Environmental Implementation Report - City of Guelph

246 Arkell Road, Guelph 

Environmental Implementation Report 

Prepared for Victoria Wood (Arkell) Limited 

March 2013 

North-South Environmental Inc. 

35 Crawford Crescent, Suite U5 

P.O. Box 518 

Campbellville, Ontario 

L0P 1B0

Project Study Team 

North-South Environmental Inc. 

Chris Parent - Project manager, report author 

Sal Spitale - Report author 

Richard Czok - GIS, mapping 

Roth Associates Landscape Architecture Inc. 

Brian Roth - Landscape Architect 

246 Arkell Road Environmental Implementation Report – March 2013

Table of Contents 

1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 

2.0 Existing Environmental Conditions.................................................................................... 5 

2.1 Landform and Geology................................................................................................... 5 

2.2 Topography and Drainage............................................................................................... 5 

2.3 Soils................................................................................................................................. 5 

2.4 Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................. 5 

2.5 Vegetation Communities and Flora ................................................................................ 6 

2.6 Fauna............................................................................................................................... 6 

2.7 Torrance Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW).............................................. 6 

3.0 Proposed development........................................................................................................9 

3.1 Overview......................................................................................................................... 9 

3.2 Lot Grading and Drainage Plans..................................................................................... 9 

3.3 Municipal Infrastructure and Servicing .......................................................................... 9 

3.3.1 Roads....................................................................................................................... 9 

3.3.2 Sanitary Sewers..................................................................................................... 13 

3.3.3 Water Distribution ................................................................................................ 13 

3.4 Street Tree Planting Plan .............................................................................................. 13 

3.5 Landscaping of SWM and Open Space Blocks ............................................................ 13 

3.6 Trail System.................................................................................................................. 13 

3.7 Signage.......................................................................................................................... 14 

4.0 Mitigation of Potential Impacts ........................................................................................ 15 

4.1 Buffers and Setbacks..................................................................................................... 15 

4.2 Storm Water Management (SWM) Plan....................................................................... 16 

4.3 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.............................................................................. 17 

4.4 Geotechnical Considerations ........................................................................................ 17 

4.5 Tree Removal and Protection........................................................................................ 18 

4.6 Tree Compensation Plan............................................................................................... 19 

4.7 Removal of Contaminated Soil..................................................................................... 20 

4.8 Construction Best Management Practices .................................................................... 20 

4.8.1 Construction Timing ............................................................................................. 20 

4.8.2 Construction Limit Demarcation .......................................................................... 21 

4.8.3 Vehicle Maintenance and Refuelling Areas ......................................................... 21 

4.8.4 Storage of Equipment, Materials or Fill ............................................................... 21 

4.9 Home Owner Information............................................................................................. 21 

4.9.1 Maintenance of the SWM System ........................................................................ 22 

4.9.2 Artificial Lighting ................................................................................................. 22 

4.9.3 Salt ........................................................................................................................ 22 

5.0 Monitoring Program.......................................................................................................... 23 

5.1 Compliance Monitoring................................................................................................ 23 

5.2 Effectiveness Monitoring - SWM................................................................................. 23 

5.2.1 Visual Observations of Surface Conditions.......................................................... 24 

5.2.2 Groundwater Monitoring ...................................................................................... 24 

6.0 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 25 

7.0 References......................................................................................................................... 27 

246 Arkell Road Environmental Implementation Report – March 2013 Page i

List of Figures 

Figure 1. 246 Arkell Road, Guelph, Ontario. ................................................................................ 3 

Figure 2. Vegetation Communities and natural heritage features as taken from Stantec (2010). .. 7 

Figure 3. Approved plan of subdivision for 246 Arkell Road ...................................................... 11 

List of Appendices 

Appendix A: Draft Terms of Reference........................................................................................ 29 

Appendix B: EIR Terms of Reference Correspondence............................................................... 42 

Appendix C: Landscape Plan........................................................................................................ 52 

Appendix D: Trail Network Correspondence............................................................................... 57 

Appendix E: EAC Minutes (September 14, 2011) ....................................................................... 63 

Appendix F: Tree Protective Fencing........................................................................................... 69 

Appendix G: Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment Figures.................................................... 73 

246 Arkell Road Environmental Implementation Report – March 2013 Page ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

On September 4, 2012 City Council approved Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law 

Amendment applications to permit the development of 90 residential units within a 3.8 ha 

property known municipally as 246 Arkell Road and legally described as Part of Lot 6, 

Concession 8 (Geographic Township of Puslinch) in the City of Guelph. The subject property is 

located on the north side of Arkell Road, approximately mid-way between Brock Road and 

Victoria Road (Figure 1). 

City of Guelph and Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Conditions of Draft Plan 

Approval require the proponent to prepare an Environmental Implementation Report (EIR). Per 

Section 6.3.2 of the City of Guelph’s Official Plan, the EIR is intended to serve as a summary 

document that outlines the following: 

(1) How all the conditions of development approval have been met; 

(2) How municipal infrastructure servicing and the protection of natural heritage features and 

their associated ecological functions have been addressed; and 

(3) Any other special requirements that are required to protect the overall natural environment of 

the area. 

To prepare the EIR, the proponent retained a consultant team that includes staff of North-South 

Environmental Inc. (hereafter, North-South Environmental), Brian Roth (OALA, CSLA) of Roth 

Associates Landscape Architecture Inc. (hereafter, RALA) and Kenneth J. Behm (P. Eng.) of 

K.J. Behm & Associates Inc. The consultant team prepared a draft Terms of Reference for the 

EIR (Appendix A). The draft Terms of Reference was reviewed and approved, with minor 

revisions, by the City of Guelph, GRCA and the City of Guelph’s Environmental Advisory 

Committee (EAC). Appendix B provides correspondence related to the review and approval of 

the EIR Terms of Reference. 

This Report provides a brief overview of existing conditions at 246 Arkell Road, describes the 

proposed development, outlines various management strategies and mitigation measures and 

provides a recommended monitoring program. The contents of this report have been organized 

as follows: 

Section 1 provides a brief introduction to the EIR. 

Section 2 provides an overview of the existing conditions within the subject property. 

Section 3 describes the proposed development, including grading, drainage and servicing. 

Section 4 outlines management strategies and mitigation measures to be implemented. 

Section 5 provides a recommended monitoring program. 

Section 6 provides a summary of the EIR. 

This report is intended to be read in conjunction with the Final Stormwater Management and 

Servicing Report for 246 Arkell Road (K.J. Behm & Associates Inc. 2013). Together, these two 

reports satisfy all of the requirements of the EIR Terms of Reference. 

246 Arkell Road Environmental Implementation Report – March 2013 Page 1

Figure 1. 246 Arkell Road, Guelph, Ontario. Approximate property boundary shown in red. 

246 Arkell Road Environmental Implementation Report – March 2013 page 3

2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 

The sections below briefly describe the existing environmental conditions at 246 Arkell Road 

based on the results of the following reports: 

• Arkell Road Environmental Impact Study (Stantec Consulting Limited 2010) 

• Geotechnical Investigation Arkell Road Subdivision (Peto MacCallum Limited 2008) 

• Hydrogeological Assessment Arkell Road Subdivision (Anderson Geologic Limited 2010) 

• Supplemental Hydrogeological Assessment Proposed Residential Development – 246 Arkell 

Road, Guelph (Anderson Geologic Limited 2012) 

2.1 Landform and Geology 

246 Arkell Road is located within the Guelph Drumlin Field, an area characterized by numerous 

drumlin hills, till plains and outwash valleys. The property is underlain in the northeast by the 

sandy Wentworth Till and in the southwest by outwash gravel. Anderson GeoLogic Limited 

(2010) provides a detailed description of the geology of the property and adjacent lands. 

2.2 Topography and Drainage 

246 Arkell Road is located within the Torrance Creek subwatershed. The property’s existing 

topography is somewhat varied but slopes in a generally westerly direction, with surface 

elevations ranging from a high of approximately 346 m above sea level (ASL) in the east to a 

low of about 334 m ASL in the west. During major rainfall events, surface runoff from the 

property is captured by a drainage ditch located along its western boundary and conveyed 

northwest to the Torrance Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (see Section 2.7). Rainfall 

from minor rainfall events infiltrates on-site (see Section 2.4). 

K.J. Behm & Associates Inc. (2013) provides detailed lot grading and drainage plans that 

illustrate existing conditions at 246 Arkell Road as required by GRCA Condition of Draft Plan of 

Subdivision Condition 53(iii). 

2.3 Soils 

The Soil Survey of Wellington County classifies the soils of 246 Arkell Road as Guelph loam 

and Burford loam. These soils consist of grey-brown podzolics with loam till and gravel; they 

are moderately to very stony and have good drainage. Peto MacCallum Limited (2008) found 

that the property’s soils consist of dark brown silty sand overlying silty sands and sandy gravel. 

Topsoil depth within the property ranges between 15 cm and 90 cm. 

2.4 Hydrogeology 

246 Arkell Road has a relatively high groundwater recharge rate of approximately 300 mm/year. 

Under existing conditions, rainfall from minor storm events infiltrates into the property’s 

outwash sands and gravels and contributes to the recharge of the local groundwater table. 


The property is underlain by a shallow groundwater table. In the northwestern portion of the 

property, hydrogeological investigations encountered groundwater at depths between 1.4 m and 

2.3 m. However, in the central portions of the property groundwater was typically encountered 

at depths of 2.5 m to 3.0 m. Monitoring of adjacent lands to the south of the property found that 

groundwater levels varied by approximately 1.5 m between May, 1999 and February, 2001. 

