NOTEBOOK: Free ice cream & more, 6279 Fernbank, museum needs space


Lois & Frima’s is giving away free ice cream on Saturday, October 31. It’s become an annual tradition to clear out their buckets of ice cream before going into hibernation for the winter .  They’re in the Ultrama Plaza at 1626 Stittsville Main Street, all the way in the back of the plaza.

Next door at the Main Street Cafe, they’re celebrating the opening of their new expanded space on Saturday by giving everyone who stops by a free Suzy Q donut.

Also on Saturday, Playvalue Toys (David Manchester Drive, off Hazeldean north of Highway 7) is hosting a LEGO make and take. Kids 3-16 can drop in and receive a free monster minifigure.

That’s not all. Heads Up Barber Shop, located in the same plaza as Lois & Frima’s and Main Street Cafe, is offering free haircuts to military veterans from November 1-11.

The Site Plan Control for the Carp Road Landfill Expansion was approved this week.  The next step in the municipal approval process is in the hands of the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee, who meet next Thursday to life a “zoning hold provision” on the site.  Re-zoning for the landfill expansion was conditionally approved by the city in July 2014, subject to the site plan being approved.  Waste Management still needs Environmental Compliance Approval from the Ministry of Environment before they can proceed.  (We’ll have an update on the landfill status and what was included in the site plan next week.)

Also this week, the plan of subdivision for 173 Huntmar (north of Maple Grove) was approved.  That plan incorporates the 1887 Boyd House into a development that includes low-rise apartment buildings, commercial and office buildings.

As expected, the Planning Committee and City Council gave their blessing to a Plan of Subdivision and Zoning amendment for 6279 Fernbank, based on a new plan for stormwater management and flooding mitigation agreed to by the City and the developer.  The only councillor to vote against the development was  Shad Qadri.

I’m not entirely clear if this item actually needed approval from the committee and councillors, since the final decision on whether or not the developer can go ahead rests with the Ontario Municipal Board. City planner John Moser suggested to the planning committee that their approval would make it more likely the OMB would accept the agreement.

(I’ve also asked why the issue was pushed through committee and council so quickly, but nobody’s been able to explain that to me either.  The staff report was posted less than 48 hours before planning committee, and the item was a last-minute addition to the council agenda on Wednesday. That’s not a lot of time for parties – especially the general public – to review. UPDATE: Qadri emailed to say the urgency was that the OMB had asked for an update from both parties by October 16. With the deadline already passed, the city wanted to deal with the item promptly this week.)

Community representative Jillian McKim said that her neighbours are still concerned about the city’s cost for their share of stormwater work (it wasn’t included in the report presented at the meeting), the number of houses proposed for the development, and the impact of construction on wildlife.

Even with the approval from council this week, city staff and representatives for the developer are continuing to tweak the agreement.

Qadri told the Planning Committee that he’s been opposed to the development since the beginning, largely because the land was formerly designated as a Provincially Significant Wetland.

“Yes the designation changed, but at the time staff did ensure me – not in writing – that this piece of property probably would never be developed… Having said that I am not happy with the development going forward. I’m happy about the solution that has been worked out to protect the community with future flood mitigation proposals… I think the proponent still has to listen to the community – maybe reducing the number of homes – also looking at what goes in behind existing homes currently, whether it’s single family bungalows or whether it’s two-storey. The concerns I have are still the same as day one. Although engineering is key factor, it is not the only factor. Based on that I will not be supporting this item going forward,” Qadri told the committee.

The Goulbourn Museum held a brainstorming session on Thursday night to come up with solutions for a lack of space. “We are thrilled to be so busy, yet we are currently working over capacity at our current site. We would like to hear your ideas for site improvements and solutions to our capacity issues,” wrote museum staff in an invitation to the session.

The museum’s board of directors is setting up a committee to review options, and the timeline for coming up with a solution is rather long: eight to ten years in the future.

One participant told me that she would be suggesting that the museum move into the old Bradley Craig barn, the red heritage landmark on Hazeldean Road. It’s currently owned by Richcraft.

Maybe then they’d have room for the Richmond Bakery sign.


Leave a Reply