OttawaWest Development Inc. v. City of Ottawa, 2026 CanLII 38542

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 23, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000378

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: OttawaWest Development Inc.

Subject: Consent

Description: to subdivide the property into two separate parcels of land and construct a detached dwelling on each parcel

Reference Number: D08-01-24/B-00008

Property Address: 6435 Fallowfield Road

Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000378

OLT Case Name: OttawaWest Development Inc. v. City of Ottawa

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: OttawaWest Development Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: to subdivide the property into two separate parcels of land and construct a detached dwelling on each parcel

Reference Number: D08-02-24/A-00008

Property Address: 6435 Fallowfield Road

Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000379

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000378

OLT Case Name: OttawaWest Development Inc. v. City of Ottawa

Heard: February 5 & 6, 2025, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
OttawaWest Development Inc. (“Appellant”)	Gregory Meeds
City of Ottawa (“City”)	Timothy Marc

DECISION DELIVERED BY L.P. YOU AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The appeals arise under ss. 53(19) and 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13 (“Act”), as amended, brought by the Appellant, regarding the City’s Committee of Adjustment’s (“CoA”) refusal of the applications for consent and minor variance (“Applications”) to subdivide the property into two separate parcels and construct a detached dwelling on each parcel of the lands municipally known as 6435 Fallowfield Road (“Subject Lands”).

CONTEXT

2The Subject Lands have a lot area of 31.98 hectares (“ha”) with approximately 297.02 metres (“m”) of frontage on the northside of Fallowfield Road.

3The Subject Lands are located in a historically agricultural and resource-based hamlet within the former Township of Goulbourn, an area that continues to be privately serviced by well and septic. The Subject Lands are surrounded by rural residential lots to the north and west, a sand pit to the east (“Kemp Pit”), a rural residential community on Kimini Drive to the northeast, and rural residential and former agricultural lands to the south.

4The majority of the Subject Lands are treed, and the Subject Lands are bisected north to south by a tributary of Flowing Creek. The Stanley Corners wetland is to the southeast, and a portion of the Subject Lands is impacted by floodplain.

5The Current City Official Plan (“City OP”) designates the Subject Lands as “Rural Countryside” subject to a Natural Heritage Features Overlay, and the Subject Lands are zoned “Rural Countryside (RU)” in the City Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 (“City ZBL”).

6The Appellant sought the approval to sever an approximate 30.52 ha parcel from the Subject Lands, resulting in the creation of an approximate 1.46 ha remnant parcel, on which a single-detached dwelling is proposed. The severed parcel will have approximate 184 m of frontage on Fallowfield Road and the retained parcel will have approximate 112 m of frontage on Fallowfield Road. The Appellant also sought the relief of the setback requirements from the parcel zoned Mineral Extraction Zone, Subzone 2 (“ME2”) with a licensed operation to the east, and Mineral Extraction Zone, Subzone 3, Exception 1r, with a Holding symbol (“ME3[1r]-h”) to the south, in the City ZBL.

STATUS REQUEST

7The Tribunal received no written request for Party or Participant Status, nor individuals at the Hearing request for either status at the Hearing.

NOTICE OF HEARING

8There is no issue with Notice of this Hearing.

EXHIBITS

9The following Exhibits were marked during the Hearing:

1. Joint Book of Document marked as Exhibit 1;
2. Book Of Documents Supplementary marked as Exhibit 2;
3. Excerpts from Environmental Land Use Planning Guides section 4.2 marked as Exhibit 3;
4. ARIP 191 W Sand & Gravel Assessment Map marked as Exhibit 4; and,
5. Acknowledgement of Expert Duty form of Asad Rizwan marked as Exhibit 5.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

10The Tribunal qualified Mr. Benjamin Clare, a registered Professional Planner and full member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (“OPPI”) and the Canadian Institute of Planners (“CIP”), to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

11The Tribunal qualified Mr. Gary McLaren, a member of the Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association with sound knowledge and experience in aggregate resources, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence concerning aggregate in the matter before the Tribunal.