Additional monitoring found that groundwater levels at the proposed SWM facility fluctuated by 

approximately 2.6 m over the course of a year. Sharp rises in the water table were observed at 

the onset of spring (March 2011) and again with heavy rains in late November, 2011. 

Groundwater generally flows across the property from the southeast to the northwest towards the 

Torrance Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (see Section 2.7). Anderson GeoLogic Limited 

(2010) provides a detailed assessment of the hydrogeologic setting of 246 Arkell Road, including 

characterization of the groundwater recharge characteristics and the inter-relationship between 

the shallow and deep groundwater regimes and the surface water regime. 

2.5 Vegetation Communities and Flora 

Stantec Consulting Limited (2010) characterized the vegetation of 246 Arkell Road and 

identified three vegetation communities based on the Ecological Land Classification system for 

Southern Ontario (Lee et. al. 1998). The majority of the property consists of a cultural meadow 

community (CUM1-1) that is regularly mown. Most of the rest of the property consists of a 

cultural woodland community (CUW) that is dominated by Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo). 

However, the eastern portion of the property includes a small thicket swamp community (SWT2) 

dominated by poplar species (Figure 2). 

Stantec Consulting Limited (2010) recorded 77 species of vascular plants from the property. Of 

these species, 34 (44%) are native and the remaining 43 (56%) are non-native. None of the 

recorded plant species is a federally or provincially designated species at risk and none is 

considered rare in Wellington County. 

2.6 Fauna 

Stantec Consulting Limited (2010) recorded 23 species of wildlife from 246 Arkell Road, 

including 16 species of birds and seven species of mammals. No reptiles or amphibians were 

recorded from the property. None of the recorded wildlife is a federally or provincially 

designated species at risk. However, three of the bird species recorded from the property are 

considered rare in Wellington County, including Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis), Eastern 

Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) and Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus). 

2.7 Torrance Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) 

The Torrance Creek PSW is located immediately west of 246 Arkell Road. This wetland 

provides a water storage function and contributes to the recharge of Torrance Creek. Stantec 

Consulting Limited and GRCA staff delineated the portion of the boundary of the Torrance 

Creek PSW located in the vicinity of 246 Arkell Road on October 26, 2009; this boundary was 

subsequently surveyed (Stantec Consulting Limited 2010). Figure 2 illustrates the limits of the 

Torrance Creek PSW in the vicinity of 246 Arkell Road. 


Figure 2. Vegetation Communities and natural heritage features as taken from Stantec (2010). 

246 Arkell Road Environmental Implementation Report – March 2013 page 7

3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 

3.1 Overview 

The approved Draft Plan of Subdivision for 246 Arkell Road includes 90 residential units, 

consisting of 24 semi-detached dwellings, 53 cluster townhouse dwellings and 13 on-street 

townhouse dwellings (Figure 3). A stormwater management (SWM) facility is located along the 

western edge of the property (City of Guelph 2012). Two new roads will provide access from 

Arkell Road. Amos Drive is an extension of Zecca Drive from south of Arkell Road. Dawes 

Avenue extends perpendicular to Amos Drive. As part of planned future phases of development, 

Dawes Avenue may be extended to the east and west of the property and connect to Arkell Road 

at Summerfield Drive and Colonial Drive, respectively (Stantec Consulting Limited 2010). 

3.2 Lot Grading and Drainage Plans 

Approximately half of 246 Arkell Road is lower than the elevation of Arkell Road. Imported fill 

will be used to raise approximately 50% - 75% of the property to avoid excavating into the 

shallow groundwater table and to accommodate proposed municipal infrastructure and servicing. 

In particular, the design of the SWM facility has been revised to raise its bottom by 1m to 

provide a minimum 1 m separation from the groundwater table during the spring season 

(K.J. Behm & Associates Inc. 2013). 

The property’s grading plan has been designed to minimize the amount of fill required. The 

existing grade along the eastern, northerly, and westerly boundaries will be maintained and the 

proposed grading and drainage will not impact the adjacent properties. To maintain infiltration 

on-site, the imported fill to be placed on the lots and the storm water management (SWM) 

facility will consist of sand and gravel. 

K.J. Behm & Associates Inc. (2013) provides detailed lot grading and drainage plans that 

illustrate proposed grades as required by GRCA Condition of Draft Plan of Subdivision 

Condition 53(iii). 

3.3 Municipal Infrastructure and Servicing 

The following sections summarize the municipal infrastructure and servicing to be provided at 

246 Arkell Road as described in greater detail by the Final Stormwater Management and 

Servicing Report (K.J. Behm and Associates Inc. 2013). Section 4.2 summarizes proposed 

SWM measures. 

3.3.1 Roads 

All streets within 246 Arkell Road will be constructed with an urban cross-section complete with 

asphalt surface, curbs, sidewalks and treed, sodded boulevards, all in accordance with the City of 

Guelph Servicing Standards. Dawes Avenue will end at the eastern and western limits of the 

property with temporary turning circles. 


3.3.2 Sanitary Sewers 

Sanitary sewers will be installed beneath all streets to service the proposed residential properties. 

The sewers will be directed to the existing sanitary sewer on Arkell Road near the southwestern 

corner of the property. 

3.3.3 Water Distribution 

All streets within 246 Arkell Road will be constructed with a 200 mm underground watermain. 

This watermain will connect at two points to the existing municipal watermains located along 

Arkell Road. The City of Guelph will perform a watermain distribution and pressure analysis to 

confirm that adequate supply and pressure are available to support the proposed development. 

3.4 Street Tree Planting Plan 

Drawing L1 (Appendix C) provides a Street Tree Planting Plan per Condition 21 of the City of 

Guelph’s Conditions of Draft Plan Approval. Per EAC’s September 14, 2011 conditions, the 

Plan incorporates native tree species wherever feasible. 

3.5 Landscaping of SWM and Open Space Blocks 

Drawings L1, L2 and L3 (Appendix C) provide landscape plans for the SWM facility and Open 

Space blocks of 246 Arkell Road (Blocks 19 and 20, respectively). Per EAC’s September 14, 

2011 conditions, the Plan incorporates native tree, shrub and forb species wherever feasible. 

Upon their approval, these plans will be provided to the City of Guelph in AutoCAD-DWG 

format per Condition 28 of the City of Guelph’s Conditions of Draft Plan Approval. 

3.6 Trail System 

Per Condition 27 of the City of Guelph’s Conditions of Draft Plan Approval, the proponent has 

identified a trail system within 246 Arkell Road. The trail system is to consist of an on-street 

sidewalk along Amos Drive and Dawes Avenue, linking the northeastern portion of the property 

to Arkell Road. The trail system will not extend through the SWM facility (Block 19) or the 

Open Space area (Block 20) and no interpretive signage is proposed. The design of the 

property’s roads and sidewalks is detailed by Drawing D-1 of the Final Stormwater Management 

and Servicing Report (K.J. Behm & Associates Inc. 2013). 

The trail system within 246 Arkell Road is intended to be extended northward as part of the 

future development of the adjacent Victoria Park Village subdivision. As part of other planned 

future developments, two additional north-south trails are proposed to be constructed to the west 

and east of 246 Arkell Road. Per EAC’s September 14, 2011 conditions, this trail network is 

consistent with that proposed by the City of Guelph’s Official Plan Update as shown by draft 

Schedule 8 of Official Plan Amendment 48. The proposed trail network was approved by the 

City of Guelph on September 28, 2011. Appendix D illustrates the proposed trail network within 

246 Arkell Road and adjacent lands and provides correspondence indicating City of Guelph 

approval of the trail route. 


3.7 Signage 

As required by Condition 30 of the City of Guelph’s Conditions of Draft Plan Approval, the 

proponent will provide a temporary sign at the entrance to 246 Arkell Road that describes the 

Open Space block (Block 19), on-street trail system and required fencing (see Section 4.7.2). 

The sign will: 

• advise prospective purchasers of open space and on-street trail network within the future 

subdivision and the level of maintenance of these parcels of land are to be provided by the 

City; 

The sign will be erected when rough grading on and adjacent to the building lots has begun and 

will be maintained by the Developer until acceptance of the Blocks by the City of Guelph. The 

open space block, trail network and fencing will also be identified on any marketing or 

promotional materials. 


4.0 MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS 

A number of studies have been completed to assess the proposed development of 246 Arkell 

Road and identify measures to avoid or mitigate potential environmental impacts. The sections 

below summarize how the management strategies and mitigation measures recommended by the 

following studies have been or will be addressed: 

• Arkell Road Environmental Impact Study (Stantec Consulting Limited 2010) 

• Hydrogeological Assessment Arkell Road Subdivision (Anderson Geologic Limited 2010) 

• Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment - Arkell Road Subdivision, 246 Arkell Road, Guelph, 

Ontario (Peto MacCallum Limited 2011b) 

• Stormwater Management and Servicing Report: Plan of Subdivision Part of Lot 6, 

Concession 8, Guelph, Ontario (K.J. Behm & Associates Inc. 2013) 

Per EAC’s September 14, 2011 conditions the sections below describe mitigation measures 

during all phases of construction. 

