9100 Jane Street, Suite 208
Vaughan, Ontario L4K 0A4
Telephone: 905-532-9651
www.meridian-vaughan.ca
APPENDIX A
Consultant Responses to MMAH Comments
September 9, 2014
Consultant Responses to comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
A. GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Planning and Managing Growth to 2041
We note that the draft Official Plan states that the purpose of the plan is "to
provide direction and a policy framework for managing growth and land use
decisions over the planning period to 2034." While the April 9, 2014 version of
the draft Official Plan does not include targets for the timeframe 2041, we note
that in the June 18, 2014 draft of the Official Plan, the tables in Section B2
have been revised to reflect population and housing targets reflective of the
2034 planning horizon.
2. Employment Land Rationalization
We understand the County's overall objective of rationalizing its supply of
employment land from policy B11 and Schedule D. However, we have
concerns about the proposed location of some of the new employment lands
being in a different municipality given the Growth Plan's policy 2.2.2.1 k) which
does not permit the establishment of new settlement areas. We would like to
discuss this matter further with the County to better understand the desired
outcome and ensure conformity with the Growth Plan.
3. Prime Agricultural Lands
In reviewing the draft Official Plan, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural
Affairs (OMAFRA) has identified two main concerns with the proposed prime
agricultural area designation as shown on Schedule A, and the corresponding
policy found in C3.2 b).
•
Targets have now been included in OP.
•
Firstly, there are concerns about the location and delineation of the prime
agricultural areas as shown on schedule A.
•
The two proposed Major Employment areas are expansions to existing
settlement areas.
The Port Hope Major Employment Area would be an expansion to the
Port Hope urban area, which has already been established on the
north side of the 401 in this location.
The Hamilton Township Major Employment area would be considered
an expansion to the Town of Cobourg urban area, from which services
will be extended.
It was never the intent of this project to evaluate the location of the
agricultural designations in local Official Plans. This was made very
clear throughout the process.
Our approach in this first County Official Plan is to “upload” the land
use designations from the local Official Plans into the County Official
Plan, where necessary.
There has been no discussion with the public on any type of
rationalization of the Agricultural Area designation boundaries.
It is recommended that consideration of the location of the Agricultural
Area designation boundaries occur when the Official Plan is reviewed
in the future.
•
•
•
•
•
Section 2.3. 1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014 states:
“Prime agricultural areas shall be protected or long-term use for agriculture.
Prime agricultural areas are areas where prime agricultural lands
predominate. Specialty crop areas shall be given the highest priority for
protection, followed by Classes 1, 2 and 3 soils, in this order of priority”
Further, Section 2.3.2 states:
“Planning authorities shall designate prime agricultural areas and specialty
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
2
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
crop areas in accordance with guidelines developed by the Province, as
amended from time to time.”
Consideration of the definitions (found below) of prime agricultural area and
prime agricultural land are important in understanding how OMAFRA
evaluates lands when assessing locations for possible designation in a prime
agricultural area.
“Prime agricultural area:
means areas where prime agricultural lands predominate. This includes;
areas of prime agricultural lands and associated Canada Land Inventory
Class 4-7 soils; and additional areas where there is a local concentration of
farms which exhibit characteristics of ongoing agriculture. Prime agricultural
areas may be identified by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food using
evaluation procedures establish by the Province as amended from time to
time, or may also be identified through an alternative agricultural land
evaluation system approved by the Province.
Prime agricultural land:
Means land that includes specialty crop areas and/or Canada Land Inventory
Classes 1, 2 and 3 soils, in this order of priority for protection.”
While the agricultural designation should predominately include prime
agricultural lands, the prime agricultural designations should reflect the
definition of a prime agricultural area and therefore may also include areas of
lower class capability such as Class 4,5, 6, and 7.
Additionally, OMAFRA has common practices that are applied when
identifying and delineating agricultural designations for Official Plan
schedules. The practice is to recommend that contiguous blocks' of
approximately 250 hectares where prime agricultural land predominates
should be present before considering inclusion of lands in a prime agricultural
area. Conversely, within prime agricultural area designations, areas of poorer
capability lands should also be approximately 250 hectares in size before
warranting exclusion of those lands within a surrounding prime agricultural
area designation. As well, when the delineation of an agricultural area is
determined, the corresponding designation should be taken to an identifiable
boundary such as lot line, road way or watercourse.
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
3
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
It is recognized that the agricultural designation proposed in this Plan has
been developed, by incorporating the agricultural designations as found in the
lower tier plans. There are concerns with the mapping as proposed and it is
requested that the designations be evaluated taking into
consideration the above information related to agricultural designations and
the practices for delineating its boundary.
4. Minimum Distance Separation
We are encouraged to see that provisions related to the Minimum Distance
Separation (MDS) Formulae have been included in the Official Plan. That said,
it is limited to a few sections of the plan and as such it appears some
development proposals could occur in designations where livestock is a
permitted use and not have an applicable Official Plan policy indicating that
the development would need to address Minimum Distance Separation
(MDS).
There may be a few options to address this concern. One would be to add
policies to relevant sections (such as Rural) that speak to MDS. An alternative
may be to include a provision in the General Development Policies to indicate
that the MDS is applicable in areas and zones where
livestock is a permitted use, except as otherwise indicated in the Plan (such
as the County provision that does not require MDS for development in
settlement areas).
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
•
•
•
Section C3.11 has been modified following the April 2014 version to
indicate that the land use compatibility policies apply to agricultural
operations and non-agricultural operations in both the Agricultural Area
and Rural Area designations in the County.
Consideration will be given to potentially including Section 3.11 in Part
D or E of the Official Plan.
It is also recognized that there is some detail within Section C3.11 with
respect to how MDS is to be applied in local municipalities. On this
basis, it is recommended that Subsections d) and e) be deleted from
the Official Plan.
It is also noted that the County has included MDS provisions that speak to
situations/scenarios (such as applications in settlement areas, and in relation
to surplus dwelling severances) where local approval authorities have
option(s) as to how to implement MDS. While not opposed to the position
taken on these matters, additional wording should be added (perhaps to
section C3.11 d) to also indicate that lower tier municipalities should also
make a determination about the application of MDS as it relates to cemeteries.
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
4
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
5. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) was prepared in
accordance with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act. 2001. This plan
is intended to provide land use and resource management direction for the
lands and waters within the moraine. While Schedule A of the draft Official
Plan identifies the boundary of the moraine, additional detailed policy direction
and mapping is required. The ORMCP identifies four land use designations:
Natural Core Areas, Countryside Areas, Natural Linkage Areas, and
Settlement Areas. The inclusion of these
designations on Schedule A, supported by the incorporation of policies
reflecting the ORMCP, is recommended.
The importance of identifying a Natural Heritage System (NHS), in accordance
with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014, is discussed as part or the
detailed policy comments in Section B. The identification of Natural Core
Areas and Natural Linkage Areas as part of the ORMCP could form a key
component of the NHS.
6. Heritage Policies
We commend the County of Northumberland for the heritage and
archaeological policies incorporated in this draft, in particular those regarding
the preservation of historic barns, the acquisition of archaeological sites by
local municipalities and the protection of the local rail heritage.
