To the Mayor and members of Council for the Town of Niagara on the - PDF document

98 Church Street P.O. Box 460 St.Catharines ON L2R 6V9 Tel. 905-688-6550 Fax 905-687-7207 kthengineeringltd@cogeco.net To the Mayor and members of Council for the Town of Niagara on the Lake, We have been asked by Mr. Jack Lowery to make a presentation today to review the history of the development as it relates to the fence around the municipal storm water wet pond for the development area known as the Settlement of St. David’s which area included the Paxton Farm lands to the north. Kerry T. Howe Engineering limited was the engineering firm of record for the development responsible for municipal servicing Design. I was the design engineer for municipal servicing. The planning firm was Hynde Paul Associates Inc. The road crossings for 4 Mile Creek required the services of Hatch Acres Environmental Division to deal with Fisheries concerns in the watercourse. The landscape plan for the wet pond was prepared by John Morley and Associates. The planning process commenced in 2003. The draft plan submission required a municipal servicing brief to confirm how the servicing requirements in the St. David’s Master Servicing plan would be implemented for the Settlement properties. The draft plan of subdivision was filed in August 2004 which application included a detailed Municipal servicing Brief prepared by Kerry T. Howe Engineering Limited. The initial wet pond landscape plan was prepared in April 30, 2005 Schedule 1 . At that time the planners were considering a walkway along 4 Mile Creek coming up into the wet pond area and passing through the wet pond onto Paxton Lane. That public access to the Wet pond area possibility was to our knowledge not acceptable to Public works and all plan submissions for the wet pond area maintained a security fence on the south, east and north property limits. The turning circle at the Paxton Farm limit was to be removed in the future which would alter the access for maintenance. The future access was to be gated when the cul-de-sac was removed and the access realigned to suit the final road extension.. The existing slope on the west side was heavily treed and created a natural barrier to access so that boundary limit was not fenced. The fencing material and was not specified as other agencies , Public works and the developer had not finalized types at the time of submission of the drawings.. The final design brief for the subdivision was submitted to the Town in December 2005.The final approved plans were signed on behalf of the Town by Earth Tech (Canada) Inc. May 01, 2007. The final plans maintained the security fence locations noted above Schedule 2 . The landscape plan was to be modified to eliminate the gravel walkways renaming them grass walkways to match the approved plans. The south double gate off Paxton lane was intended for maintenance equipment access to the wet pond outlet control structure directly. The single gate was to provide access for the Golf Course to traverse the wet pond on their easement across the site to their pump facility at Four Mile Creek. Neither gate was or Public Access to the Wet pond site. The perimeter grass access at the top of the pond allows equipment access to clean sediment from the pond pools. 1

We would point out that the rear of Block 71 is 2 meters above the earth access perimeter road. This elevation difference matched the top of slope on the east side of the wet pond. The 4 Mile Creek existing slope could not be raised due to slope stability calculations. Raising the slope would negate the use of the wet pond to service the Paxton farm lands a requirement of the St. David’s Master Servicing Plan. The rear swale for Block 71 collects storm water from the lot and outlets the existing trunk storm sewer to maintain a single inlet to the wet pond as required in the Ministry of the Environment approval certificate. The swale also collects water from the small flat area east of the fence so the storm runoff does not erode the slope down to the perimeter road. Moving the fence easterly could create a situation where the private owners alter the drainage causing additional storm water runoff to be directed over the existing downslope resulting in localized erosion.. Mr. Lowery wants to complete the development agreement requirements in regard to providing a fence as shown on the approved plan. The final fence design is a wrought iron fence as installed at the rear of Block 71. The spires horizontal spacing meets child safety standards prescribed in the building code. The fence will allow an open view of the adjacent wet pond lands. The fence was not built until construction of the units was completed. There is a hold on the final 3 unit construction until the turning circle has been removed with the extension of Paxton lane into the Paxton Farm property which is under an archaeological clearance process at his time. Mr. Lowery was told by Town Staff that the only way to allow the land transfer requested by the owner in Block 71 the developer would have to initiate a planning request to amend the existing draft plan. Mr. Lowrey as the owner is close to final acceptance of the plan and was expecting to have tertiary services acceptance upon completion of the fence between Block 71 and the wet pond site. Installing the fence partway down the existing slope as we understand was suggested will be more difficult and the alignment may be impacted by existing trees planted to meet the landscape plan requirements. .The end result could be a less than desirable finished fence appearance. In our opinion there is insufficient flat are beyond the existing swale to allow realignment of the swale and place the fence at the top of any new slope as the existing slope down 5to the maintenance path is at the steepest gradient allowed by the existing MOE certificate. The existing slope has been stabilized over the past 10 years since construction of the wet pond. Respectfully submitted Doug Ingram P.Eng. Chief Municipal Engineer. Kerry T. Howe Engineering Limitd Attchments Shedule 1 and Schedule 2 2

SCHEDULE 1

SCHEDULE 2