12The Tribunal qualified Mr. Asad Rizwan, with experience in the engineering noise and vibration control, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the area of acoustic modelling for the matter before the Tribunal.

13The Tribunal qualified Mr. Travis Smith, a Licensed Professional Engineer with Professional Engineers Ontario since 2021, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the area of Civil Engineering for the matter before the Tribunal.

14The Tribunal qualified Mr. Lucas Teeft, a Planner with the City of Ottawa, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the land use planning area.

Overview of Applications and planning issues

15Mr. Clare held the opinion that the development had regards to provincial interests as indicated under the s. 2 of the Act as this development would be an orderly development of safe and healthy communities while the agricultural resources and natural areas being protected properly.

16Mr. Clare provided overview of both the 2020 and 2024 versions of the Provincial Planning Statement (“PPS”) and confirmed that relevant studies, including Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) were submitted to the City and provided mitigation measures by maintaining at least 30 m setbacks for the site disturbance, limiting construction time to minimize the impacts of the development to the natural environment features and functions. Lastly, Mr. Clare confirmed that the EIS concluded that the development would have no negative impacts on the natural environment.

17Mr. Clare presented to the Tribunal that a Minimum Distance Separation (“MDS”) Analysis, provided to the City as supplementary information, applied a minimum distance separation formula for calculation based on MDS1 under the MDS Guidelines and pursuant to the relevant polices under PPS 2024 and the City OP. Mr. Clare confirmed that the City provided no outstanding comments on this analysis. Finally, Mr. Clare concluded that the proposal had appropriate regard for the protection of the agricultural resources of the Province pursuant to the Act and was consistent with PPS 2024. He added that the Applications, individually and collectively, met the general intent and purpose of the City OP regarding the MDS requirements and agricultural systems protection and operation.

18Mr. Clare stated that the Kemp Pit, located to the northwest of the intersection of Fallowfield Road and Huntley Road, was approximately in shape with a permitted 16.8 ha of extraction area and was zoned as ME2 Subzone in the City ZBL. Mr. Clare further indicated that Kemp Pit had historically been used for overburden aggregate extraction operations above and below the water table and had recently been used for the stockpiling of surplus materials. Mr. Clare noted that, according to the approved Pit Plans and a review of aerial photos, the area of aggregate extraction was located approximately 15 m from the eastern limit of the lands to be retained, which was in keeping with the limit of extraction.

19Mr. Clare stated that Walton Lands, directly opposite Fallowfield Road, were two agricultural properties zoned as ME[r-1]-h in the City ZBL, expansive and mostly constrained by floodplain. Mr. Clare further claimed that the current owner of Walton Lands advertised their intention to develop these lands over the long-term as part of a master plan for “…a mix of uses, including high-density residential development, retail use and open space”.

20Mr. Clare demonstrated his detailed review of the Aggregate Impact Assessment Report (“AIA Report”) and concluded that the aggregate resources surrounding the Subject Lands would not be hindered. Further, Mr. Clare referenced to Mr. Smith’s opinion evidence on the matters related to noise and vibration control as well as water quality and quantity and Mr. MacLaren’s opinion evidence regarding future mineral extraction on the adjacent lands, including Kemp Pit and Walton Lands.

21Mr. Teeft confirmed that the position of the City’s staff remained the same that the City staff’s concerns about the Applications in the staff report were not addressed. In his assessment, the issues related to noise level and protection of aggregate resources and groundwater remained outstanding. Mr. Teeft expressed his opinion that the Applications did not conform to the s. 2.6.1 of the PPS regarding the management or use of resources.

22Further, in Mr. Teeft’s opinion, the requested variances (proposed 25 m from boundaries of ME2 Zone and 81.25 m from boundaries of ME3 Zone) for the setbacks were significantly less than the minimum requirements of 150 m setback as indicated in the City OP.

