BY-LAW NO. 933-2016
My objection with this by-law is not so much with what it says, but rather with what it does not say. The City and County do not need a by-law to say that they will follow the law and meet minimum standards.
This is truly not an inspiring or It is neither decisive nor defining. It exists to ensure that the City's North Leduc Industrial development can proceed and the stormwater from this development will be received by the County and dumped into Saunders Lake.
First a couple of housekeeping items, as gibberish devalues the entire process:
1. Section 4.6.2.12 – "Owners of lands with existing tree stands will be encouraged to retain them to the extent possible at the time of the development". If you Google "tree stands" you end up on Cabelas website where you can purchase the equipment to hide up in a tree and take pot-shots at wildlife. I'm pretty sure that the author intended to say "stands of trees", similarly a coppice, copse or grove.
2. Section 5.3.2. – Since the former area C is now area B, and the remaining area C is on the west end of the City of Leduc this is redundant. Like saying that the Civic Centre is in the City of Leduc. This section should be deleted.
3. Section 5.8.1 - Policy area C is no longer adjacent to areas G or J and so this section is redundant and should be deleted.
If one understands that a by-law is a law made by local government that applies only to a local area, then one can appreciate that a law has to be actionable and contain words such as "shall" and "must". Words such as "encouraged", and undefined phrases such as "sustainable future" and "protect and enhance" could be viewed as contrived negligence. Specifically:
Section 4.6.2.12 says that owners in the Saunders Lake vicinity will be encouraged to retain existing trees and plant additional trees. This begs the questions, how will they be encouraged? What will success look like? If one tree is planted is it a success? If only one original tree remains is this a success? This type of initiative needs to be measurable in both time and quantity or it is simply meaningless.
Section 4.8.1 talks of the integration of growth management, land use planning, and municipal services to move toward a more sustainable future. This all sounds very positive, but what is being sustained? Is it industry, employment, the status quo, the profitability of development? Future sustainability is generally linked with positive environmental action and green projects, but there is no evidence in the by-law of any action of this type that would support use of this "motherhood" phrase.
Section 5.2.7 concerns recreational connectivity between Saunders Lake and Telford Lake. This should have been the defining moment for collaboration between the City and County, to create a benefit for future generations and yet there is essentially an agreement to do nothing. It starts out promising enough, "The City and County shall jointly examine feasible solutions for increasing recreational connectivity", and it even talks about interconnected trails, but concludes with deference to the ASP that will follow. Since we now have the ASP for Saunders Lake - one must ask when will this joint examination take place? After approval of this by-law and before consideration of the Saunders Lake ASP, that follows this meeting? The Saunders Lake ASP has no indication of a walking trail, (future or otherwise), to connect to a link between the two lakes. Again, this is an agreement between the City and County to do nothing. Everyone here should be aware that a wildlife corridor exists between Telford Lake and Saunders Lake. This natural occurrence is both observable and documented, and yet this by-law does nothing to recognise and acknowledge this fact, or put in place mechanisms to preserve and maintain this corridor. In short this by-law needs a commitment to maintain the corridor and build a trail between the two lakes – Area I needs to be contiguous between the lakes and not interrupted by area J at the east end of Telford Lake. It would also be visionary to acknowledge that Telford Lake is used for recreational boating and therefore not ideal wildlife habitat, increasing the need to preserve the wildlife habitat on Saunders Lake. We do not need boat launches in nesting areas, as suggested in the Saunders Lake ASP.
Section 5.10.4. Talks about protecting and enhancing natural features within open spaces and greenways. Saunders Lake is specifically named, and one wonders as to how do you protect and enhance Saunders Lake? Is it by dumping millions of gallons a year of saline and chemically laden stormwater from the North Leduc Industrial Park, the Saunders Lake Industrial Park and the Nisku Spine Road through two outfalls, directly into the area of the lake where American White Pelican congregate and nest? Sadly the preservation of existing wildlife is not covered in this by-law; this omission needs to be corrected. A visionary by-law would require that stormwater volume be reduced at each individual business location by incorporating source control practices, such as required by progressive municipalities. You can reference work done by Sustainable Technologies for the City of Toronto and requirements from the City of Calgary's Water Resources. Requirements and reduction percentages for source control practices need to be legislated at this level, they will not voluntarily be required at the ASP level, or be incorporated in subsequent planning and design stages. Source control practices include:
1. Absorbent landscaping
2. Vegetated swales
3. Bioretention areas
4. Rainwater harvesting
5. Porous pavement
6. Soakaways
7. Infiltration trenches
8. Dry swales
The Area Structure Plan for Saunders Lake goes as far as saying that the use of "Low Impact Development Stormwater Management strategies" is encouraged. Again encouragement does not belong in law; people do not pay their taxes because they are encouraged to do so. They pay their taxes because there are consequences for not doing so. Interestingly, the City of Leduc's Industrial ASPs for Leduc Energy Park and Cathton-Farm Air do not even set the lofty goal of encouraging the reduction of stormwater, even though they were written by the same consultant and the Public Hearing is not until November 7th, 2016. It is also worth noting that the North Leduc Industrial ASP dated March 2001 stated on page 4-4 that, "Storm drainage will generally be accommodated with the use of swale ditches" and further on page 4-9 that "Individual property owners will be required to provide some level of on-site stormwater management to minimize the downstream storage requirements. Given the nature and uses of most commercial / industrial sites, onsite storage should not be difficult to incorporate into the site designs." Is it possible that while the rest of the world is moving towards environmental protection, that the City of Leduc is moving backwards?
In summary, if this by-law is solely for the cooperation between the City and County to expedite development then this is an opportunity lost for the citizens of Leduc, since those developments will directly limit the possible opportunities for the enjoyment of nature in and around the lake district of Leduc. Our elected officials need to set the bar higher, while imaging the consequences of inaction. The people of Leduc want an interconnected walking trail around both lakes; they want ecotourism and a connection to nature. It is not that long ago that a Mayor of Leduc wanted to drain Telford Lake, what a mistake that would have been; I am encouraged that some reasoned opposition prevented this from happening.
No comments:
Post a Comment