4.1 Buffers and Setbacks 

Stantec Consulting Limited (2010) recommends the establishment of a buffer to protect the 

adjacent portions of the Torrance Creek PSW from the potential impacts of the development of 

246 Arkell Road. At its September 14, 2011 meeting, EAC supported the Stantec Consulting 

Limited (2010) Environmental Impact Study (EIS) subject to several conditions, including 

refinements to its proposed wetland buffer. Appendix E provides the minutes of EAC’s 

September 14, 2011 meeting. 

The September 14, 2011 EAC conditions were addressed through refinements to the preliminary 

Draft Plan of Subdivision and are reflected in the Draft Plan of Subdivision approved by the City 

of Guelph and the grading plans prepared by K.J. Behm & Associates Inc. (2013). Specifically: 

• The alignment of Dawes Avenue has been shifted so that its future extension west of the 

property will remain outside of the 30 m wetland setback. 

• The portion of the SWM facility located north of Dawes Avenue has been eliminated and 

replaced with Open Space. The revised SWM facility is located a minimum of 15 m from the 

edge of the Torrance Creek PSW. 

All grading and other associated works proposed for the SWM facility are to remain outside of 

the 15 m setback established from the wetland. 

Figure 2 illustrates the limits of the Torrance Creek PSW in the vicinity of 246 Arkell Road and 

the associated wetland buffer. 

Measures to identify the limits of the buffer and to ensure that there will be no sedimentation or 

other encroachment into the buffer during and after construction are described in the following 

sections. 


4.2 Storm Water Management (SWM) Plan 

K.J. Behm & Associates Inc. (2013) provides a detailed SWM report for 246 Arkell Road as 

required by Condition 10 and Condition 53(i) of the City of Guelph’s and GRCA’s Conditions of 

Draft Plan Approval, respectively. Per EAC’s September 14, 2011 conditions, the SWM report 

identifies Low Impact Development (LID) measures that can be utilized on site. Briefly, the 

proposed SWM system provides for the collection and infiltration of runoff from a 

post-development drainage area of 3.39 ha. This includes lands located immediately east of the 

property. The SWM system is based on a treatment train approach and includes lot level, 

conveyance and end-of-pipe controls. Specifically: 

Lot Level Controls: Roofwater leaders and foundation drain sump pumps will discharge to side 

yard swales. A rearyard infiltration gallery will be construction along the rear yards 

of Lots 1-12, inclusive. 

Conveyance Controls: Roadside catchbasins with sumps and two oil/grit separators will separate 

sediment, oils and greases from runoff prior to infiltration at a single SWM facility 

(see below). 

End-of-Pipe Controls: A single SWM facility will receive and infiltrate treated runoff through 

side-slope infiltration galleries and a layer of sand and gravel located at the bottom of 

the facility. The bottom and the side slopes of the SWM facility will be vegetated to 

maximize the removal of soluble pollutants such as salts and pesticides. 

Hydrological modeling indicates that the SWM facility can accommodate all runoff 

for all rainfall events up to and including the Regional Storm. This direct infiltration 

and recharge would not significantly differ from discharge patterns under predevelopment 

conditions. 

The total quantity of infiltration (i.e. groundwater recharge) from 246 Arkell Road under existing 

conditions is approximately 15,800 m3/year. Based on the assumption that all runoff reaching 

the rearyard infiltration gallery and SWM facility under post-development conditions will be 

infiltrated (i.e. no runoff will be evapotranspired) the total quantity of infiltration is expected to 

increase to approximately 18,800 m3/year. This increased recharge will provide a modest 

enhancement of discharge to the Torrance Creek PSW and, ultimately, Torrance Creek. 

A 145 m long low-permeability soil cut-off wall will be constructed between the SWM facility 

and the western boundary of 246 Arkell Road. This soil cut-off wall is intended to promote the 

downward movement of groundwater from the SWM facility into the underlying sand till and its 

lateral movement northeast towards the Torrance Creek PSW, thereby reducing the potential for 

its lateral movement towards the house and septic bed of the adjacent property during seasonal 

water table mounding. Drawing SMP-1 of K.J. Behm & Associates Inc. (2013) provides 

specifications for the construction of the cut-off wall. 

Anderson GeoLogic Limited provides a detailed assessment of the potential water quantity 

impacts that post-development SWM measures may have on groundwater and surface water 

features (Anderson GeoLogic Limited 2010). 


4.3 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 

K.J. Behm & Associates Inc. (2013) provides a detailed erosion and sediment control plan 

(ESCP) for 246 Arkell Road as required by Condition 8 and Condition 53(ii) of the City of 

Guelph’s and GRCA’s Conditions of Draft Plan Approval, respectively. Briefly, key elements of 

the ESCP include the following: 

• Installation and maintenance of silt fences along the property’s boundaries. 

• Construction of a temporary sedimentation basin and sediment collection areas. 

• Installation of geotextile filter fabric under all catchbasins grates and manhole covers 

following the construction of underground services. 

• Installation of mud mats at all locations where construction vehicles exit the property. 

• Immediate re-vegetation of exposed areas not subject to active construction within 30 days. 

This element of the ESCP satisfies part of Condition 12 of the City of Guelph’s Conditions of 

Draft Plan Approval. 

• Regular monitoring of the erosion and sediment control measures and procedures by a 

qualified environmental inspector retained by the proponent. Monitoring will ensure that all 

erosion and sediment controls are installed and maintained to City of Guelph requirements. 

Any damage is to be repaired immediately. Inspection reports are to be submitted to the City 

of Guelph and the GRCA on a monthly basis or quarterly during periods of inactivity or 

house construction. Monitoring is to continue until the property is 90% built out and 

stabilized. This element of the ESCP satisfies Condition 9 of the City of Guelph’s 

Conditions of Draft Plan Approval. 

• All erosion and sediment controls are to remain in place until all disturbed ground surfaces 

have been re-stabilized either by paving or through the restoration of vegetation. 

The complete ESCP for 246 Arkell Road is provided by Section 8.0 and Drawing ECP-1 of 

K.J. Behm & Associates Inc. (2013). 

4.4 Geotechnical Considerations 

Peto MacCallum Limited (2008) describes subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at 

246 Arkell Road and provides recommendations for pavement design and pipe bedding. 

Recommendations also address geotechnical elements of site grading, excavation, service 

installation, pavement design, and stormwater management. This report satisfies Condition 19 

of the City of Guelph’s Conditions of Draft Plan Approval and its recommendations are reflected 

in the designs of K.J. Behm & Associates Inc. (2013). 


4.5 Tree Removal and Protection 

Stantec Consulting Limited (2010) incorporates a Tree Inventory and Conservation Plan, also 

known as a Tree Management Plan, for 246 Arkell Road. The Plan: 

• provides an inventory of trees located within the property that have a diameter at breast 

height (dbh) of 10 cm or greater, including a description of species, dbh, dripline radius and 

general health condition; 

• identifies trees to be removed; and 

• recommends measures to protect and manage retained trees during construction. 

None of the 113 inventoried trees within 246 Arkell Road is recommended for retention. 

However, the Plan recommends measures to protect trees located along and immediately 

adjacent to the property’s eastern boundary. Specific recommendations provided by Stantec 

Consulting Limited (2010) include the following: 

(1) All designated preservation areas must be left standing and undamaged during 

site works. Removals are to be completed outside of migratory bird nesting 

season from May 1 to July 31. Removals may take place during this restricted 

time only if the requirements of the Migratory Birds Convention Act are met 

and nesting activity is routinely monitored by qualified individuals ie: wildlife 

biologists. 

(2) Upon completion of the tree removals, all felled trees are to be removed from 

the site. No lumber or brush from the clearing is to be stored on the site. Any 

chipping, cutting or brush cleanup are to be completed outside of the bird 

nesting season. These works may take place during this restricted time only if 

the requirements of the Migratory Birds Convention Act are met and nesting 

activity is routinely monitored by qualified individuals i.e. wildlife biologists. 

(3) Tree protection barriers shall be installed around trees identified for 

preservation. Tree protection barrier installation must conform to details as 

per drawings in Appendix A [of Stantec Consulting Limited 2010]. Upon 

installation of the tree protection fencing, the Contractor shall contact the 

Project Arborist to review and approve the fencing and its location prior to 

commencement of any site work. This shall be coordinated with City staff for 

approval. The protection fencing shall remain intact throughout the entire 

protection, and shall be removed at the completion of all site works. 

(4) The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is the area around a retained tree that is to be 

protected. The TPZ is not to be used for storage… No trenching or tunneling 

for underground services shall be located within the tree protection zone. 

Construction equipment shall not be allowed to idle… within the TPZ. 


(5) Trees shall not have any rigging cables or hardware of any sort attached or 

wrapped around them, nor shall any contaminants be dumped within the 

protective areas. Further, no contaminants shall be dumped or flushed where 

they may come into contact with the feeder roots of the trees. In the event that 

roots from retained trees are exposed, or if it is necessary to remove limbs or 

portions of trees after construction has commenced, the Project Arborist shall 

be informed and the proper actions conforming to City policies and bylaws 

shall be carried out. 

These recommendations are consistent with the City of Guelph’s draft Tree Protection Policies 

and Guidelines (City of Guelph 2008). 

A tree protection barrier was installed along the eastern boundary of 246 Arkell Street on 

October 16, 2012 and will remain until all site works have been completed. Per Stantec 

Consulting Limited (2010) Recommendation 3, the tree protection barrier consists of a paige 

wire fence at least 1.2 m high located a minimum of 1.0 m from the dripline of the trees to be 

retained. The location of the fencing was reviewed and approved by City of Guelph staff prior to 

its installation (Appendix F). 

