1. MINISTERIAL MODIFICATIONS TO OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 76 - FIVE YEAR REVIEW

MODIFICATIONS MINISTÉRIELLES APPORTÉES À LA MODIFICATION N^O 76 DU PLAN OFFICIEL – EXAMEN QUINQUENNAL

Committee recommendationS, as amended

1. That Council:

a. Support the modification of Official Plan Amendment No. 76 as detailed in items 1- 10, 12, 14, 16, 17-20, 21a & 21c and 23 in Document 1; and

b. Support the modification of Official Plan Amendment No. 76 with additional modifications as detailed in items 13, 15, 21b and 22 in Document 1; and

2. That the following be referred to Council without recommendation:

Not support proposed modifications 11 and 24 to Official Plan Amendment No. 76 for the reasons outlined in Document 1.

3. That the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management advise the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in writing of the Council's decision in regard to the proposed modifications and request that Official Plan Amendment No. 76 be approved accordingly.

RecommandationS modifiées DU Comité

1. Que le Conseil :

a. Appuye la modification apportée à la modification n^o 76 du Plan officiel, telle qu’elle est détaillée dans les articles 1 à 10, 12, 14, 16, 17 à 20, 21a et 21c ainsi que 23 du Document 1;

b. Appuye la modification apportée à la modification n^o 76 du Plan officiel, ainsi que les modifications additionnelles, telles qu’elles sont détaillées dans les articles 13, 15, 21b et 22 du Document 1;

2. Que ce qui suit soit soumis au Conseil sans recommandation:

De ne pas appuyer les modifications 11 et 24 de la modification n^o 76 du Plan officiel, pour les raisons qui sont mentionnées dans le Document 1.

3. Que le directeur général, Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance, informe par écrit le ministre des Affaires municipales et du Logement de la décision du Conseil municipal en ce qui a trait aux modifications proposées et qu’il demande que la modification n^o 76 du Plan officiel soit approuvée en conséquence.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 6 November 2009 (ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0219).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 24 November 2009.

Report to/Rapport au :

Joint Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee and the Agricultural and Rural affairs Committee

Réunion conjointe du Comite de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement et du Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales

and Council / et au Conseil

06 November 2009 / le 06 novembre 2009

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager, Directrice municipale adjointe,

Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, Services d'infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités

Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Manager/Gestionnaire, Policy Development and Urban Design/Élaboration de la politique et conception urbaine, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance Élaboration de la politique et conception urbaine

(613) 580-2424 x22653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca

CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Ref N°: ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0219

SUBJECT:	MINISTERIAL MODIFICATIONS TO OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 76 - FIVE YEAR REVIEW
OBJET :	MODIFICATIONS MINISTÉRIELLES APPORTÉES À LA MODIFICATION N^O 76 DU PLAN OFFICIEL – EXAMEN QUINQUENNAL

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the Joint Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:

a. Support the modification of Official Plan Amendment No. 76 as detailed in items 1- 10, 12, 14, 16, 17-20, 21a & 21c and 23 in Document 1; and

b. Support the modification of Official Plan Amendment No. 76 with additional modifications as detailed in items 13, 15, 21b and 22 in Document 1; and

c. Not support proposed modifications 11 and 24 to Official Plan Amendment No. 76 for the reasons outlined in Document 1.

2. That the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management advise the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in writing of the Council's decision in regard to the proposed modifications and request that Official Plan Amendment No. 76 be approved accordingly.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

1. Que la réunion conjointe du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement et du Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales recommande au Conseil municipal :

a. D’appuyer la modification apportée à la modification n^o 76 du Plan officiel, telle qu’elle est détaillée dans les articles 1 à 10, 12, 14, 16, 17 à 20, 21a et 21c ainsi que 23 du Document 1;

b. D’appuyer la modification apportée à la modification n^o 76 du Plan officiel, ainsi que les modifications additionnelles, telles qu’elles sont détaillées dans les articles 13, 15, 21b et 22 du Document 1;

c. De ne pas appuyer les modifications 11 et 24 de la modification n^o 76 du Plan officiel, pour les raisons qui sont mentionnées dans le Document 1.

2. Que le directeur général, Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance, informe par écrit le ministre des Affaires municipales et du Logement de la décision du Conseil municipal en ce qui a trait aux modifications proposées et qu’il demande que la modification n^o 76 du Plan officiel soit approuvée en conséquence.

BACKGROUND

Council approved Official Plan Amendment No. 76 (OPA 76) on July 10, 2009 at the completion of the five-year review of the Official Plan. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Planning Act, Official Plan amendments undertaken as part of a five-year review must be approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The Minister has reviewed Official Plan Amendment No. 76 and proposes a number of draft modifications for which the City's agreement is now sought. Staff have reviewed the draft modifications and recommend that some be supported, some be supported with further modifications and that some not be supported. The detailed staff recommendations can be found in Document 1 while the major items are discussed in the following section.

