The Truth About the Kanata Lakes Golf Course Development Proposal

Many of you probably see the opposition to replacing the Kanata Lakes golf course with housing as just a NIMBY response of a bunch of privileged entitled suburbanites living in their low density paradise. After all golf courses are not usually considered environmentally friendly and there is a real need for more housing, though whether we need more low density suburban housing is a different question.

However there is a much bigger backstory to this whole issue relating to larger issues of environmental protection and land developers' powers over communities and municipal governments.

All of Kanata Lakes (originally referred to as Marchwood-Lakeside in planning documents), including the golf course, was zoned as Environmental Protection before the developers flexed their muscle threatening to go to the Ontario Municipal Board to get them to overrule the environmental zoning unless the municipal authorities allowed them to develop the land. The result was the flawed 40% agreement applying to Kanata Lakes/South March Highlands.. This was supposedly to protect the most environmentally sensitive lands yet the municipal authorities allowed the developer to include a golf course in that 40% protected “greenspace”. Much of the rest of the 40% was lands the developer did not want to develop anyway. I suppose we should be thankful homeowners lawns were not also included in the 40%.

The fact is we only have the South March Highlands Conservation Forest because the municipality bought those lands as that was the only way to protect them as environmental zoning is almost meaningless in Ontario.

For example a portion of the South March Highlands Conservation Forest within the Trillium Woods was zoned Environmental Protection. When the municipality denied permission to develop it the developer went to the OMB and had the zoning overturned and the municipality was forced to buy the land to protect it from development.

The golf course represents a contractual agreement by the developer (passed on to it's successors) to protect 40% of the total Kanata Lakes/South March Highlands lands as “greenspace”. To allow that 40% protected “greenspace” to be reduced even further would be to admit that communities have absolutely no control over land development and that there are virtually no protections for environmentally important lands in Ontario. It would be to say to the land development industry - go ahead do whatever you want, we are not even going to try to give communities a say in local development decisions anymore.

The solution is not to just acquiesce because trading a golf course for housing might be a good idea but to use this as an opportunity to further strengthen the 40% agreement by swapping the protected golf course lands for more environmentally important lands in the South March Highlands. While most of the KNL (Urbandale/Richcraft) lands are probably too far along in the development stage to be protected there is an environmentally significant portion of lands north of the South March Highlands Conservation Forest including a significant block of land owned by Metcalfe Realty that is zoned Environmental Protection.

The 2008 Brunton report said this about these lands:

Even at 400 ha, the Conservation Forest is presently too small to fully represent South March Highlands natural features and functions. A substantial proportion of that deficiency, however, is represented in the area immediately east and north of Heron Pond. Were the contributions of that area included within those of the present Conservation Forest, total protected floristic representation would rise to 98%. Significant species representation would also increase considerably, rising to 85% of the South March Highlands total. Substantially better representation of Blanding’s Turtle breeding habitat would also be achieved. Conservation management of this adjacent landscape is clearly a desirable objective of impact mitigation for the Conservation Forest.

It is recommended that management planning consider mechanisms for incorporating and protecting the ecological contributions of adjacent lands, particularly those to the north, to minimize negative impacts of the unnatural shape of the Conservation Forest.

Natural environment assessment (existing conditions):

South March Highlands Conservation Forest, Kanata,Ottawa, Ontario, May 2008, Daniel F. Brunton, Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario)

My understanding is that the municipal government has been trying to purchase that land but the landowner wants to sell it as a price suitable for development lands and the municipality wants to buy it at it's value as land zoned Environmental Protection.

I would propose that the current owner of the Kanata Lakes golf course purchase that land and donate it to the city (for inclusion in the South March Highlands Conservation Forest) to replace the golf course lands within the 40% agreement and that the golf course lands then be zoned for housing.

This is not quite a win win situation as no doubt it will not satisfy most of the current neighbours of the golf course, but it will allow for new housing and protect more environmentally important lands while strengthening the spirit of the 40% agreement.

Note: the terms municipality and municipal authorities, etc. are used above because over the time period involved the municipal jurisdiction went through numerous reorganizations from City of Kanata to a regional government model to the current enlarged City of Ottawa. It should also be noted that the ownership of lands comprising Kanata Lakes have passed through several developers over the years.