Stantec Consulting Limited (2010) Recommendations 1, 2, 4 and 5 will be implemented during 

construction and will be reflected on tender documents. 

4.6 Tree Compensation Plan 

As required by EAC’s September 14, 2011 conditions, North-South Environmental undertook to 

prepare a Tree Compensation Plan (TCP) during preparation of the EIR for 246 Arkell Road. 

Proposed compensation guidelines for trees to be removed from the property are based on the 

recommendations of an Environmental Impact Study recently approved by the City of Guelph. 

Specifically, North-South Environmental and RALA propose the following: 

• Compensate only for native trees in excellent to fair health. 

• Compensate at a ratio of 3:1 (i.e. provide three trees for every one that is removed). 

• Trees planted in compensation should be native, suitable for the site to be planted and 

indigenous to the Guelph area. 

Table 1 of the Stantec Consulting Limited (2010) TICP identifies a total of 113 trees with a dbh 

greater than 10 cm within 246 Arkell Road and concludes that none of these trees should be 

retained. Of the 113 trees recommended for removal, only 32 satisfy the above three criteria. 

These include the following: 

• 25 Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis). Of these 25 trees, two are in excellent 

condition, 22 are in good condition and one is in fair condition. 

• Two White Spruce (Picea glauca). Of these two trees, one is in good condition and one is in 

fair condition. 

• One Juniper (Juniperus spp.) in good condition. 


• One Willow (Salix spp.) in fair condition. 

• One Cherry (Prunus spp.) in fair condition. 

• Two Hawthorns (Crataegus spp.) in fair condition. 

The removal of the above-noted trees requires the planting of 96 replacement trees based on the 

proposed 3:1compensation ratio. The SWM facility and Open Space blocks of 246 Arkell Road 

(Blocks 19 and 20, respectively) can accommodate the planting of all 96 replacement trees. 

Refer to RALA Drawing L2 (Appendix C). 

4.7 Removal of Contaminated Soil 

Peto MacCallum Limited completed a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to evaluate 

the potential for soil and groundwater contamination within 246 Arkell Road. A total of nine 

Potentially Contaminating Activities and five Areas of Potential Environmental Concern (APEC) 

were identified. A Phase 2 ESA was recommended to address the potential for contaminants 

within the five APECs (Peto MacCallum Limited 2011a). 

The Phase 2 ESA involved drilling boreholes and installing groundwater monitoring wells, 

excavating test pits and obtaining soil and groundwater samples. These investigations identified 

soil contamination at several locations within the property (Appendix G). Contaminants of 

Concern (COC) include cadmium, lead, zinc, free cyanide, electrical conductivity and hot water 

soluble boron. A soil remediation program will be completed to remove contaminated soil from 

the property to an appropriate disposal facility (Peto MacCallum Limited 2011b). 

4.8 Construction Best Management Practices 

The following sections describe best management practices intended to minimize the potential 

for construction-related environmental impacts during the development of 246 Arkell Road. 

4.8.1 Construction Timing 

There is limited potential for the proposed development of 246 Arkell Road to impact wildlife. 

However, breeding birds could be negatively affected by the clearing of vegetation during the 

nesting season. To comply with the requirements of the Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) 

all removals of vegetation from the property will be scheduled to be completed outside of the 

migratory bird nesting season (May 1 - July 31). Vegetation removal within this period will only 

be completed if a qualified biologist determines that the proposed removal will not affect the 

nesting activity of migratory birds. 

Construction of the SWM facility will require excavation of portions of 246 Arkell Road where 

the groundwater table is relatively shallow and has been observed to fluctuate by approximately 

2.6 m over the course of a year. To avoid excavation into the groundwater table, construction of 

the SWM facility will be completed during the late summer and/or autumn when the 

groundwater table is at its lowest elevation. 


4.8.2 Construction Limit Demarcation 

Three types of fencing will be installed prior to the commencement of construction activities and 

maintained during all phases of development to visibly mark the limits of development within 

246 Arkell Road and to prevent encroachment and incidental damage to adjacent natural heritage 

features, particularly the Torrance Creek PSW and its associated buffer. This fencing includes 

the following: 

• black vinyl chain link fence along the property’s western and northern boundary; 

• silt fences along the limits of development per the erosion and sediment control plan 

prepared by K.J. Behm & Associates Inc. (2013); 

• a tree protection barrier along the property’s eastern boundary as described in Section 4.4 

(above). 

4.8.3 Vehicle Maintenance and Refuelling Areas 

To minimize the potential for contamination by fuel, oil and grease, vehicle maintenance and 

refuelling is to be completed as far as possible from the boundary of the Torrance Creek PSW 

buffer. North-South Environmental will identify appropriate maintenance and refuelling areas 

within the property and these areas will be shown on construction and tender documents. 

4.8.4 Storage of Equipment, Materials or Fill 

Equipment, materials and fill should be stored as far as possible from the boundary of the 

Torrance Creek PSW buffer to minimize the potential for encroachment. North-South 

Environmental will identify appropriate areas within the property for the storage of equipment, 

material or fill and these areas will be shown on construction and tender documents. 

4.9 Home Owner Information 

Potential environmental impacts resulting from the development of 246 Arkell Road will be 

avoided or mitigated, in part, by encouraging stewardship of local natural heritage features and 

functions. To promote this stewardship, the proponent will contribute to the distribution of 

interpretive material to local residents. Specifically, the proponent will pay to the City of Guelph 

the total cost to reproduce and distribute to future homeowners within the proposed subdivision 

copies of the City of Guelph’s Environmental Handbook (also known as the Enviroguide) as 

required by Condition 46 of the City of Guelph’s Conditions of Draft Plan Approval. Further, 

the proponent will prepare additional interpretive material, to be included as an insert to the 

Enviroguide, to address the following topics of particular relevance to 246 Arkell Road: 

• SWM facilities and their maintenance 

• Artificial lighting 

• Salt 

These topics are briefly described in further detail below. 


4.9.1 Maintenance of the SWM System 

The proposed SWM system for 246 Arkell Road incorporates side yard swales, a rearyard 

infiltration gallery and a SWM facility that will infiltrate runoff through side-slope infiltration 

galleries and a layer of sand and gravel located at the bottom of the facility. The proposed insert 

to the Enviroguide will describe the property’s SWM system, including the role of infiltration in 

its performance, and explain that infiltrated runoff from the property is likely to discharge to the 

Torrance Creek PSW. The insert will also outline recommended measures for residents to 

maintain the function of the SWM system and elaborate on measures to avoid groundwater 

contamination. This element of the proposed Enviroguide insert satisfies part of Condition 14 of 

the City of Guelph’s Conditions of Draft Plan Approval. 

4.9.2 Artificial Lighting 

The introduction of artificial lighting resulting from the development has the potential to disrupt 

wildlife activity patterns, particularly those of nocturnal species and migrating birds in flight. 

The proposed Enviroguide insert will briefly describe the effects of artificial lighting on wildlife 

and recommend measures by which residents can mitigate the potential impacts. Mitigation 

measures to be recommended include the following: 

• To reduce unnecessary scattering of light into adjacent natural areas, install lighting that 

provides the appropriate level of intensity. Low intensity lighting is preferred. 

• Install light fixtures that direct light downward rather than at or above the horizon. The use of 

upward pointing lights, such as spot lights used to illuminate the exterior of homes is strongly 

discouraged. 

• Outdoor lighting should be turned off when not in use, with the exception of lighting used for 

security and safety. Where appropriate, motion sensors should be used to activate such 

lighting only as required. 

These recommendations are consistent with those provided by Stantec Consulting Limited 

(2010) and the City of Toronto’s Bird Friendly Development Guidelines (City of Toronto 2007). 

4.9.3 Salt 

Salt is commonly used to keep roads, parking lots and pathways free of ice. However, salt can 

also negatively affect vegetation, fish, wildlife and human drinking water supplies. The 

proposed Enviroguide insert will briefly describe the potential negative impacts of salt and 

outlined recommended measures by which residents can avoid or limit its application. 


5.0 MONITORING PROGRAM 

The consultant team has developed a comprehensive monitoring program for 246 Arkell Road 

per EAC’s November 14, 2012 conditions (Appendix B). The proposed monitoring program 

incorporates compliance monitoring of recommended mitigation measures and effectiveness 

monitoring of the proposed SWM system. The following sections describe in greater detail the 

requirements (i.e. responsibility, frequency, etc.) associated with each of these components of the 

monitoring program. 

5.1 Compliance Monitoring 

The proponent will retain a qualified environmental inspector to conduct compliance monitoring 

of the development of 246 Arkell Road. This monitoring is intended to ensure the following: 

• Landscaping of the SWM and Open Space Blocks is implemented as designed and any 

planted material that does not survive for a minimum of one year is identified and replaced 

(see Section 3.5) 

• Recommended erosion and sediment controls are installed and maintained as intended so that 

no sediment-laden runoff enters adjacent lands, particularly the Torrance Creek PSW 

(see Section 4.3) 

• Measures to protect and manage retained trees during construction are implemented as 

recommended (see Section 4.4) 

• Construction activities remain within the limits of development and there is no encroachment 

or incidental damage to adjacent natural heritage features, particularly the Torrance Creek 

PSW and its associated buffer (see Sections 4.7.2, 4.7.3 and 4.7.4); 

Site inspections will be conducted generally on a bi-weekly basis during construction. The 

frequency of site inspections may vary depending on weather conditions and the level of 

construction activity. For example, site inspections may occur more frequently during periods of 

heavy rainfall and less frequently during periods of inactivity. Compliance monitoring will 

continue until the property is 90% built out and stabilized. 