Upon receipt of the City's response to the proposed modifications, the Minister may approve Official Plan Amendment No. 76 with the modifications submitted to Council and which may or may not include the changes recommended by Council. Notice of the approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 76 will be provided by the Minister in writing to Council and to all those recorded as having made submissions in regard to OPA 76. That notice will include the date by which any appeal by the City must be lodged.

DISCUSSION

The Provincial Ministries have provided their comments and recommended changes to the City’s Official Plan Amendment No. 76 to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The Ministry’s letter, which forms the Draft Decision, includes these changes.

The modifications are detailed in Document 1 and cover a range of topics such as: the urban boundary; protection of agricultural areas; stormwater management; the Natural Heritage system and associated policies; significant wetlands; rural development, and a number of other matters dealing with aggregate resources, flood plains and urban design.

Because most modifications are technical changes rather than substantial, they will be discussed under three categories listed in order of significance to the City as follows:

a. Those staff do not recommend;

b. Those staff recommend with modifications;

c. Those staff recommend as proposed by the Ministry.

Modifications not recommended

Staff recommends that Council not support Modifications 11 and 24. These modifications relate to the designation of certain wetlands that form part of the Goulbourn Wetland Complex as Significant Wetlands.

These wetlands were initially identified as a consequence of a development proposal that initiated a detailed environmental evaluation. Significant landowner opposition to the prospect of these wetlands being designated as Provincially Significant and issues related to the influence of unauthorised drainage work led to the development of a Council-approved compromise in 2006 that defers the designation of these wetlands pending a re-evaluation of their status, to be conducted by the City no sooner than five years after remedial drainage works in the area have been completed.

To honour this agreement while still providing protection for these wetland areas in the Official Plan as required by the Provincial Policy Statement, the Flewellyn Special Policy Area was introduced as part of OPA 76. This does not identify the wetlands by designation as Significant Wetlands but applies the same land use restrictions to any proposal for development within the policy area.

Three small areas of wetland were not impacted by the drainage issues, but were located within the existing Limestone Resource Area located to the north of the Flewellyn Special Policy Area. As part of the same compromise reached in 2006, the City provided an undertaking to these landowners that the wetlands within this Limestone Resource Area would not be redesignated as part of the Official Plan Review.

The majority of these resource lands are not currently licensed for extraction but form part of the City’s mineral aggregate reserves. The Limestone Resource Area designation does not permit development, and mineral extraction requires a licence from the Ministry of Natural Resources. The licence application process includes a review of natural heritage features aimed at identifying and preventing impacts to those features deemed to be provincially significant. These provisions already provide checks and balances to protect the small wetlands within this designation. These wetlands should be re-evaluated at the same time as the wetlands incorporated within the Flewellyn Special Policy Area. In the interim, the wetlands are protected by the policies added to Section 3.2.1 Significant Wetlands, as modified by the Ministry (Modification 6).

In addition, the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority has recently extended Ontario Regulation 174/06 - Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses to include these wetlands, both within the Flewellyn Special Policy Area and within the Limestone Resource Area.

Staff do not recommend the City support Modifications 11 and 24 proposed by the Ministry because they undo the progress made by the City to reach a settlement with the affected landowners. This action also fails to support a local solution that achieves the objectives of the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Ministry has also suggested that they will modify Annex 14, which accompanied OPA 76. This map does not form part of the Amendment and is provided to identify the City’s Natural Heritage System for information purposes only. The City should advise the Ministry that this map will not be forwarded for their editing but will be revised periodically to reflect the most up to date information available to the City.

Modifications recommended with changes

Staff recommend that the City support Modifications 13, 15, 21b and 22 but with further changes recommended by the City. These are:

Modification 13 proposes a new policy in Section 3.7.2 General Rural Area that seeks to encourage the City to ensure that future country lot subdivisions are limited in size and the number of such subdivisions is limited in terms of the overall amount of rural development. The policy does not provide any practical mechanism to do this. Instead this policy is more relevant to the upcoming review of country lot subdivisions that Council requested staff to undertake prior to the next Official Plan Review. Staff recommends that this policy be amended as shown in Document 1 to link it to the proposed staff review of Country Lot Subdivisions.

Modification 15 deletes part of an existing policy in Section 3.7.3 Agricultural Resource Area that permits severances for market gardens on land in the Agricultural Resource Area and where the lot area would be less than that permitted for farms. The Ministry indicates this exception is contrary to the Provincial Policy Statement. The City does provide for the creation of smaller lots for “agriculture-related uses” in poor pockets within the Agriculture Resource Area. This policy for “agriculture-related uses” is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Ministry has indicated that the provisions for market gardens could be considered in light of these uses.

