one-stop shop for uh all things rural. Do you think that's possible? The rural affairs office is located within uh the PDBs, the planning, development and building services department. Economic development services is located within the strategic initiatives department. We are proposing to have this rural business uh affairs liaison acting within our economic development services team in the strategic initiatives department. Um we are the the experts on all things economic development in the city. This is a draft rural economic development plan. Um, of course that position will work hand inand uh with our colleagues in the rural affairs office. We already do and we'll be looking to strengthen that relationship going forward. Thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation today and I just want to have you repeat what the plan is for the next month. So can you talk about where this is going and how folks can engage on it please? Certainly, chair. So, following today's meeting, we'll be posting the draft plan in full on engage Ottawa for a period of 30 days. There will be an opportunity for all rural businesses, residents, and other organizations to comment on the draft recommendations. Um, staff will then take all of that feedback um and look forward to bringing forward a final plan to this committee on May 7th for your consideration. Perfect. Thank you very much. appreciate the uh the opportunity to engage. I know we're all excited to see what comes forward. Uh colleagues, can we receive this presentation for information received? Thank you. Now, if everyone will just bear with me, I'd like to hold the uh the next few items. Uh item 6.1. Uh we'll hold that for a second. Um jumping to item 7.1, amendments to align uh with the transportation master plan and the official plan. There are no presentations. I don't believe there's a will of committee to hold this item. Uh so if it is the will of the committee, the report recommendations are that planning and housing committee and the agriculture and rural affairs committee recommend council approve and adopt the official plan amendments as presented in document one to implement the recommendations of the council approved transportation master plan. B. Approve amendments as shown in document four of this report to the new zoning bylaw 2026-50 following approval of the official plan amendment to correct neighborhood zoning details in those areas where evolving neighborhood overlays has been removed or newly extended and two that the planning and housing committee and the agriculture and rural affairs committee approve the consultation details section is in this report. Is this item carried? Thank you. We're going to hold item 7.2 because we do have a delegation item, pardon me, 7.3, the rural community building grant program grant application review. It looks like this is a very pan rule item today. Never contentious. We're always pleased to see it come forward and we've got uh Mr. Thompson here with us today. However, colleagues, I believe uh there might be a will to carry this on consent and so the report recommendation are that the agriculture and rural affairs committee approve the recommendations on the rural community building grants program application as detailed in document one. Is this item carried? Thank you. Item 7.4 the 2025 annual report pursuant to the building code act. It was a real page turner. However, uh there may be a willingness of committee to carry this as well. So the report recommendations are that the agriculture and rural affairs committee received this report for information. Is this item received? Received. Perfect. Thank you very much. Efficiency unknown to government. We will go back to item 6.1. I think the team is still here. Dr. Stow Tara, welcome back. Long time no see. I'll uh have you go through your presentation and brief remarks and then we do have uh two delegates signed up. So we'll go into questions from delegates and then questions to staff. So Terranick, the floor is yours. Thank you, chair. Uh, good morning, chair and counselors. My name is Tara Redpath and I'm a senior planner with our natural systems uh, team in the city strategic initiatives department. I'm joined today by Nick Stowe, who is program manager of natural systems. And we're here today to speak about an official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment concerning two wetlands in the rural area. Next slide, please. So I'd just like to begin by providing some context on wetland policies in the province of Ontario and how this is related to the city's policies. The amendments that we're recommending today are required to maintain consistency with provincial policy regarding significant wetlands. The province is responsible for identifying significant wetlands based on evaluations conducted under the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System or Oz as we sometimes refer to it. Once significant wetlands have been identified, municipalities are required to include them in their official plans and to protect them. If the province approves a change to the status or boundary of a significant wetland using the OS criteria, then the municipalities are required to amend their official plans accordingly. Next slide, please. I'd like to just highlight some additional information on provinially significant wetlands or PSWs in Ontario. So all wetlands provide multiple environmental, social and economic benefits such as the provision of wildlife habitat, water quality protection and flood risk reduction. PSWs are subject to the highest standard of environmental protection under provincial and municipal planning policies. Development and site alteration are not permitted within PSWs. Wetlands in Ontario are significant if they meet minimum scoring thresholds that are established under the Ontario wetland evaluation system. Now, in 2022, the province brought forward a series of changes to the Oz that make it easier for designated PSWs to be re-evaluated and reclassified as non-proincially significant. The amendments that are proposed in today's report have been triggered by wetland re-evaluations that were initiated by private land owners. Next slide, please. So, this report proposes to amend the status of one evaluated wetland and it also describes a minor modification to the boundaries of a second wetland. One area of the broader Gulburn wetland complex near Flewellen Road representing just under 75 hectares has been re-evaluated. The status of this wetland area changed from proincially significant to non-provinially significant. In the second case, the boundary of the Richmond Fen has been re-examined and adjusted in one area uh adjacent or near Conley Road. The wetland evaluation and wetland boundary review, as I mentioned earlier, were initiated by private land owners and they're related to their privately owned property. These changes have been accepted by the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources and they've been published in the provincial mapping. The official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment would align the city's official plan schedules and the zoning bylaw provisions with these provincial updates uh and are required under the policies of our