Write to the City

The Kanata Greenspace Protection Coaliton (KGPC)  encourages  all residents to send email letters to the City of Ottawa Planning Department before the November 22, 2019  deadline for public comment in the initial phase of assessment of the ClubLink redevelopment application.

We have provided some help and and guidance to ensure this is a very doable process for our supporters and residents.  We have included comments at the bottom of the page from our expert planner.

How to write your email or letter:

  • write an email or a letter and email it to the Planning Department   kanatalakes@ottawa.ca
  • use your own words to express your concerns about the impact this development will have on Kanata North and  its residents
  • identify concerns that are specific to you, your family, your street and neighbourhood
  • we are not providing a template letter.  These letters are not considered valid public feedback.
  • your letter can use bullet points to make it more concise and readable

What you might say:

      Personal Stories

  • Share stories about how you and your family use their use the golf course lands.  Why do other people do with the golf course land?
  • How long have you lived in Kanata North?  Why have you stayed here?
  • Why did you choose to live in Beaverbrook, Shaughnessy Estates, Kanata Lakes, Kanata Estates?  What impacted that?   Bill Teron’s planned community?  Neighbourhood design?
  • Was the golf course land part of that decision?  Why?

      Planning Concerns

  • Consider addressing some of these key issues
    • Environment 
      eg:  loss of trees, loss of wildlife , negative impacts on air quality and climate change mitigation
    • Health, Safety and  Security
      eg:  lighting and safety issues in small buffer zones,  mosquito risks in unmanaged lagoons, buffer zone security concerns
    • Parks and Open Space
      eg: loss of extended linked open space versus small parkettes, potential noise and sound issues
    • Planning 
      eg: increased housing density, lot size and configuration, types of housing versus existing community
    • Transportation
      eg: difficult intersectons and safety concerns
    • Water Management
      eg: unresolved Kanata Lakes drainage issue over 20 years, spring collections and existing flooding, existing pond/wetland destruction in favour of lagoons
  • You may want to see the Key Planning Concerns section below.   These are more complex ideas raised as preliminary concerns  by our expert planner  Dennis Jacobs from Momentum Planning at our STOP CLUBLINK Community Meeting, held on November 5, 2019.

What not to do:

Because this is now an active development application, it is NOT recommended to do the following:

  • Jim Watson or other Councillors – flooding their inbox on an active development application will be ignored and possibly alienate allies [ note- this is a change of direction from that stated at the November 5 meeting]
  • Clublink, Minto, Richcraft –writing them is not expected to impact their decisions.
  • Petitions – there is no requirement for City Planning to consider petitions. They have proven ineffective.

Where to send your email or letter:

  • To: Laurel McCreight, Planner           (kanatalakes@ottawa.ca)
  • cc: Jenna Sudds, Councillor                (Jenna.Sudds@ottawa.ca)
  • cc: Barbara Ramsay Chair KGPC       (chair@ourkanatagreenspace.ca)

Key Planning Concerns – identified at STOP CLUBLINK Community Meeting – November 5, 2019

Note: This is a list of issues compiled by our planner after preliminary review of the ClubLink application.   Mr. Jacobs will produce an in-depth analysis for the KGPC in the coming weeks

  • This is not a simple infill development
  • Infill policies were focused on single lot redevelopment or vacant lot development of multi-unit triplex buildings urban suburbs – (e.g. Glebe). This is 1502 units/homes
  • This has overall neighbourhood implications far beyond existing City Infill Planning for “Infill”
  • Separate from the legal aspects, the 40% agreement is key in providing content on how greenspace in general and the golf course lands in particular were core to community design and use of the space by the public.
  • Premise is to change existing open space, a key element of the original neighbourhood design, into development
  • The ClubLink application is inconsistent with the original plan of the area (layout, services, greenspace) and changes the fundamental character of the community
  • The application does not address compatibility with the existing community. It presents as if this was a new “green field” sub-division some distance from any other community
  • The proposed development inserts an entire brand new community inside an existing one.  This causes many issues that have not been addressed by the applicant.  There is a strong argument that this would change the entire plan of the community
  • This area is not a designated target for intensification in the Official Plan (OP). The OP also states that for “General Urban” areas of the City, intensification allows for “compatible scale’, not wholesale change
  • Density and type of housing is inconsistent with existing housing
  • It applies the City allowance for intensification within 800 M of a [Terry Fox LRT ] major transit node/station, yet only 5% of the proposed development lands are within 800M
  • Local grading and drainage is already problematic in the area, with issues for the Kizell Wetlands, drainage area and creek and its impact on the downstream NCC property still unresolved after 20 years for the KNL lands already in development.
  • Filling in the 2 existing storm water ponds on the property and creating 5 new ponds – in an area dominated by the Canadian Shield at or just below surface – represents a major engineering change and high risk long term drainage issues and flooding risk to both the proposed and existing communities.
  • There is little discussion of environmental impact

Secondary issues

The following areas are either not included in the Official Plan for consideration on assessing re-zoning and development applications or are ineffective arguments with the City of Ottawa in blocking or changing development applications

  • Property value impact
  • Construction impact
  • Capacity arguments – transportation, servicing