Issue #1: Are the noise mitigation measures sufficient?

23Mr. Smith presented the Tribunal with his overview and assessment of the policies under the Control and Operation of Pit and Quarry of Aggregate Resources Act, Ontario Regulation 244/97 and the policies in the City’s Terms of References, City’s Environmental Noise Control Guides, and City’s Hydrogeological and Terrain Analysis Guidelines (“Hydrogeological Guidelines”).

24Mr. Smith opined that sufficient studies, including Noise Control Study and Environmental Noise Study, had been submitted to the City to address the City’s concerns related to the noise resulted by the operation of Kemp Pit, and the possible future expansion of the mineral aggregate operations in the proximity. Mr. Smith also stated that proper noise mitigation measures had been introduced in their studies to reduce the noise level with respect to the City’s Environmental Noise Control Guides.

25Mr. Smith further confirmed that engineering noise barrier/berm were not provided to the City for review and the Noise Control Feasibility Study (“Noise Study”), dated December 12, 2023, suggested the berm be retained along portions of the proposed north and east lot lines of the lands to mitigate the noise and vibration to comply with the Ministry of the Environmental, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) criteria.

26Mr. Smith held the same opinion in the Addendum to the Noise Study that the recommendations in the Noise Study remained applicable and disagreed with the City’s implementation of subparagraph 3(c) of the City OP, s. 10.2.1, Environmental Noise Control, based on which the City required studies for development “within 300 metres of a pit licensed under the Aggregate Resources Act or lands with a Sand and Gravel Resource Overlay”. Mr. Smith recommended to include the following warning clause in the applicable Development Agreements to address the City’s concerns about the noise resources associated with the future aggregate extraction operations on the adjacent lands.

Purchasers/tenants area advised that the sound levels due to future aggregate extraction operations on the lands to the east and south may continue to be of concern and may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants.

27Mr. Rizwan referenced the analysis in the Noise Study that all the stationary noise resources of the Subject Lands were Kemp Pit and explored the worse scenario of noise level when Kemp Pit was operated at its maximum capacity. In Mr. Rizwan’s opinion, mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the noise level to an acceptable level to comply with the requirements of MECP and the warning clause in paragraph [26] was very common to address the concerns about noise.

28Mr. Rizwan indicated that the noise level of the Subject Lands based on Class 1 Area was assessed based on the MECP Publication NPC-300 “Environmental Noise Guideline, Noise Assessment Criteria for Stationary Sources and for Land Use Planning, 2013” and other relevant publications. He further stated that it was appropriate to use Class 1 Area figures in the Noise Study to assess the noise level as the Subject Lands are located within an urban area with residential uses. Furthermore, Mr. Rizwan presented the Tribunal the detailed assessment of the Noise Study taking into consideration all the noise resources resulting from the operation activities on and traffic from and to the adjacent properties. Finally, he concluded that, the sound level at all the receptors on the Subject Lands, with the implementation of the noise control measures, were predicted to meet applicable MECP criteria.

29During the cross examination, Mr. Marc, Counsel for the City, questioned Mr. Rizwan’s opinion on the selection of Class 1 Area standards for developments in urban areas and further argued that the Subject Lands were located in a rural area, and it was inappropriate to use Class 1 Area standards to assess the noise level. Further, Mr. Marc indicated that Class 2 Area standards required the sound level for developments in rural areas to be maximum 45 A-weighted decibels (“dBA”), instead of 50 dBA for developments in urban areas.

30In Mr. Rizwan’s response, he confirmed that he selected Class 1 Area standard in his assessment model of sound level based on the photos of the site and the surrounding area, which indicated homes in that area. Further, he indicated that Class 2 Area standard may be applicable, but Class 3 Area standard was not in this circumstance.