Rather than simply deleting this policy, staff recommend that further modification be made by the Ministry to Section 3.7.3, Policy 4 Secondary uses and Policy 13 Severances in Areas of Poor Soils to permit the severance of smaller lots for market gardens. The details of these changes are shown in Document 1.

Modification 21.b outlines changes to what constitutes “adjacent land” to natural heritage features and are supported by staff (see modifications recommended without changes below). Within the “adjacent land” an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must support development. However, in writing the modification, Ministry staff has confused these “adjacent lands” with those features that are already in environmental designations in the Official Plan. The changes recommended by staff clarify that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must also support development adjacent to features that are not in environmental designations. The recommended changes are included in Document 1.

Modifications recommended without changes

Staff recommend that Council support Modifications 1- 10, 12, 14, 16, 17-20, 21a and 21c and 23 as proposed by the Ministry.

A large number of these changes, specifically numbers 7, 9, 10, 12b, 17a, 17b, 17c, 17d and 17g, affect the requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) adjacent to several of the City’s environmental land use designations. The City’s existing policies require an EIS to be prepared in support of development applications occurring within 120 metres of designated Significant Wetlands, Natural Environment Areas, Rural Natural Features and natural heritage features within the General Rural Area. The one exception is single lot severances, where an EIS is only triggered if development applications are within 30 metres of the designated area or natural heritage feature. The Ministry’s modifications apply the same criteria (120 metres) for severances in all instances. This is consistent with the “adjacent lands” distance recommended by the Ministry of Natural Resources in its draft Natural Heritage Reference Manual for the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement. The City has adopted these new adjacency distances elsewhere in the Official Plan, and removing the exemption for single lot severances does make the subject policies more consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

Modification 1 adds a new policy to ensure that the City takes into consideration impacts on adjacent farm operations and not just agricultural lands when considering future urban and village expansions.

Modification 2 adds additional policies on Stormwater Management, suggested by the Conservation Authorities. These policies were agreed to by staff during the Official Plan Review Process, but were overlooked in the final version of the Official Plan Amendment.

Modification 5 completely removes the policies proposed by the City on ‘Renewable and Alternative Energy Systems’. The ability for municipalities to regulate these facilities through the Official Plan or Zoning By-law were removed by the Green Energy and Green Economy Act.

Modification 14 amends an existing policy of the Official Plan by removing the ability to locate or build a dwelling for “farm help” on a property from which a surplus farm dwelling has been severed. In Agricultural Resource Areas, the Provincial Policy Statement only permits the severance of a surplus farm dwelling if the retained farmland is zoned to not permit a new dwelling. This makes the policies regarding the severance of surplus dwellings consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

Modification 16 amends the Aggregate Resource Area policies that allow the development of the lands where the resource is fully extracted or is deemed unviable to extract. In these situations the City will permit development despite the designation but will re-designate the land at the next-available opportunity, such as during a five-year Official Plan review.

The remaining modifications address minor wording or expression changes.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

The draft modifications to the City’s adopted policies related to the Natural Heritage System are intended to provide clarity and to ensure that the City’s approach to the protection of these lands is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

OPA 76 has identified and corrected the mapping of Significant Wetlands save and except for those associated with the Goulbourn Wetland Complex where site specific policies protect the wetlands from development while maintaining the agreement the City has with the landowners to re-evaluate the wetland status following the completion of corrections to local drainage issues via a municipal drain.

OPA 76 has improved policies for the protection of the habitat of “Endangered and Threatened Species”. The Ministry has confirmed additional species already anticipated by City staff. Staff will continue to work with the local Ministry of Natural Resources to refine the province’s screening maps for potential endangered and threatened species habitat in Ottawa.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

The modifications with changes suggested by staff will:

a. clarify where the severance of smaller lots for market gardens will be considered.

b. prohibit the construction of a dwelling for farm-help on land where a surplus dwelling has been severed.

c. require an EIS to be undertaken when severing a lot within 120 metres of a Significant Wetland, Natural Environment Area, Rural Natural Feature or natural heritage feature within the General Rural Area. Under the policies of Section 4.7.8 Environmental Impact Statement, staff will work with applicants to ensure that the scope of the EIS is appropriate to the specific circumstances.

CONSULTATION

Landowners impacted by the Ministry’s proposal to remove the Flewellyn Special Policy Area and to designate the lands as significant wetland have been notified that this matter will come to Committees and Council.

Everyone who made submissions at the time Council considered OPA 76 or who have since contacted the Minister will receive notice of the Minister’s decision.