Throughout the draft Official Plan, the terms "where possible" and "where
feasible" should be removed from heritage policies as they do not align with
the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014 directive of "shall be
conserved".
So as to ensure that the policies within the Official Plan are applicable to the
broadest range of cultural heritage resources, it is recommended that
additional policies be added to the plan. Sample wording for a range of
policies is provided below:
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Our approach with respect to the ORMCP was to simply identify its
location and to direct the reader to the local Official Plans.
A new section on the ORMCP is to be added to the Plan.
It is recommended that Section D3.1 be modified to reflect Section 2.6.1
of the PPS.
The words “where appropriate” are used in Section D3.4 dealing with
heritage conservation districts and in this case are appropriate, since the
Official Plan encourages local municipalities to establish heritage
conservation districts “where appropriate”.
The words “as appropriate” are also used in Section D3.6(e), which
indicates that local municipalities are also encouraged to acquire
archaeological sites for their long-term protection as a condition of
development or through other means as appropriate. The wording is
considered appropriate in this context since the acquisition of such lands
may not be feasible in all circumstances.
On the basis of the above, no changes are suggested at this time.
It is further noted that a number of additional policies are recommended
by the MMAH, with these policies further elaborating upon the policy
framework already included within the draft Official Plan. Some of those
suggested policies have been included.
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
5
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
“General Policies
County Council shall participate in the conservation of cultural heritage
resources by:
• conserving heritage buildings, cultural heritage landscapes and
archaeological resources that are under municipal ownership and/or
stewardship
• conserving and mitigating impacts to all significant cultural heritage
resources, when undertaking public works
• respecting the heritage resources recognized or designated by
federal and provincial agencies
• respecting the heritage designations and other heritage conservation
efforts by area municipalities
Heritage impact Assessments
Council will require a heritage impact assessment to be conducted by a
qualified professional whenever a development has the potential to
affect a cultural heritage resource, whether it is located on the same
property or on adjacent lands.
Archaeological Resources
Any alterations to known archaeological sites shall only be performed
by licensed archaeologist, as per Section 48 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Council views the preservation of archaeological sites in an intact
condition as the preferred means for the mitigation of impacts to
archaeological sites. Archeological excavation as a means for the
mitigation of impacts will only be considered when it is demonstrated
that preservation is not possible.
Council shall ensure archaeological assessment by a licensed
consultant archaeologist when a known or suspected cemetery or burial
site is affected by development. Provisions under both the Ontario
Heritage Act and the Burial, Cremation and Funeral Services Act shall
apply.
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
6
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
Municipal Public Works
Council shall make every effort to conserve and protect known cultural
heritage resources and areas of archaeological potential when
undertaking municipal public works, such as roads, bridges and other
infrastructure projects, carried out under the Municipal class
environmental assessment (EA) process. Council will require heritage
impact assessments and/or archaeological assessments, along with
satisfactory measures to mitigate any negative impacts affecting
identified cultural heritage resources.
Council shall encourage local utility companies to place equipment and
devices in locations which do not detract from the visual character of
cultural heritage resources and do not have a negative impact on the
architectural integrity of those resources.
Mineral Extraction
Council shall conserve cultural heritage resources when considering
the establishment of new areas for mineral extraction of when
considering the establishment of new operations or the expansion of
existing operations. Council will require satisfactory measures to
mitigate any negative impacts on cultural heritage resources.
Accessibility and Heritage Conservation
In attaining its goal for establishing a barrier-free environment to
municipally owned property, the County and local municipalities shall
endeavor to provide access solutions in a manner that respects the
cultural heritage value or interest of a protected property. Council
recognizes that standardized designs may not always suffice and that
each heritage property will require unique accessibility plans to ensure
that alterations do not adversely affect the heritage attributes.
Waste Reduction/Adaptive Re-use
Council shall support the reduction of waste from construction debris
as a result of the demolition of buildings by promoting and encouraging
the adaptive reuse of older and existing building stock.”
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
7
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
SPECIFIC COMMENTS TO PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN
This section addresses the specific policy provided through the review of the
draft Official Plan.
7. Section B - Growth Management
a) Section B2 - Urban Areas - Tables A and B provide population and
employment targets. The term "Targets" should be replaced with "Forecasts”
to more accurately reflect the policies of the Growth Plan
b) Section B6 - Minimum Intensification Targets and Section B7 - Minimum
Greenfield Density Target - Development occurring in un-delineated built up
areas counts towards the intensification target. As such, it is recommended
that the intensification and density targets in Table F & G be allocated by
municipality instead of by settlement area to be consistent with the wording of
Growth Plan policy S.4.2.2b.
•
Agreed
•
It is recognized that there are a number of undelineated built up areas
within the County. However, all of these are included within a rural
settlement area.
The methodology used with respect to establishing an intensification
target has always focused on the six urban areas with built boundaries.
The Province at the conclusion of the growth management strategy
process initially accepted this approach.
While some intensification will occur within rural settlement areas, the
amount of the intensification will be very minimal. In my view, any
intensification within a rural settlement area would be considered a
“bonus”.
In my opinion, it makes more sense to support the establishment of an
intensification target for urban areas only.
Section B9 in the April 2014 version has been deleted and replaced
with a much simpler Section B11.
The new Section B11 appropriately recognizes Sections 2.2.8 of the
Growth Plan and Section 1.1.3.8 of the Provincial Policy Statement.
•
•
•
c) Section B9 - Location Criteria for Urban Area and Rural Settlement Area
Expansions - It is suggested that additional criteria be added for consideration,
prior to the approval of an expansion of a settlement area. These policies
should be added in the appropriate location in this section:
i) Be consistent with all policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
2014, including the protection of resources, public health and safety, as
outlined in Sections 2 and 3 of the PPS;
ii) Not adversely affect the achievement of intensification and density
targets;
iii) Meet the criteria of the Greenbelt Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan;
iv) Demonstrate that the infrastructure and public service facilities which are
planned or available are suitable for the development over the long term,
are financially viable over their life cycle, and protect public health and
safety and the natural environment.
•
•
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
8
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
d) Section B11 - Planning for Employment - This policy seeks to protect future
employment lands for a period of time beyond the time frame of this draft
Official Plan. Paragraph three references "designation". Lands beyond the 20year horizon shall not be designated in the Official Plan. This policy should be
reflected to satisfy policy 1.3.2.4 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
2014.
•
e) Section B 14 - Employment Area Conversions
i) The Growth Plan requires a county municipal comprehensive review for
future employment land conversions. The policy in the first paragraph should
be revised to reflect this requirement.
ii) The importance of planning for, protecting, and preserving employment
areas is a key policy of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014. To
support these policies, it is recommended that two additional policies be
added as subsections h) and i) as follows:
"h) The lands are not required over the long-term for the employment
purposes for which they are designated;
i) The lands are not in proximity to major goods movement facilities and
corridors.”
f) Section B I5 - Trading Within Municipalities - It is recommended that the
boundaries of all settlement areas, including rural settlement areas, be
identified in the County Official Plan. Proposals to amend the boundaries of
settlement areas should be subject to an amendment to the County Official
Plan. This policy should be amended to reflect this approach.
