Clarifying the City’s Position on Kanata Lakes Golf and Country Club Lands

The recitals

• the lands commonly known as the Kanata Lakes Golf and Country Club have historically functioned as a significant green space within the Kanata Lakes community
• in or about 1981, agreements associated with planning approvals for the development of Kanata Lakes (the “40% agreement”) contemplated that approximately forty per cent (40%) of lands within the broader Kanata Lakes development area would be retained as open space, including golf course lands
• the planning framework applicable to Kanata Lakes relied in part on the retention of significant open space lands
• recent Ontario Land Tribunal decisions respecting the subject lands have confirmed that Council must not fetter its discretion and that planning approvals, refusals, and conditions must be supported by planning evidence, statutory authority, and the public interest
• Council acknowledges Ontario Land Tribunal jurisprudence respecting the imposition, scope, and enforceability of extensive conditions of approval, including the importance of clarity, relevance, and statutory authority
• the retention of the Kanata Lakes Golf and Country Club lands as open space formed a fundamental component of the planning rationale relied upon by the City and relied upon by residents when purchasing homes within the Kanata Lakes community
• residents and the municipality reasonably relied on representations and planning instruments indicating that, should the lands no longer be used as a golf course, the lands were intended to remain as open space for the benefit of the community rather than be redeveloped for urban residential purposes
• the removal of these lands from the community’s open space system would undermine the integrity of the original planning bargain that enabled the broader Kanata Lakes development to proceed at increased densities
• attempts by the current landowner to urbanize lands long held out as permanent or enduring open space raise concerns respecting fairness, good faith, and the integrity of the planning process relied upon by the City and its residents
• permitting residential or other urban development on the subject lands would result in the loss of irreplaceable community green space while conferring a significant private windfall that was not contemplated when the original planning approvals were granted
• Council is aware that portions of the subject lands are affected by documented mercury contamination and are subject to covenants, agreements, and environmental controls intended to limit soil disturbance and prevent the release or mobilization of contaminants into groundwater and the broader water table
• The disturbance of contaminated soils presents potential risks to groundwater, downstream ecosystems, and public health, and the application of precautionary and risk-management principles is therefore relevant to the public interest and to Council’s consideration of any proposal that would materially alter the use or physical condition of the subject lands
• Council has an obligation to ensure that good planning practices are employed and to consider not only technical planning conformity but also the broader public interest, including the protection of community trust in the planning system and the avoidance of outcomes that effectively deprive the municipality and its residents of lands they were led to believe would remain as open space