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)

N/A

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Should the Ministry not be willing to make the modifications sought by the City, Planning and Legal Services will advise Committee and Council and seek further direction. As the appeal period that follows the formal issuance of the decision is only the standard 20 days, it may be necessary to bring forward such a report in an expedited time frame.

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

N/A

TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Minister's Draft Modifications and staff recommendations

DISPOSITION

The General Manager Planning and Growth Management to notify the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing of Council’s decision in regard to the draft modifications.

MINISTER'S DRAFT MODIFICATIONS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Document 1

This table provides a copy of the Minister’s modification and the staff response. This table should be read in conjunction with OPA 76. The Minister’s modification references the number of the amendment and page number in OPA 76 together with the relevant Official Plan Section to which the amendment applies.

No.	Modification contained in the Ministry’s Letter	City response
1	Details of the Amendment - Item 6 - Section 2.2.1 __ Urban Boundary (pg.30) That in item 6, the proposed new policy 11, the following new wording shall be inserted at the end of the new item: “Impacts from new or expanding settlement areas (both the Urban Area and the Village Area boundaries) on agricultural operations which are adjacent or close to the settlement area shall be mitigated to the extent feasible.” Note: This modification has been requested in order to ensure that expansions to the urban or village boundary are consistent with section 1.1.3.9 of the Provincial Policy Statement	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION The current policies, related to the evaluation to be undertaken by the City when considering future expansions to the urban or village boundaries, already recognise the City’s commitment to the protection of agricultural land. This modification expands on those existing commitments of the Plan to ensure that any impact on existing farm operations is also addressed. This is consistent with the feedback the City received through the rural consultation as part of the Official Plan review.
2	Details of the Amendment - Item 11 - Section 2.3.3 - Drainage and Stormwater Management Services (pg. 53) That a new item 11e) be inserted in the amendment as follows: "e) by adding the following new policies after policy 2 (above) which shall read: "3. Where approved Master Drainage Plans are in place but do not meet current receiving stream standards or requirements for quality or quantity controls, as identified in consultation with appropriate Conservation Authority and municipal infrastructure staff, current standards shall supersede the requirements of the Master Drainage Plan. 4. Where an approved Master Drainage Plan exists but the supporting facilities are not yet in place or are not being implemented, interim or alternative measures must meet quality and quantity standards for the receiving water body identified in consultation with appropriate Conservation Authority and municipal infrastructure staff". 5. Alternative mitigation measures proposed in Stormwater Management Plans for rural subdivisions will include provisions that have monitoring components and mitigation requirements to ensure that the implemented plans are meeting quality and quantity objectives." Note: This modification has been requested by the Conservation Authorities in order to introduce policies that will assist the CA's in guiding decisions on water management issues in the City. This modification is supported by section 2.2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement, which requires that planning authorities protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of surface water and ground water features.	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION Staff supported this request from the Conservation Authorities in the staff reports to the joint PEC /ARAC Committee Meetings earlier in 2009 and indicated that the same changes would be included in the adopted amendment. It appears that this addition was inadvertently left out of Official Plan Amendment No. 76. Staff agree to the inclusion of these policies, at this time, by the Ministry’s modification.
3	Details of the Amendment - Item 13 - Section 2.4.1 - Air Quality and Climate Change (pg. 55) That in the proposed new subsection 2.4.1.3(c), the words "accounts for", be deleted and shall be replaced with the word "avoids". Note: This modification has been requested by the Conservation Authorities in order to recognize that development must avoid potential natural hazards resulting from extreme weather events. This modification is also supported by section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement, which guides the protection of public health and safety.	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION The proposed wording change makes it clearer that action is required to address potential hazards and is consistent with wording elsewhere in the Official Plan that is related to land where flooding or slope stability are a known issue.
4	Details of the Amendment - Item 14 - Section 2.4.2 - Natural Features and Functions (pg. 56) That at the end of the third new paragraph in this section, and before the start of policy 1, the following new text shall be inserted: “In this regard, the diversity and connectivity of natural features and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of the City’s natural heritage systems shall be maintained, restored, or where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features.” Note: This modification has been requested in order to ensure that the Plan is consistent with section 2.2.1 of the PPS, which requires that natural heritage systems should be maintained, restored or improved.	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION Staff have no objection to the inclusion of this sentence in the preamble.
5	Details of the Amendment - Item 32 - Section 3.1 - Generally Permitted Uses (pg. 81) That item 32, “Renewable and Alternative Energy Systems” shall be deleted in its entirety. Note: This modification is recommended in order to recognize that ‘Renewable and Alternative Energy Systems and Installations’ are guided by the Green Energy Act and associated regulations. This modification has been discussed with City staff and has been agreed to as the most acceptable approach at this time.	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION The Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 clearly states that an Official Plan, demolition control and any by-law passed under Part V of the Planning Act (Zoning and Site Pan Control etc.) do not affect the “Renewable and Alternative Energy Systems”. The removal of the policies the City added to Section 3.1 of the Official Plan by OPA 76 is appropriate and support by staff.

