Item 8 - City of London

I-_
.
.-t
U
a,
m
L
E
o
0
.F
L
w
To:
City of London
City of London Planning Committee
City of London - Planning Division
Councilor Susan Eagle
Councilor Elect Paul Van Meerbergen
Heather McNeely, Planner, Subdivisions and Special Projects
From:
Michael Pearce and Kathy Karn
1845 Woodhull Road
London, Ontario N6K 4P3
Re:
File 39T-0351112-6558
Proposed change in zoning of 1810 Woodhull Rd.
Date:
November 16,2003
Summary
I.The purpose of this document is to convey and explain our strong obiection to
the proposed change in zoning for the Matthews property designated as 1810
Woodhull Road, which we will refer to throughout as the Matthews property. This
property is directly across the road from our property at 1845 Woodhull Road. We
believe no development should be allowed on this property until it is fully serviced by
the city and that any development should be in keeping with London’s Official Plan
guidelines that call for compact urban development, a reduction of urban sprawl, and
the protection and stewardship of existing agricultural land and the environment.
2. We believe that this application for draft plan of subdivision (I
0/15/2003) should
be denied for the following reasons:
It is inconsistent with the spirit and provisions of the London Official Plan.
It is premature for such dense urban development because the land is not
serviced. Development would require 23 new wells and septic systems,
threaten the water quality and quantity of the existing wells of the
neighbouring homes and farms and remove a significant groundwater
recharge area.
The proposal is environmentally unsound. It threatens to disrupt the
existing landscape and natural heritage features and negatively impact
adjacent €SA land. Recent development history has shown within the city
(e.g. Medway Valley, Warbler Woods) that subdivisions built adjacent to
ESA lands, wreck havoc on the environment, destroy and fragment wildlife
corridors and natural habitat.
Pearce and Karn Responseto File 39T-0351I/Z-6558
1
The proposal for R l - I I is inconsistent with the Official Plan which requires
R1-I6 lots for this rural settlement parcel of land.
3. The proposal is for 23 single detached residential lots, 1 residential development
block, zoned R1-11, served by two local public roads. Section 9.4.6 (Ix) of the
London City Official Plan reads: “Lands within the Rural Settlement designation
located south of Lime Kiln Drive and east of Woodhull Road may be developed for
the purposes of a rural estate residential subdivision provided that an environmental
impact study is undertaken prior to the approval of the subdivision to determine
measures for the protection and, if appropriate, enhancement of the environmental
features shown on Schedule “B”within and abutting the Rural Settlement
designation; and that the subdivision shall consist of large rural residential lots
comparable to those on the north side of Lime Kiln Drive.”
4. The Lime Kiln Road area, on the north side of the Matthews property, contains 5
large homes. These are on properties zoned R1-16 which means among other
things, minimum lot area of 4000 m2 and minimum lot frontage of 50 m. The
Matthews proposal is for Rl-11, which means minimum lot areas of I390 m2and
minimum lot frontages of 24 m. The 23 lots in an area of 21 acres (plus allowance
for roads) means that these lots are less than 1 acre each, significantly below the
minimums required in the City Official Plan 9.4.6 (Ix). The Matthews proposal for
R l - I 1 should be rejected because it is not for R1-16 as stipulated in the Official
Pian.
This development needs water, sewer and gas services provided by the City.
5. This proposed development is outside the city urban growth boundary. We have
no water, sewer, or gas. We were told in discussions with officials in the City
Planning department that City would not be servicing this land, but rather that the
development would need individual wells and septic systems. Servicing by the City
any time soon would mean extending the city infrastructure out past currently
undeveloped land, an expensive “leap-frogging” practice which the City has said it
will not do. With no city water, fire protection is an added concern.
6. Further, we have been told that any problems with quantity and quality of water,
septic pollution, and other environmental problems would be the responsibility of the
developer, not of the City, if this development is approved and proceeds. This leaves
us totally vulnerable to the impact of the development and worries us greatly based
on the recent problems with water and septic in Lambeth (South Winds) and Hyde
Park (Canterbury Estates). We know that developers come and go and cannot be
relied upon. If our water supply is destroyed or our area contaminated, we will have
no assured recourse. This puts our existing neighbourhood and farming community
at an unfair risk.