•
The identification of criteria that will be considered at the time of such a
proposal provides clarity surrounding the process for all parties. Policy 1.1.3.8
of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014 identifies the criteria for
consideration. It is recommended that subsections a) to d) of Section B15 be
deleted and be replaced with the policies of Section 1.1.3.8 of the PPS.
8. Section CI - Urban Areas/Rural Settlement Areas
a) Section CI.2.3 - Employment Areas and Uses - The current policy in
subsection a) should be modified to reflect providing adequate employment
land "to meet forecasted needs" as opposed to a 20 year supply "of land for all
types of employment uses", as per policy 2.2.6.1 of the Growth Plan.
•
Section B11 does not provide the basis for establishing additional
lands beyond what is needed within the 20-year horizon.
Instead, this section simply recognizes that lands in less than ideal
locations will be undesignated to provide the “room” for the designation
of new lands.
A new Section A6 was added in the June 2014 version dealing with the
planning period.
It is agreed that the Growth Plan would require a County Municipal
Comprehensive Review for the redesignation of any lands that are
designated for employment purposes on Schedule A to the County
Official Plan (Major Employment area only).
For lands not identified on Schedule A to the County Plan, it is my
opinion that only a local Municipal Comprehensive Review is required –
In any event, it would be a municipal comprehensive review.
The proposed additions subsections h) and i) are supported.
•
Boundaries of rural settlement areas to be shown.
•
Agreed.
•
•
•
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
9
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
b) Section C 1.4 - Housing Policies
i) The Strong Communities Through Affordable Housing Act, 2011, provided
new directions for housing policy as well as amended the Planning Act,
Section 16(3) to permit secondary units. In keeping with this change, it is
recommended that subsection C1.4.1.d) be amended by replacing the
word "Encouraging" with "Permitting", and deleting the words
"where appropriate" from the end of the sentence;
ii) Subsection C 1.4.2 introduces general housing policies. The County of
Northumberland has completed the preparation of Northumberland
Housing and Homelessness Plan in accordance with the requirements of
Ontario's Long Term Affordable Housing Strategy.
iii) Subsection C 1.4 .4 provides a target for the provision of affordable
housing of 20%. It is suggested that this target be increased to 25%, a
target which is considered to be a best practice.
•
Agreed.
•
Target to be increased to 25%.
c) Section C 1.6 - Downtown Areas i) To provide wording consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
2014, it is recommended that the words "cultural and historic features" be
replaced with "cultural heritage resources" in subsection d).
ii) Downtown Areas are an appropriate location to support infill development
and intensification. It is suggested that an additional policy be added
reflecting this direction.
9. Section C2 - Major Employment Areas
a) Comments provided regarding the policies in Subsection B15 are also
applicable to Subsection C2.4.
b) Some of the lands that are being considered for Major Employment Areas
impact agricultural areas. Prior to the consideration of removing lands from the
Prime Agricultural designation, the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement
(PPS) 2014 need to be satisfied.
•
Agreed.
•
No need for such a policy since other policy objectives already require
a significant amount of intensification to occur.
•
Noted.
•
Noted.
10. Section C3 – Agricultural Areas
a) Section C3.3 - Permitted Uses - Section 2.3.3 (and corresponding
definitions) of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014 sets out the
permitted uses within a prime agricultural area. “Conservation use" is not a
defined term and it would not appear that this use would comply with those
permitted in a prime agricultural area. As a result, subsection j) should be
deleted.
•
A conservation use is considered to be an area of land that is generally
left in its natural state and which is used for any combination of
preservation, protection or improvement of components of natural
heritage system or other lands for the benefit of man and the natural
environment and which may include hiking trails and cross-country ski
trails, buildings and structures such as nature interpretation centres
and pubic information centres.
Given that prime agricultural areas include natural heritage features,
such a use would be considered appropriate.
•
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
10
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
b) Section C3.4 - Lot Creation on Lands in the Agricultural Area Designation it is recommended that subsection d) be added to the last paragraph to
differentiate evaluation criteria that are applicable for consent applications for
an agricultural-related use versus consent for legal or technical reasons.
c) Section C3.6.6 - Estate Winery - Section 2.3.3 (and corresponding
definitions) of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014 sets out the
permitted uses within a prime agricultural area. "Estate Winery" is not a
defined term and it may not comply with permitted uses in a prime agricultural
area. Uses that do not comply should be directed to a designation or zone
where they may be permitted. If desired in a prime agricultural area,
justification under Section 2.3.6 of the PPS would be required to permit them
in a prime agricultural area.
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
•
Agreed.
•
The definition for Estate Winery has been deleted in the June 2014
version of the OP.
It is my opinion that an estate winery is an agricultural use and these
were supported in recent OMB decision in Prince Edward County
(2009 PL090627)
Estate wineries could be considered an agri-tourism use, an
agriculture-related use and/or an on-farm diversified use as defined by
the PPS.
Policy to be modified to limit accommodation, eating and banquet
facilities on site.
•
•
•
It is suggested that the County clarify how these uses are to be defined to
ensure that it does not permit a use beyond what would be appropriately
permitted under Section 2.3.6 of the PPS.
d) Section C3.11 - Compatibility of Agricultural Uses With Other Land Uses This policy attempts to restrict new livestock facilities within rural settlement
areas. While it is unclear if agricultural uses will be permitted in all rural
settlement areas, it appears that some portions of rural settlement areas
include agriculture as a permitted use. Attempts to restrict livestock in a zone
or designation where agriculture is a permitted use may conflict with other
provincial legislation.
•
•
It is common in an Official Plan to not permit livestock uses on lands
that are designated for urban uses or for rural settlement area
purposes.
Permitting livestock facilities in these circumstances may have an
impact on the ability of a municipality to properly plan its urban and
rural settlement areas
The Farming and Food Production Protection Act (FFPPA) would supersede
any local policy /bylaw that would attempt to restrict livestock in a zone or
designation where agriculture is a permitted use. As a result, it is
recommended that the words "with the exclusion of new livestock facilities" be
removed from subsection g).
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
11
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
11. Section C4 - Rural Areas
a) Section 4.3 - Lot Creation i) The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014 provides a framework for
rural residential development by directing growth to settlement areas and
recognizing " limited" rural residential development. Subsection C4.3 b)
does not provide direction regarding limiting rural residential development. It
is recommended that a policy be included that identifies how rural lot
creation is to be limited, for example, limiting the creation of new lots to a
maximum of three consents from any parcel. Defining an existing parcel by
establishing a date for its existence helps support this policy.
ii) As there does not appear to be lot creation provisions that speak to the
application of the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae in Rural
areas, it is recommended that a provision be included as new subsection c)
to indicate the applicability of MDS within the Rural Area.
•
•
It is agreed that MDS provisions should apply in rural areas as well.
b) Section 4.4 - Permitted Uses - The list of permitted uses within this section
includes a wide range of potential land uses. Policy 2.2.2.1 of the Growth Plan
states:
•
"Population and employment growth will be accommodated by i) directing development to settlement areas, except where necessary for the
development related to the management or use of resources, resource-based
recreation activities, and rural land uses that cannot be located in settlement
areas. "
•
It is noted that the list of permitted uses in Section C4.4 has been
modified from the April version.
