X-UIDL: MSG1144721097.3 X-Mozilla-Status: 1011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jEHjJx36Oi8+Z3TmmkSEdPtfpLB7P/ybN8= Received: from tomts49-srv.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.193]) by bay0-pamc1-f12.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:04:57 -0700 Received: from toip7.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.175]) by tomts49-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20060411020456.HIOO13805.tomts49-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip7.bellnexxia.net> for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:04:56 -0400 Received: from smtp.cogeco.net (HELO fep4.cogeco.net) ([216.221.81.25]) by toip7.bellnexxia.net with ESMTP; 10 Apr 2006 22:04:54 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (d38-164-139.home1.cgocable.net [72.38.164.139]) by fep4.cogeco.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401DF4CBA; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:04:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <443B0EC4.8060909@mvc.on.ca> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:04:52 -0400 From: "John Price, P.Eng." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: john Subject: Re: Carp floodplain References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060806080603080607040107" Return-Path: jprice@mvc.on.ca X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Apr 2006 02:04:57.0209 (UTC) FILETIME=[54E78E90:01C65D0C] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060806080603080607040107 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dar Mr. Almstedt: Thank you for finding this finding the details of the Kazda lot. Mr. Kazda's development has a long history. The first comment I would make is that this is an OMB ruling under the Planning Act. Mississippi Valley Conservation (MVC) is comments on Planning Act applications but the municipality (or ultimately the OMB) makes the final decision. Mr. Kazda started discussing development on his lot in the late 1980's. Besides the lot being almost entirely within the Regulatory (1:100 year) flood plain of the Mississippi River staff of MVC found three other issues; 1) Substandard lot size 2) Substandard setback to the highwater mark (which is generally defined as the average spring level) 3) No access on an open municipal road These three issues can not be specifically addressed or considered under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act and are Planning Act matters. These are standards defined in the municipal Official Plan and/or the comprehensive Zoning document. The Township of Ramsay at the time chose not to require a re-zoning or any Planning Act application for the property. The Township of Ramsay eventually entered into an agreement with Mr. Kazda to place fill on their half of the unopened road allowance, to provide flood proofed access to the site, and issued a building permit. It the early 1990's the MVC policy was that areas within the flood plain subject to 1 metre or less of flooding could be considered for development subject to flood proofing measures. MVC did issue a permit to Mr. Kazda under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act in the early 1990's. In the following 8-9 years Mr. Kazda placed some fill on the property and partially constructed a foundation. In that time the MVC permit was renewed twice. In this time frame MVC policies changed. Two zone (floodway/flood fringe) areas could only be applied on a reach basis not site by site and must be supported by a comprehensive analysis to address flood plain storage, hydraulics and flood proofing. Allowing the two zone concept to continue to be applied on a site by site basis could set a undesirable precedence that could lead to cumulative impacts. In the last renewal given by MVC, Mr. Kazda was informed that a further renewal of the original permit may not be possible. Mr. Kazda still did not finish his dwelling. At about the same the Town of Mississippi Mills (the amalgamation of the Town of Almonte, Ramsay and Pakenham Townships) revoked the building permit due to a lack of progress. A stop work order was also issued. A subsequent re-zoning application submitted by Mr. Kazda was denied by the Town of Mississippi Mills due in part to the issues stated above. The fill that has been placed over the past years on the property has created an "island" in the flood plain and the Regulatory flood plain of the Mississippi River borders three sides of the site. The high water mark of the Mississippi River also borders parts of the property and the 30 m set back can not be met on the site. Although no formal application under the Conservation Authorities Act was submitted, Mr. Kazda did inquire about obtaining a fill permit to move the highwater mark away from his property. Since the proposed filling operation was to be completed on property he did not own, Mr. Kazda was informed that a permit could not be issued by MVC. Mr. Kazda subsequently appealed the Town of Mississippi Mills' refusal to enact his proposed zoning by-law amendment. As detailed in the decision, the OMB refused Mr. Kazda's appeal. There are many differences in Mr. Kazda's development proposal and the Kanata West development. A comprehensive analysis for the reach of the Carp River considering all future development, new and modified road crossings, proposed filling in the flood fringe, and the restoration plan has been completed. This analysis demonstrates no increase public safety from flooding or potential erosion. Environmental enhancement through the restoration plan and set backs will be realized. John Price, P. Eng. Watershed Management Coordinator Mississippi Valley Conservation john wrote: > Hi John, > > I'm sure you're busy with more important things at this time of the > year than what I'm about to ask about , but if you have a moment I'd > appreciate your comments. > > You may recall that at the March 7 public meeting in Kanata we briefy > talked about a July 2005 OMB ruling in which a person who wanted to > bring in fill to elevate their lot on the Mississippi was denied > permission, but neither of us could recall the details. Well, I'd > like to continue that discussion since I now have some of the particulars. > > This link outlines the ruling: > http://www.storm.ca/~orkeeper/MVCA%20OMB%20July%2015%202005%20Decision.pdf > > I was wondering how the MVC was able to deny a fill permit for this > person who wanted to bring in fill to elevate their lot above the > flood elevation of the Mississippi River, while on the other hand, the > MVC appears to have no problem in authorizing the placement of > hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of fill into the Carp River > floodplain which as we know is a much smaller system than the > Mississippi River? > > Thanks, > John (728-1043) --------------060806080603080607040107 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dar Mr. Almstedt:

Thank you for finding this finding the details of the Kazda lot.  Mr. Kazda's development has a long history.  The first comment I would make is that this is an OMB ruling under the Planning Act.  Mississippi Valley Conservation (MVC) is comments on Planning Act applications but the municipality (or ultimately the OMB) makes the final decision.

Mr. Kazda started discussing development on his lot in the late 1980's.  Besides the lot being almost entirely within the Regulatory (1:100 year) flood plain of the Mississippi River staff of MVC found three other issues;

1) Substandard lot size
2) Substandard setback to the highwater mark (which is generally defined as the average spring level)
3) No access on an open municipal road

These three issues can not be specifically addressed or considered under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act and are Planning Act matters.  These are standards defined in the municipal Official Plan and/or the comprehensive Zoning document.  The Township of Ramsay at the time chose not to require a re-zoning or any Planning Act application for the property.  The Township of Ramsay eventually entered into an agreement with Mr. Kazda to place fill on their half of the unopened road allowance, to provide flood proofed access to the site, and issued a building permit. 

It the early 1990's the MVC policy was that areas within the flood plain subject to 1 metre or less of flooding could be considered for development subject to flood proofing measures.  MVC did issue a permit to Mr. Kazda under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act in the early 1990's.  In the following 8-9 years Mr. Kazda placed some fill on the property and partially constructed a foundation.  In that time the MVC permit was renewed twice.  In this time frame MVC policies changed.  Two zone (floodway/flood fringe) areas could only be applied on a reach basis not site by site and must be supported by a comprehensive analysis to address flood plain storage, hydraulics and flood proofing. Allowing the  two zone concept to continue to be applied on a site by site basis could set a undesirable precedence that could lead to cumulative impacts.  In the last renewal given by MVC, Mr. Kazda was informed that a further renewal of the original permit may not be possible.  Mr. Kazda still did not finish his dwelling.

At about the same the Town of Mississippi Mills (the amalgamation of the Town of Almonte, Ramsay and Pakenham Townships)  revoked the building permit due to a lack of progress.  A stop work order was also issued.  A subsequent re-zoning application submitted by Mr. Kazda was denied by the Town of Mississippi Mills due in part to the issues stated above.  The fill that has been placed over the past years on the property has created an "island" in the flood plain and the Regulatory flood plain of the Mississippi River borders three sides of the site.  The high water mark of the Mississippi River also borders parts of the property and the 30 m set back can not be met on the site.  Although no formal application under the Conservation Authorities Act was submitted, Mr. Kazda did inquire about obtaining a fill permit to move the highwater mark away from his property.  Since the proposed filling operation was to be completed on property he did not own, Mr. Kazda was informed that a permit could not be issued by MVC.  Mr. Kazda subsequently appealed the Town of Mississippi Mills' refusal to enact his proposed zoning by-law amendment.  As detailed in the decision, the OMB refused Mr. Kazda's appeal.

There are many differences in Mr. Kazda's development proposal and the Kanata West development.  A comprehensive analysis for the reach of the Carp River considering all future development, new and modified road crossings, proposed filling in the flood fringe, and the restoration plan has been completed.  This analysis demonstrates no increase public safety from flooding or potential erosion.  Environmental enhancement through the restoration plan and set backs will be realized.

John Price, P. Eng.
Watershed Management Coordinator
Mississippi Valley Conservation


john wrote:
Hi John,

I'm sure you're busy with more important things at this time of the year than what I'm about to ask about , but if you have a moment I'd appreciate your comments.

You may recall that at the March 7 public meeting in Kanata we briefy talked about a July 2005 OMB ruling in which a person who wanted to bring in fill to elevate their lot on the Mississippi was denied permission, but neither of us could recall the details.  Well, I'd like to continue that discussion since I now have some of the particulars.

This link outlines the ruling:
http://www.storm.ca/~orkeeper/MVCA%20OMB%20July%2015%202005%20Decision.pdf

I was wondering how the MVC was able to deny a fill permit for this person who wanted to bring in fill to elevate their lot above the flood elevation of the Mississippi River, while on the other hand, the MVC appears to have no problem in authorizing the placement of hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of fill into the Carp River floodplain which as we know is a much smaller system than the Mississippi River?

Thanks,
John (728-1043)

--------------060806080603080607040107--