Inspection reports are to be submitted to the City of Guelph and the GRCA on a monthly basis or 

quarterly during periods of inactivity or house construction. 

5.2 Effectiveness Monitoring - SWM 

As required by Condition 14 of the City of Guelph’s Conditions of Draft Plan Approval, 

K.J. Behm & Associates (2013) developed the following program to monitor the SWM facility 

and to evaluate the implementation of the SWM plan for 246 Arkell Road. The following 

sections outline the environmental conditions to be monitored. 


5.2.1 Visual Observations of Surface Conditions 

Visual observations of the surface conditions of the SWM pond will be recorded during periodic 

environmental inspections and after substantial rainfalls (e.g. greater than 20 mm in one day) 

with results included in the monthly environmental inspection report to the City. A description 

of the clarity of the water, any appearance of oil/grease on the surface, and algal blooms are to be 

included in the report. 

5.2.2 Groundwater Monitoring 

A groundwater monitoring station will be installed in the SWM facility. The station consists of a 

50 mm diameter PVC pipe installed to a depth of 6.0 m below the bottom of the facility and will 

allow for measurements of the height of the groundwater table and water temperature. The 

station will also permit the collection of samples for water quality monitoring. In addition, two 

boreholes, complete with piezometers, will be installed along the westerly limit of the SWM 

facility to monitor lateral groundwater movement away from the SWM facility. Drawing PP-1 

of K.J. Behm & Associates (2013) illustrates the proposed locations of the groundwater 

monitoring station and piezometers. 

Water samples will be collected from the groundwater monitoring station on a semi-annual basis 

in April and October according to protocols described in the Practices for the Collection and 

Handling of Drinking Water Samples (Ministry of the Environment 2009). Samples are to be 

analyzed by an accredited laboratory for the following: 

• Bacteria 

• pH 

• total suspended solids 

• un-ionized ammonia 

• nitrate 

• chloride 

• oil 

• grease 

• heavy metal scan 

The results of the water quality analyses will be compared to the Ontario Drinking Water 

Regulations and reported semi-annually in May and November. Reports will be submitted to the 

City of Guelph and GRCA. The results of the testing will be used to inform the City and GRCA 

as to the effectiveness of the SWM facility. The groundwater monitoring program will be the 

responsibility of the proponent during the construction period and for two years beyond the date 

of substantial build-out (>75% completion of the development), after which time the City of 

Guelph will be responsible for the monitoring program. 


6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

This report is intended to be read in conjunction with the Final Stormwater Management and 

Servicing Report for 246 Arkell Road (K.J. Behm & Associates Inc. 2013). Together, these two 

reports satisfy all of the requirements of the EIR Terms of Reference and document how the 

following Conditions of Draft Plan Approval have been, or will be, met: 

• City of Guelph Conditions 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 19, 21, 27, 28, 30 and 46 

• GRCA Condition 53 

With the implementation of the management strategies, mitigation measures and monitoring 

program described herein, the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed development 

of 246 Arkell Road are expected to be negligible and may result in modest enhancements to the 

Torrance Creek PSW. These enhancements include the following: 

• The existing mown cultural meadow community within the Open Space block adjacent to the 

wetland (Block 19) will be replaced by trees and other planted vegetation. 

• The infiltration of runoff from 246 Arkell Road will provide a modest enhancement of 

discharge to the Torrance Creek PSW and, ultimately, Torrance Creek. 


7.0 REFERENCES 

Anderson GeoLogic Limited. 2010. Hydrogeological Assessment. Arkell Road Subdivision. 

Part of Lot 6, Concession 8, Guelph, Ontario. Prepared for Victoria Wood (Arkell) Inc. 

March 2010. 

Anderson GeoLogic Limited. 2012. Supplemental Hydrogeological Assessment. Proposed 

Residential Development – 246 Arkell Road, Guelph. Prepared for Victoria Wood (Arkell) 

Inc. January 20, 2012. 

City of Guelph. 2008. Draft Tree Protection Policies and Guidelines. 6 pp + Schedules. 

City of Guelph. 2012. Council Report 12-78. 37 pp. 

City of Toronto. 2007. Bird Friendly Development Guidelines. 42 pp. 

K.J. Behm & Associates. 2013. Final Stormwater Management & Servicing Report. Plan of 

Subdivision Part of Lot 6, Concession 8, Guelph, Ontario. Prepared for Victoria Wood 

(Arkell) Limited. February 2013. 

Lee, H.T., Bakowsky, W.D., Riley, J., Bowles, J., Puddister, M., Uhlig, P., and McMurray, F.S. 

1998. Ecological land classification of southern Ontario: First approximation and its 

application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science 

Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. 

Peto MacCallum Limited. 2008. Geotechnical Investigation. Arkell Road Subdivision. Part of 

Lot 6, Concession 8, Arkell Road, Guelph, Ontario. Prepared for Victoria Wood (Arkell) 

Limited. October 3, 2008. 

Peto MacCallum Limited. 2011a. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment - Arkell Road 

Subdivision, 246 Arkell Road, Guelph, Ontario. Prepared for Victoria Wood Development 

Corporation Inc. July 2011. 

Peto MacCallum Limited. 2011b. Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment - Arkell Road 

Subdivision, 246 Arkell Road, Guelph, Ontario. Prepared for Victoria Wood Development 

Corporation Inc. August 2011. 

Ministry of the Environment. 2009. Practices for the Collection and Handling of Drinking Water 

Samples. Laboratory Services Branch, Ministry of the Environment, Queen’s Printer for 

Ontario. 37 pp. 

Stantec Consulting Limited. 2010. Arkell Road Environmental Impact Study. Prepared for 

Victoria Wood. April 20, 2010. 


APPENDIX A: DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE 


October 4, 2012 

Adèle Labbé 

Environmental Planner 

City of Guelph 

1 Carden Street 

Guelph, Ontario 

N1H 3A1 

Dear Ms. Labbé. 

Re: 246 Arkell Road Environmental Implementation Report Terms of Reference 

On September 4, 2012 City Council approved Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law 

Amendment applications to permit the development of 90 residential units within a 3.8 ha 

property known municipally as 246 Arkell Road and legally described as Part of Lot 6, 

Concession 8 (Geographic Township of Puslinch) in the City of Guelph. The subject property is 

located on the north side of Arkell Road, approximately mid-way between Brock Road and 

Victoria Road. The attached figures illustrate the boundaries of the subject property overlaid on 

an aerial photograph and the approved Draft Plan of Subdivision. 

The proponent is required to prepare an Environmental Implementation Report (EIR) as a 

Condition of Draft Plan Approval. To complete this task, the proponent has retained a consultant 

team that includes staff of North-South Environmental, Brian Roth (OALA, SCLA) of Roth 

Associates Landscape Architecture and Kenneth J. Behm (P. Eng.) of K.J. Behm & Associates. 

This letter outlines a proposed Terms of Reference (TOR) for the required EIR; please circulate 

it to the appropriate City of Guelph and Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff for 

their review and comment. I would also appreciate it if you could include consideration of the 

proposed TOR on the Environmental Advisory Committee’s November 14, 2012 meeting 

agenda. 

The EIR requirements for 246 Arkell Road are determined by the City of Guelph Official Plan 

and City of Guelph and GRCA Draft Plan of Subdivision Conditions as set out in Attachment 2 

to Council Report 12-78 dated September 4, 2012. Section 6.3.2 of the City of Guelph‘s Official 

Plan states the following: 

In terms of completing an environmental impact study, the City may require, as a 

condition of development approval, that an environmental implementation report 

(EIR) be prepared. This EIR will serve as a summary document containing 

information on the following matters: 

(a) How all the conditions of development approval have been met;

(b) How municipal infrastructure servicing and the protection of natural heritage 

features and their associated ecological functions have been addressed; and 

(c) Any other special requirements that are required to protect the overall natural 

environment of the area. 

Condition 14 of the City of Guelph’s Draft Plan of Subdivision Conditions states the following: 

The developer shall prepare an Environmental Implementation Report (EIR) 

based on terms of reference approved by the City and Grand River Conservation 

Authority (GRCA). The EIR will include a monitoring program to assess the 

performance of the stormwater management facilities in the subdivision. 

Furthermore, the EIR will outline the implementation process including the 

requirement to provide information to homeowners in the subdivision concerning 

the stormwater management facilities and their maintenance. The Developer shall 

implement all recommendations of the EIR to the satisfaction of the City and 

GRCA. 

Condition 53 of the GRCA’s Draft Plan of Subdivision Conditions states the following: 

That prior to any grading or construction on the site and prior to the registration of 

the plan, the owners or their agents shall submit the following plans and reports to 

the satisfaction and approval of the Grand River Conservation Authority: 

i. A detailed storm water management report in accordance with the Ministry of 

the Environment Stormwater Management and Planning Design Manual 

(2003). This report should include geotechnical information addressing the 

infiltration potential on the site. In addition, a storm servicing plan for the site 

should be included. 

ii. An erosion and siltation control plan in accordance with the Grand River 

Conservation Authority Guidelines for sediment and erosion control, 

indicating the means whereby erosion will be minimized and silt maintained 

on site throughout all phases of grading and construction. 

iii. Detailed lot grading and drainage plans showing existing and proposed 

grades. 

iv. An Environmental Implementation Report (EIR) to the satisfaction of the 

Grand River Conservation Authority in consultation with the City. The EIR 

should include the above noted reports, monitoring and mitigation outlined in 

the EIS. 