It is further recognized that Provincial Plans take precedence over the
PPS to the extent of any conflict according to Section 4.12 of the PPS.
With respect to residential uses, Section 2.2.9.3 of the Growth Plan
provides the basis for new residential development – whether it is
permanent or seasonal.
Resource based recreational uses would also be permitted.
Cemeteries were specifically added to the PPS as a permitted use and
it is my opinion that these are rural land uses that cannot be located in
settlement areas in all cases.
The Growth Plan does not appear to provide for small scale places or
worship or community centres in rural areas – this use will be deleted.
The Growth Plan permits recreation and tourism uses, perhaps with
the caveat that they have to be related to a ‘resource’.
Certain rural and industrial uses may need to be located outside of
settlement areas – perhaps these can proceed by way of local OPA.
Additional objective on NHS to be added.
It is unclear if all the permitted uses listed conform to Growth Plan policy
2.2.2.1 i). Please provide a justification for the proposed uses.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
12. Section Dl - Natural Heritage Resources
a) Section D 1. 1- Objectives - The objectives do not mention the concept of a
natural heritage system, as required by subsection 2. 1.2 of the Provincial
Policy Statement (PPS) 2014. It is suggested that points b) and c) be
amended to include the words "and systems" after the words
“natural heritage features”.
•
A conscious decision was made to not establish a policy framework for
rural lot creation since this is matter that is properly dealt with by the
local Official Plans.
Section C4.3a) already restricts lot creation to no more than three
lots/units by way of subdivision, consent or condominium as per
Section 2.2.9.3 of the Growth Plan
Reference added to lot creation being in conformity with Provincial
policy.
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
12
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
b) Section D 1.2 - Establishing a Natural Heritage System - The use of the
word "consider" does not signify a commitment to the establishment of a
Natural Heritage System (NHS), as required by the Provincial Policy
Statement (PPS) 2014. This word choice will undermine the importance of
considering a NI-IS approach for Secondary Plans and for the life span of this
County Official Plan. At this time, we would like to see a commitment to
identify a system in the near future, before the next Official Plan review. This
will ensure there is sufficient time to consider including the completed NHS in
the next version of the Official Plan. Based upon this, it is recommended that
the second sentence of this subsection be amended as follows:
"On this basis, it is a policy of this Plan that the establishment of a natural
heritage system be considered at the time of an completed through an
Official Plan amendment prior to the County’s next Official Plan Review.
c) Section D1.3 - Components of a Natural-Heritage System - Non-provincially
significant coastal wetlands (within Ecoregion 6E) have been added to the
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014 and should also be considered as
potential Natural Heritage System (NHS) components. Further, wetlands that
are not provincially significant but are regionally or locally significant should be
considered as part of a NHS. Significant woodlands, significant valleylands,
significant wildlife habitat, and linkages and or corridors should also be
considered as potential components of a NHS. It is recommended that these
additional features be added to the listing in Section D1.3.
d) Section D1.4- Development and Site Alteration
i) The policy language regarding the habitat of endangered and threatened
species has been updated in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014 and
should be reflected in the Official Plan. It is recommended that the policy in
subsection D1.4a) be revised as follows:
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
Policy to be strengthened and commitment indicated.
•
•
Non-Provincially significant wetlands to be added to list.
•
These changes will be made as required.
"Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant habitat of
endangered species and threatened species, except in accordance with
provincial and federal requirements. Development and site alteration
shall not be permitted in significant wetlands and significant coastal
wetlands."
ii) Non-provincially significant coastal wetlands, a new protected feature in the
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014, are not included in the list of features
under subsection D1.4b). Adjacent lands for coastal wetlands should also be
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
13
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
added to Table H. It is recommended that this subsection be amended as
follows:
"Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in
i. Significant woodlands
ii. Significant valleylands
iii. Significant wildlife habitat; and
iv. Significant areas of natural and scientific interest unless it has been
demonstrated that
there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological
functions; and
v. Coastal wetlands not subject to policy D1.4a)
Unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts
on the natural features or their functions.”
e) Section D1.5 - Special Policy on Significant Habitat of Endangered Species
and Threatened Species - Environmental Impact Studies are not always
sufficient to identify the presence and/or habitat of endangered and threatened
species, if these features have not yet been identified. The Official Plan must
include a process (e.g. preliminary site assessment) for identifying whether
endangered and threatened species are present when no information is
available. Within the existing policy, the word "significant" should be removed
before "habitat". As well, it is recommended that the following policy be added
to the end of Section D 1.5:
•
These changes will be made.
"The County recognizes that information regarding the locations of
endangered and threatened species and their habitat is incomplete. The
county and Lower Tier municipalities will accept information regarding
Threatened and Endangered species habitat from Ministry of Natural
Resources and Forestry (MNRF) as it becomes available and will use this
information, in confidence, to screen all planning applications for potential
development constraints. The municipality will consult with MNRF as
appropriate.
In order to determine the presence of Threatened or Endangered species and
to assess the impacts that proposed activities may have on the habitat of
Threatened and Endangered species, a site assessment by a qualified
professional is required to be completed at the appropriate time of year. The
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
14
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
assessment must identify whether any endangered or threatened species are
present and whether the proposed activities will have any impact on
Threatened or Endangered species or their habitat. MNRF can be contacted
for further direction regarding site specific proposals.”
f) Proposed New Section D 1.7 - Significant Wildlife Habitat - The Official Plan
does not include any policies to ensure an appropriate level of site
assessment is conducted to determine the possible presence of significant
wildlife habitat prior to approving development. At a minimum, criteria for
identification and a process for when this will occur as part of the development
review process should be included in the Official Plan. We recommend that
the criteria found within the 2012 Ecoregion Criteria Schedules for the
Identification of Significant Wildlife Habitat (NHS) be used. The Ecoregion 6E
Schedule applies to Northumberland County.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) considers this to be the
best available information for identifying significant wildlife habitat. It is
recommended that the following
new section be inserted:
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
•
A shorter version of this suggestion will be included in Official Plan.
“D1.7 Significant Wildlife Habitat
Significant wildlife habitat may include: seasonal concentrations of
animals (e.g. deer wintering areas, heronries), specialized habitats
and rare vegetation communities, habitats of species of special
concern Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s Significant
Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide and Ecoregion Criterion Schedules
for the Identification of Significant Wildlife Habitat should be used
by proponents to help identify significant wildlife habitat.