official plan. Next slide please. I just want to also provide clarification on conservation authorities act. Uh the amendments addressed by this official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment do not affect the ability of the conservation authorities to continue regulating the wetlands under their conservation authorities act. CAS are required to regulate any wetlands uh connected to a water course whether the wetland is identified as significant or not. A permit from the CA is required for any development or site alteration in or within 30 meters of wetlands. Both wetlands that are addressed in today's report fall within the jurisdiction of the RTO Valley Conservation Authority. RVCA staff have confirmed that the 75 hectares of evaluated wetland along Flewellen Road remains regulated and subject to permitting requirements for any development activity in or within that 30 meter buffer. In the case of the Richmond Fen, the RBCA will no longer regulate the area that was removed from the boundary, but of course it will continue to regulate the wetland or sorry, the Richmond Fen itself. Next slide, please. Although the status of PSW reflects the highest conservation standard for wetlands in Ontario, the wetlands that are non-significant still do have some protections under the policies of the city's official plan. Development and site alteration in the natural heritage system core areas must demonstrate no negative impact. Any development activities must maintain or enhance the integrity, biodiversity, and econom ecosystem services of these core areas. Over 98% of existing PSWs in Ottawa fall within these core areas. And these natural heritage system policies also apply even if a wetland has been re-evaluated and found to be non-proincially significant. So any development in addition to that any development or site alteration that is proposed within or adjacent to the wetlands regardless of their status is subject to an environmental impact study uh and it must demonstrate no negative impact. And one final point is that wetlands are considered to be open files. New evaluations or re-evaluations can be undertaken at any time. Next slide, please. So, I just wanted to put on the screen the maps that highlight the locations of the proposed amendments. Um, so on the left, uh, the subject area for the Gulburn Wetland Complex is located near Fernbank Road and Fluellen Road and it's approximately 4 and a half kilometers west of Stitzville. on the right side of the screen for the Richmond Fen. This boundary update is located near Copeland Road and Connley Road uh roughly 3.3 kilometers west of Richmond. Uh the maps there h show areas outlined in a thick black line. This shows the existing significant wetland areas that will be removed. Remaining PSWs are shown in the light gray wetland symbols. These significant wetlands that are removed will still be included as natural heritage features under the policies of our official plan. That is because both areas also have significant woodlands and the Gilburn wetland complex remains a mapped surface water feature. Uh these areas also remain part of the natural heritage system core area as I outlined earlier. And then finally, the zoning will change from environmental protection or EP3 to rural countryside RU to align with the surrounding lands. And last slide, please. So, we just want to thank you today for the opportunity to provide this presentation and Nick and I would be pleased to answer any questions following the delegations. Thank you very much. I'll ask Janet to come back down. Janet's our first delegate, followed by Sarah. Thank you again chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak with you this morning on the continuing theme of the diminishing protection for wetlands across our city. On September 5th, 2024, the friends of wetlands spoke to this committee about the importance of wetland protection intrinsic to many of your multiddisciplinary plans and policies of the city including most recently the climate ready Ottawa strategy. We are here again today because the ecological health and the diverse functionality of our wetlands across our city and in particular the golden wetland complex continue to be threatened by policy changes implemented by a provincial government in 2022. You may recall as Terrace stated that along with a host of other proposed legislation and regulatory policy changes purporting to support Ontario's housing supply action plan, the government Ontario implemented a new weakened system for identifying and designating provinially significant wetlands. The consequences of this weakened evaluation system are severe and are continuing to roll out across our city. Showing here on this figure is actually the entire globin wetland complex before all these changes. The new um Ontario wetland evaluation system came into effect on January 1st, 2023. If you can sew to slide two, please. Our March 2024 55 hectares of the 961 hectares of Goldberin wetland complex lost its provincial significant designation and the strong provincial protection that that designation imparts. Now due to the revised and weakened wetland evaluation system another 74.58 hectares or over 184 acres of this wetland have lost their PSW designation and the strong protection that that designation imparts. If you can go to slide two for a moment. And you can okay sorry slide two actually shows the 55 acres and that would be in the gold uh area as well as if I had a pointer you could actually see the wetlands from the Ontario lands tribunal too. So if you could just uh choose to slide three please and you can see these are the 75 sorry the approximately 75 hectares on the lower center side of the slide highlighted in gold. The rule staff report states that these amendments modify small areas of schedule B9, the rural transit and schedule C, the natural heritage system of the official plan. These are not small changes. Rather, these changes represent 14% of the Golden Wetland Complex losing its PSW designation and that protection that that designation imparts. That's over 1 of the wetland complex. A wetland complex that were once 961 hectares has been reduced to 831 hectares in less time than a 4-year municipal election cycle. This is death by thousand cuts. Referring again to the figure, if you look at the golden area, which is the approximately 75 hectares, I'm rounding it up. You'll also see green wetlands that are isolated. Now, do not doubt that these wetlands will inevitably lose their PSW designation. It is only a matter of time. We can also not forget that in the eastern portion of our city, approximately 500 hectares of wetlands were never designated a provinially significant wetland in the first place when the South Bearbrook wetland evaluation transitioned to the weekend Ontario wetland evaluation system. We appreciate that this city continues to bring transparency to these changes through the committee meetings. We also appreciate that we have a wetland evaluation expert within the city to ensure conformity with the weakened system. However, we continue to dance around a more disconcerting issue. That is, we have normalized the fundamentally flawed provincial policy changes to the Ontario wetland evaluation system