31In addition, Mr. Marc challenged Mr. Rizwan regarding the resource of sound level contours shown on the Figure 6 of the Noise Study. Mr. Rizwan responded to Mr. Marc that Mr. Clare could provide clarification on this matter. Mr. Marc objected to put Mr. Clare on the stand to respond to this question and asked the Tribunal to reject the request as Mr. Marc’s cross examination to Mr. Marc’s evidence was complete at the time. The Tribunal agreed with Mr. Marc’s reason for the objection to the request and directed that Mr. Clare would not be called to provide clarification on this matter.

32Further, during the cross examination, Mr. Rizwan stated that Walton Lands would have to obtain applicable permits and address noise issues if they decided to file applications for pit operations on their lands.

33Mr. Teeft stated that a warning clause of noise level was not a proper mitigation measure to address the noise concern with respect to the policy of Land Use Compatibility of the PPS 2024.

34The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Teeft that the warning clause in paragraph [26] was not an appropriate measure to mitigate the noise on the Subject Lands to an acceptable level. This clause functions as a supplementary information to future purchasers/occupants to ensure their acknowledgement of possible noise resulted by the extraction prior to their purchase/occupation.

35The Tribunal recognizes the Appellant’s effort to address the noise level on the Subject Lands to applicable guidelines and standards. Further, the Tribunal recognizes that the City did not call its own expert witness to provide opinion evidence on the matter of noise and vibration for the Applications. Therefore, the Tribunal favors overall noise assessment on the Subject Lands by the Appellant.

36The Tribunal holds the position that the noise on the Subject Lands must be reduced to applicable guidelines and standards in addition to the inclusion of this warning clause into the conditions of Approval of the Applications. In the view of the Tribunal, the City’s concerns about noise level on the Subject Lands can be addressed by including the requirement of an updated noise attenuation study to the conditions of Approval of the Applications.

Issue #2: Has groundwater quality impact been assessed and has any treatment been discussed to address the water quality issue?

37In Mr. Smith’s Water Supply Assessment with respect to the City’s Hydrogeological Guidelines, he made the following statement:

The City will allow treatment of aesthetic parameters that are below the Maximum Concentration Considered Reasonable Treatable (MCCRT) in the Table 3 of the Appendix to the study of the City’s Hydrogeological Guidelines without a resolution of the City’s Council. For health-related parameters with an exceedance, or in the case of an exceedance, for residential use, of the MCCRT for aesthetic parameters, the City will not grant approval based on treatment.

38During the cross examination, the Appellant’s Counsel, Mr. Meeds, confirmed with Mr. Smith that the City required additional information to assess the impact of the development to the nearby mineral aggregate resources and the Appellant only received the City’s preliminary comments on the Application package. Mr. Smith also confirmed that adding a condition of further hydrogeological study including proper treatment strategies to be submitted by the Appellant should be sufficient to address the City’s concerns about water quality.

Issue #3: Will the Applications hinder the future expansion of aggregate resources on the adjacent lands?

39Mr. Clare explored the policies 3.5 and 4.5 of PPS 2024 and policies of City OP in relation to the management of mineral resources and indicated that the reports and technical studies concluding the Applications would not preclude or hinder the operation of Kemp Pit and future aggregate extraction.

40During the cross examination by Mr. Marc, Mr. Smith stated that the lot creation could hinder the aggregate operation with respect to the policy the City’s Impact Assessment Study-Mineral Aggregate (“IA Study”) and the Noise Study excluded the vibration of the operation.

41Mr. Meeds confirmed with Mr. Smith that the Application could hinder the operation of the aggregate, but the policy of the City’s IA Study used the term of “would hinder”, which suggested a certainty of hinder comparing to the term of “could hinder”.

42Mr. McLaren referenced the Aggregate Resource Inventory for the City (“ARI 191 mapping”) and provided a detailed overview of existing sand and gravel resources in the area of the Subject Lands.