The County and lower Tier Official Plans will require that proponents
proposing the following types of development will be required to
assess the site for the presence of significant wildfire habitat:
•
•
•
Creation of more than three lots through either consent of plan
of subdivision;
Change in land use, not including the creation of a lot, that
requires approval under the Planning Act;
Shoreline consent along a large inland lake or large river
(denoted on 1:50,000 National Topographic System maps as
being two lined that is within 120 metres along the shoreline of
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
15
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
an existing lot of record or a lot described in an applications for
subdivision or consent; and
• Construction for recreational uses (e.g. golf courses, serviced
playing fields, serviced campgrounds and ski hills) that require
large-scale modification of terrain, vegetation or both.”
g) Proposed New Section D 1.8 - Coldwater Streams - Northumberland
County is rich in coldwater streams which provide habitat for sensitive fish
species and numerous fishing opportunities. Ministry of Natural Resources
and Forestry's Peterborough District has conducted a Coldwater Streams
Strategy that can be available to the municipality if requested. It is
recommended that the County consider establishing a policy regarding the
importance of protecting coldwater streams, introduce a standard 30 m buffer
(setback) requirement for development adjacent to coldwater streams and
consider coldwater streams in the development of the Natural Heritage
System (NHS).
h) Section D 1.7 - General Policies
i) Section D 1.7.2 - Adjacent Lands
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 20 14 has changed the treatment of
endangered and threatened species habitat. The concept of significance and
adjacent lands no longer applies to the habitat of endangered and threatened
species. Habitat is now defined under the Endangered Species Act.
Municipalities can choose to continue to identify and protect adjacent lands as
long as doing so will not conflict with other policies ill the PPS. As a result, in
Table H, the word "significant" should be removed from before "habitat of
endangered species and threatened species".
ii) Section D 1.7.4 - Environmental Impact Studies - This policy refers to
Appendix A which was not provided for review at this time. Prior to adoption of
the Official Plan, please provide Appendix A for review and comment.
iii) Section D 1.7.4.2 - What an Environmental Impact Study Would
Demonstrate - This section should be retitled and revised to clarity that a
development will not be approved unless the EIS demonstrates that there will
be no negative impact on the significant natural heritage features and related
ecological functions.
iv) Policy 2.1.9 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014 states "Nothing
in policy 2.1 is intended to limit the ability of agricultural uses to continue". A
new policy should be added to the Official Plan to clarify that agricultural uses
are permitted to continue within Natural Heritage areas.
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
•
New section on watercourses to be added.
•
Agreed.
•
Appendix A to not be included.
•
This section already indicates this.
•
Agreed to be added.
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
16
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
13. Section D2 – Water Resources
a) Section D2.1 – Objectives – should ensure that storm water management
policies are including, protecting water quality as well as natural habitat. The
following policies are recommended to be included following subsection (i):
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
•
To be included.
•
To be included.
“in order to control flooding, ponding, erosion and sedimentation and to
protect water quality and aquatic habitat or other natural habitat which
depend on water courses and other water bodies for their existence,
stormwater management plans shall be required for any new
development consisting of more than four lots or for commercial or
industrial developments with large amounts of impervious area.
Stormwater management will be undertaken in accordance with Ministry
of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Guideline “Stormwater
Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003”.
The municipality shall require the use of stormwater management
facilities downstream of new developments, where appropriate, to
mitigate development impacts on stormwater quantity and quality. The
municipality shall promote naturalized stormwater management
facilities, constructed with gentle slopes. Applications for development
shall be required to be supported by a stormwater quality/quantity
management study.”
b) Section D2.2 - Restrictions on Development and Site Alteration - The
provision of augmented policies that reflect the requirements of the Ministry of
Environment and Climate Change in protecting water quality are
recommended by inserting new subsections (c) and (d) as follows:
“c) Large development proposals (i.e. greater than 5 lots,
resort/condominium development) must be supported with a site
evaluation report in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment
and Climate Change. This is to ensure water quality protection. The
study should take into consideration the existing water quality of the
water body, surface water run-off, impact and loadings of phosphorous
from septic systems, type of soils, stormwater management and nature
of vegetation.”
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
17
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
d) For new lot creation, development, including the septic system tile
bed, must be set back a minimum of 30 metres from the high water mark
of the lake with non-disturbance of the native soils and very limited
removal of shoreline vegetation. For existing lots of record, new
development should be set back 30 metres if possible, other wise as far
back as the lot permits.”
c) Section D2.3 - Source Protection Plans - This section largely reflects the
interest in source water protection. A few small edits are recommended to
provide additional clarity.
i) In subsection 2.3.3, third paragraph, first sentence, insert the word
"vulnerable" before the word "'areas".
ii) In subsection 2.3.4, it is recommended that the first sentence be modified
as follows:
"SPP Policy Applicable Areas, must be shown on the schedules of local
Official Plans and shall be protected and managed in a manner which ensures
the sustained integrity quality and quantity of the municipal drinking water
source and shall be subject to the following specific policies:”
iii) In subsection 2.3.4 c), delete the words "prohibited or''' in the first sentence.
The Clean Water Act does not include legal non-conforming provisions. As a
result, if the Source Protection Plan prohibits an activity, then an Official Plan
cannot allow this activity to be established or expanded.
iv) In subsection 2.3.4 d), insert the words “where threats to drinking water
could be significant" following the word "Area". This change is
recommended because the risk
management official only issues notices where threats could be significant,
and not for all
vulnerable areas.
v) In subsection 2.3.4 e), insert the words “or amendments to highly
vulnerable aquifers or significant groundwater recharge areas” after the
word “Zones”, and also insert the words “conservation authority” after the
words "lower tier municipality,”
14. Section D3 - Cultural Heritage Resources
a) Section D3.4 - Heritage Conservation Districts – In this this policy, the
reference to "where appropriate" should be removed as it does not align with
the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014 that provides the directive that
significant built and cultural heritage "shall be conserved"
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
•
Revisions to be made. However, it is recommended that this section be
considerably shortened.
•
Reference is only to HDC and whether they should be prepared.
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
18
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
b) Section D3.5 - Implementation - In subsection d), it is recommended to
amend the sentence to read: "Local municipalities are encouraged to support
the use of Community Improvement Plans under the Planning Act to promote
and support cultural heritage resources retain cultural heritage resources by
promoting heritage conservation”.
c) Section D3.7 - Marine Archaeological Resources
i) The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport recommend inserting examples
of the types of marine archaeology, so that readers understand the kind of
artifacts involved. This can either be done by adding examples into the policy
itself (sample policy provided for pre-consultation meeting) or including a
glossary at the end of the document.
ii) In subsection d), it is recommended removing ”when necessary”, as it does
not align with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014 directive of "shall be
conserved".
15. Section D5 - Mineral Aggregate Resources
a) Section D5.1 - Objectives - Policy d) speaks to haul routes being used
appropriately. However, these do not appear to be mapped on the Schedules
nor have criteria been included in the plan to identify them. It is suggested that
haul routes be mapped or criteria be included in the Official Plan.
b) Section D5.2 - Location - Subsection c) states that "Licensed mineral
aggregate operations are shown on Schedule B of this Plan." It is
recommended that mineral aggregate operations be designated on Schedule
A to the Official Plan rather than identified on Schedule B.
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
•
Agreed.
•
Examples?
•
Section 2.6.1 of the PPS indicates that significant built heritage
resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be
conserved. Marine archaeological resources are not built heritage
resources or significant cultural heritage landscapes as defined by the
PPS.
Instead, Section 2.6.2 of the PPS indicates that development and site
alteration shall not be permitted unless significant archaeological
resources have been conserved.