which is not based on science. Despite the city's implementation of the natural heritage features overlay to reflect this, evaluate nonPSW wetland as a map surface water area development or site alteration can and will be entertained in or adjacent to the natural heritage features as long as the proposal is supported by environmental impact study prepared in accordance with the city's guidelines. So where development was once prohibited on provinially significant wetlands, we now have a situation in which environmental impact study can can be completed to facilitate development. Yet the intrinsic value of that wetland has not changed. Only the bar in which the province unilaterally set. Do not be fooled. This is an endgame. The policy changed by our provincial government in 2022 facilitates the conversion of provinially significant wetlands to non-proincially significant wetlands to enable development across our province. We are deluding ourselves if we think development will not proceed in one way or another in the other parts uh in the are the 75 hectares delisted and when we lose wetlands we will have inverse or reversibly damaged nature's very own nature-based climate solution. Please remember that also in April 2023, this council joined many other cities around this world in moving forward to sign the Montreal pledge on biodiversity. The pledge commits cities to 15 concrete actions for dodiversity, including conserving existing natural environments through protection and prioritizing system of ecosystem approaches. There is more work for the city to do to uphold this commitment. In September 2024, when we came here, we asked the committee to communicate to the government the adverse impacts of newly adopted and weakened Ontario wetland evaluation system for identifying and designating PSWs while illustrating firsthand the changes we are seeing in our city. At that time, this committee chose not to take action. Now, a year and a half later, we ask you to reconsider this decision and speak out on behalf of the wetlands. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm not seeing any questions from my colleagues, but thank you for coming out today. Sarah, welcome back. Thank you very much. Um, so yeah, thank you. Thank you again for the second opportunity to to speak with you on uh, of course, another very important topic related to conserving Ottawa's wetlands. Uh, and I'm again here to speak as Ontario Nature's Conservation Campa campaigns coordinator uh, as I did for item 4.1. My goal in speaking on this second item is to challenge the narrative that the city of Ottawa must accept lesser protections for non-proincially significant wetlands. Uh and to emphasize the opportunities to better protect these areas so that they may continue to benefit the community. Uh as of course we just heard from Janet uh the changes in wetland status being considered today are not an isolated occurrence. uh rather it is part of a worrying trend whereby some of Ottawa's most valuable wetlands are losing their proincially significant status and protection. Uh this trend makes it all the more important that the city has strong policies in place to protect local wetlands regardless of their status as proincially significant, locally significant or otherwise. The staff report on the reclassification of these parts of the Goldburn wetland complex and the Richmond Fen acknowledges that the uh recommended official plan and zoning bylaw amendments will reduce the standard of environmental protection for these wetlands that have now lost their proincially significant status. However, the report also suggests that the city's uh official plan has uh already strong enough policies in place to protect non-proincially significant wetlands. Uh I would argue though that based on today's approval of staff's recommendation to remove the natural hair uh the natural features overlay sorry and reszone the site um to facilitate expansion of Tomlinson and Stitzville quarry at the expense of the wetlands present at that site wetlands that were also once considered part of the provinially significant proincially significant Goldbbor wetland complex and that also provide extensive flood mitigation and groundwater services. there may be some room for improvement. The staff report also suggests that the recommended amendments reducing the standard of protection for these parts of the Goldburn wetland wetland complex and the Richmond Fen are necessary to align with the provincial planning statement. Uh but this is simply not the case. While the provincial planning statement does of course set minimum standards that only require municipalities to strictly protect uh proincially significant wetlands, it also empowers municipalities to establish local policies that go beyond these minimum standards. Many municipalities have already done this, including the city of G, which defines a broad range of non-proincially significant wetlands for equally strict protection. Similar policies could be adapted to and applied in Ottawa, helping to better protect the city's incredibly valuable wetlands affected by the provincial changes. Not to mention, such changes could reduce the amount of time spent processing official plan and zoning bylaw amendments like these each time a wetland is reclassified under the provincial system. Alongside the friends of Sitzville wetlands, Ontario Nature is very keen to collaborate with the city of Ottawa to strengthen the city's approach to protecting local wetlands. Janet and I are very grateful to have started some uh really wonderful and productive conversations uh about this with several staff following joint recommendations that we submitted around enhancing the recognition and protection of wetlands for their contributions to natural climate resilience as part of the city's commitments under climate ready Ottawa strategy. Uh, and as you'll know, the value of these recommendations and continuing conversations with staff was also highlighted by councelor Gower at the November 12th, 2025 city council meeting. Through these conversations, we've been thrilled to learn of some of the wonderful upcoming initiatives to better understand, account for, and communicate the role of Ottawa's wetlands in securing a climate resilient future. However, we're also continuing to explore some key gaps in the city's currently current policies for protecting non-proincially significant wetlands and the and the opportunities to address those gaps so that all the climate resilience benefits that Ottawa's wetlands provide are maintained for current and future generations. I recognize that what we've shared today does not change the policy framework under which you will make uh your decision on this matter today. However, I hope that by highlighting the growing need and opportunity to enhance the current uh city's current approach to protecting local wetlands and both of our group's interest in supporting this process as collaborative partners. You will also see the importance of this work and consider supporting such initiatives should the opportunity arise. So, thank you once again for your time. Thank you very much, Sarah. Always appreciate hearing from you at committee. I'm not seeing any questions from my