Pearce and Karn Response to File 39T-03511/2-6558
2
Water Quality and Quantity
7. A major concern for any development in this area is quantity and quality of water.
The past decade has been the hottest and driest in recorded history. The EIS report
was done by Biologic in May 2000. Much has changed in the local environment
since then with significant droughts and we doubt its appropriateness. We have
asked for an independent review of the Biologic report which is now underway.
EEPAC has already expressed several concerns regarding this application in their
11/05/03 minutes. Development on this area would mean the loss of a groundwater
recharge area. EEPAC also mentions there are no acceptable legends on the
Biologic map.
8. M e n we purchased our property in 1986, we had a 15 foot dug well. That well
went dry that summer and we drilled a 70 foot well. We were told it is difficult to find
good water around here - much is sulphur contaminated, especially when one goes
deep. The soil is a mixture of clay, gravel and sand and this is both good and bad
news for water we’re told. The clay holds it and the gravel speeds it on its way. The
best supply of water we could find provides us with only 3-5 gallons per minute, not
enough to run a tap for any length of time. Our well runs dry if the hose is left on for
one hour. We had to create a reservoir system to buffer our use of water and are
very conscious of conserving water use.
9. We have a small pond, which we recently deepened, that is our only supply of
water for fire protection. This water is not potable. The water level in our pond is
dependent on ground water. The water table runs from the Matthews property
towards us, on its way towards the Thames River below us. The pond is between
the Matthews property and our drilled well. Our land level is below the Matthews
property. The level of our pond is a direct indicator of the level of the water table in
this area. In recent years, the level has fluctuated as much as four feet, and
generally is down from previous years levels. Farmers in this area can all point to
diminished water table levels. There was a small stream/rivulet in the ravine behind
us that used to flow most of the year; in recent years it has dried up except during
spring runoff. It takes time for water levels to go down - and it seems it takes even
longer for them to be restored when negatively impacted. It is obvious that drilling
23 new wells will negatively impact the sensitive water table in our neighbourhood.
1O.We are concerned, not only about the negative impact of 23 new wells on the
water quantity available to our neighbors and ourselves, but also on the water
quality. Water may be put back into the ground by these new property owners, but
then we are concerned about the quality of the water. Two years ago our well
showed some contamination and we installed a UV light to ensure the water safety.
Neighbours on the corner (abutting Matthews property) had to drill a completly new
well because their water supply was contaminated by the farm across the road. This
demonstrates to us how fragile the water conditions are in this area and how
interdependent all the neighbors are when it comes to water and septic disposal.
Supply of safe drinking water is a very real concern for us.
Pearce and Karn Response to File 39T-03511/2-6558
3
I 1.The London Official City Plan Section 9.3 stipulates that Rural Settlement areas
should be “on lots suitably sized to allow for the proper siting and functioning of
individual on-site water supply and wastewater treatment systems”. We do not
believe that the Matthews proposal meets this requirement.
This neighbourhood is an agricultural and ESA area with few residences
12. The proposal is for development of 8.4 hectares (21 acres) of land that was, and
still is, in agricultural use. It is our understanding that during the Vision ’96 process,
London made a commitment to preserve and maintain its existing agricultural lands
outside the urban growth boundary “since the City is no longer a strictly urban
municipality” (3.2). In fact, we would welcome and encourage application of the
several sections in the Official Plan (such as 9.2.13) which promise “protection and
enhancement of natural areas located in the “Agricultural” designation.” The
Matthews proposal seems counter to this spirit in the Official Plan.
13. There are existing agricultural uses here in addition to the farming that has been
occurring on the Matthews property. Our “next-door” neighbours to the south
(Tisdall) have cattle, our neighbour, Cinch Stables on the northwest corner of
Gideon and Woodhull has a major horse farm and riding academy, our neighbours
on the southeast raise a herd of horses and the southwest corner is farmed in cash
crops.