Further Background Information

Kanata Lakes 40% Plan, City of Ottawa

(click/double click on image to enlarge)

South Mach Highlands Zoning Map
 

(click/double click on image to enlarge)

 Zoning Codes Used on Map
RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Residential Third Density Zone R3
Residential Fifth Density Zone R5
OPEN SPACE AND LEISURE ZONES
Parks and Open Space Zone O1
ENVIRONMENTAL ZONE
Environmental Protection Zone EP
RURAL ZONES
Agricultural Zone AG
Rural Residential RR
Rural Countryside Zone RU
OTHER ZONES
Development Reserve Zone DR


Comprehensive Map of the South March Highlands

(click/double click on image to enlarge) 

THE FIFTH COLUMN: Saving the South March Highlands: Looking to the Future

THE FIFTH COLUMN: Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About The South March Highlands

THE FIFTH COLUMN Everything I have written on The South March Highlands and The South March Highlands Management Plan

South March Highlands and Carp Hills - NCC Role in Protecting Natural Environment Lands: Beyond The Greenbelt

This post is also being sent via email to National Capital Commission CEO Marie Lemay
( Marie.Lemay@ncc-ccn.ca )

click on map to enlarge
The National Capital Commission has recently published maps identifying natural environment lands within the National Capital Region as part of it's concept plans for the Greenbelt Master Plan Review.

Interestingly, none of the lands identified are within the urban boundary of the City of Ottawa. It is, as if by definition, the NCC has decided that lands within the urban boundary have no environmental value.

Of course, in the case of the South March Highlands we know that is not true. There are lands within the urban boundary and within SMH that are even zoned Environmental Protection, and others that should be, and were, but were rezoned for reasons that had nothing to do with their environmental value.

There are undoubtedly other lands of environmental value within the Ottawa urban boundary as well. It is unfortunate that the NCC has decided they are unworthy of recognition.

One of the things I noticed right away from the NCC map was the identification of one large natural environment area comprising the South March Highlands and the Carp Hills. I just recently had the opportunity to hike some of the Carp Hills land (some of which the City of Ottawa apparently owns) and was quite impressed with it's natural environment value. In examining the City Zoning Map it became obvious that a significant amount of the land identified by the NCC as natural environment is not zoned Environmental Protection (not that that guarantees it will be protected). I expect this applies to other natural environment lands identified on the NCC map.

So now that the NCC has identified these lands as natural environment lands what are they going to do about it. They will do a great disservice to the community if all they accomplish is creating a false belief within the public that these lands are actually protected from development.

Now that they have raised the public's expectations the NCC must fulfil their responsibilities and meet those expectations and take the necessary measures, whether by means of purchase/expropriation or some form of ironclad federal protection that neither landowners, developers nor the OMB can overturn, to protect these lands from development. The public expects and deserves no less.

click on map to enlarge

South March Highlands: The New Map

click on map to enlarge

Saving the South March Highlands - Pursuing the Possible

(click map to enlarge)

As the above map indicates only approximately one third of the South March Highlands are protected within the city owned South March Highlands Conservation Forest, although originally all the lands were zoned with environmental protection.

The way zoning works, as far as environmentally protected land is concerned, is that developers can apply for rezoning through the municipal process or by appealing to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) as many times as they want. If they lose they can keep coming back with new proposals using the outspend, outwait and outfrustrate strategy to combat environmentalists and communities that want to protect environmentally important lands. However once land is zoned for development it is virtually impossible to undo it - because that would be taking away landowners rights. The environment, apparently, has no such rights.

Indeed developers make a large portion of their profits from "political development" - buying protected land cheap and using their influence to get it rezoned for development and massively increased in value.

If you look at the zoning map below (with the protected land approximately indicated in orange) you will see that about half of the non-protected lands in the South March Highlands are developed or zoned for development, and about half are zoned as Environmental Protection Zone (EP) or Parks and Open Space Zone (O1). We know that the zoning does not provide protection as all the lands were originally zoned protected.

(click map to enlarge)

Zoning Codes Used on Map
RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Residential Third Density Zone R3
Residential Fifth Density Zone R5
OPEN SPACE AND LEISURE ZONES
Parks and Open Space Zone O1
ENVIRONMENTAL ZONE
Environmental Protection Zone EP
RURAL ZONES
Agricultural Zone AG
Rural Residential RR
Rural Countryside Zone RU
OTHER ZONES
Development Reserve Zone DR

So how do we set priorities in terms of protecting the undeveloped land from development.

One strategy, and one hard to argue with, is to focus on the most urgent threats to the land, which at the moment is the construction underway on the Terry Fox Drive Extension and the imminent start of work on the KNL housing development. This brave battle has been taken on by the Coalition to Save the South March Highlands (website in progress) and the I want to save the land North of Beaver Pond Park in Kanata Ontario Facebook Group. Unfortunately these are both very difficult battles to win.

The City seems determined to ignore its own demographic information indicating no urgent need for the road and to completely undermine the environmental assessment process in order to get free federal money for this environmentally devastating project. Everyday that construction continues we get closer to the point of no return. Perhaps the old saying needs to be rewritten to "free money is the root of all evil".