6	Details of the Amendment - Item 35 - Section 3.2.1 - Significant Wetlands (pg.84) That in subsection 3.2.1 in the proposed new Policy 1, the last sentence in this policy should be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following new text: "Council may consider exceptions where the land has the current required approvals under the Planning Act." Note: This modification has been requested by the MNR and is necessary in order to be consistent with section 2.1.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement, which requires that development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant wetlands. The amendment, as currently written, contemplates aggregate extraction uses within significant wetlands, which does not meet the intent of the PPS. Specifically, while section 2.5.2.1 of the PPS states that "as much of the mineral aggregate resources as is realistically possible shall be made available as close to markets as possible", this policy is not intended to supersede the protection of significant wetlands. On this basis, the PPS does not allow discretion with respect to the significant wetland policies, but instead contemplates flexibility with respect to mineral aggregate reserves. Exceptions to this are where there are currently licensed aggregate operations within a wetland.	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION This modification makes the proposed policy more consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement but does not preclude existing approvals or licensed mineral extraction operations from proceeding.
7	Details of the Amendment - Item 38 - Section 3.2.1 - Significant Wetlands (pg.84) That the proposed new wording for subsection 3.2.1 (5) (former policy 7) shall be deleted in its entirety and shall be replaced with the following new text: "5. Development and site alterations will not be permitted within 120 metres of the boundary of a significant Wetland unless an Environmental Impact Statement demonstrates that there will be no negative impacts (as defined by Section 4.7.8) on the wetland or its ecological function. The requirements of the Environmental Impact Statement may vary, as described in section 4.7.8." Note: This modification has been requested by the MNR on the basis that an Environmental Impact Statement is required for all development applications within 120 metres of the boundary of a significant wetland regardless of the type of development. This modification is required in order to be consistent with section 2.1.6 of the PPS which states that development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands adjacent to significant wetlands unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION The City’s policy exempted single lot severances located over 30 metres away from a Significant Wetland boundary from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirement. The modification removes that exemption, so that all development applications within 120 m of a Significant Wetland will now need an EIS. This change is consistent with the Ministry’s new Natural Heritage Reference Manual. While this will increase the number of Environmental Impact Statements that will need to be completed by people applying for severances, these impact statements will be scoped rather than the more comprehensive impact statements required for larger, more complex developments.
8	Details of the Amendment- Item 39 - Section 3.2.1 - Significant Wetlands (pg.85) That in the proposed new wording of subsection 3.2.1 (9) in the first sentence, the second line the word “significant” shall be deleted. Note: This modification has been requested by the Conservation Authorities in order to recognize that the Conservation Authorities Act regulations apply to any wetlands regardless of their level of significance.	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION This modification increases the accuracy of the Official Plan.
9	Details of the Amendment - Item 43 - Section 3.2.2 - Natural Environment Areas (pg.86) That the proposed new wording for subsection 3.2.2(5) should be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following new text: "5. Development and site alterations will not be permitted for: a) any development permitted under the policies of this Plan within the feature; b) any development permitted under the policies of this Plan within 120 metres of the feature; unless an Environmental Impact Statement demonstrates that there will be no negative impacts as defined in section 4.7.8 on the natural features within the area or their ecological functions. The requirements of the Environmental Impact Statement may vary, as described in Section 4.7.8." Note: This modification has been requested by the MNR in order to ensure that an Environmental Impact Statement is required for all development applications within 120 metres of the boundary of the Natural Environment Area regardless of the type of development. This modification is supported by sections 2.1.4 and 2.1.6 of the PPS which states that development and site alteration shall not be permitted on the natural features or lands adjacent to significant natural heritage features unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION The City’s policy exempted single lot severances located over 30 metres away from a Natural Environment Area boundary from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirement. The modification removes that exemption, so that all development applications within 120 m of a Natural Environment Area will now need an EIS. This change is consistent with the new Natural Heritage Reference Manual. While this will increase the number of Environmental Impact Statements that will need to be completed by people applying for severances, these impact statements will be scoped rather than the more comprehensive impact statements required for larger, more complex developments.
10	Details of the Amendment - Item 5.3 - Section 3.2.4 - Rural Natural Features (pg.88) That the proposed new subsection 3.2.4(5) should be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following new text; "5. Development and site alterations will not be permitted for: a) any development permitted under the policies of this Plan within the feature; b) any development permitted under the policies of this Plan within the 120 metres of the feature; unless an Environmental Impact Statement demonstrates that there will be no negative impacts as defined in section 4.7.8 on the natural features within the areas of the feature or their ecological functions. The requirements of the Environmental Impact Statement may vary, as described in Section 4.7.8." Note: This modification has been requested by the MNR in order to ensure that an Environmental Impact Statement is required for all development applications within 120 metres of the boundary of the Rural Natural Features regardless of the type of development. This modification is supported by sections 2.1.4 and 2.1.6 of the PPS which states that development and site alteration shall not be permitted on the natural features or lands adjacent to significant natural heritage features unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION The City’s policy exempted single lot severances located over 30 metres away from a Rural Natural Feature boundary from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirement. The modification removes that exemption, so that all development applications within 120 m of a Rural Natural Feature will now need an EIS. This change is consistent with the new Natural Heritage Reference Manual. While this will increase the number of Environmental Impact Statements that will need to be completed by people applying for severances, these impact statements will be scoped rather than the more comprehensive impact statements required for larger, more complex developments.
11	Details of the Amendment -Item 56 - Section 3.2.5 - Flewellyn Special Policy Area (pg. 89) That the proposed new policy 3.2.5, shall be deleted in its entirety. Note: Modifications 11 and 24 are designed to recognize the subject lands as Provincially Significant Wetlands, as determined by the appropriate studies and confirmed by the Ministry of Natural Resources. These modifications will afford all Provincially Significant Wetlands in the City the same level of protection under the Official Plan and ensure consistency with Section 2,1 of the PPS.	THIS MODIFICATION IS NOT SUPPORTED This modification is very controversial, because it overturns staff and Council’s commitment to the Goulbourn Wetland landowners that their land will not be designated as Provincially Significant Wetland until the re-evaluation is done, five years after the drainage improvements have been completed. Staff maintains that the City’s approach, which has been painstakingly worked out with local stakeholders, will provide appropriate protection to the wetlands and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

