{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Sheet1","Sheet2"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Sheet1","index":0,"n_rows":105,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":105,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[null,"ORCA Revised Comments July 5, 2024","Response"]
[null,"Planning"]
[1,"Otonabee Conservation has reviewed this application through our delegated responsibility from the Province of Ontario, to represent the provincial interest with respect to consistency with natural hazards policies in those statements or plans issued under the Planning Act."]
[null,"The site is impacted by flooding by way of the hydrological connection to the Ouse River through a previously unknown culvert under the CP Railway. While efforts have been made to delineate the extent of this flooding, additional information and clarifications are being requested with respect to this and the neighboring properties pre and post development. Technical review comments are found in Appendix A and shall be addressed so that the flooding hazard and its impacts are accurately understood at the site. Otonabee Conservation has provided the engineering consultant on file with the Ouse River Floodplain Report (2022) with appendices for their reference. Otonabee Conservation is of the opinion that the applications have not yet demonstrated consistency to Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), referencing Natural Hazards.","Thank you for providing the Floodplain Mapping Study appendices.  Having reviewed the hydrologic modelling, we understand that the whole of the Mill Pond subdivision lands lie within  Catchment 800 and were considered to contribute to the Mill Pond (Otthymo Modelling Output).  This indicates that the flood study authors assumed a hydraulic connection existed such that the lands would be able to drain to the Mill Pond.\n\nSince the floodline of the Ouse River does not encompass lands south of the railway, this implies that a concious decision was made not to include the lands within the formal floodplain.  Storage south of the railway was not incorporated into the floodplain protection calculations and was not relied upon in the floodplain delineation.\n\nTherefore, the lands south of the railway do not provide flooding protection to the Ouse River as depicted on the floodplain mapping. "]
[]
[2,"Development shall not create new or aggravate existing natural hazards. Otonabee Conservation has reviewed this application through our mandated authority under Ontario Regulation 686/21 and provide the following comments, technical support or information, and advice."]
[null,"Review of the above listed technical reports has been completed to assess whether the proposed development will create or aggravate existing hazards associated with this and adjacent properties. Find comments in Appendix A that relate to water quantity control, water balance, construction sequencing/phasing and erosion and sediment control. Until these comments have been adequately addressed, the proposal could negatively impact downstream hazardous lands and adjacent properties.","It was agreed at our meeting that the potential impacts are only to lands south of the railway and immediately adjacent to the proposed development since the floodplain mapping study made it clear that flood limits were defined using developed conditions without storage.  The area south of the CP railway is the subject of the SWM report analysis and has been updated as required."]
[3,"Otonabee Conservation has reviewed the application through a regulatory lens. Ontario Regulation 41/24 prohibits any development, interference with, or alteration within a flooding hazard, erosion hazard, hazardous lands, watercourse, wetland and/or their adjacent lands/areas of interference unless a permit has been issued by Otonabee Conservation under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act."]
[null,"Those areas associated with the floodplain of the Ouse River, including a 15-metre regulated allowance, once better understood at the site, may be regulated by Otonabee Conservation. A permit will be required from this agency prior to any site alteration and /or construction within those regulated areas at the site.","As discussed during the meeting held at ORCA office on July 4, 2024, the lands south of the railway would not be restricted from develoment, but would require a permit and confirmation that no flooding impacts would be created."]
[4," Otonabee Conservation has reviewed the application to assess the applicability of the Trent Source Protection Plan (SPP) prepared under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The SPP came into effect on January 1, 2015, and contains policies to protect sources of municipal drinking water from existing and future land use activities that pose a significant drinking water threat."]
[null,"It was determined that the subject property is located within a vulnerable area where significant drinking water threats are possible. In December 2023, the proposed development was reviewed by Terri Cox, Risk Management Official for the Otonabee- Peterborough Source Protection Area. On December 23, 2023, Restricted Land Use Notice 2023-0158-N2a was issued, confirming that no associated activities were prohibited or required a risk management plan.","Acknowledged"]
[null,"In addition, the subject property is located within the two vulnerable areas listed below however the SPP only applies within the Wellhead Protection Area identified above.","Acknowleged."]