43Mr. McLaren indicated that the Kemp Pit held a Class A license issued for sand and gravel extraction in around 1975, and a public school was located adjacent to the north boundary of the pit and a new subdivision was being planned and built directly to the east in 1980’s. Further, Mr. McLaren presented the history of the extraction and available resources at Kemp Pit based on the mineral aggregate impact assessment (“MIRA”) report and aerial photos in different years. He stated that the processing equipment observed in his January 2025 site visit was a screening plant.

44Mr. McLaren stated that the existing three-meter-high rough overburden berm near the west setback of the Kemp Pit would assist in noise attenuation between the pit and the building lot. In addition, Mr. McLaren noted that the Appellant planned to establish the barrier/berm in the location and height as identified in the Noise Study though in his opinion, the extra barrier/berm was unnecessary to mitigate noise levels to applicable provincial and City standards/guidelines.

45Lastly, Mr. McLaren concluded that he would not anticipate a wash plant/crushing plant operation on Kemp Pit site due to the depletion of premium aggregates during the past operations and Kemp Pit only supplied sand and winter hockey play at this time.

46Mr. McLaren presented a few examples, including Sauve Subdivision, which was located on the east side of Huntley Road and adjacent to three operating pits, two to the north (Stittsville Pit and Stanley Corners Pit), one to the east (Kemp Pit), was supported by Ministry of Natural Resources (“MNR”) as an example of rehabilitation of a pit site to a residential development to support aggregate extraction as an interim land use.

47In Mr. McLaren’s opinion, there are no sand and gravel resources that exist on the Walton Lands though the lands are designated Agricultural Resource area in the City OP and zoned MX3[1r]-h as industrial extraction lands.

48Mr. Teeft opined that the approval of the Applications would result in long-term impact to the operation or future expansion of aggregate resources on the neighbouring properties and did not align with relevant policies under PPS 2024 regarding long-term protection of mineral aggregate resources and the use of the resources.

49During the cross examination, Mr. Meeds confirmed with Mr. Teeft that the planners of the City and the Appellant had the same implementation of the relevant policies of PPS 2024 and the City OP to protect aggregate resources, operation and future expansion. However, Mr. Teeft disagreed with the conclusion and analysis of the Appellant’s experts that the Applications had no impact to the resources and operation activities on the adjacent lands. He confirmed his conclusion that the Applications would preclude or hinder the extraction and operation of aggregate on the adjacent lands.

50Mr. Teeft also clarified with Mr. Meeds that the City’s staff did not specify the additional information to the Appellant to address the City’s concerns about MIRA report and the City’s conclusion of the impacts of the Applications was made based on the received MIRA report despite the MIRA report’s conclusion of no impacts and Mr. McLaren’s opinion evidence of minor impacts of the Applications.

51Lastly, Mr. Meeds confirmed with Mr. Teeft that if new residential lots were created, future expansion of extraction on adjacent properties had to consider and address the noise and vibration impacts prior to the expansion.

Consent application

52Mr. Clare stated that the Consent application had considered health, safety, convenience for disabilities and provincial interest as discussed in his above-mentioned evidence. He indicated that the Consent application had regards to s. 2 of the Act and was consistent with PPS 2024 regarding the appropriate development on the Subject Lands while the aggregation resources are protected in a long term. Mr. Clare added that the Consent application represented the public interest and was not premature.

53In addition, he summarized his assessment of policies of City OP in relation to natural heritage and water resources, agricultural resources. In his assessment, he repeated that the EIS had the conclusion of no outstanding natural heritage or water resource-related concerns. He also stated that the Consent application represented proper growth in the area and would not conflict with future mineral aggregate extraction and expansion with respect to applicable policies of City OP.

54Finally, in his opinion, the Consent application meets the applicable criteria as set out in s. 51(24) and the conditions of Approval of the applications were fair and appropriate with respect to s. 51(25) of the Act.