12	Details of the Amendment - Item 90 - Section 3.7.2 - General Rural Area (pg.98) a) That in the proposed subsection 3.7.2(2), in the second sentence, following the words “Development and Site Alteration,” the words “as defined in Section 4.7.8,” shall be inserted. b) That the proposed subsection 3.7.2(2)(b), which reads "the creation of a single lot within 30 metres of the boundary of the natural heritage feature" shall be deleted in its entirety. c) That the proposed subsection 3.7.2(2)(c), following the word “natural” and before the word “feature” the word “heritage” shall be inserted. Note: This modification has been requested by the MNR in order to ensure that the appropriate EIS is undertaken for all development, regardless of whether or not it is the creation of a single lot or not. This modification is required in order to be consistent with section 2.1.4 and 2.1.6 of the PPS. Additional modifications in item 12(a) and 12 (c) have been included at the request of City Staff to clarify the intent of the policy.	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION The modifications to (a) and (c) improve the clarity and consistency of the policy, and were made in consultation with staff. The modification to (b) is consistent with the Ministerial modification to corresponding policies in Section 3.2.4 (Rural Natural Features).
13	Details of the Amendment - Item 98 - Section 3.7.2 - General Rural Area (pg.99) That the following new wording be inserted at the ending of this item: "Also amend section 3.7.2 by inserting new wording at the end of subsection 3.7.2(6)(g), which shall read: 'New Country Lot Subdivisions must be limited in scale, both in the context of the amount of development in the Rural Area as a whole and in the context of specific proposals for individual sites'." Note: Recognizing the five-year moratorium on Country Lot Subdivisions, this modification has been requested in order to ensure that the Plan is consistent with section 1.1.4.1 of the PPS, should the moratorium be reconsidered prior to the time of the next five-year Official Plan review. Specifically, section 1.1.4.1 a) of the PPS permits only "limited residential development and other rural land uses".	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION WITH CHANGES The purpose of this modification is not clear and it is difficult to implement at the time of development review. Discussions with the Ministry staff have clarified their intention, that the City critically evaluate how much residential development is permitted outside of settlement areas and determine the appropriate scale and impact of that development. This review is similar to the analysis requested by Council and linked to the five-year moratorium on country lot subdivisions. Because of this, staff suggest that the Minister’s Modification be amended to include a new policy under the heading of “Moratorium on Country Lot Development as follows: Details of the Amendment - Item 100 - Section 3.7.2 - General Rural Area (pg.100) That the following new wording be inserted at the ending of this item: 11. To be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement the critical review referred to in policy 10 shall also take into consideration that 'New Country Lot Subdivisions must be limited in scale, both in the context of the amount of development in the Rural Area as a whole and in the context of specific proposals for individual sites'.
14	Details of the Amendment -Item 120 - Section 3.7.3 - Agricultural Resources (pg. 103) That item 120 be deleted in its entirety and shall be replaced with the following new text: "120. Amend the Plan by deleting in its entirety, policy 3.7.3(9) which reads: "Farm Help - Notwithstanding the prohibition of future residential uses on farm parcels that have been severed as a result of a farm consolidation in policy 11 (b) above, dwellings for farm help, preferably in the form of a mobile home that can be removed once the farm help is no longer required, are permitted on the retained parcel." Note: This modification has been requested by the OMAFRA in order to ensure that the Plan is consistent with section 2.3.4.1c) of the PPS which states that "lot creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may only be permitted for (c) a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of a farm consolidation, provided that the planning authority ensures that new residential dwellings are prohibited on any vacant remnant parcel of farmland created by the severance."	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION In 2007 the City modified the Official Plan to be more consistent with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement. Not all of the existing policies were removed and OPA 76 now removes the remaining inconsistent policies. However, Official Plan Amendment No. 58 that Council adopted added a new policy that permitted a dwelling to be constructed for farm help on farmland that was retained following the severance of a surplus dwelling. The provincial policy requires that in Agricultural Resource Areas, where a surplus dwelling is severed, the retained farmland is to be rezoned to not permit any new dwelling to be located on the land. The Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs did not object to this new policy in 2007 but it is clearly contrary to the Provincial Policy Statement. The Ministry is rectifying their earlier oversight as part of the modifications to OPA 76.