[null,"·         Highly Vulnerable Aquifer"]
[null,"·         Significant Groundwater Recharge Area"]
[null,"Engineering Comments:"]
[1,"The Preliminary Stormwater Management Report has identified the discharge point for the proposed development will be the South Pond and the box culvert under the Canadian Pacific Railway. However, as demonstrated within the Report, the culvert is submerged and impacted by water levels in East Pond / Ouse River. Calculations within Appendix E provide the required upstream head/depth of water needed to push the 100-year flow through the existing CPR culvert. The depth is 0.91m and results in a backwater elevation of 203.13m.","Given the changes to the catchment areas, pre and post, the backwater effect is 0.37m and the 100-yr ponding elevation in the south pond is 202.59m"]
[null,"Observations:"]
[null,"·         The proposed stormwater management (SWM) facility is located within the low point of the property."]
[null,"·         A majority of the SWM facility is located below/within the existing 100-year backwater area defined by the 203.13m elevation."]
[null,"·         The SWM facility has been designed to control post development peak flows to match pre-development rates."]
[null,"Issues:"]
[null,"·         The SWM facility is removing storage volume currently used for/by the backwater generated by the 100-year storm and the conveyance culvert."]
[null,"·         The SWM facility is discharging a similar peak flow as pre-development conditions. Therefore, a similar backwater elevation and storage volume would be required."]
[null,"·         There is no supporting information to determine that the construction of the SWM facility will not have a negative affect on all surrounding properties."]
[null,"Requirements:"]
["a)","Delineation of the existing hazard, backwater effects, on the proposed property and all surrounding properties.","Per above, the hydraulic impact of flow through the CP culvert is 0.37m in 100-yr event.  This is preserved in the post-development scenario."]
["b)","Provide calculations and/or hydraulic modeling to demonstrate that the SWM facility will have zero impact on surrounding properties. The calculations and/or modeling will need to;","See updated preliminary SWM report."]
["i. ","Calculate backwater extent/elevation for existing and proposed conditions, pre and post peak flows, and loss of storage volume due to the construction of the SWM facility.","The storage volume is not relied upon and is therefore not 'lost'.  The revised preliminary SWM report shows the worst case innundation area assuming the site discharges at the same time as the peak storage occurs  in the east pond (Mill Pond).  See Dwg B3 in Appendix B.  "]
["c)","Delineate the extent of backwater based on the post development peak flows and reduction of storage volume.","Post development peak flows will be reduced.  The extent of backwater is no greater than existing.  Recall that almost all of the contributing area to the south pond is intercepted by the proposed SWM facility and will be released at a reduced rate over existing conditions.  See drawings B3 and B4 in Appendix B. "]
["i. ","What affect does this have on surrounding properties?","No Impact on surrounding properties."]
[null,"Hydrologic Model"]
[2,"Please provide the breakdown and background calculations for the hydrologic parameters used to describe the existing and proposed site conditions within the VO model.","The revised Appendix C includes the Airport Method calculations for the times to peak for the pre-development catchments.  As per MTO DMM Chart 1.09, a CN of 74 is used for croplands in HSG B, which was decreased to 72 to account for tree cover between fields."]
["a)","The application of TOTAL Imp 60% and Directly Conn 50% impervious cover is too small based on the proposed land use presented on the Development Site Plan.","No.  60% imperviousness is quite high for a subdivision.  The table provided by ORCA is runoff coefficients - not imperviousness.  A runoff coefficient will be higher than imperviousness.  "]
["b)","These calculations should reflect the proposed types of construction across the site as presented on the Development Site Plan (based on single family lots (12m), townhouse blocks, apartment buildings and commercial).   ","The development is modelled at this point as a single catchment.  We have reduced the overall imperviousness to 55%.  This is greater than the calculated imperviousness of 49%.  An overall imperviousness of 55% is a reasonable allowable design basis.  Supporting calculations are included in Appendix B, and the model was updated to reflect the allowable imperviousness of 55%.  "]
["c)","Please provide the Township of Asphodel- Norwood runoff coefficients for defined land use. Here is a sample table.","Runoff coefficients are not used for design with the exception of a single runoff coefficient used for calculation of the pre-development time of concentration.  For this, a runoff coefficient of 0.22 was applied following Design Chart 1.07.  This was supported in the Appendix C of the SWM report."]
[3,"The catchment plan pre-development (B-1) identifies an external drainage area #200 with 6.4 Ha.","Stemming from these and other comments, Jewell revisited the catchments with improved contour information and have discritized the existing conditions to the extent that is possible."]
["a)","Does any of this external drainage provide overland flow onto the proposed site?","The revised report clarifies the external lands that will contribute to the pond (catchment 200 = 2.3ha)."]