colleagues. So, thank you very much. Yep. Questions for staffer next. Councelor Skowski. Just one question. Um, can you help me understand the no impact app aspect of the the app like the the policy itself? Through you, Mr. Chair. Um, yes. So uh under the provincial planning statement um uh wetlands whether they're proincially significant or not are uh uh any development adjacent to a wetland uh must demonstrate no negative impact on that that wetland. Um the uh the assessment of no negative impacts depends a lot on on the context. Um for uh proincially significant wetlands, we also have the uh the prohibition on any development or site alteration within the wetland. So that's a a much stronger protection. Um no negative impact uh uh uh standard. Um, we have approached taking a uh an Ottawa specific approach recognizing Ottawa's context and recognizing that uh twothirds of Ottawa is rural. So unlike the city of of GE, we have an extensive rural area and we need to take an approach that reflects that. So um we have identified a natural heritage system. That natural heritage system is strongly based on the provincial planning statement and uh the policies in that statement and we have said that within that natural heritage system we will take a very approach to the assessment of no negative impacts. Um so essentially if you are changing the boundaries or the functions of that wetland in any way that is a negative impact that applies to 95% of the s significant wetlands in Ottawa and 75% of the overall wetlands in Ottawa outside the natural heritage system recognizing that we do have needs for rural economic development. We have agricultural needs. We have um you know a variety of different different needs. We have elected council's elected to take a more flexible approach that looks at a an overall no net negative impact. And so we do allow uh mitigation and compensation outside of the natural heritage system when we evaluate the impacts on uh non-proincially significant wetlands. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions, colleagues? Seeing none, the report recommendations are that the agriculture and rural Affairs Committee recommend that council approve the proposed amendments to the official plan as shown in document one and detailed in document 3. that the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend that council approve the proposed amendments to zoning bylaw 2008-250 as shown in document one and detailed in document 4. That the Agriculture and Rule Affairs Committee recommend council direct staff to incorporate the proposed amendments into the new comprehensive zoning bylaw as detailed in document four and five. And that the agriculture and rural affairs committee approve the consultation details section of this report. I'll also note that we do have correspondence uh that has been uploaded to the share drive. Colleagues, is this item carried? Thank you very much. Thank you very much to the team. All right. Our next item 7.2 2 minor zoning bylaw amendment part of 6659 Franktown Road. There is a presentation if committee wishes to receive one. However, I haven't had that request. We do have one delegate signed up. We've got them up here in the gallery. So, I'll invite you down to the table. Now, I will note uh just for housekeeping that there were two other delegates that had originally signed up to speak today. However, they've withdrawn their delegation. Jacob, Jeremy, welcome to committee. Appreciate the opportunity to engage with you. Floor is yours. Thank you, Chair Brown. Uh my name is Jacob Bulduk. I'm a planner with Foten Planning and Design in Ottawa. Uh presenting this zoning bylaw amendment 46659 uh Franktown Road. Uh I I don't have a long presentation. I I I think most of the meat and potatoes are at the end, but uh just on the title slide here, this is a view of the property uh from the uh road from Franktown Road uh as a bit of an introduction to the site. Next slide, please. So, the site is located about 1.2 2 km west of the village of Richmond along uh Franktown Road. The total site is is significantly large. It's it's 40 hectares in size. Uh but you can see we're talking mostly about the front of the property on Franktown Road, which has a frontage of approximately 90 m. Uh next slide, please. It's a little uh a little fuzzy, but to explain a little bit of the history of the site, this is an aerial image from 2005 taken from Geo Ottawa on the left. Uh and on the right is a more uh recent image from 2022. Uh you'll note there's three main buildings on site. There's the the single detached dwelling, the house, uh and then there's the garage structure uh and what we call the coverall, sometimes known as a hoop house. Uh you can see that the site over the last 20 years uh hasn't changed too too much. Um but that the uh the business air rock drilling was uh established on site uh circa 2004 2005. Uh, and I'll get into that history in a bit of a minute, but uh, the purpose of this slide was just to highlight that it's uh, virtually the same 20 years later. Next slide, please. These are some images showing the property. Um, you can see the driveway from Franktown Road. There's a couple pictures there of the single detached dwelling uh, which is owner occupied. So, this is a proposal for a homebased business. uh the owner of the business uh sitting next to me uh lives in the main structure uh the house and operates the business out of the accessory buildings in the rear yard uh which you can see uh on uh uh image number four there. And if we go to the next slide uh there's also an image of the garage which is labeled as image number eight. Next slide please. So to summarize the application uh first I'll go through air rock drilling uh again it's a homebased business uh owner occupied main dwelling uh it was established on site circuit 2004 2005 uh and the current owner Jeremy sitting next to me acquired the site in 2017 along with the business uh there's parking storage and and office proposed on site uh I apologize for the site plan showing uh a lot of gray um there's supposed to be two different kinds of green there and if you can see it better on your screens that I hope So, uh, most of the site is not covered by gray. There's a small ashalted and gravel area. Uh, but most of the site remains naturalized as you saw in the intro slide. Um, it's important to note as part of the business that it's a homebased business that requires a lot of equipment, but the activities on site are fairly limited as I mentioned to the the office parking and storage. Uh, there's no drilling on site. That would be counter to the nature of the business. So uh essentially the drill trucks are uh moved off site onto the job site drill and then when the job is done uh they come back for storage and parking until they are sent out to the next job site. Just a quick note on lot coverage here and again I wish the two-tone green showed up a little bit better but the lot coverage proposed uh according to this lot area is around 7.69 between all three buildings. That's based on the rectangle that you're showing at 1.45 hectares. But uh it's important to note that uh uh the full site again around 40 hectares we'd be permitted approximately uh or sorry a maximum of 5% of