15	Details of the Amendment -Item 122 Section 3.7.3 - Agricultural Resources (pg. 103) That this item be modified to insert the following sentence at the ending of the first sentence of this item: "Also, amend Section 3.7.3, policy 11 (as it relates to the Severance of a New Farm Holding) by deleting in their entirety, the second to last and last sentences of this subsection, which read 'A lesser lot size may be considered appropriate under unique circumstances, such as the severance of a new market garden lot. These minimum areas will consist of usable agricultural land excluding extensive areas of rock, forests, steep slopes, wetlands and other similar lands." Note: This modification has been requested by OMAFRA in order to ensure that the Plan is consistent with section 2.3.4.1 a) of the PPS. A market garden is considered an agriculture-related use and would not qualify a "New Farm Holding", and therefore should not be included in this section. Should the City wish to consider including policies that allow lot creation for agriculture-related uses, it is suggested that these policies be included elsewhere in the Plan (i.e. section 3.7.3(10)) and that any such policies must be consistent with section 2.3.4.1 b) of the PPS which states that "lot creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may only be permitted for (b) agriculture-related uses, provided that any new lot will be limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the use and appropriate sewage and water services. "	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION WITH CHANGES This also is a modification to a policy not added by OPA 76. The policy addresses the creation of new farm lots intended for an agricultural use. The policy permits the severance of new farm lots but only where the new and retained lots have a minimum size of 36 hectares. The policy also suggests that a smaller lot size may be considered for Market Gardens but does not specify a lot size. The Ministry suggests that Market Gardens be addressed through the policies for agriculture-related uses. Staff agree and have no objections to the following proposed modification where the Minister further modifies OPA 76 as follows: Modify Item 115 - Section 3.7.3 - Secondary Uses - (pg 102) That this item be modified to add an additional clause to Policies 4 a. and b. as follows: “ c. Market gardens that involve the small scale growing of produce such as; fruits, vegetables and flowers as cash crops that are subsequently sold directly to consumers and restaurants.” Modify Item 121 - Section 3.7.3 - Severances in Areas of Poor Soils That this item be further modified to reword sub item 2 as follows: 2. Replacing the words “that are directly related to agriculture” with the words “and market gardens described in policies 4b and 4c above,”.
16	Details of the Amendment -Item 131 - Section 3.7.3 - Mineral Resources (pg.105) That point 2 of this item, shall be deleted and replaced with the following : "2. deleting the third and last sentence in policy 14 and replacing it with the following new text: "The City will not require the proponent to amend the Official Plan; instead the Plan will be amended to accurately reflect the new use at the time of the next comprehensive Official Plan update or through a general Official Plan amendment. However, in either scenario, the City requires that:" ... " Note: This modification has been requested by the MNR to clarify that the Official Plan should reflect the intended use of the property. Currently, as written, the Plan does not state what mechanism will be used to re-designate these lands to remove the resource designation once it is determined that the mineral aggregate interests are no longer relevant. Furthermore, as proposed in OPA 76, it appears that this policy would conflict with section 3.7.4.7, which states that the mineral aggregate designations will be zoned "so that it is clear that mineral aggregate use may occur on these lands".	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION The proposed modification clarifies that the process by which land no longer required for Mineral Aggregate extraction, due to the exhaustion of the resource, would be redesignated. The City will change the designation, when the resource has been exhausted, as part of the regular housekeeping of the Official Plan. The Ministry’s modification clearly identifies this process.