Minor variance applications

55Mr. Clare stated that the intent and purpose of the City OP is to protect resources and extraction operations from potential land use conflicts and ensure no adverse impact resulted by the variances to the City ZBL. Mr. Clare repeated his opinion that necessary studies were conducted and reached the conclusion of no negative impacts identified. Mr. Clare opined that the general intent and purpose of the City OP were maintained.

56Mr. Clare presented his assessment of the test related to purpose and intent of the City ZBL. In his view, the intent of s. 227 of the City ZBL is to accommodate country residential lot creation to permit rural-based land uses on large lots or distance separation requirements, and further to ensure the development to be compatible with the existing character of neighborhood.

57Mr. Clare agreed the 150 m separation distance between the Kemp Pit property limit the future dwelling on the Subject Lands were an appropriate setback to prevent incompatible land use conflicts. He added that the intent of this setback requirement was a basis requirement for unmitigated situations, however, the studies for the Applications provided technical evidence that the Applications would satisfy the applicable noise criteria. Mr. Clare expressed his opinion that the Minor variance application maintains the general intent of the City ZBL.

58Mr. Clare stated that the Ontario Municipal Board determined to evaluate a variance to be minor based on the impact of the variance and if the impact is reasonable or unacceptable. In Mr. Clare’s opinion, proper noise mitigation measures are proposed in the noise study and will be implemented to the provincial noise criteria. He reached the conclusion that the Minor variance application was in fact minor in nature.

59Mr. Clare referenced the policies of PPS 2024 related to the development on rural lands and sensitive land uses as well as the protection of aggregate resources. He repeated that the Subject Lands would be developed and used appropriately with respect to the policies of PPS 2024. Mr. Clare opined that the Minor variance application is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure.

Analysis, Findings and Conclusion

60The Tribunal holds the same position as both parties that the intent of relevant policies is to protect aggregate resources and future expansion of extraction on the adjacent lands. The Tribunal accepts Mr. McLaren’s evidence regarding the analysis of existing resources and potential in expansion of the extraction on the adjacent properties as the City did not call its own expert witness for evidence on this matter.

61Considering the qualities and quantities of existing aggregate resources, the Tribunal leans towards the opinion evidence of the Appellant’s expert witnesses that the Applications would not preclude or hinder the operation and expansion of the aggregate resources on the adjacent lands.

62In addition, the Tribunal finds that the person or group or organization, who initiated the expansion on the adjacent lands, is responsible to address the noise impacts to appliable guidelines should the Applications receive the approval prior to the expansion activities initiation. Therefore, the Tribunal agrees with the conclusion of expert witnesses of the Appellant that Applications, individually and collectively, have regards for the relevant matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act and are consistent with the policies related to the protection and operation of aggregate resources of PPS 2024.

63The Tribunal finds that the Consent application is not premature and represents the efficient use of the lands and the existing infrastructure. Also, the Tribunal holds the view that the provincial interest in protecting resources of natural heritage, agriculture and aggregate is protected while considering the Consent application.

64The Tribunal is consistent with how to determine if variances are minor in nature. Whether variances are minor is based on the impact of the variances and if the impact is reasonable and negative. In this case, though the variance to the minimum separation distance appears to be large from a mathematics perspective, however, the technical studies show that the impacts could be minimal. As such, the Tribunal considers the impacts of the Applications minor in nature.

65In conclusion, the Tribunal prefers the opinion evidence of the Appellant’s expert witnesses presented in the submission package and oral testimonies, and similarly finds that:

1. the Applications: a. has regards for the relevant matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act; b. is consistent with the PPS 2024; c. reflects the principles of good land use planning; and, d. represents the public interests.

2. the Minor Variance Applications

• maintains the general intent and purpose of the City OP;
• maintains the general intent and purpose of City ZBL;
• is desirable; and,
• is minor in nature.

3. and the Consent Application meets the applicable criteria as set out in s. 51(24) of the Act.