["b)","If yes, delineate how much on drawing B-1. Modify the pre-development VO model to reflect additional drainage area.","Updated modelling is included.  A section view has been prepared showing the pond elevations."]
[4,"Due to changes in percent impervious of the proposed development, the water quality control component of the wet pond needs to be updated.","Quality control sections have been updated to reflect the development's imperviousness, with surplus PP storage. See Section 4.1.2, Appendix D."]
[5,"The Chicago storm was the only storm and duration used within the hydrologic model. Selection of the appropriate storm type and distribution shall be considered and discussed for both the pre and post development conditions. Justification related to the storms chosen shall be provided by the design Engineer, in the SWM Report.","The 24hr SCS II storm was used for the revised report to correspond with the recent floodplain mapping study."]
[null,"General"]
[6,"Based on BH105-22 borehole log, the ground elevation is 202.457 masl. With a groundwater reading of 1.52mbgs, the groundwater elevation is 199.74mbgs.","Yes, that is correct.  Groundwater was first encountered at 1.52m depth and was measured again on May 4, 2022 at 2.72m depth."]
["a)","With the proposed bottom of the forebay at 199.8m and permanent pool at 200.3m, there is approximately 0.06m to 0.5m separation.","The permanent pool elevation is 202.3m - not  200.3m.  We are not certain the intent of this comment, but if it is to point out how far the groundwater table will be from the bottom of the forebay or from PP, noted."]
["b)","With seasonal groundwater fluctuations, the groundwater will potentially have impacts on the wet pond operation (loss of storage volumes). The wet pond will need an impermeable liner. Please include the liner (with proper notes) in all stormwater pond cross-sections.","No. Perhaps the reviewer misread the PP elevation that is 202.3m - not 200.3m.  Groundwater will have no impact on the wet pond operation.  The risk of high groundwater table is not loss of storage volume, but instead it is depletion of the groundwater resourse since groundwater inflow will discharge through the outlet structure continuously.  The groundwater fluctuations are being collected at the MWs.  As the range of fluctuations are understood, a liner detail will be prepared and provided during detailed design."]
[7,"The invert of the outlet pipe from the stormwater management facility will be above the 100-Year flood elevation.","We don't understand this comment.  The SWM report stated the PP elevation was 202.3m.  The orifices were also stated with inverts at 202.3m and 202.8m.  The outlet pipe elevation was not stated."]
[8,"The wet pond design lacks some important information, please ad the following;"]
["a)","Delineate and label the permanent pool and 100-year water levels,","These are added to the plan and section drawings (see App B)."]
["b)","The pond has benching with different side slopes. Please provide the elevation of each bench,","The pond has one bench.  It's elevation was clearly shown on the drawings (it is described as a \"SHELF 202.3\").  We have added a section view."]
["c)","The invert of the inlet pipe will be at or above the permanent pool elevation. Label invert elevation,","The inlet into the SWM facility has been modified to place the pipe obvert 0.6m below PP."]
[9,"The current pond configuration and outlet design is applying 3 orifice plates between the permanent pool elevation and the 2-year water elevation to control peak flows. Then incorporates a 1.0m long broad crested weir, positioned 0.5m below the 100-year water level, to convey larger flows from the 5-year thru 100-year storms.","The configuration of the outlet has been modified to have 4 orifices, one concrete weir and one emergency spillway (4m)."]
["a)","Generally, the emergency spillway is positioned just above the 100-year water level. The function of the spillway is to protect the integrity of the berm and convey storms larger than the 100-year storm.","Agreed.  The emergency spillway is adjusted."]
["b)","Please re-design the pond configuration so that the emergency spillway is above the 100-year water level.","Agreed.  The emergency spillway is adjusted."]
["c)","Please add and/or adjust the outlet structures (orifice plates/tubes, DICB inlets, etc) within the pond to provide the appropriate post development peak flows.","Orifice and weir controls were adjusted.  A detail is provided to help illustrate the operation of the outlet."]