the lot uh as covered by accessory structures which is about two hectares. So we're well under what's permitted in terms of how much building area is allowed to be on site. Next slide please. With respect to the zoning bylaw quickly uh the site is zoned RU uh but there is a portion of the site uh to the rear uh which is zoned EP3. Uh one thing we did notice actually if we go to the next slide it's in better detail uh through the zoning bot amendment application we noticed that the conservation authority boundaries for the wetlands at the rear of the site the EP3 zone um not sure if if we can get the next slide please or if it's just Thank you. Uh so you can see that the the boundaries were actually changed a couple years ago, but the zoning bylaw didn't necessarily uh get the updated mapping. And so the first part of the proposal is just to have that mapping revised to match the current boundaries of the uh the conservation authorities regulatory boundary. Uh so that EP3 line is moving uh uh essentially just to the north. Um we just capture that as part of the application because we notice a mismatching in the the mapping and if we have an application in the door, it might as well change that zoning boundary. Next slide, please. So the original proposal is essentially to establish a homebased business. Uh but there's a couple different sections of the zoning bylaw that would apply. Notably sections 127 and 128 which are specific to homebased businesses. Uh and then there's a few other things through the zoning bylaw as well. But uh notably there's a restriction on the maximum area of a homebased business and how much space it can occupy within uh primary and accessory structures. A maximum and outdoor storage. a maximum number of heavy vehicles permitted to be parked, a cumulative number of heavy vehicles and trailers permitted, uh, as well as provisions about the on-site storage uh, sorry, the on-site storage of hazardous materials. So, these were the five main sections of the bylaw that we were uh, applying for relief. I've highlighted three of them in green uh, because we reached a point where we're still uh, seeking relief all except for the last one, I suppose. Uh, but we've managed to work with staff to lower our request. So, originally we were proposing six large vehicles. We've decided to move two of those vehicles offsite, so there's only four large vehicles being parked on site. And the staff report does reflect that this would be supported by staff. The reason I've highlighted the maximum area of a homebased business uh which we're proposing 670 meters uh in blue uh is that as you've uh noted in the staff report, this remains the one item that we haven't been able to resolve with staff. Uh they they are uh proposing 320. So I want to go into a little bit of detail about that uh uh which is on the next slide actually. So going back to our site plan uh I've highlighted a few different elements here but the 670 that we had determined was based on the area of the garage structure uh which is 320 m plus about 70% of the 500 meter coverall. Some things have changed actually. Um, and I'm happy to get into the details on this, but originally when we had six vehicles, that was the reason for requesting about 350 square meters of the coverall to be required. Um, because those trucks would often be parked in the coverall. Those two trucks are being offsite, sorry, being moved off site at this point. Uh, and so we don't need as much space in the coverall as what was originally proposed. Um, we only need about 20% of it. So that would be 100 square meters. Uh, which would take the numbers in the staff report. Uh, and I do appreciate that we didn't get the staff presentation, so I'm spending a little more time on this. Uh, they're proposing 320 mters, which would be limited to the garage structure. We would also be asking for 20% uh uh outside of the current request for for 70% uh to be used for uh storage materials uh related to the business. So essentially, what we're asking is part of that coverall to be used for part of the business. Uh but we don't necessarily need the full 70% we were previously requesting. uh we'd be happy to reduce that to a total of 420 if the uh committee would be agreeable to such a request. Some of the other items highlighted here is the reinstatement of green space. Um we've also got uh the removal of some additional outdoor storage that was on site that's now being limited to an area of 150 square meters and fenced as proposed. Uh we're also looking to propose uh an acoustic barrier on sort of the uh it's right where the blue arrow is located actually. Uh and that acoustic barrier is to provide some noise relief to the property to the southwest of the site. Um that could be in the form uh of a burm or an acoustic fence uh depending on the uh or actually in accordance with the noise study that was submitted in support of the application and that's part of the holding symbol. So the reason I want to spend a little more time on the coverall if we can go to the next slide please. Just for clarification I know you're both here and you've got 10 minutes but I'll just let you keep going and and then if Jeremy has any comments when you're finished there. Sure thing. Thank Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I'll I'll keep my presentation focused on the application. Uh and if there's any questions about the business or the operations, uh maybe we can take those during questions for for Jeremy. So, the coverall structure, I just wanted to note again that um as as noted in the staff report, there is currently no building permit for it, but there is an open building permit application. It's actually been open since about 2004 when the original building was proposed. And we've gone through the records and noted a file number that essentially they had submitted for building permit. It was flagged at zoning that the structure at the time was too close to one of the previous property lines. There since been a merger of properties and so the coverall building was located too close to the rear property line. The zoning plans examiner had flagged this as part of the review of the building permit. So we know there was an open building permit. It just seems that building permit was never closed. As part of that zoning review, there was a minor variance decision to permit the coverall structure as proposed uh with a reduced setback to that previous property line. Uh and I don't know what happened. This was 2004 2005 well before my time. Uh but the building permit was never closed. So recently uh as part of this process through the zoning bylaw amendment uh it's been noted uh that the city of Ottawa staff I believe from building code services attended the site said hey we've noticed we have this open building permit. We're looking to close it. The owners since then have provided the original stamped building drawings by an engineer. uh they've been uploaded into the system, but that permit is not yet closed, but we do hope to have it closed. The reason I bring this up is that uh the coverall structure is not currently permitted, but it could be permitted. Um there's no maximum number of accessory buildings on a rural property, and as I mentioned earlier, the