Condition 53(iv) refers to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) previously prepared by 

Stantec Consulting Limited (Stantec) in support of the above-noted Draft Plan of Subdivision 

and Zoning By-law Amendment applications. At its September 4, 2011 meeting, Environmental 

Advisory Committee (EAC) members unanimously agreed to support the Stantec EIS, subject to 

certain conditions.

I have reviewed the City of Guelph and GRCA Draft Plan of Subdivision Conditions as set out in 

Attachment 2 to Council Report 12-78 as well as the conditions outlined in the minutes of EAC’s 

September 4, 2011 meeting. Based on this review, I have prepared a draft TOR (Table 1) for the 

EIR for 246 Arkell Road. The proposed EIR will describe how the Conditions of Draft Plan 

Approval and the associated EIS/EAC recommendations as detailed in Table 1 are to be 

addressed. North-South Environmental will prepare Sections 1-5 of the EIR and compile the 

overall report; Sections 6-8 and 9-12 of the EIR will be completed by Brian Roth and Kenneth J. 

Behm, respectively. 

I trust the proposed TOR will meet the requirements of City of Guelph/GRCA staff and satisfy 

the members of EAC and look forward to receiving their comments. In the meantime, should 

you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (905) 854-1112. 

Sincerely, 

Chris Parent 

Project Manager/Biologist

Table 1: Proposed Topics and Conditions of Approval/Recommendations to be addressed by the EIR for 246 Arkell Road. 

EIR 

Section 

Number 

EIR Topic 

Condition of Approval per Attachment 2 to Council Report 12-78 

Condition(s) to be Addressed by EIR 

Stantec EIS Recommendations to be Addressed per GRCA Condition 53(iv) 

EAC Conditions 

(September 14, 2011) 

Section 6.2 

The need to protect and enhance the natural heritage features adjacent to the subject lands 

was addressed in the development of the proposed draft plan of subdivision… Residential 

lots will not be constructed within 36.9 m of the PSW boundary. An existing driveway 

servicing an off-site private residence will remain between the study area and PSW, 

occupying the first 14.4 m of the buffer. Outside of these first 14.4 m, a single SWM 

facility and a portion of a roadway are proposed to occupy the next 22.5 m of the buffer 

(on-site portion of the buffer). 

1 Buffers and Setbacks 

Section 7.2.1 

All of the wetland edges have been examined and appropriate buffers have been included 

to protect wetland features and functions. 

Section 7.3.1 

Standard construction practices should be employed to ensure no sedimentation and/or 

damage is incurred to the adjacent wetland, or the identified buffer area… To prevent 

potential impacts, a construction fence should be installed prior to any site work and 

maintained during all phases of construction to function as a visual boundary to mark the 

limits of the work site and assist in controlling encroachment or incidental damage to edge 

species during construction and grading activities. This should be combined with 

appropriate erosion and sediment control measures…. 

Section 9.3 

The conclusions of this report are based upon the following recommendations being 

implemented: 

EAC supports the EIS prepared by 

Stantec subject to the following: 

 

 

That the proposed SWM Pond is 

located at least 15 m from the 

edge of the wetland 

That all grading, and other 

associated works proposed for 

the SWM Facility remain outside 

of the 15 m setback established 

from the wetland. 

 

 

the development envelope shown in the draft plan of subdivision be maintained; 

grading of the site is limited to that shown on the draft plan of subdivision. 

Section 7.3.2 

The potential effects due to artificial light pollution can be mitigated through the 

following: 

2 

Mitigation of Potential 

Lighting Impacts 

 

 

 

Direct glare should not be visible beyond the property boundaries and can be avoided 

by installing low intensity and downward pointing lights; 

Upward pointing lights… should be strongly discouraged; 

Outdoor lighting should be turned off when not in use… This can be accommodated 

with the installation of full cut-off lights; and 

 

Motion sensors should be used on all safety and security lighting. 

- 1 -

EIR 

Section 

Number 

EIR Topic 






Section 7.3.1 

3 

Mitigation of Potential 

Construction Impacts 

Condition 19 

The Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report to the satisfaction of the 

City Engineer which describes the potential impacts of groundwater and 

provides recommendations for pavement design and pipe bedding. 

Standard construction practices should be employed to ensure no sedimentation and/or 

damage is incurred to the adjacent wetland, or the identified buffer area… To prevent 

potential impacts, a construction fence should be installed prior to any site work and 

maintained during all phases of construction to function as a visual boundary to mark the 

limits of the work site and assist in controlling encroachment or incidental damage to edge 

species during construction and grading activities. This should be combined with 

appropriate erosion and sediment control measures…. 

Condition 14 (see above) 

Condition 30 

The Developer agrees to provide temporary signage describing the 

existing/proposed open space, trail and required fencing on all entrance signs 

for the development… to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning 

Services. The signage shall: 

a. Advise prospective purchasers… of the type of park, open space and/or 

trail and level of maintenance of these parcels of land by the City; 

b. Clearly state that the maintenance of the park block and/or trail are the 

responsibility of the Developer until such time as the City accepts the 

park and/or trail, and partially releases the associated Letter of Credit; and 

c. Clearly state that all questions relating to the maintenance of the park 

block and/or tail shall be directed to both Developer and the City. 

4 

Information for 

Homeowners on SWM 

facilities and their 

maintenance 

Section 7.1.1 

Educational signage related to the SWM facility will be implemented, with details to be 

determined at the EIR stage. 

The signage shall be erected when rough grading on and adjacent to the 

building lots has begun and must be maintained by the Developer until 

acceptance of the Blocks by the City. The Developer further agrees that the 

proposed open space block, trails and fencing be identified on any marketing 

or promotional materials. 

Condition 46 

The Developer shall pay to the City, the total cost of reproduction and 

distribution of the Guelph Residents Environmental Handbook, to all future 

residents within the plan… 

- 2 -

EIR 

Section 

Number 

EIR Topic 






5 Compliance Monitoring 

Section 8 

…we propose that compliance monitoring be undertaken during the construction phase to 

ensure the following: 

 

 

 

Construction activities remain outside of the buffer limits that have been 

recommended; 

Tree roots and branches of the hedgerow trees being maintained are protected from 

damage due to construction; and 

Construction and planting of the SWM facility are undertaken according to the 

recommended design. 



 

 

That the proposed SWM Pond is 

located at least 15 m from the 

edge of the wetland 

That all grading, and other 

associated works proposed for 

the SWM Facility remain outside 

of the 15 m setback established 

from the wetland. 

That the landscaping/tree 

planting on site should consist of 

native species wherever feasible. 

6 Tree Compensation Plan 

Condition 2 

The Developer shall complete a tree inventory and conservation plan, 

satisfactory to the city Engineer, in accordance with the City of Guelph 

By-law (2010)-19058, prior to any tree removal, grading or construction on 

the site. 

Note: Tree Inventory and Conservation Plan prepared as Appendix F to 

Stantec EIS. 

Section 7.2.1 

Isolated trees along the eastern boundary of the subject property will be removed to 

facilitate grading and development of the property, although tree preservation will be 

encouraged (where feasible). 

Compensation plantings will be determined at the EIR state, and may consist of 

transplanting where appropriate, planting of native, local genetic stock replacement 

trees on or off-site at a ration approved by the City, or cash-in-lieu. 



 

That the EIR include a Tree 

Compensation Plan. 




7 Street Tree Planting Plan 

Condition 21 

The Developer shall prepare a street tree planting plan and implement such a 

plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 






- 3 -

EIR 

Section 

Number 

EIR Topic 






Condition 27 

Section 7.1.1 

8 

Landscaping/Pedestrian 

Trail System for SWM 

& Open Space blocks 

The Developer shall be responsible for the cost of design of the Pedestrian 

Trail System for the SWM & Open Space Blocks. This shall include 

submitting drawings for approval, identifying the trail system, interpretive 

signage and trail design details, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of 

Planning Services. This shall include the submission of drawings completed 

by an Ontario Association of Landscape Architect (OALA) member for 

approval to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning Services. 

Condition 28 

The Developer shall provide Planning Services with a digital file in 

AutoCAD-DWG format containing the following final approved information: 

… landscaping of the open space and SWM blocks. 

Naturalization of the SWM facility is outlined in K.J. Behm and Associates Incorporated 

(March 2010). 

No naturalization is proposed in the off-site portion of the buffer. On site, planting of the 

SWM facility will be undertaken as outlined in K.J. Behm and Associates Incorporated 

(March 2010). 

Section 9.3 


implemented: 

 

Planting of the proposed SWM facility is completed during construction. 






 

That consideration be given to 

the Official Plan Update 

proposed trail network. 

Section 9.3 

9 

Detailed Lot and 

Grading and Drainage 

Plans 

Condition 53(iii) – See above 


implemented: 

 

 

the development envelope shown in the draft plan of subdivision be maintained; 

grading of the site is limited to that shown on the draft plan of subdivision. 

Section 7.2.2 

The proposed SWM strategy has been designed to control run-off from this site and to 

treat it prior to discharge, in accordance with appropriate SWM guidelines (MOE 2003). 