[10,"Under a post development scenario, there is approximately a 65% increase in runoff volume from the site entering the East Pond and Canadian Pacific Railway culvert.","The east pond receives all drainage from the existing lands.  The east pond also receives groundwater contribution from the existing site.  The volume of overland flow + groundwater contribution in pre will be similar to the volume of overland flow + groundwater in the post.  The difference will be in the timing.  GW will be delayed.  \n"]
["a)","How will the East Pond and surrounding properties be affected by the increase in runoff volume?","Runoff peaks are expressly reviewed by the SWM design such that peak flows are conserved.  Runoff volume always increases in post.  An increase in runoff volume is only a concern if the runoff volume is stored without adequate release.  If this question is expressing concern that the increased runoff volume will cause increased flood risk to the residents - it will not.  Recall that almost all the drainage to the south pond will be intercepted by the proposed SWMF.  The discharge is reduced in post.  The connection to the East Pond is confirmed and the backwater effect of the CPR culvert is identified.    "]
[11,"Please establish the vertical datum (CGVD28 or CGVD2013) used in the survey data, contour information, geotechnical assessment and grading plans.","Datums have been clarified on the drawings."]
[null,"Environmental/Regulatory (refer to Figures 1 through 5 below)"]
[12,"Please demonstrate how directing SWM pond discharge to a field will not create a new hazard and aggravate the existing one associated with the Ouse River’s small pond/wetland? This pond already appears confined by existing residences, a railbed, and a submerged culvert. Further investigations of Ouse River/pond(s) receiving storm water drainage from the development is required to mitigate risk to people and property from interfering with hydrology/natural hazard functions.","The SWM discharge will not create or aggravate an existing hazard.  WSEL of the south pond is reduced in post-development conditions.  Refer to revised SWM report and Appendix E.  The flooding extents is based on peak discharges and is not affected by storage.  The discharge from the SWM facility is planned to be outside of the area regulated by ORCA.  THe new regulatory floodplain mapping ignores storage attenuation in both natural ponds and SWM facilities.  The extents of  mapped floodrisk area are conservative."]
[13,"If there are areas on site supporting hydric soils but no longer supporting hydrophytic vegetation due to agricultural uses/tree clearing, will adjacent properties supporting remnant features/functions be impacted by development?","The EIS does not identify areas on site with hydric soils.  Therefore, no impact is suspected."]
[14,"Little Pond - Is the 30-metre buffer measured from the open water, top of bank, or feature boundary?","The waterbody feature was supplied by the EIS consultant and represented the perimeter of the feature they observed.  The area is backflooded by the dam and does not have traditional banks."]
[15,"There may be a risk of channelization/erosion impacts to Ouse River from the piped outlet proposed for the wet SWM pond (see image attached). Therefore, an outlet channel, which includes natural channel design principles (meanders, plunge pool, plantings, other), is recommended to confine and direct discharge in support of mitigating erosion to the receiving watercourse/waterbody.","The intention would be to refrain from proposing any improvements within the 30m regulatory limit from the natural feature.  Therefore, instead of confining and directing the discharge, we propose to diffuse the discharge using a flow spreader to mitigate erosion.  "]
["a)","Is there an opportunity to create a feature on site like a wetland pond near the SWM pond outlet to support the water balance and mitigate flooding impacts to adjacent properties? (Noting that appropriate setbacks from existing and new development would still be required to mitigate any associated natural hazards from constructed features.","No.  "]
["b)","Will design tweaks like adding an outlet channel require additional setback/buffer(s) to mitigate functional impacts to cold-water watercourses?","No, the intention will be to stay outside of the 30m regulated area."]
[16,"Staff support the proposed 30-metre planting/rehabilitation plan from the outer boundary of the Ouse River small pond/wetland. Please submit this plan for review.","The EIS made recommendation for the planting of the 30m waterbody setback for fish habitat purposes.  Should that proceed it will be sent to the appropriate reviewing agency during detailed design."]
[null,"Peer Review Comments - Stantec SWM - May 14, 2024"]
[1,"Section 2.4 Criteria: The section doesn’t include any water balance criteria, please include as required by the Guidelines, or otherwise justify why water balance is not required for this site.","The water balance is being addressed by the hydrogeological firm and is intended to be part of the detailed design submission."]
[2,"Section 3.2 states that Jewel used the Rational Method for sizing of storm sewers. No details are included for these calculations, please provide copy of the storm sewer deign sheet.","Storm sewer design sheet is now appended to the revised SWM report."]
[3,"Section 4.3 provide details of the CLI-ECA requirements, please include definition of the abbreviation CLI-ECA.","noted"]
[4,"Section 4.3 states that recharge is required to be controlled to meet pre-development conditions on property. Please provide details and calculations to identify the pre-development recharge and to show how this water balance requirement will be satisfied.","Sorry, that should have said, \"stormwater volumes generated from the site are required to be controlled to meet pre-development conditions on the property\".  Techniques applied are as directed by the CLI requirements.  When the water balance assessment is completed by the hydrogeologist, any additional infiltration requirements can be included within the final SWM report."]