14,According to the Official Plan Section 9.2.10, these existing agricultural
operations “will be provided protection from the encroachment of new dwellings or
other uses on adjacent lots or within the Rural Settlement or Urban Reserve
designations, through the application of these minimum distance separation
requirements. Building a subdivision at 1810 Woodhull Rd. does not protect our
neighbours’ existing farming businesses.
Environmental Protection and Impact on surrounding ESA’s
15. The objectives for environmental policies (15. I)
in the Official Plan specifically
say that the city intends to “protect, maintain and improve surface and groundwater
quality and quantity” (15. I.
1 iii) and “Minimize the potential for contaminated lands to
create a hazard to public health and safety, to property or to the natural environment
(15.1.Ii). We believe that the Matthews proposal is not compatible with these
objectives.
16. The Vision 96 process designated the Matthews property as Open Space, part
of a natural buffer zone around the urban growth area. The intention of the Official
Plan was to protect natural heritage areas with this designation. Unfortunately Ms.
Matthews challenged this at the OMB and got 23 acres designated Rural Settlement.
Our property, adjacent to Komoka Provincial Park, was also designated Open Space
and ESA. We agree with this vision for London and support a position of land
stewardship. EEPAC has noted (minutes 11/05/03) that the Kilworth area we live in
is a sensitive area. It contains significant woodlands and wildlife habitat. Streams
Pearce and Karn Response to File 39T-03511/2-6558
4
and ravines on this ridge above Commissioners all flow into the Thames River. The
area itself is an important groundwater recharge area. The Komoka Provincial Park
Eastern boundary is on Woodhull Rd. near the proposed subdivision. We believe
city hall should take special care to protect this wonderful natural area from the
negative impact of development for the good of all citizens of the greater London
area.
Traffic
17. This past summer Woodhull Road was paved. The traffic has increased
dramatically as a result. The posted speed limit is 80kms/hour and with a paved
surface drivers are often well above the limit. Lime Kiln Dr. intersects with Woodhull
at the top of a hill. Visibility is reduced because of this, it is already a dangerous
intersection. Adding more homes, and consequently more drivers and pedestrians
to this access point is an invitation for more accidents.
Need for a comprehensive plan for the entire area first
16. The 23 acres involved in this application are part of a larger parcel of Matthews
land that is being farmed. We believe that good planning practice and responsible
development would require a comprehensive plan for the entire area before
development proceeded. Developing small parcels of land compromises
responsible planning goals for compact urban growth that include consideration for
water, sewer, transportation, schools, roads etc. etc.
Our position
19. This application should be rejected on grounds that this development threatens
both the quality and quantity of the water table that existing residents and farmers
are dependent on, eliminates an essential groundwater recharge area, negatively
impacts the environment, neighbouring homes and farms, is leap-frogging other
development closer to the city core, is premature, and is contrary to the policies of
London’s Official Plan.
Pearce and Karn Response to File 39T-03511/2-6558
5
Re: file 39T-03511/02-6558
Application by Phyllis Matthews concerning a subdivision at 1820 Woodhull Road
General:
This is an ill-conceived scheme that fails to conform to rulings of the Ontario Municipal
Board and provisions of the Official Plan of the City of London. Approval would set an
unfortunate precedent. In its current form, the proposal is perilous to existing residents, the City,
and any purchasers of property in the proposed subdivision.
We, residents of the Lime Kiln subdivision and the surrounding neighbourhood, strongly
recommend that the Planning Committee reject this proposal.
History:
The original proposal for a subdivision at 1820 Woodhull Road was rejected by the City
and its planning staff, and for good reasons: this is leapfrog development of the worst kind, it
eliminates good agricultural land in the green belt, and it envisions building too many houses on
an environmentally sensitive area. The proponents appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board
(OMB). While rejecting the bold application to have the property included within the River
Bend Cornunity Urban Growth Area, the OMB did require a change to the Official Plan. It
ordered that the existing “Lime Kiln Rural Settlement” designation - which covers the six houses
in the Lime Kiln subdivision - be extended onto a portion of the Matthews property. This new
‘‘rural settlement” area was to be developed by way of a “Rural Estate Residential Subdivision”,
requiring “large rural residential lots comparable to those on the north side of Lime Kiln Drive”
( O m ,PL 968670,1999, p. 14).