10 SWM Report Condition 53(iv) – See above 

The proposed SWM approach will provide increased infiltration when compared to the 

pre-development condition, as outlined by K.J. Behm and Associates Incorporated 

(March 2010). 

Section 9.3 


implemented: 



That the EIR identify any 

potential LID measures that can 

be utilized on site. 

 

the principles and general approach discussed in the SWM design recommended in 

the Preliminary Servicing and SWM Report (K. J. Behm and Associates Incorporated, 

March 2010) be adhered to. 

- 4 -

EIR 

Section 

Number 

EIR Topic 






Section 7.3.1 

Standard construction practices should be employed to ensure no sedimentation and/or damage 

is incurred to the adjacent wetland, or the identified buffer area… To prevent potential 

impacts, a construction fence should be installed prior to any site work and maintained during 

all phases of construction... This should be combined with appropriate erosion and sediment 

control measures (i.e. silt fence) to control potential sediment transport from erosion during 

construction, in accordance with a sediment and control plan. 

Sedimentation and erosion control measures are outlined in the Preliminary Servicing and 

SWM Plan (K. J. Behm and Associates Inc., March 2010), and will consist of the following 

features: 

11 

Erosion and Siltation 

Control Plan 

Condition 8 

The Developer shall construct, install and maintain erosion and sediment 

control facilities, satisfactory to the City Engineer, in accordance with a plan 

that has been submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. 

Condition 9 

The Developer shall retain a qualified environmental inspector, satisfactory to 

the General Manager of Planning Services, to inspect the site during all 

phases of development and construction including grading, servicing and 

building construction. The environmental inspector shall monitor and inspect 

the erosion and sediment control measures and procedures. The 

environmental inspect shall report on their findings to the City. 

 

 

 

Prior to site grading, light-duty silt fences (OPSD 219.11) will be installed along the 

boundaries of adjacent properties where there is potential for sedimentation to occur. 

Following the completion of site grading, light-duty silt fences will be installed along the 

top of the banks of the corridors and at the low points in the road. The forebay in the 

SWM facility will also act as sediment collection areas until the development has been 

completed. The lots and blocks will be graded approximately 600mm below the final road 

grades, and will act as sediment collection/velocity reducing areas until the lots are 

developed. 

Following completion of the underground services, geotextile filter fabric will be installed 

under the grates of all catchbasins. Light-duty silt fence will also be installed around all 

rear yard catch basins. Infiltration galleries will be protected with silt fence as necessary. 

Maintenance of the sedimentation facilities will be on-going throughout the construction 

period until the development has been completed and stabilized with grass. 

Condition 12 

The Developer shall stabilize all disturbed soil within 90 days of being 

disturbed, control all noxious weeds and keep ground cover to a maximum 

height of 150 mm (6 inches) until the release of the development agreement 

on the block/lot so disturbed. 

 

 

 

Stormceptor manholes will act as grease, oil, sediment separators during the construction 

period and will be maintained on an annual basis or as needed. 

The SWM facility will be constructed and landscaped after the servicing has been 

completed to reduce the potential of sedimentation. 

Prior to the final acceptance by the municipality, the SWM facility will be inspected and 

made new, if sedimentation/erosion has occurred. 

 

The Municipality’s Environmental Engineer will be responsible for the regular inspection 

of the erosion control/sedimentation facilities as well as any other environmental concern 

onsite during the construction of the works, and shall report the findings directly to the 

City, GRCA, and the developer. 

Section 8 

…we propose that compliance monitoring be undertaken during the construction phase to 

ensure the following: 

 

Erosion and sediment controls are installed and maintained at the buffer limits. 

- 5 -

EIR 

Section 

Number 

EIR Topic 






Section 8.0 

12 

SWM Monitoring 

Program 

Condition 14 (see above) 

Effectiveness monitoring of the SWM facility is recommended in the Preliminary 

Servicing and SWM Report (K.J. Behm and Associates Incorporated, March 2010)… The 

monitoring program will be the responsibility of the developer during the construction 

period and will extend for a period of two years beyond the date of substantial completion 

(75% completion of building lots), after which time the City of Guelph will assume the 

responsibility for the monitoring program. 

Section 9.3 


implemented: 

 

Monitoring be undertaken as recommended by K.J. Behm and Associates 

Incorporated (March 2010) 

- 6 -

565000 

565100 

565200 

565300 

565400 

565500 

565600 

Legend 

4819200 

4819200 

Study Area 

Torrence Creek PSW 

Surveyed Wetland Boundary 

ELC Boundary 

ELC Vegetation Communities 

Cultural Communities 

CUM1-1 Dry-Moist Old Field Cultural Meadow 

CUW1-3* Manitoba Maple Cultural Woodland 

Swamp Communities 

SWT2-13* Poplar Mineral Thicket Swamp 

4819100 

4819100 

*denotes communities not listed in the southern Ontario ELC 

manual 

COLONIAL DR 

4819000 

CUM1-1 

4819000 

SWT 

2-13* 

CUM1-1 (Mowed) 

CUW1-3* 

4818900 

4818900 

Notes 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Coordinate System: UTM NAD 83 - Zone 17 (N). 

Data Sources: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 

© Queens Printer Ontario, 2009; © Grand River 

Conservation Authority, 2009. 

Image Sources: © Google Earth Pro, 2009 

(© First Base Solutions, 2009; © TeleAtlas, 2009 

- Imagery Date: May 3, 2006). 

HASLER CRES 

ZECCA DR 

ARKELL RD 

4818800 

ARKELL RD 

BARD BLVD 

4818800 

Client/Project 

VICTORIA WOOD 

ARKELL EIS 

Figure No. 

2 

March 19, 2010 

160960476 

SUMMERFIELD DR 

565000 

565100 

565200 

W:\active\60960476\graphics\GIS\MXD\60960476_Figure2_0_ELCVegetationCommunities_20100319_CEW.mxd 

565300 

COUTTS CRT 

565400 

HOWDEN CRES 

0 25 50 75 100 

m 

1:2,000 

565500 

565600 

Title 

ELC VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 

AND SIGNIFICANT 

NATURAL FEATURES

APPENDIX B: EIR TERMS OF REFERENCE CORRESPONDENCE 


ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2012 AT 7:00 P.M. 

COUNCIL COMMITTEE ROOM C 

MINUTES 

Present: G. Drewitt (Chair) E. Blenkhorn 

M. Gillen C. Parent 

B. Mungall S. Lohnes 

Regrets: 

Staff: 

External Groups: 

A. Labbé, V. Laur 

Nancy Shoemaker, Black, Shoemaker, Robinson and Donaldson 

Melissa Straus, Stantec 

Gerry Armstrong, Victoria Wood 

Ken Behm, K. J. Behm & Associates 

Melanie Allard, University of Guelph 

Hugh Whiteley, Living Rivers & Greenways Action Group 

Charles Cecile, Guelph Field Naturalists 

Jenn Bock, Guelph Field Naturalists 

Judy Martin, Sierra Club of Canada 

C. Parent declared a conflict of interest on the 246 Arkell Road EIR Terms of Reference agenda 

item. 

1. 246 Arkell Road EIR Terms of Reference 

A. Labbé, Environmental Planner with the City of Guelph, provided a brief overview of 

the subject property and reviewed the staff report. 

Chris Parent, from North-South Environmental Inc., provided a brief overview of the 246 

Arkell Road EIR Terms of Reference and noted the following: 

• there are no significant environmental constraints on the site 

• the draft plan ensures the 30m setback is maintained between the PSW and the 

road 

• to ensure everything from previous reports are covered, items to be addressed in 

the EIR have been put into a table format to reflect how requirements are to be 

addressed 

• Thicket Swamp wetland unit on-site has not been complexed with the PSW and 

has been approved for removal by the GRCA 

• trail system will be an on road trail system 

• there are no implications to the Natural Heritage System

2 

E.A.C. Minutes – November 14, 2012 

The floor was opened to delegations. 

Delegation: 

Hugh Whiteley, on behalf of Living Rivers & Greenways Action Group, expressed the 

following concerns: 

• Trails: the trail in the south is distinctively not an on road trail system. Hugh 

believes this is more closely related to purpose of trails which is to experience 

nature. This is identified in the Trail Master Plan to be a nature trail 

• Geotechnical study needs attention as well as inclusion of a good monitoring 

plan. Hugh noted the City needs to modify its monitoring requirements to pay 

more attention to monitoring plans 

General discussion took place and the consultants were available to respond to questions 

from the Environmental Advisory Committee. 

Ken Behm, from K. J. Behm & Associates spoke to how the EIR looks at cumulative 

impacts on the well. Ken noted the following: 

• an extensive hydrogeological report was done and it concluded that development 

won’t impact deep wells (in bedrock) 

• bore holes were drilled 

• there was extensive investigation of wells on adjacent lands 

• suggested clay barriers be installed 

• ground water depths have been monitored for the past few years – in spring it is 

at the surface, in summer it is down 3 metres below ground surface 

• the proposed development will be increasing recharge, specifically in spring 

B. Mungall asked how the City tracks cumulative impacts. A. Labbé advised she will 

take a look into this and advise in the near future. 