[5,"In the OTTHYMO model, the pre-development peak flows were calculated based on one catchment with a total drainage area of 35.61. Drawing B-1 shows that the site is divided into two sub-catchments, which may have lower combined flow as compared to one catchment for the whole site. Please update the model to represent the pre-development catchments and parameters as shown on the drawing.","The Otthymo model was updated for new catchments.  An assemblage of smaller catchments always produces a higher peak than a single large catchment.  The single catchment is conservative."]
[6,"The OTTHYMO model output for the post development conditions shows a combined imperviousness value of 60%, please provide details showing how this value was estimated.","It wasn't calculated.  It was imposed as a conservative planning limit for preliminary design.  \n\nAt preliminary design, one must recognize the development is fluid.  An overall imperviousness can be estimated, but is not finalized until final design.  That would be a valuable time to do the calculations to show the development will stay within the limit imperviousness limit.\n\nWe've since included some support for an overall imperviousness of 49%.  At the preliminary design level, we have provided for design flexibility and pushed the planned imperviousness limit up to 55% for the revised preliminary SWM report.  The calculations are included in the appendices."]
[7,"The culvert flow calculations sheet shows maximum discharge of 1.05m3/s under the OTTHYMO model backwater conditions, this flow is much lower than the proposed 100-year release of 1.52m3/s, please confirm that the culvert has sufficient capacity to convey the post-development conditions.","Some changes were made to the pond hydrology and hydraulics stemming from the more detailed catchment delineations.  The flow hydraulics are also expanded in the SWM discussions."]
[8,"Please include preliminary storm sewer design sheet in the appendices.","Added"]
[9,"Section 5,5 states that “The development site design follows the LID strategies and makes extensive use of techniques to preserve natural drainage features, adjust the layout to the site, reduce impervious areas, and take advantage of natural drainage features”. Please provide locations and preliminary design parameters of all LID measures used in this project.,","LID is a strategy  - not a collection of measures.  Reviewers interpret LID directives as constructed measures such as green roofs, infiltration basins, rain gardens and water harvesting, but TRCA guidance document more fully explains LID strategy.  This is restated within Section 5 of the SWM report.  It is our experience that municipalities do not wish to own or maintain the specific measures listed above.  If this reviewer is aware of particular measures that Norwood would be pleased to own and operate, please let us know and we'd be happy to include these."]
[10,"Section 6.2 provides general information about enhanced swales, please show where the enhanced swales are proposed.","As noted in section 4.1.1, enhanced swales are not relied upon for quality treatment. The general informaion in section 6.2 may be applied to any of the rear yard swales. "]
[null,"DRAWINGS COMMENTS:"]
[1,"Dwg B-1 Pre-development catchment plan: Please include the following details:"]
[null,"• Imperviousness and Runoff coefficients","Refer to revised drawing. "]
[null,"• Name of the receiving water bodies","Refer to revised drawing. "]
[null,"• The existing culvert","Refer to revised drawing. "]
[null,"• CP line and road names","Refer to revised drawing. "]
[2,"Please include a preliminary post development drainage plan, showing the various sub-catchments and proposed drainage and SWM features.","Refer to revised report."]