lot coverage is is considerable. So, we're not running into any zoning constraints from that perspective. All we would be asking is for uh uh the recommendations of staff to be updated to reflect that a small portion of the coverall building of course subject to receiving that building permit be reflected so that certain materials can be stored in the coverall. There are uh outdoor storage that's required as part of this business, but there's also a certain amount of indoor storage. Uh and and because the vehicles, the four trucks that are on site have to be parked on the garage, sorry, in the garage, uh a small portion of the coverall building does have to be used for the business in order to allow for storage of concrete and other things that just have to stay dry. So if the trucks need to stay in the garage because they can't be outside in the winter, then we just need a small portion of the coverall to be permitted through that building permit application um to be allowed for use of the business for the storage of some materials. I think that covers it. I'm happy to take questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I know this has been a long road for the applicant and for the neighbors. So, I'm pleased that we're here today and I hope we find some resolution. For me, the important uh component of this is to ensure that not only can the applicant adhere to the conditions that are being recommended for approval, but that this will address the concerns that residents around the area have raised. So Jeremy, are you confident that you can operate the business within the the permissions that are being recommended for approval here today and you'll be able to do that uh while running a successful business in the village? Yes. Now that we've been able to move two trucks off property, we're able to downsize enough to still service the community but be able to run functionally. and I appreciate the work that you've done to get to this point and you know you have put a lot of water in your wine and I'm pleased to see that I think we're to a point where there's a good compromise and if all parties are going away from the table not completely satisfied but with enough to to make the deal work I think we've high found the the sweet spot. So I don't have any further questions for you but I do appreciate the opportunity to engage the work that you've done to get here to address the concerns about the city and the the neighbors around the property. So, thank you colleagues. Are there any other questions for the delegates? No. Thank you very much. I do have one question for uh the planning team. Thank you very much. Welcome. Um, so we received a pretty comprehensive presentation. We see where uh staff and the applicant were able to to align and there's one component left over. Can you go into a little bit more detail about why we weren't able to square that circle? Thank you, Councelor Brown. Um, yes. So, we have had extensive discussions with the applicant um specifically regarding to the size that they are proposing. Um, part of staff's justification for the 320 uh meters squared proposal that staff is recommending uh is because it would be able to be effectively contained within that permitted garage uh that has a building permit for it. Um partially that's the reason. The other reason is the given the proximity to the neighbors expanding beyond far beyond that uh as proposed with the 600 um original proposal and now the revised proposal we are are still expanding beyond that limit that we are recommending and it has a greater uh potential for uh causing we'll say the nuisance um to these neighboring properties that uh have been flagged to us as a concern. So that was the point of differentiation between staff's uh recommendation and the applicant's re uh proposal. Um and and a little bit of the basis for our concern uh and as well as was highlighted. Um although the coverall uh building is established and existing today, there was never a building permit issued for it. Um and it is staff's opinion that uh there was a reason that it wasn't issued beyond just the minor variance. So, no, I appreciate that. And with the recommendation that's before us today, nothing would absolve the business going forward should committee recommend to council to approve this that existing sections of uh various bylaws that govern homebased businesses and those nuisance issues that we often hear about. Nothing in this recommendation would absolve the applicant from having to meet those requirements. Correct. Yes, that is correct through you, Chair. um section 127 uh one of the zoning bylaw is one of the sections that regulate uh homebased businesses and in that section it describes the types of nuisances that could arise from homebased businesses meaning noise, dust, uh vibration, all of those concerns. Um we are not recommending any changes to that provision and any future operation of the business would have to comply with that um provision. Perfect. Thank you. and we heard from the applicant that they believe they can satisfy those conditions that are listed in this report. So, I appreciate the the opportunity to speak and I've heard great work um about you about the work you've done here today. So, I always appreciate having the opportunity to engage. You were able to answer my questions when I had them and I think you're certainly a credit to the rural planning team. So, thank you very much. Colleagues, any questions to staff? None. Perfect. The report recommendations are that the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend council approve an amendment to zoning bylaw 2008-250 for part of 6659 Franktown Road as shown in document one to permit an enlarged homebased business and adjust the location of the environmental protection zone boundary as detailed in document two and that the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend council direct staff to incorporate an amendment into the new comprehensive zoning bylaw to uh 2026-50 for part of 66 659 Franktown Road as detailed in document three and that the agriculture and rule affairs committee approve the consultation details section of this report. Is this item carried? Carried. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming today. There are no in camera items and there are two items listed as IPDS, but I haven't received a request to lift either of those. So, we're down to the open mic session and we do have one registered speaker, Jerry. Welcome back to committee. Thank you for sticking with us for the last few hours. I'll ask staff to put your presentation up on the screen. You've got five minutes to address committee. Perfect. Thank you. Uh, as most of you know, my name is Jerry Pearson. Um, I work for a company called Rolling Luxury. Uh we've provided transportation uh throughout Ottawa either um for schools um as well as uh government agencies such as the G7 we did transportation for that um as um excuse me and on top of that like Canada Post um I just finished providing uh quotes for um providing shuttle services uh to the city of Ottawa as Um so I'm here to kind of give you an idea of what I can do for you um as rural warts within uh for the transportation. Um so next slide. There's many reasons why this would work um that I can give you. These are just a few. Um places like North Granville and Pemrook are already doing something similar to this. Um and it's been successful enough that they're actually expanding. Um North Granville actually just expanded into Kempville. Um the inflation is actually becoming a problem for a lot of um families and whatnot um to where they can't they're having problems even holding on to even just their one car. So something like this would provide a service to them that if they don't have a way to get into town or um to doctors, whichever groceries, this would be a service. Um it would be less expensive than paying gas. I noticed this morning gas was kind of up there. Um within the rural war or rural wards there has been population growth um as you all know and it seems to be continuing. Um a lot of newcomers that don't have access to vehicles are now relying on taxis um as well as friends, family, any other kind of services within the area. Um and pretty much providing this service would give them the opportunity to get around. Um next slide please. So my oh my objective would be to provide um connectivity within each of the wards to bring um passengers into Ottawa as well as allowing passengers to or residents to travel within each of the warts and at a low cost. So it would also provide a lower uh carbon footprint, provide extended trans transit availability and service and cover the biggest populations in each of the wards um with a fixed route as well as a hybrid uh on demand service. So, if you live with on that uh fixed route, you'll be able to arrange for that bus to stop at along the way. And that way, you don't have to make it into um one of the areas where there's an actual stop. Um next uh slide, please. So, we would start off the service small um and then grow as needed. So not have start off with like the big buses. Um we provide the uh service locally to all anybody and everybody uh bringing the service into um the major hubs such as Plaster Orleans um Canada and so on. Um and then as even if the high-speed uh train does come in, we can adjust the routes to go to there as well. Um the fixed routes would be um determined by us as well as counselors and um with the again the hybrid uh on demand service. Uh next slide please. So oh one too far. There we go. Oh did I mess them up? Okay. So I guess we'll go to the next one um after that. So these would be the possibilities for each of the wards uh for the type of connectivity um within the villages um and then into places as I mentioned plaster or leans canata centrum trim road um literum fellowoffield uh connections um and then with uh say w five you'd be looking at coming into Canada or um even when uh the LRT becomes available at uh Moody we can adjust to go to the LRT as well. Uh next slide please. So the benefits uh to residents and uh businesses within the role it would be a low cost. Um all residents would be able to travel within Ottawa um within the wards um each bus would have the accessibility. So, you'd be looking at with uh at least one wheelchair on each. You're 5 minutes elapsed, shared, but I'll give you 30 seconds to wrap up. Okay. I guess we'll uh we can kind of jump to the end uh if you don't mind. So, in conclusion, um these other places such as uh Penrook and um North Granville can do it. We can definitely do this. um we wouldn't be uh taking any jobs away from say OC Transpo. What we may end up be doing is any places that do have the actual buses at the moment running through, we could al they could alleviate those buses and drivers and put them elsewhere where it may be needed. Um and I guess that would be it. Vice Chair, do you have a question? I do. Sure. Thank you very much. And thank you for being here today, Jerry, and your uh your commitment to uh to moving this file forward. And I know it's I've been hearing about transportation needs in my ward going all the way back to uh the campaign in 2022, and I'm sure that's no different for uh for my royal colleagues. So, it's exciting to see that there are uh potential solutions um in terms of servicing those boards. And I'd be I I think you have some champions up here in terms of that idea and moving that forward. Uh I wanted to inquire with you about um you know generating a formal detailed proposal with costs and stuff that we can really use to uh move it forward, try and find some funding, a pilot project, whatever the the outcome ends up being. But do you think uh you are close to having something like that that we might be able to use uh in pursuit? For the most Thank you for the question. Uh for the most part, I already uh do have the uh meat of it. I would have to kind of tweak it a little bit. Um but other than that, within a couple weeks, I should have be able to need to add some potatoes to the meat. And Exactly. Okay. Well, I'd be excited to see that and I think that would be um you know make the moving this forward a little more real for us in terms of having something that we could present and and advocate for. Uh I often think about our time at the uh Roma conference in Toronto where we're talking to uh provincial ministers. Uh this might potentially be uh something we could delegate on in the future and I don't think we'd need to wait that long, but we could start having those conversations. Um but again I think that would be a big step forward to have something like that that we could use. So um just wanted to inquire about that. Thank you very much Jerry. Thank you chair. Thank you vice chair. We must be getting close to lunch talking about meat and potatoes. Councelor Stoulski. Thank you chair. Um I uh I saw that you had to buzz by the slide on pricing but can you just can you just share some highlights on what you're thinking in terms of how accessible this would be for for residents and uh yeah just I I can definitely do that. So, what we'd be thinking, um, again, these would be what's called mini coach buses. You kind of saw that on like the first slide, um, with one wheelchair accessible. Uh, for four buses that would be running plus one, um, extra, it'd be 2.5 million um, plus uh, tax. Unfortunately, we have to pay the tax because we are for profit. Um, and what that would pretty much do is 7 days a week, uh, 12-hour days, um, including holidays and whatnot. Uh, pretty much roundtrip service. It wouldn't be just an AM service and a PM, kind of like the express buses. It'd be continuous within that time frame. Have you done any thinking about how long like is it a milk run? is how long these routes would be or how would be the ideal. So for for the most part uh depending on the the words are different. So the the villages are separated and whatnot. Um so let's say uh ward 21 you'd be looking at maybe roughly any for 45 minutes to an hour between buses. Um, ward five, um, I had done kind of like a layout or sorry, yeah, ward five I had done kind of like a layout where with four buses there would be, um, W five would be broken down into uh, four different sections. And so at that point in time, you'd be looking at roughly anywhere from an hour to um, an hour and a half between um, connections. But all the buses within um these wards would actually coincide with each other. That way