The developers have taken an approach to the subdivision that is highly aggressive.
Originally they proposed to develop 23 lots, with sizes ranging fiom 279 ha (.69 acres) to ,394
ha (.97 acres). Obviously these are not “comparable” to the existing subdivision of which they
were to be an extension, for the average lot size of the existing properties is well over 2 acres.
Moreover, the lots were encroaching on a sensitive watershed and several of them encompassed
steeply sloping land. Further, each was to be serviced by a well and a septic system. Given that
most of the soil is clayey silt, with a very low dispersion capacity, the majority of the septic
systems were to have raised beds.
City staff, including those in planning, parks, engineering and other branches, resisted,
and pushed for many modifications. Some small victories for sensible planning and land-use
principles resulted, with minor improvements to a proposal that the Environmental and
Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC) and the Agricultural Advisory Committee
(AAC) condemned, and that many neighbours and interested parties had objected to. But the big
picture is clear: the proposed development, as it stands, violates the City’s Official Plan and
grossly distorts the OMB decision.
2
Water
The current residents of the neighbourhood are most concerned about the impact that the
proposed subdivision would have on the quantity and quality of their water supplies. There are
very good grounds to be nervous about this.
i. Quantity
The hydrological studies behind the proposed development are cursory. They are totally
inadequate to assure anyone that existing well flows from the aquifer would not be adversely
affected by a development of this scale.
Trow Consulting Engineers reported potable water flows from shallow to intermediate
aquifers ranging from 2-25 gallons per minute (“Geotechnical Assessment”, January 20,2000, p.
4). These data came &om “A review of well records”. But note that these flow rates demonstrate
a high variation. Much would seem to depend on the precise location of the wells. In fact, as
Appendix C to the “Geotechnical Assessment” shows, of the 12 wells for which Ministry of the
Environment WOE) data were available - and the year of measurement was not indicated - one
was dry and six of the 11 others had flows of less than 7 gallons per minute. In its “Geotechnical
Comments” of February 16,2004, Trow Associates reported that there were two MOE wells on
the property, and that the pump rate fiom these was 18-25 gallons per minute. These records did
not have dates, and they appear to be single-point estimates, rather than measures over time.
Moreover, the variability in the Trow data shows how important is precise location. We do not
even know whether the MOE wells are on the portion of the property that is proposed to be
developed.
It is clear that water quantity is a concern. The capacity of aquifers is not infinite. These
concerns were raised in submissions about the proposed subdivision by Leslie Cornish (of Cinch
Stables), Tony Scarpelli, Martin Langdale and Neville Knowles. The Lukings at 2250 Lime Kiln
reported water shortages and the need to re-drill wells. Michael Pearce and Kathy Kam at 1845
Woodhull had a 15-foot well go dry. Their best water supply - a 70-foot well - produces only
three to five gallons per minute.
Twenty-one more houses would pose a very substantial drain on water supplies. The
drain would be great for normal family use, let alone lawn watering. Then there are swimming
pools, which would certainly be expected by people building homes of the size and cost that are
envisioned: a modest pool has a capacity of 70,000 litres, which means a total draw of 1.6million
litres for this use alone.
If wells dry up, there would be very serious damage caused to all concerned. And there is
a significant possibility of water quantity being insufficient. The Trow reports suggest this
possibility, recommending that the “surrounding potable private wells should be surveyed prior
to the commence (sic) of any construction below the groundwater table to establish a baseline of
the well levels. Subsequent monitoring is recommended to ensure that the wells are not impacted
and that mitigation measures can be implemented if required.” (“Geotechnical Investigation”,
January 2000, pp. 10-11). This has not been done. It is imperative that it take place before any
construction, and that the developers post bonds sufficient to dig deeper wells on existing
3
properties should wells dry up.