ORDER

66THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeals are allowed;
2. The variances to the City Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 are authorized; and,
3. The provisional consents are given, subject to the conditions set out in the Attachment 1 to this order.

“L.P. You”

L.P. YOU

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

Conditions of Provisional Consent Approval

1. That the Owner(s) provide evidence that payment has been made to the City of Ottawa for cash-in-lieu of the conveyance of land for park or other public recreational purposes, plus applicable appraisal costs. The value of land otherwise required to be conveyed shall be determined by the City of Ottawa in accordance with the provisions of By-Law No. 2022-280, as amended. Information regarding the appraisal process can be obtained by contacting the Planner.

2. That the Owner enter into an Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner(s) and to the satisfaction of Development Review Manager of the Relevant Branch within Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, which provides the following covenant/notice that runs with the land and binds future Owner(s) on subsequent transfers:

“The City of Ottawa does not guarantee the quality or quantity of the groundwater. If, at some future date, the quality or the quantity of the groundwater becomes deficient, the City of Ottawa bears no responsibility, financial or otherwise, to provide solutions to the deficiency, such solutions being the sole responsibility of the homeowner.

“The Committee requires a copy of the Agreement and written confirmation from City Legal Services that it has been registered on title”.

3. That the Owner(s) submit a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment prepared by a qualified person who meets the qualifications prescribed by the regulations, for approval by the Development Review Manager of the Relevant Branch within Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, to be confirmed in writing from the Department to the Committee, outlining the assessment of the property and determining the likelihood that one or more contaminants have affected any land or water, in or under the property.

4. That the Owners provide a Mineral Resource Impact Assessment report, to the satisfaction of the Development Review Manager of the Relevant Branch within Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, demonstrating that the existing mineral aggregate operation, and potential future expansion of the operation in depth or extent, will not be affected by the development. The report must include a review of the impact of the development upon the current mineral extraction or future expansion. The report shall be prepared in accordance with the Province of Ontario’s Aggregate Resource Policies and Procedures and the City of Ottawa Official Plan.

5. That the Owner provide a Geotechnical Report prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, that is satisfactory to both Select Manager of the Development Review Manager of the Relevant Branch within Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate and to the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority to be confirmed in writing from the PREDD and the Authority to the Committee, demonstrating the following:

a. That all parcels to be created by this application are or can be made suitable for residential purposes (slope stability, erosion protection, and building limits adjacent to slopes);

b. That there are no adverse environmental impacts.

The Geotechnical Report shall, as a minimum, determine the limit of organic soils/karst topography/sensitive marine clays present on the severed parcel and provide recommendations for construction methods based on the soil types encountered.

6. That the Owner acknowledges and agrees to convey to the City, at no cost to the City, an unencumbered road widening across the complete frontage of the lands, measuring 15 meters from the existing centerline of pavement/the abutting right-of-way along Fallowfield Road, pursuant to Section 50.1(25)(c) of the Planning Act and Schedule C16 of the City’s new Official Plan, if required. The exact widening must be determined by legal survey. The Owner shall provide a reference plan for registration, indicating the widening, to the City Surveyor for review and approval prior to its deposit in the Land Registry Office. Such reference plan must be tied to the Horizontal Control Network in accordance with the municipal requirements and guidelines for referencing legal surveys. The Owner(s) must provide to the City Surveyor a copy of the Committee of Adjustment Decision and a draft Reference Plan that sets out the required widening. The Committee requires written confirmation from City Legal Services that the transfer of the widening to the City has been registered. All costs shall be borne by the Owner.

7. That the Owner(s) prepares and submits an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) to satisfaction of the General Manager of the Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate. If the accepted report recommends specific mitigation measures or other requirements, the Owner shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City, at the expense of the Owner(s) and to the satisfaction of the General Manager of the Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, or his/her designate, which is to be registered on the title of the property, which includes those recommendations.