if anybody wanted to go from one place to another place within the word, they'd be able to. Um but until we get kind of like a confirmation that says yes, we're going to do this. It's kind of hard to find an exact time. But most of them you'd be looking at anywhere from like say an hour to an or sorry 45 minutes to an hour and a half roughly. And we do have one thing that I wasn't able to do. Um residents would also be able to track where the bus is because we are in progress of working on an app that they would be able to book the trip. Um, anybody that needs that hybrid section where they're not near um, uh, a stop, they'd be able to book for the bus to stop for them. Um, as well as see exactly where the bus is because we do, um, have trips already that we do for schools and we're working on that as well for the parents. Thank you. Thanks very much. No problem. Thank you very much, counselor. I think Jerry that you'll find at this committee there's willingness to look for solutions beyond what the municipality may be able to provide itself. So I appreciate you coming here today. I know you've been working uh with Ken Holmes, W five rural champion sitting in the back there. Good to see you again, Ken. Um there's a willingness to find solutions uh that meet the needs of our residents. Ultimately, we want to provide services that residents can rely on, whether they're provided by the municipality or provided by a partner. It's about getting people out of their cars into mass transit where they need to go and back again. So, I appreciate the work that you've done to to put this together. I know this is the second time in two months that you're here at committee, so we appreciate the time that you've taken. No problem. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a great day. You as well. Okay. Um, notices of motion uh for consideration at a subsequent meeting. I know listed on the agenda there is a notice of motion that vice chair Kelly was going to read in on my behalf, but if it's okay with committee. I'll save the vice chair's voice. Please do, chair. I will read it in myself. I'll just read the operative clauses and certainly willing to have a conversation over the next month should there be any questions or concerns. Therefore, be it resolved that the agriculture and rural affairs committee recommend council direct city staff to review the rural transit area a funding model and report back to the agriculture and rural affairs committee including the items listed as A, B, and C. Be it further resolve that city staff be directed to evaluate the phys feasibility of engaging private mass trans uh trans transportation providers to supplement rural transit service for commuters and to enhance interconnectivity between villages and major hubs including the items listed as A, B, and C, D, and E. We had further resolve that staff incorporate the work already underway in response to councelor Brown's amendment to motion number 2025-6210 from the July 23rd, 2025 city council meeting into the work and report required by this motion and that a single consolidated report be brought forward to avoid duplication satisfying the reporting requirements of both motions and be it further resolved that staff uh report include a recommended path afford and where feasible an implementation plan identifying decisions required budget impacts operating at capital and a proposed timeline for any pilot or pilots and/or changes to the rural transit area A funding model and be it further resolved that staff report back no later than Q3 2026 subject to staff capacity and procurement requirements. So thank you very much colleagues and I'll acknowledge that Pat Scrum from OC Transfer is here in the room. And thank you very for coming today, Pat. Great to see you at committee. I don't believe there are any inquiries. However, under other business, I believe councelor Skolski has a motion pertaining to delegated authority of section 65 of the drainage act. However, colleagues, I'll just note that the rules of procedure need to be waved to consider this motion at today's meeting to ensure the timely future appointment of drain drainage engineers. So, are the rules waved? Waved. Thank you very much, councelor. I always love talking about moving water. This will increase the flow. Go ahead. It sure will. So, yes, thank you, chair, for the chance to put this forward. Um, essentially, the purpose of this motion is to make uh it a little bit more efficient so that we don't have to review um work that is essentially procedural in nature. So whereas section 65 of the drainage act RSO 1990 CD17 provides the legislative framework for reO reaportioning drainage assessments when land is divided, severed, or otherwise altered in a way that affects an existing municipal drain. And whereas the municipality may be required to appoint an engineer to prepare a report under section 65 when changes to property configuration or drainage area occur and no landowner agreement exists under section 652. And whereas certain section 65 matters may be administrative or time-sensitive in nature, including those where prompt instruction to an engineer is required to fulfill statutory obligations, respond to development timelines, or maintain the integrity of the municipal drain assessment schedule. And whereas the appointment of an engineer for more substantial works for new and existing municipal drains under section 4 and 78 of the drainage act would still require approval by committee and council. Therefore, be it resolved that agriculture and rural affairs committee recommend council delegate authority to the general manager infrastructure and water services and the director water linear and customer services to appoint a qualified engineer for the purposes of preparing any report required under section 65 of the drainage act. And be it further resolved, that the general manager shall report back to council through annual delegated authority reporting on any engineer appointments made under this delegated authority, including the purpose of the appointment and the summary of the resulting section 65 report. Thank you very much, counselor. I'm going to ask staff, I think Mr. Ryan, you're online. Maybe we'll throw it to you for a quick comment. Are staff supportive? Is this going to help uh provide a better service to our residents? through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, it will. It's uh there's not a requirement under the drainage act to go to council for an appointment of a drainage engineer under section 65. So, it will expedite things somewhat. Yes. Perfect. Thank you. Colleagues, any other questions for Mr. Ryan? Great councelor. Uh thank you very much for bringing this forward. I think this is the the common sense improvements residents expect us to bring forward. It cuts that red tape and bureaucracy and gets us further to the finish line a little quicker. So colleagues, can we let it flow? Is this item carried? Carried. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for attending committee today. Laurel, always great to see you in the audience. Uh we stand adjourned. Our next meeting will be Thursday the 2nd of April, 2026. Have a great rest of your day, everyone. Thank you.

Full Transcript