But construction of any sort should not commence at all until further, comprehensive
studies of water supply in the aquifer have been completed. @or example, of the six test pits dug
in connection with the initial Trow reports, four were dug where roads, not houses, are proposed
to be built [“Geotechnical Investigation”, ‘Drawings’, number 11). At the moment, the
hydrological studies simply do not provide a sufficient foundation to proceed, even with a
downsized proposal, let alone this one.
ii. Quality
Of even greater concern to existing residents is the quality of the groundwater supply. At
the moment, while quantity is somewhat uncertain, our water quality is excellent. The proposed
subdivision poses a severe threat to the groundwater. Should problems materialize, life for the
existing residents and for any new residents would be intolerable. And remedial action would be
extremely expensive, because the nearest municipal water supply is at the corner of Oxford Street
and Westdel Bourne, about 1.2 kilometres fiom the proposed subdivision, over hilly terrain.
The basic problem here is the nature of the soil on the property in question. It is damp
and clayey, resistant to penetration. The upper silt found in test pits dug in connection with the
Trow reports exhibited a “percolation ‘T’ time of near or greater than 50 minutes per centimetre”
(“Geotechnical Assessment”, January 20,2000, p. 4). These conditions dictate that raised septic
beds need to be constructed. Further investigation (apparently by Trow, but reported by
BioLogic) involved 19 shallow test pits. In nine cases, the percolation rates were sufficient to
indicate that in-ground septic beds could be constructed. But in the other 10 cases, raised beds
would have to be used (“Environmental Impact Study”, May 2000, Appendix A). These 10 cases
cluster in three locations - along Woodhull Road just south of Lime Kiln Drive, along Lime Kiln
Drive itself, and at the southern and eastern edges of the property (adjacent to the ravine and
tributary)
Everyone in London knows what happened at Hyde Park and in the Southwinds
subdivision. It was a nightmare. Heavy expenses were borne by property holders and the City.
Failed septic systems in the proposed subdivision would pose a grave threat to water quality for
new residents and for the existing inhabitants of the Lime Kiln neighbourhood. Contamination
of ground water would make life impossible. The only remedy would be a tembly expensive
connection to the municipal water supply.
Failure is probable. This is a major reason why the Environmental and Ecological
Planning Advisory Committee was “concerned that this application has even been allowed to
proceed to this stage in the approval process” (Draft Report,November 13,2003). In the
Committee’s view, raised sewage beds are “bound to fail at some point”, causing pools of
sewage on the surface (running off into the Thames in this case) and contamination of
groundwater. The threat is particularly severe to the existing residents of Lime Kiln Drive,
because the prevailing direction of groundwater flows is towards them. As Trow Associates
warned, “The direction of the groundwater flow is important when considering the potential
impact of the drinking water since the movement of contaminants such as nitrate is facilitated by
difhsion and advection. It is anticipated that the sewage loading at the north boundary of the
proposed development will be affected the most due to the predominant groundwater flow
.
4
direction” (“Geotechnical Comments”, February 16,2004, p. 3). Trow recommended that
“additional water quality monitoring should be carried out during and after construction to ensure
minimal impact to the existing wells.”
But this is not enough. Effects on the quality of groundwater can be anticipated. The
raised beds pose a severe threat of contamination. This is why the City aims to protect itself
though an extraordinary condition attached to the Recommendation about this subdivision. Not
only is water quality monitoring required during construction (Condition #15), but also
“1 .c. The owner will be required to notify each individual owner by registration of a
condition on title of each individual lot that they may be required to connect to a municipal
sanitary sewer, if available, at no cost to the City, when replacement of a private sewage disposal
system becomes necessary.” (Appendix, emphasis added)
This chilling requirement should give potential purchasers pause. But it provides no
protection whatsoever to existing residents facing contamination of their water supply. There is a
condition (Appendix, 1 .a.) that the “owner agrees to ensure that any proposed systems will not
contaminate the area’s ground water and surrounding wells”, but there is no provision for
reparation.
We insist that before any construction commence, the developer post a bond sufficient to
connect the existing residents to the municipal water supply. There is a clear risk of
contamination, and given the disastrous consequences this would inflict on the existing residents,
this requirement is perfectly reasonable.