The wording in Section 2.6.2 will be included within this section.
It is agreed that haul routes are not shown on the County Official Plan
schedule and this is reflective of best practices.
Criteria for establishing a haul route are found in Section D5.5.2 b) and
c).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
c) Section D5.3 - Protection of Long Term Resource Supply - It is
recommended that:
i) The first sentence of subsection 5.3.2 b) be modified by inserting the words
", 150m from a pit above the water table" following the words "300 metres
from a pit".
ii) The third sentence of subsection 5.3.2b) be modified by inserting the words
“that the future use or expansion of the aggregate operation will not be
hindered or precluded, and” be inserted after the word "demonstrate". This
will clarify the need to demonstrate that any proposed development will not
Licensed areas are shown on Schedule B so that the County Official
Plan does not to be amended to provide for the expansion of a licensed
area.
It is noted that a County Official Plan Amendment is not required for new
or expanding mineral aggregate operations.
Policy to be added indicating that such sites be designated in future
subject to preparation of management plan.
•
Agreed.
•
Wording from Section 2.4.2.4 of PPS to be included.
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
19
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
preclude or hinder an aggregate operation 's continued use or expansion. This
information is required to be included in a compatibility assessment in addition
to discussing mitigating impacts from the operation.
d) Section D5.5 - New or Expanding Mineral Aggregate Operations
i) Section D5.5.2g) - The measurement of "potential visual impacts" is
subjective and it is not clear what "appropriate studies" would entail. There is
a concern that this may introduce ambiguity to decisions related to proposed
mineral aggregate development. The aggregate license site plan process
already takes into account mitigation measures such as berms or other types
of visual screening to address concerns identified during the review process. It
may be appropriate to remove this policy.
16. Section D6 - Natural Hazards
a) Section D6.4 - Karst Topography - The Ministry of Northern Development
and Mines (MNDM) Ontario Geological Survey, in association with Ministry of
Natural Resources and Forestry
(MNRF) and the Ministry or Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) have
developed information and guidelines for evaluating karst hazards for land-use
planning applications.
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
•
I believe that this is a necessary policy.
•
Components of suggested policy to be added.
The following wording was developed to provide policy direction for karst
hazards, It is recommended that the following policies should replace the
policy currently included in the draft Official Plan:
“D6.4 – Karst Topography
Karst topography generally forms on limestone and dolostone plains
and is marked by sink or karst holes, interspersed with abrupt ridges
and irregular protuberant bedrock that is commonly underlain by
caverns and solution-enhanced joints and bedding plans that
influence the flow of surface and ground waters. Due to the nature of
its formation, karst terrains are ephemeral and are controlled by past
and present climatic and local weather conditions. Due to its
geological nature, karst topography presents a potential hazard to
human safety which must be mitigated through development controls
and approvals.
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
20
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
Areas shown on the Schedule B to this plan as being karst
topography are considered to be potential development constraint
areas. It is recognized that he mapping is approximate and identifies
areas of potential environmental constrain to development that must
be addressed prior to development occurring. Development shall
generally be directed to areas outside of karst topography unless the
effects and risk to public safety are minor so as to be managed or
mitigated. In areas suspected to have karst topography, the following
shall be undertaken for an Planning Act or Building Permit application
to assess for the presence of karst topography and to mitigate against
any potential hazard:
a) Phase 1 – Desktop Study & Site Visit
A desktop evaluation and site visit, undertaken by a qualified
geoscientist with knowledge and experience in identification of karst
topography, shall be undertaken to determine the potential for the
presence of karst hazard. The desktop evaluation shall include but
not be limited to the search and review of the following information:
i)
Mapping that shows historic and present day karst, ground and
bedrock topography, physiographic, hydrology, Quaternary
and Paleozoic bedrock geology, glacial tills and partial
aquitards;
ii) Existing engineering, geological (including oil/gas and
geotechnical well records), hydrogeologic, hydrologic,
geographic, agricultural studies and land use publications;
iii) Surface water and groundwater well record data to determine
the position of the water table and seasonal fluctuations,
rainfall records, river discharge data, water chemistry data;
iv) Comparison of historic and recent air photos and/or satellite
imagery to determine changes in the landscape that may have
resulted from karstification and subsurface drainage and/or
anthropogenic changes;
v) A visit to the property to provide comparison to historic air
photo and/or satellite imagery to evaluate changes in the
landscape
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
21
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
If the Phase 1 evaluation determines that karst is not present, no further
study of karst is required in support of a Planning act or building permit
application. Should the evaluation identify the presence of karst
features and/or karst terrain characteristics, a Phase 2 evaluation will be
required.
b) Phase 2 – Field-Based Karst Investigation
In areas where a Phase 1 evaluation has identified the presence of karst
features and/or karst formation characteristics, a field-based karst
evaluation shall be required, to be undertaken by a qualified geologist.
A terms-of-reference shall be completed in consultation with the
appropriate approval authority and/or any relevant agencies which
outlines the investigations type that will be undertaken for the subject
lands. The types of field work required will be determined based on the
areal extend and complexity of the proposed development relative to the
risk or potential for impacts related to karst. The types of field work that
may be required include, but are not limited to, the following:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
Passive Geologic/Geomorphologic Methods – primarily for the
detection and mapping of sinkholes and caves;
Soil Probing – to determine the risk of soil subsidence;
Rock Drilling and Well Records – to determine the karstic nature
of the bedrock groundwater;
Dye-Tracer Studies – to determine the sources, speed and
direction of shallow potable water movement within bedrock.
c) Phase 3 - Mitigation
In areas where a Phase 2 evaluation confirms the presence of a karst
hazard, a geotechnical study and land use compatibility study shall be
undertaken by qualified individuals. The studies shall be required :
i) Asses the impacts and risks to surface and groundwater
contamination and/or construction restrictions due toe unstable
bedrock conditions;
ii) Identify compatible land use activities for which the karst
topography does not pose a hazard, including identifying
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
22
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
incompatible industrial and waste management uses that may
contaminate the groundwater and alter the water table;
iii) Establish any required development restrictions including limiting
extensive lasting, intensive construction that would create
excessive weight, and the alteration of drainage that could
compromise underlying caves of buried sinkholes;
iv) Establish, where necessary, a karst feature buffer to restrict
development around a specific hazard.”
b) Proposed New Section D6.5 - Wildland Fires - The Provincial Policy
Statement (PPS) 2014 contains new policies (3.I.8) requiring the direction of
development away from areas at risk of wildland fire. These hazards may be
present even is southern Ontario landscapes such as Northumberland
County, The addition of the following policies from the PPS is recommended.
Once more detailed guidance and risk mapping is available, further
modifications may be appropriate.
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
•
Proposed wording to be added.
•
Premature to include mapping at this time.
“D6.5 Wildland Fires
Development shall generally be directed to areas outside of lands
that are unsafe for development due to the presence of hazardous
forest types for wildland fire.
Development may be permitted in lands with hazardous forests types
for wildland fire where the risk is mitigated in accordance with
wildland fire assessment and mitigation standards.”