Moved by M. Gillen and seconded by S. Lohnes 

“That the Environmental Advisory Committee support the EIR Terms of 

Reference prepared by North-South Environmental Inc. for 246 Arkell Road with 

the following: 

That the EIR: 

▪ be a comprehensive document including an introduction, conclusion and 

supporting figures and plans throughout (i.e., landscape plans, compensation 

plan). Furthermore, accompanying documents (e.g. SWM Report, ESC Plan, 

etc.) will be appended as appropriate; 

▪ address the GRCA and Parks Planner comments with respect to trails; 

▪ include a comprehensive section detailing Mitigation Measures during all 

phases of construction with consideration to leaving a vegetated buffer; and

3 


▪ include a comprehensive Monitoring section which details reporting 

requirements.” 

Motion Carried 

2. 1820 Gordon St Proposed Redline Revision to an Approved Draft Plan of 

Subdivision 

A. Labbé, Environmental Planner with the City of Guelph, provided a brief overview of 

the subject property and reviewed the staff report. 

Nancy Shoemaker, from Black, Shoemaker, Robinson and Donaldson, provided a brief 

overview on the history of the site and where it is at today. Nancy also noted the 

following; 

• changes cannot be made to Poppy Drive as the developers no longer own it. 

• the catch basin could be removed, but in removing it, there would be significant 

grading in the wildlife corridor 


Delegation: 

Charles Cecile, on behalf of Guelph Field Naturalists, noted the following: 

• supports increasing the width of the wildlife corridor 

• how will wildlife corridor be vegetated? EIR needs to investigate how this should 

be done 

• fencing should be provided to reduce encroachment 

• since parkland is reduced, residents from Pergola will need to go to Dallan Park 

so must mitigate potential encroachment through wild life corridor 

• Bobolinks are Threatened Species at Risk 

Delegation: 

Hugh Whiteley, on behalf of Living Rivers & Greenways Action Group, noted the 

following: 

• the EIR for Phase 2 does deal with items that may affect development layout 

• the Redline Revision coming in advance of the EIR renders the EIR useless 

• questioned how EAC can give an opinion on the redline without the Phase 2 EIR 

• Riparian Rights: Drainage Act.....can’t discharge water on your neighbour 

General discussion took place and the Environmental Advisory Committee noted that a 

Species at Risk screening should be required.

4 


Moved by B. Mungall and seconded by E. Blenkhorn 

“That the Environmental Advisory Committee support the proposed Redline 

Revisions to the Approved Draft Plan of Subdivision (23T-03507) prepared by 

Stantec Consulting Ltd. for 1820 Gordon Street with the following: 

▪ Alternative techniques to address the low point within the wildlife corridor 

and the use of a catch basin should be explored including measures to 

mitigate catch basins impacts to wildlife, should a catch basis be required; 

▪ Among other things that have been indicated in the EIS, the scope of the EIR 

for Phase 2 of the Pergola Lands will include the design and implementation 

of the wildlife corridor, including timing of construction, mitigation of 

construction impacts and restoration measures for the grading encroachment. 

Restoration plantings should be recommended to best enhance linkage 

function for amphibians; 

▪ SAR screening should be conducted; and 

▪ Opportunities for coordinating between adjacent property owners with 

respect to restoration of the wildlife corridor should be explored.” 


-Unanimous- 

3. Guelph Innovation District Draft Secondary Plan 

Joan Jylanne, Senior Policy Planner with the City of Guelph gave a PowerPoint 

presentation on the Draft Guelph Innovation District Secondary Plan. 

Presentation Outline 

• Background 

o 436 ha site with significant natural and cultural heritage resources 

• Project Integration 

o Secondary Plan (Growth Management Strategy) 

o Community Energy Initiative 

o Economic Development Strategy 

• Secondary Plan Process – 3 Phases 

• Public Engagement – 13 events over past six years 

• Vision, Principles and Preferred Design – Supported by Council January 2012 

• Preferred Design Development 

o Area Structure Plan 

• Natural and Cultural Heritage 

• Infrastructure Framework 

• Connections and Viewsheds

5 


• Draft GID Secondary Plan Components 

o Vision, Principles and Objectives 

o Natural and Cultural Heritage 

o Energy, Infrastructure and Sustainability 

o Mobility 

o The Public Realm 

o Land Use and Built Form 

o Interpretation and Implementation 

• Next Steps 

• October 15, 2012 - Release Draft Secondary Plan 

• November 28, 2012 - Public Open House 

• February 2013 - Statutory Public Meeting 

• April 2013 - Council Adoption 


Delegation: 

Hugh Whiteley, on behalf of Living Rivers & Greenways Action Group, inquired 

whether the River Systems Advisory Committee was asked to overlay River Systems 

mapping with the GID mapping. Joan advised the River Systems report was part of the 

background materials provided to the consultants. 

General discussion took place and Joan was available to respond to questions from the 

Environmental Advisory Committee. 

Joan asked that the Committee review the Draft Secondary Plan and provide comments 

to her by December 07, 2012. 

4. Correspondence and Information 

▪ EAC Symposium 

o Adele advised that the Symposium has been cancelled. C. Parent will send a 

link to the Committee for EAC Ontario. 

5. Other Business 

• Upcoming items: 

o 25 Lee Street – Development application 

• This application was circulated in September 

o Memberships and 2013 EAC 

• New members will be starting in January 2013 

o Other 

• 1291 Gordon Street EIR Addendum to come back to EAC 

• Dallan EIR TOR

6 


6. Approval of Minutes from October 10, 2012 

Moved by B. Mungall and seconded by M. Gillen – 

“To accept the minutes as amended. 

• In agenda item #1 under 1159 Victoria – Victoria Park Village – Red Line 

Revisions to Draft Plan of Subdivision, change bullet points #1, #2 and #7 in 

the Resolution to read as follows (see italics): 

• An EIS Addendum be provided in support of the proposed Redline 

Revisions which addresses the following: 

• Any impacts these changes may have on the environmental features 

being protected (per the approved EIS) and their functions, with 

specific reference to ecological communities, fish and wildlife habitat 

as well as hydrology and hydrogeology. 

• That the EIS addendum include a figure that illustrates the proposed 

Draft Plan of Subdivision that clearly illustrates wetland and 

woodland limits, buffers and limits of development plus trails (colour 

coded). One version of the figure should be overlaid on an aerial 

photograph.” 


-Unanimous- 

7. Next Meeting 

December 12, 2012. 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. 

CHAIRMAN

APPENDIX C: LANDSCAPE PLAN 


APPENDIX D: TRAIL NETWORK CORRESPONDENCE 


APPENDIX E: EAC MINUTES (SEPTEMBER 14, 2011) 


APPENDIX F: TREE PROTECTIVE FENCING 


Chris Parent 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Adele.Labbe@guelph.ca 

Wednesday 10 10, 2012 4:14 PM 

Nancy@bsrd.com; Mary.Angelo@guelph.ca 

garmstrong@taliskercorp.com; kjbehm@bellnet.ca; Chris Parent; 

Sylvia.Kirkwood@guelph.ca 

RE: 246 Site Meeting 

Hi Nancy, 

Thanks for providing a summary of the site visit we undertook yesterday afternoon at 246 Arkell Road. I agree with your 

points that are related to the location of the fencing in relation to the trees as well as tree retention and vegetation 

removal. 

Thanks, 

Adèle Labbé | Environmental Planner 

Planning Services 

Planning, Building, Engineering and Environment 

City of Guelph 

T (519) 822-1260 x 2563 | F (519) 822-4632 

E adele.labbe@guelph.ca 

Please consider the environment before printing this email 

From: Nancy [mailto:Nancy@bsrd.com] 

Sent: October 10, 2012 1:05 PM 

To: Adele Labbe; Mary Angelo 

Cc: garmstrong@taliskercorp.com; kjbehm@bellnet.ca; Chris Parent 

Subject: FW: 246 Site Meeting 

Hi Adele and Mary: 

Further to our site meeting yesterday, it is my understanding that we agreed to the following items: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Construction hoarding fencing along the easterly property can be installed and vegetation/trees less than 10 cm 

in diameter can be removed to accommodate the location of this fencing; 

Any trees greater than 10 cm in diameter along the easterly property line will remain and the fencing will go 

around these trees in this location until a tree compensation plan is approved by the City and EAC; 

Construction hoarding fencing at the northerly part of this easterly property line should be located 

approximately 10 metres inside the property in accordance with the Stantec tree survey; 

Construction hoarding fencing can be place along the northerly property line, by the existing fence; 

There are no trees along the northerly property line that are in excess of 10 cm. and existing vegetation in this 

area can be removed to accommodate the fence; 

There are no trees along the easterly property line and since Sylvia’s letter is not clear on the fencing 

requirement along this side of the property, a 1.8 metre high chain link fence could be installed on this property 

line at this time; 

1

No grading or site alteration is to take place before the above‐noted construction hoarding fencing takes place 

along the east, west and north property lines and prior to the City approving the site alteration permit; 

ESA clean‐up work can occur at this time, provided the construction hoarding fencing is in place; and 

Removal of trees on the property over 10 cm in diameter requires City and EAC approval of the compensation 

plan. 

If I have missed something or incorrectly noted something from our meeting, please advise immediately. 

Regards 

Nancy Shoemaker, 

MCIP, RPP 

Black, Shoemaker, Robinson & Donaldson Limited 

351 Speedvale Avenue West 

Guelph, Ontario N1H 1C6 

Phone: 519-8224031 

Fax: 519-822-1220 

Email: nancy@bsrd.com 

-------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is 

intended for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged 

and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or 

copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please 

notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately. 

2

APPENDIX G: PHASE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT FIGURES

Environmental Implementation Report - City of Guelph

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?