Comparability
The proposed subdivision is in clear violation of the Official Plan of the City of London
and of the OMB ruling that caused the Plan to be amended. The proposed lots are not
“comparable” to those in the Lime Kiln Subdivision.
The word comparable does not mean identical. We accept this. But lots that are less than
half the size of the existing ones certainly are not comparable. The lot at 2250 Lime Kiln is 1.9
acres. This is the smallest of the group. The one at number 2314 is at least 2.3 acres and the one
at nurnber 2320 is at least as big. The subdivision’s proposed lots range ftom 1.046 acres to .665
acres. Most of the proposed lots are about one-third the size of the existing lots. This is not
comparable.
The submission to the Planning Committee perverts the clear intent of the OMB, which
required a Rural Estate Residential Subdivision. In London’s terms, this refers at least to R1- 16
zoning, with minimum lot sizes of 4,000 square metres (.988 acres). What is being proposed for
the subdivision at 1820 Woodhull is three lots that meet this criterion, 11 that are R1-15 (greater
than 3,000 square metres), and seven lots that are R1-14 (greater than 2,000 square metres). All
of the last two groups are lots that would be found in fully serviced subdivisions of the sort being
built along Highway 22 in the northwest of the City. They are simply not appropriate in a largely
rural neighbourhood where there are no services.
In an effort to establish comparability, Planning staff focused on the “developable” area
of the existing homes. The portions of the lots that are on slopes were excluded fiom the lot size.
There is no objective rationale for doing this. It is wrong. First, this methodology excludes parts
5
of the existing properties that are in fact in use. Some of the areas excluded are used for septic
drainage; at one house there is a useful dog-run on the slope; also excluded are four structures
within the various lot boundaries, which are obviously developed and useful; and, finally, there
are useful wetlands on portions of two properties. Second, there are good reasons not to exclude
the “non-developable” portions of the lots. A “rural estate residential subdivision” is
characterized precisely by undeveloped areas, which allow for natural vegetation, wildlife
preservation, privacy, and the other features found in rural areas. This is not just about pieces of
land that are more (or less, in this case) capable of supporting a bundle of services. To accept
this methodology would be to set a dangerous precedent.
Moreover, in calculating the developable portion of the lot, Planning staff were led to
misconstrue the Lime Kiln Subdivision. This consists of six houses, including the one to the
north, at the comer of Woodhull and Oxford. Rather than calculate the developable portions of
all six lots, Planning staff excluded the lot at 2320 Lime Kiln, probably because it is not “north”
of Lime Kiln Drive (lying to the southeast of the drive, even though it is an integral part of the
subdivision), and also the lot at the comer of Woodhull and Oxford (even though it actually is to
the “north” of Lime Kiln and is part of the subdivision and of the Rural Settlement designation
which covers it and which was extended to the property at 1820 Woodhull). These are both
large, flat lots. Including them, the average “developable” lot size in the Lime Kiln Subdivision
is at least 4,3 13 square metres (rather than the 3,409 found on p. 14 of the Recommendation),
which is substantially larger than the average lot size in the proposed subdivision (3,280 square
metres). This little bit of sleight-of-hand should be summarily rejected.
With the graduated lot-size scheme being proposed, it is clear what game is afoot.
Relatively large lots are to be provided in the area immediately adjacent to Lime Kiln Drive.
Then the lots taper off to a size that is suitable to a normal subdivision having large houses.
There is no justifiable reason for this, except that the developers probably think that more lots
will maximize their revenue. But this is does not reflect the intent of the OMB,nor does it
satisfy the requirements of the Official Plan. Their designations are meant to apply to the whole
property, not just to the portion that abuts the existing residences.
In sum, the Planning Committee should reject this proposal. It is not in conformity with
the Official Plan and does not reflect the direction of the O m . It is a bad precedent. The
developers should be sent away and directed to come forward with a proposal for a genuine rural
estate residential subdivision, with approximately eight lots. We have no doubt that the OMB
would reject the proposal as it stands.