Vaters has questions aplenty on Neil’s Pond Estates expansion

By Mark Squibb

Paradise council has approved Phase 4 of the Neil’s Pond Estates subdivision project.

Prior to the vote, councillor Larry Vaters asked nearly a dozen questions related to the application, largely concerning the development’s proximity to Neil’s Pond and the adjacent trailway.

But first, Vaters asked council whether he was in a conflict of interest as the subdivision borders Neil’s Pond and, as Vaters works with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, he was concerned that input from the department may be requested “down the road.”
Council found Vaters was not in a conflict.

Councillor Deborah Quilty moved that council approve the application, which consists of 15 lots and requires an extension to Yellowwood Drive. She added the proposed open space will be a natural area adjacent to Neil’s Pond Trail.

Vaters then said he had a number of questions, the first being what was done to satisfy open space requirements for the first three phases of the project.

Quilty said previous phases took the Neil’s Pond trail into account and the developer, Karwood, had an open space dedication plan that exceeds the ten percent requirement.

Vaters then asked for details regarding trail buffers, and Quilty said the town zones land surrounding ponds as conservation so as to separate the development from water bodies.

“In cases where trails are installed around these water bodies, the conservation zone serves the dual purpose of protecting the pond and the trails,” explained Quilty.

Vaters then asked what impact construction will have on the trail and whether the trail will be closed to the public during construction.
Quilty said the trail will not only be closed, but transformed into a solid surface trail from the current boardwalk design.

Vaters then asked whether excavation of the wetland is required to construct a temporary access to the trail. Quilty said the trail had been proposed as permanent, but that the recreation committee settled for a temporary trail instead.

The temporary trail, which will be constructed in the wetland and then removed following the completion of the project, will provide access to the area during construction.

Vaters asked what mitigation measures will be taken to avoid impacting the wetland’s habitat. Quilty said wetland construction is the purview of the provincial government and the permit the developer receives from the Province will include many terms and conditions regulating wetland development. She added the wetland is not zoned Conservation.

“This means we don’t have any Town environmental protection regulations, making higher levels of government responsible for the approval,” said Quilty.
Vaters then asked whether council has a thorough understanding of what species of plant and animal life call the wetland home. Quilty said brown trout are native to Neil’s Pond.

“But that doesn’t mean there’s brown trout there now,” said Quilty, who added that creatures of a feathered kind including grackles, warblers and goldfinches. Ducks also like the area.

Vaters then asked what mitigation measures will be taken to avoid silt running into Neil’s Pond from the construction site and whether there is a sediment control plan in place.

Quilty said the Province will oversee that aspect of the project.

Vaters next asked about the construction of a weir, the size of the weir and the potential impact of it on the wetland. Quilty replied the weir is the principal mechanism to control storm water run off and will only be used to directly transfer stormwater to the pond should a significant rainstorm occur. Water from lesser storms will be detained by a new detention system.

Vaters asked what storm water retention measures will be used to control run off. Quilty said the wetland is being converted into a natural detention area.
Vaters then asked if the development will connect Yellowwood Drive and nearby Devaughn Street. Quilty said it will.

Vater’s final question was more a statement than a question and regarded a reference in the development documents to a ‘landscape plan.’

“We don’t have a landscape plan for our review at this point and time, but I would like to make a suggestion that the Planning and Protective Services committee have access to a landscape plan,” said Vaters. “Should we have it at this stage, or should we have it a later stage? I personally think there is a benefit to having the landscape plan at this stage, so we can see exactly what the plan is once things are reinstated.”

Councillor Glen Carew said Vaters had asked everything he had on his list to ask, and more, but did add that residents are growing more concerned with the amount of development happening adjacent to trails and water bodies within town.

The motion to approve the development was approved by all members.