In addition, mapping showing potential risk areas for wildland fire as identified
by Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) has been provided to
you previously under separate cover. We should caution that these should
only be considered potential risk areas because they are based on remote
inventories of forest types, which may be out of date in southern Ontario
where forestry activity is not prevalent. As such, the actual risk must always
be verified in the field. However, it is recommended that these areas be
considered as potential triggers for further risk assessment based on the
actual forest types and conditions present on site. The municipality could
consider including these maps as an appendix to the plan but we do not
recommend that they be included on the Schedules at this time. MNRF may
be providing additional guidance materials to assist municipalities in the near
future.
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
23
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
17. Section D7.4 - Contaminated Lands
a) This section provides high level guidance. It is recommended that the
section be replaced with the following wording which provides a reference to
the legislation and provides appropriate guidance to developers, decisionmakers, and helps guide lower tier Official Plans:
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
•
A shorter version of this policy suggestion will be considered.
“The development or redevelopment of potentially contaminated
sites shall be assessed and remediated in a manner consistent with
the Environmental Protection Act and relevant regulations, and the
relevant Ministry of the Environmental Protection Act and relevant
regulations, and the relevant Ministry of the Environment and Climate
Change (MOECC) guidelines and procedures.
Sites known or suspected to have soils contaminated with residues
of current or previous industrial or commercial land uses must have
the environmental condition of the site assessed. When managing
development on potentially contaminated sites, a Record of Site
condition (RSK) either prior to the development approval, at the time
of release of conditions of approval, or at the time of issuance of
building permits, as required or stipulated by the municipality must
be received.
When considering applications for development which include sites
suspected or known to contaminated, the municipality will require at
its discretion Phase 1 ESA be undertaken by the applicant in
accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04, a Phase II ESA must be
undertaken by the applicant in accordance with Ontario Regulation
153/04. This would require sampling and analysis of the site to
confirm and delineate the presence or absence of contamination
suspected by the Phase 1 ESA report.
As a condition of approval, the municipality will require that
remediation, where required, is undertaken to appropriate standards
of the MOECC, as specified in Ontario Regulation 153/04 and in t he
guideline Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under
Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, or other regulator
requirements of the MOECC, as amended form time to time.
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
24
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
Mandatory filing of a Record of Site Condition in the Registry, by a
qualified person, as defined in O. Reg. 153/04, as amended, is
required for a change in use of a property from industrial or
commercial to residential or parkland, as defined in the regulation,
and will be acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment and
Climate Change. A site clean-up plan may be required and the site
may need to be cleaned-up in accordance with the O. Reg. 153/04, as
amended and with MOECC guideline “Records of Site condition – A
Guide on Site Assessment, the Clean-up of Brownfield Sites and the
Filing of Records of Site Condition” dated October 2004 or
associated guidelines.
A Record of Site condition may, at the municipality’s discretion, e a
required condition of approval under this Plan. In addition to
changes of use prescribed by the Environmental Protection Act as
uses for which a Record of Site condition is mandatory (a change of
use to a more sensitive land use), the municipality may require a RSC
to be filed where the application does not involve a change of use to
a more sensitive land use ad defined in the Environmental Protection
Act. This requirement is to ensure, to the municipality’s satisfaction
of the MOECC.”
18. Section D8 - Promoting Sustainable Development
a) Section D8.3 - Green Development Standards - The inclusion of policy
regarding Green Development is very positive, Clarity is sought as to whether
this policy would also apply to redevelopment and not just new development.
If redevelopment is to be included, inserting a policy that speaks to retrofitting
heritage buildings in a manner that does not compromise the heritage value of
the building, nor its individual heritage attributes/ features would be
encouraged.
19. Section E1- Subdivision of Land
a) Section 1.4 - Subdivision Review Considerations
i) In subsection 1.4e) it is suggested that the policy include a reference to
supporting the achievement or the County's designated greenfield area
density target.
ii) Larger scale developments can be anticipated and as a result, it is
recommended that the following policy be added as a new subsection e),
supporting planning for stormwater management in these situations:
•
To be considered.
•
Agreed.
•
To be considered.
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
25
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
“e) Stormwater management plans shall be required for any new
development consisting of more than four lots. Stormwater
management will be undertaken in accordance with MOECC
Guideline “Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual,
2003”.
The municipality shall require the use of stormwater management
facilities downstream of new developments, where appropriate, to
mitigate development impacts on stormwater quantity and quality.
The municipality shall promote naturalized stormwater management
facilities, constructed with gentle slopes. Applications for
development shall be required to be supported by a stormwater
quality/quantity management study.”
b) Section E 1.5 - New Lots by Consent - The following wording is
recommended to be added as a new subsection I), providing guidance for
applications where new waterfront lots are considered:
“I) For new lot creation, development, including the septic system tile
bed, must be set back a minimum of 30 metres from the high water
mark of the lake with non disturbance of the native soils and very
limited removal of shoreline vegetation.”
20. Section E2 - Transportation
a) Section E2.2.6 - Provincial Highways - The policy dealing with Provincial
Highways is recommended to be amended as noted:
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
•
•
•
•
The Ministry suggestion is understood, however, lot creation is
considered to be development as per the definition of development in
the PPS, but the septic system tile bed and building or structure would
not be considered development.
As a consequence, it is suggested that the policy indicate that new
buildings or structures including the septic system tile bed be setback a
minimum of 30 metres from the high watermark of the lake.
Not sure if the term “high watermark” is accurate in any event based on
case law – best practices reference an OGD.
Changes to be considered.
"In addition to all the applicable municipal requirements, all proposed
development located adjacent to and in the vicinity of a provincial highway
within MTO's permit control area under the Provincial Public Transportation
and Highway Improvement Act (PTHIA) will be subject to MTO approval.
Early consultation with MTO is encouraged to ensure the integration of
municipal planning initiatives with provincial transportation planning.
Any new areas in the municipality identified for future development that are
located to or in the vicinity of a provincial highway or interchange/intersection
within the MTO permit control area will be subject to MTO's policies,
standards and requirements. Direct access will be prohibited.
“For access connections along municipal crossroads in the vicinity of a
provincial highway intersection or interchange ramp terminal, any
proposed municipal road must meet MTO’s access management
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
26
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
practices and principles. MTO approval will be required in these
instances.”
b) Section E2.4 - Noise and Vibration - The Environmental Noise Guideline
(Publication NPC - 300, Stationary and Transportation Sources - Approval and
Planning, January 2014) has just been published by the Ministry of the
Environment and Climate Change. In this new guideline, noise and vibration
considerations should also be extended to prospective development (sensitive
land uses) when planned adjacent to secondary highways, 400 series
highways, airports and other stationary point sources of noise.
21. Section F2 - Official Plan Administration
The draft Official Plan includes a 20-year horizon for growth, being 2034.
While this is the timeframe as required under the Provincial Policy Statement
(PPS) 2014, the Growth Plan requires municipalities to plan and manage
growth to 2041. It is recommended that a policy be included to commit to
achieving full conformity with the Growth Plan by the conformity deadline of
January 17,2018.
22. Section F7 – Phasing of Development
a) Phasing policies are also an appropriate mechanism to support the
achievement of designated greenfield area density targets and intensification
targets. It is suggested that an additional policy be added to this section to
support this direction.