[3,"Provide preliminary storm sewer plan and profile drawing to confirm that the proposed system has sufficient hydraulic grade line and will not be negatively impacted by the maximum pond storage elevation.","SWM Facility Outlet P & P drawing added to the report. As shown, the SWM pond will have a submerged inlet  but the remainder of the storm system is above the permanent pool elevation (as shown at ST1 where both inlet pipes are at or above the PP).  Storm sewer design sheets (and HGL calculation if required) will be provided at detailed design. "]
[null,"Peer Review Comments - DM Wills - Oct. 2, 2024"]
[null,"General"]
[1,"We require additional details with respect to the preliminary lot grading plan at this stage, including details for perimeter and rear yard swales such as preliminary elevations, typixcal sections, preliminaur sizing for swales with large catchments, and anticiapted drainage easement limits. ","These are detailed design aspects and will be provided at the time of detailed design. Drainage easement locations have been provided on the draft plan and will be adjusted if needed during detailed design. "]
[null,"FSR"]
[2,"The Functional Servicing Report includes an assessment of the proposed water and sanitary servicing for the development but did not inlude an assessment of stormwater conveyance or other utilities such as electricity, gas, and communications. The Preliminary Stormwater Report should be referenced explicitly by title, date, to avoid ambiguity. At this stage of the deisgn, other utilties should be assessed for their availability tio service this development and communication documenting theri availability included in the appendices. ","Refer to revised report. "]
[3,"In light of the recent Provincial Planning Statement, developments in the Township should use 4 persons per unit (PPU) for single detached and 2.5 PPU for townhomes. ","Refer to revised report. Population factors have been revised for areas of future development. "]
[4,"Although it is clear that the ultimate build-out will require upgrades to the Township'd water services, it is unclear if Phase 1 can be built prior to planned water system upgrades, or If upgrades would be needed first. Answering this may require input from the Township. ","Refer to revised report. "]
[5,"See comments in the attached Preliminary Grading Drawing. In  general, clarification on rear yard swale capture, perimeter swale checks to confirm that a reasonable swale can be constrcuted, and given the length of some of these multi-property swales, limits of formal easements will be needed to avoid future issues. ","These are detailed design aspects and will be provided at the time of detailed design. Drainage easement locations have been provided on the draft plan and will be adjusted if needed during detailed design. Catch basins will be located along rear yard swales as needed. During detailed design, perimeter swales will be designed to ensure drainage does not spill to adjacent lands. All easements will be located within the subdivision limits. The service easement provided in the southeast corner of the development (between lots 191 & 192) is for potential watermain looping to the adjacent development (if required). "]
[null,"Stormwater"]
[6,"We would recommend that the Peteborough Airport Climate Station be used for this project as it provides more recent rainfall data than the Peterborough Sewage Treatment Plant. ","Refer to revised report. "]
[7,"We recommend that the 4-hour Chicago and 6, 12 and 24-hour SCS storm distributions be utilized to establish the critical design storm, which is more consistent with other recent subdivision developments within the Township.","The 24hr SCS II storm was used for the revised report to correspond with the recent floodplain mapping study by ORCA."]
[8,"A very high-level grading plan was provided to illustrate the general lot grading strategy and road profile; however, a proposed condition drainage area plan was not provided. Please provide a proposed drainage area plan and identify which catchments will discharge to each outlet and if any will bypass the quantity and quality controls.","Refer to revised report. "]
[9,"In both the existing and proposed conditions the entire site has been modelled as a single catchment of 35.61 ha. This area does not line up with any catchments on the pre-development drainage area plan, and it is unclear what the outflow target is intended to be or if external drainage is or is not included in the target. Please revise the existing condition figure as required and provide a proposed condition figure.","Refer to revised report. "]
[10,"The Stormwater Management Report notes that a Water Balance assessment was not completed and that matching pre-development infiltration volumes are required. The hydrologic modelling assumes 60% impervious across the development with no supporting calculations for how the infiltration volumes can be achieved by the design. Rear yard swales are shown throughout the development, but the infiltration capacity of these has not been assessed. A Preliminary Water Balance shall be completed demonstrating that proposed infiltration volumes are greater than or equal to existing on an average annual basis.","The water balance is being addressed by the hydrogeological firm and is intended to be part of the detailed design submission."]
[11,"The maximum slope for the stormwater pond shall be 5:1 from the Top of Bank to 0.3 m below the permanent pool elevation. Below this elevation, the slope can increase to 3:1. Please revise the pond grading and ensure sufficient volume is provided.","Refer to revised report. "]
[12,"The following comments are required to be addressed during detailed design:\n-The cross-sectional area for the Orifice in Outlet 2 is incorrect. Please review and revise.\n- The broad crested weir should be designed such that the it can safely convey the greater of the Timmins Storm or the uncontrolled 100-year storm.\n- The drawdown time calculations appear incomplete. Please provide additional references for how the drawdown time was calculated.","Noted."]
