It has been reliably reported that Coun. Erwin Wiens has been heard suggesting he believes the council’s decision to rezone the Parliament Oak property from institutional to commercial is consistent with the provisions of the official plan.

How curious since, as resident Bob Bader pointed out in his recent letter to The Lake Report, it flies directly in the face of Section 10.2.8 wherein it states categorically: “To prevent the intrusion of commercial uses into residential areas.”

Given that the proposed hotel is smack-dab in the middle of a residential area, I wonder how councillor Wiens could possibly have missed this blatant contradiction to arrive at his opinion. 

But, let’s set that aside to focus our attention on an issue raised in last week’s column — that of infrastructure.

In that column, I stated the town should have required an infrastructure study to be completed prior to any change in land use.

By way of clarification, this type of study — which is standard operating procedure in most North American jurisdictions — is commissioned by the town, not the applicant, to ensure that a complete, thorough and objective analysis is reflected in the subsequent report, which can be confidently used to inform the position of staff and council.

And, to be clear, a study of this type examines all facets of the infrastructure, which includes, but is not limited to, roads/traffic, parking, waste and stormwater management, and so on.

Further, since a professional engineering performed the study on behalf of the town, the firm assumes the liability associated with the information presented therein.

Now, a site servicing and stormwater management report was developed by R.V. Anderson Associates Limited for the “Parliament Oak Inn” and paid for by Two Sisters Resorts Corp. last October. This report was provided to the town as a part of the application.

Last Thursday, I sat down to read the report and, despite some familiarity with engineering, was quite lost within a half hour.

As is my want when confronted with specialist information beyond my ken, I reached out to an expert.

Over almost five decades, Richard Connelly’s firm planned, designed, project managed, and created infrastructure (roads, drainage, stormwater management) in towns and cities across North America.

Retired here in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Connelly kindly agreed to review the report and provide his observations in layman’s terms.

In pretty short order, he sent me an email pointing out the opening liability clause, which reads, in part: 

“The material in it reflects our best judgment in light of the information available to R.V. Anderson Associates Limited at the time of preparation.”

His email continued: “Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. R.V. Anderson Associates Limited accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.”

Essentially, this is a disclaimer of any liability for damages suffered “by any third party” using the information contained within the document to underwrite decisions or actions.

It should be noted that R.V. Anderson would be party of the first part, Two Sisters Resorts Corp. party of the second part, and all others — including the town — would be a third party.

Connelly commented that in his entire career he had “never seen this kind of escape clause on an engineering report.”

Further, its inclusion caused him to wonder about the validity of the data underwriting their conclusions given that they disavowed liability for same.

As an aside, it should be noted that at several points during the report the author(s) mention the use of data sourced from the town and report(s) developed by other firm(s) for the previous owner of the property.

It is implied, but not explicitly stated, said data was taken at face value.

Amongst other comments, on rainfall and stormwater management, Connelly opined that the report’s use of a two-year rainfall curve for calculations of flows and stormwater management facilities is not acceptable.

And, if the municipality is currently using that criteria for storm sewers and ditches, it is likely the cause of the flooding that occurs with each heavy rainfall. 

Due to climate change, he strongly recommends the use of a five-year curve, or even more conservative curves, and notes that in the Ottawa region, they use 100-year rainfall curves for stormwater management facilities.

Speaking to sewage, he observes there is no information regarding reserve capacity at the sewage plant — data that should have been provided in the report. 

He then continued with, “To say that the sewage generated by this facility simply displaces the storm water currently directed to the sanitary system is a bit off base. Is there data on the current flows from the school drains? How would you measure flows from the two connections?”

“Assuming that the school connections are above the water table, flows would likely only occur concurrent with a significant rainfall, so simple displacement is inappropriate,” he wrote.

Richard concludes by stating there were “several key elements regarding impact that were left out of this document.

This clearly demonstrates the need to have our community represented by a qualified engineer (contracted by the town) who can review and comment on such major reports” vis-à-vis projects that will have lasting impact on our town.

Interestingly, Connelly observes that this engineering service is normally charged back to the developer.

As a general note, the traffic impact study — also prepared by R.V. Anderson Associates — contains an identical liability disclaimer.

In a general observation regarding these reports in the context of his decades-long professional experience, Connelly suggests as such: “We need reliable studies with realistic conclusions, not estimates/information with no liability attached.” 

As a further note in reference to my July 3 column in The Lake Report (“Arch-i-text: Luxury Parliament Oak hotel is a pie-in-the-sky idea. Here’s why“) questioning parking provisions at the proposed hotel, the traffic impact study actually quantifies on-site parking at 198 spaces with 190 underground and eight on-grade.

So, this proposed hotel makes no provision for event guest parking or spaces for event staff. 

If memory serves me, we calculated the parking requirement at five-star hotel standards with full occupancy and two simultaneous 500-person events at a total of 862 spaces.

So, where does the proponent of this application propose that the extra 664 vehicles park?

This question would be laughable if it was not so bloody sad a commentary on NOTL’s amateur town processes and council decisions, both of which seem to be hell-bent on destroying the goose that laid the golden egg (and the liveability and character of our unique town).

But before we conclude for this week, let’s take a quick trip over to St. Davids, where flooding of properties has, unfortunately, become a regular event.

In April 2021, Brett Ruck, the irrigation and drainage superintendent for the town filed an official request for an engineer’s report on the Four Mile Creek drain.

In this request he stated, “The town has received complaints of flooding, sedimentation and property damage and further investigation is required.”

He continued, “Larger scale developments, such as subdivisions with more land parcels, denser housing and road allowances, contribute to a more extensive change in land use. The increase in more impermeable surfaces and landscaping features, such as lawns, also significantly intensify the rate and volume of run-off in comparison to the original property.”

In one of two action “options” he wrote, “the status quo should not continue. A ‘do nothing’ option is not viable.”

He continued: “Without a new engineer’s report to deal with the assessment issue created by the subdivision developments, all costs incurred maintaining and repairing the current Four Mile Creek municipal drain will have to be borne by the town since they cannot be fairly or legally distributed to the lands in the watershed (the status quo is not recommended).”

This “request” was not even presented to council until February of 2024 and, to my knowledge, no engineering study has been contracted to date.

In the period between 2021 and 2024, roughly six developments have been given the go-ahead (the latest being only a few months ago, after the “request” was tabled in council).

Logically, council should have declared a moratorium on any new development until the engineer’s report was completed … but, nope.

Just another example of highly questionable administrative processes and irresponsible council decisions.

After all, who wouldn’t want an indoor swimming pool in their basement?  

Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.