23. Section F9 - Complete Applications
a) Subsection 9.3 outlines additional items that may be required in support of
a complete application for an Official Plan amendment and/or a Plan of
Subdivision or Condominium. It is recommended that a policy be included
requiring the application to provide anticipated density information as part of
their application.
24. Section F12 - Interpretation
a) Policies within subsection F12.2 speak to the identifications of boundaries
inland uses designations shown on Schedule A being approximate or being
defined in local Official Plans. The boundaries of land use designations within
this Official Plan should be considered as firm boundaries, reflective of the
policies identified in the plan. As well, in the event of an inconsistency
between the County and local Official Plan, the boundaries in the County
Official Plan shall apply. The policies within this F12.2 should be changed to
reflect this approach.
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
•
Agreed – will consider.
•
•
There is a contradiction between planning for 20 years and to 2041.
Further discussion needed on what actually constitutes planning for
managing growth to 2041 when lands cannot be designated beyond 20
years
•
Agreed.
•
Agreed.
•
Agreed.
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
27
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
25. Proposed New Section F13
a) It is recommended that the County include a policy to support the use of
tools in the Planning Act to ensure that lapsing provisions are included for
draft approved plans of subdivision. A suggested policy to address lapsing
plans of subdivision is "If approval of a draft plan of subdivision lapses,
the growth management objectives of this Plan shall be considered as a
key component of the development review process". As well, a policy
should also be included to provide for removal of the registration of existing
plans of subdivision that do not conform to the Official Plan.
C. SCHEDULE COMMENTS
26. Schedules A-D
a) Schedule A - Land Use
i) For clarity and to assist the County in providing guidance on growth and
settlement, we would recommend that the hamlet settlement area boundaries
be delineated in the County Official Plan. This will also help to ensure that
there is consistency between the County and lower-tier Official Plans.
ii) Boundaries of Provincial Parks should be added to the schedules as should
any other additional Crown Lands.
iii) Some Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW) and Areas of Natural and
Scientific Interest (ANS I) appear to be missing from the plan and should be
included. They include:
Hope Twp.
• Garden Hill Pitted Outwash Provincially Significant Earth Science ANSI
• Wesleyville Ravines Provincially Significant Life Science ANSI
Hamilton Twp.
• Millvalley Hills Forest Provincially Significant Life Science ANSI - Note: LIO
appears to be missing the Confirmed boundary of this ANSI. MNRF is
working to resolve this issue.
Haldimand Twp.
• Shelter Valley Provincially Significant Life Science ANSI - Note: LIO
appears to be missing the confirmed boundary of this ANSI. MNRF is
working to resolve this issue.
• Cranberry (Little) Lake Wet land Provincially Significant Wetland. This
wetland was recently upgraded from Non-PSW to PSW status.
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
•
To be considered.
•
Agree that all boundaries are needed since they are already mapped in
local OP’s.
•
These have already been added. Adding all crown lands not
considered necessary in this County.
New data to be added – mapping required to make this so
•
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
28
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
b) Schedule B - Resource Areas, Constraint Areas and Waste Management A series of changes are proposed for this schedule, addressing mines,
mineral aggregates and natural heritage features.
i) Mines:
(1) The County may remove the three "Abandoned Mine" symbols from
Schedule B. All known AMIS sites in Northumberland County are for
commodities designated under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA). The
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) keeps records of sites
designated under the ARA for archival purposes. As a result, it is not
required that MNDM be contacted for in formation should a development be
proposed with 1 kilometre of these three AMIS sites. Should a mine hazard
be identified or created with the County, the new location would then be
shown on Schedule B.
(2) The County may remove the "Producing Mine" symbol from Schedule B.
MNDM identifies mineral deposit sites in the Mineral Deposit Inventory.
Records are kept for sites of commodities designated under the Mining Act
as well as the ARA. For commodities designated under the ARA, it is not
required that MNDM be contacted for comment should a development be
proposed within I kilometre of a producing quarry. There are currently no
producing mines administered under the Mining Act in Northumberland
County.
ii) Mineral Aggregates - There are two active aggregate licenses that have not
been reflected on the schedule. These are:
(1) License # 2958
(2) Codrington li cense # 624984 (license issued Jan 2014). It should be
available in LI0 shortly.
iii) Natural Heritage Features - While these comments are provided in relation
to Schedule B, it may be clearer to create a separate new schedule to the
Official Plan to identify the following natural heritage features:
(1) Known (non-sensitive) natural heritage features should be identified on
this Schedule including: Coastal Wetlands (not already included in EP
designation) and known significant wildlife habitat (e.g. deer yards which
are mapped in LIO).
(2) Consideration should be given to including non-PSW wetlands and
candidate ANSls. Although the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014
does not require the protection of these features, the County may wish to
consider identifying them or consider them as potential Natural Heritage
System (NI-IS) components to prevent feature loss prior to their being
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
•
Agreed.
•
Agreed.
•
Premature to create separate environmental schedule in absence of
NHS
•
Premature to show non Provincially significant features at this time
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
29
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
confirmed in the future. The following is a list of candidate ANSls and
non PSW wetlands:
Hope Twp.
• Garden Hill Outwash Candidate Provincially Significant Earth Science
ANSI
• Ganaraska Forest East Candidate Provincially Significant Life Science
ANSI
• Ganaraska Forest West of Carmel Candidate Provincially Significant
Life Science ANSI
Hamilton Twp.
• Harwood Candidate Provincially Significant Earth Science ANSI
Haldimand Twp.
• Harwood Plains Candidate Provincially Significant Life Science ANSI
• Northumberland County Forest Candidate Provincially Significant Life
Science ANSI
• Centreton Kettles Candidate Provincially Significant Life Science ANSI
• Cannel Esker and Gravel Bedforms Candidate Provincially Significant
Earth Science ANSI
• Shelter Valley Candidate Provincially Significant Life Science ANSI
• Burnley Creek Candidate Provincially Significant Life Science ANSI
Cramahe/Brighton Twp
• Salt Creek Candidate Provincially Significant Life Science ANSI
• Oak Heights - Salt Creek Candidate Provincially Significant Earth
Science ANSI
• Biddy Creek Wet land (Non-Provincially Significant Wetland)
• Lakeshore Road Wet land (Non-Provincially Significant Wetland)
Asphodel Twp
• Godolphin Esker Wetland Complex (non-Provincially Significant
Wetland)
c) Schedule D - Potential New Employment Lands - The areas being
considered for Employment Lands are shown on a series of schedules.
Consideration should be given to the Ministry of Transportation's (MTO)
access management requirements for spacing for public roads and access.
MTO recently expanded these minimum distances from an interchange area.
Specific comments are provided on Schedules D-2, D-3, D-6 and D-11 are
provided. These comments reflect those provided by MTO to the County of
July 11, 2014.
CONSULTANT RESPONSE
• These lands are proposed to be down-designated. The MTO comments
support the down-designation of about 85 hectares of designated land.
Consultant responses to MMAH comments on Northumberland OP – dated September 9, 2014 (takes into account comments made by TAC)
30