From ...


August 9, 2005


 Letter: Not a WETLAND

We have lived on Flewellyn Road in Goulbourn for almost 36 
years. When we moved here, this ten acre lot was dry or we
would not have bought it. While I cannot speak to the accuracy of many of the proposed designations, I can speak with considerable knowledge and authority about my own property. Based on several facts, likely overlooked by the wetland evaluator, I categorically reject its contorted assessment as fitting any of the criteria of a legitimate wetland.
The subject property is made up of cultivated land, large mowed 
lawns and privately managed mixed bush. There is not a cattail or
summer-long wet area on the property. Every part of our property
is traversable by foot or vehicle.
One bush-covered portion of our property is seasonally flooded by 
way of my neighbors property due to overflow in municipal ditches,
which have not been properly constructed or maintained. They
are unable to adequately convey the large increases of spring run-
off water that have been re-directed here by the city in recent
years from the northern part of the ward. It would be highly unfair for the city to attempt to solve the problem of seasonally flooding private lands by creating another problem, namely that of wrongly classifying non-wetlands as wetlands. The
city would not allow one landowner to flood his neighbours. The city
should similarly exercise good-neighbourliness and maintain its drainage ditches in return for our high taxes.
"We are tired of the political harassment, torment and stress that this issue is causing.  It is literally affecting our health."


The wooded area of our property consists mainly of maple trees. 
The forest is dry in the summer and fall and is a pleasure to 
walk through as we have made walking trails through it.  We also 
enjoy the deer, grouse, turkeys and rabbits that use our forest.  

In 1996 to 1998 we had to fight a Mineral Extraction Reserve
designation that was proposed for our property by the city and 
regional government. This fight we won because they finally realized 
that people really lived in this area and they were not about to give
up their homes. There was no mention of wetlands at that time,
including from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Also, a person does not receive a building permit to build on provincially significant wetlands. Three of our neighbours, who are also in our proposed wetland area, have built their homes in the past three years. There was no mention of wetlands at the time. We are tired of the political harassment, torment and stress that this issue is causing. It is literally affecting our health. In 1987, we paid dearly to have the Hobbs Drain extension constructed to get rid of other people's water directed here from the north and now you try to make us part of the wetlands? Where is the common sense there? It just looks like someone did not do a proper job on the ditch! It almost appears as though the city is now trying to create new wetlands by targeting and flooding out dry land held by private landowners. This practice is not acceptable and such abuse of good "land use planning" principles will be met with maximum resistance. We are sure there are enough uninhabited, real wetlands that can be designated without harassing the private homeowners in area.
This amounts on the south side of Flewellyn Rd and west side of Conley Road. Stittsville has recently lost huge tracts wetlands through development,
such as the wetlands now occupied by Brown's Your Independent Grocer and neighbouring Shops of Main Street plaza. This practice seems to be continuing with the proposed subdivision in a wetland area south of the Fernbank Road and west of Stittsville Main Street. We are requesting that the city of Ottawa remove its proposed wetland designation from our property on Flewellyn Road. Mike Westley Flewellyn Road