The battle over the KNL lands has been fought between the developers, the community and environmentalists for literally decades until the community just ran out of the ability to keep fighting. A brave last stand is underway but unless KNL can be convinced to sell the land and someone can be convinced to buy it and protect it, it's loss is inevitable.

But there is another strategy. One that can be undertaken alongside these brave attempts to stop the highway and save the KNL lands. It is a strategy that looks to the future - to save SMH lands before it becomes almost impossible to do so.

On November 10, 2000 the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton announced the purchase of 556 acres of the South March Highlands for $1.6 million at the urging of Kanata Regional Councillor Alex Munter who has stated his biggest achievement would be putting South March Highland into public ownership to keep it protected. These are the lands that along with Trillium Woods form the bulk of the currently protected lands in the South March Highlands Conservation Forest.

If one examines the zoning map you can see that an additional area of almost the same size within the South March Highlands is zoned either as Environmental Protection Zone (EP) or Parks and Open Space Zone (O1).

No matter what happens in the battles over the Terry Fox Drive Extension and the KNL development the City of Ottawa must move immediately to acquire this land, using it's expropriation powers if necessary, before it undergoes the "political development" process and it's value is increased. As it stands, there is very little the landowners can do with it other than pay taxes on it. The City would be doing them a favour by purchasing the land (their hopes of using their political influence to increase it's value being irrelevant).

It is clearly in the public interest to purchase these environmentally sensitive and important lands and it is becoming increasingly apparent that is also what the public wants.

This strategy is clearly very possible.

As to those pursuing the strategy of trying to achieve the near impossible - Keep up the battle you might yet succeed and if you do not you will have raised public awareness and moved public opinion in a way that hopefully provides City Council with the political will to do the possible and save two-thirds of the South March Highlands rather than one-third.

Zoning: Developers vs the Environment and the Public Interest

I was out on my bike yesterday riding along Huntmar Road and the Carp River, including land on the flood plain that the city has approved for housing development. Along parts of my route you could not even tell where the river is as everything is flooded alongside it.

As I passed the Corel Centre I recalled the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) rezoning battle for the proposed NHL arena lands.

My wife and I were amongst the official objectors to the proposal to rezone thousands of acres of high quality farmland for commercial development, including the arena. The result was unusual in that we essentially won the battle with the well funded developers. The arena and 100 acres, was allowed to be developed but the remaining thousands of acres were protected and conditions were put on the development to protect the surrounding land from development, including limiting sewage and other services to the size necessary for the arena and requiring the developer to pay for the Highway 417 interchange because it would only be serve the arena project.

The only reason we won this unusual victory was because of timing. The battle was waged during the short period that Ontario actually had a progressive government (Bob Rae’s New Democratic Party government) that cared about protecting the environment and protecting farmland and our food supply. It was the dedicated officials from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) that carried the major weight of the battle, otherwise the various public interest groups would not have been able to compete with the financial resources of the developer.

Interestingly the quality of the farmland was not an issue at the hearings, although it was an issue in the developers PR campaign. Even as the developer was presenting to the OMB it’s consultants report, that agreed that the land was high quality agricultural land, the developer was waging a public relations campaign of lies to claiming the exact opposite of what they were saying to the OMB, a quasi-judicial board. They knew better that to try to lie to the OMB but lying to the public was no problem for them.

So why was I biking through all sorts of development adjacent to the arena. It is essentially because the rules favour the developers. A victory for the developers is always permanent. A victory for the environment and the public interest is always temporary.

Once developers get land zoned for development it can virtually never be taken away no matter what environmental or public interest arguments and evidence might be presented. To do so would take away their “property rights” and that has financial implications - it would be reducing the monetary value of their land.

However land that is zoned to protect it from development for environmental and public interests reasons has no such long term protection. The developers can keep trying again and again until the defenders of the environment and public interest can no longer afford to keep fighting. It appears that the environment and the public interest has no monetary value.

One of the most troubling cases involved land adjacent to the Trillium Woods in Kanata that was designated as environmentally protected and purchased by a developer (Minto). The City was forced to purchase the lands when the OMB basically ruled that because the land was owned by a developer the developer could do whatever it wanted with it.

This is the type of irrational thinking that leads to the argument that we have to destroy the environment or the economy will collapse. The fact that there would be no economy without the environment is irrelevant because there is no monetary value placed on the environment.

If we are going to have livable communities we have to place a value on the environment that we live in. Once land is designated as protected from development those environmental rights should have the same permanent status as developers rights to destroy the environment (and farmland) have.