[null,"Peer Review Comments - Stantec FSR - May 14, 2024"]
[1,"The report states that “At the Mill St/King St intersection, the sanitary sewer will need to be \napproximately 4.0m deep in order to facilitate gravity service of the Upper Mill Pond Development. Increased depth may be required to service the HBNG Development “. Please provide details of the existing sanitary system to confirm that the required 4.0m sanitary sewer depth at the Mill St/King St intersection is available and that the proposed sanitary sewers will be connected to the existing system without need for additional works.","A new sewer will be constructed starting at the west side of the Cedar St Ouse River crossing. Sewer will run at 0.4% slope up Cedar/Legion where it will connect to Mill St. There is a significant elevation gain along Mill St as you move east to the proposed development, therefore, sufficient depth can be achieved. The proposed sewer is not connected to the existing system at Queen or King St. Engage Engineering is currently preparing design drawings for Mill St on behalf of the adjacent developer. Refer to revised report for additional details. "]
[2,"The report states that \"As discussed with Township staff - design flows of future development for sanitary and water usage are reduced to 350L/d*cap to reflect the reduced water usage as a result of efficient appliances, water metering, new construction\" please provide confirmation by the Township of this statement. ","Ok. Refer to report appendix. "]
[3,"Section 2.5, Water Servicing, states that “Based on the additional servicing capacity targeted of 3,750 people, it is expected that there will be sufficient capacity within the municipal system to accommodate the Upper Mill Pond development upon completion of the treatment system upgrades. “This is a general statement which needs to be confirmed by actual plan details and preliminary design calculations to ensure that the these future plans will satisfy the Upper Mill Pond development requirements. ","Refer to revised report. "]
[4,"Section 3.2 of the report states that “As a result of the review, it is understood that pump \nstation/forcemain upgrades are currently underway by the Township to accommodate future \ndevelopment.”. Please provide confirmation that the work in the stated upgrades has already \nstarted and that the upgrade will satisfy the future requirements of the proposed development. ","Refer to revised report. "]
[5,"Table 9 “Sanitary Design Sheet” includes information from Figure 5 related to manholes, pipes diameter, length and slopes, the information in this figure is not clear. Please revise Figure 5 to show clearly all the information of Table 9.","Figure 5 only provides manhole numbering and catchment areas (as this figure has been incorporated from the Infrastructure Assessment report previously completed by Engage Engineering we have a limited ability to edit the image). Pipe diameters, slopes, and lengths are provided in Table 9 only. "]

{"sheet":"Sheet2","index":1,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":1,"rows_kept":18,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1. Section 2.4 Criteria: The section doesn’t include any water balance criteria, please include as required by the Guidelines, or otherwise justify why water balance is not required for this site."]
["2. Section 3.2 states that Jewel used the Rational Method for sizing of storm sewers. No details are included for these calculations, please provide copy of the storm sewer deign sheet."]
["3. Section 4.3 provide details of the CLI-ECA requirements, please include definition of the abbreviation CLI-ECA."]
["4. Section 4.3 states that recharge is required to be controlled to meet pre-development conditions on property. Please provide details and calculations to identify the pre-development recharge and to show how this water balance requirement will be satisfied."]
["5. In the OTTHYMO model, the pre-development peak flows were calculated based on one catchment with a total drainage area of 35.61. Drawing B-1 shows that the site is divided into two sub-catchments, which may have lower combined flow as compared to one catchment for the whole site. Please update the model to represent the pre-development catchments and parameters as shown on the drawing."]
["6. The OTTHYMO model output for the post development conditions shows a combined imperviousness value of 60%, please provide details showing how this value was estimated."]
["7. The culvert flow calculations sheet shows maximum discharge of 1.05m3/s under the OTTHYMO model backwater conditions, this flow is much lower than the proposed 100-year release of 1.52m3/s, please confirm that the culvert has sufficient capacity to convey the post-development conditions."]
["8. Please include preliminary storm sewer design sheet in the appendices."]
["9. Section 5,5 states that “The development site design follows the LID strategies and makes extensive use of techniques to preserve natural drainage features, adjust the layout to the site, reduce impervious areas, and take advantage of natural drainage features”. Please provide locations and preliminary design parameters of all LID measures used in this project.,"]
["10. Section 6.2 provides general information about enhanced swales, please show where the enhanced swales are proposed."]
["DRAWINGS COMMENTS:"]
["1. Dwg B-1 Pre-development catchment plan: Please include the following details:"]
["• Imperviousness and Runoff coefficients"]
["• Name of the receiving water bodies"]
["• The existing culvert"]
["• CP line and road names"]
["2. Please include a preliminary post development drainage plan, showing the various sub-catchments and proposed drainage and SWM features."]
["3. Provide preliminary storm sewer plan and profile drawing to confirm that the proposed system has sufficient hydraulic grade line and will not be negatively impacted by the maximum pond storage elevation."]