17	Details of the Amendment - Item 147 - Section 4.2 - Adjacent to Land-Use Designations (pg. 116) a) That item 147(2), shall be revised to read: “2. deleting the words ‘severances within 30 metres or’ and deleting the words ‘South and East of the Canadian Shield’ in the third column of the former first row; and “ b) That item 147(3), shall be revised to read: “3. deleting the entire policy in the third column of the former second row and replacing it with the following new text : ‘Any proposed development within 120 metres of a Natural Environment Area designated on Schedule A or B’.” c) That in item 147(4)(b), the words “a severance within 30 metres or “ shall be deleted. d) That in item 147(5)(c), the words “a severance within 30 metres or “ shall be deleted. e) That in item 147(7)(a), the number “50m” shall be deleted and replaced with “120m”. f) That in item 147(7)(b), the number “30m” shall be deleted and replaced with “50m”. g) That in item 147(7)(c), the words “a severance within 30 metres or “ shall be deleted. Note : This modification has been requested by MNR in order to ensure that Environmental Impact Statement is required for all development applications within 120 metres of the boundary of a Significant Wetland or a Rural Natural Features, and 50 metres of the boundary of an ANSI regardless of the type of development.	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION The modifications to (a), (b), (c), (d) and (g) are required to maintain consistency with the earlier modifications made by the Ministry dealing with adjacent lands and the requirements for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The modifications to (e) and (f) were made in consultation with staff, to ensure consistency with the new Natural Heritage Reference Manual.
18	Details of the Amendment - Item 210 - Section 4.7.4 - Protection of Endangered and Threatened Species (pg. 136) a) That in the proposed new subsection 4.7.4(5), the last sentence which reads: “Exceptions to the policy are those activities approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources under the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and associated regulations“ shall be deleted in its entirety. Note : This modification has been requested by the MNR on the basis that Section 2.1.3 of the PPS prohibits development and site alteration in the significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species. There is no basis for allowing exceptions to the no development and site alterations policy standard in significant habitats of threatened and endangered species. However, the MNR has the authority to update what is considered to be significant habitat of an endangered or threatened species based upon new information such as a permit issued under the Endangered Species Act. b) That subsection 4.7.4(6), should be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following new paragraph: “Development and site alteration will not be permitted within 120m of the boundary of identified significant habitat of endangered and threatened species unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and the Environmental Impact Statement demonstrates that there will be no negative impacts (as defined in section 4.7.8) on the significant habitat of endangered and threatened species or on its ecological functions.” Note: This modification has been requested by the MNR on the basis that Section 2.1.6 of the PPS states that development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION Modification (a) increases the accuracy of the Official Plan. Modification (b) makes the Official Plan consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
19	Details of the Amendment – Item 218 – Section 4.7.7 – Landform Features (pg. 138) That in the first sentence of the proposed new policy 2, the third line, the number “30m” should be deleted and replaced with the number “50m”. Note: This modification has been requested by the MNR in order to ensure that an Environmental Impact Statement is required for all development applications within 50 metres of an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) in accordance with the draft Natural Heritage Reference Manual (2009) and in order to be consistent with sections 2.1.4 and 2.1.6 of the PPS.	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION This modification is consistent with the new Natural Heritage Reference Manual, and was made in consultation with City staff.
20	Details of the Amendment – Item 220 – Section 4.7.8 – Environmental Impact Statement (pg. 139) That in the second paragraph of this item, in the last sentence, following the words “significant woodlands” and before the words “and other components of the natural heritage system” the following new text shall be inserted: “, significant valleylands, significant wildlife habitat,”. Note: This modification has been requested by the MNR in order to ensure that the requirements for an EIS are applied to development proposed within, or adjacent to, significant valleylands and significant wildlife habitat in addition to the current requirements for an EIS. This modification is required in order to ensure that the Plan is consistent with section 2.1.4 and 2.1.6 of the PPS which requires that development and site alteration shall be prohibited in these natural heritage features and areas, or adjacent lands to the natural heritage features, unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION This modification increases the clarity and consistency of the Official Plan.
21	Details of the Amendment – Item 221 – Section 4.7.8 – Environmental Impact Statement (pg. 139) a) That, at end of the new subsection 4.7.8(4), a new policy (5) shall be added, which shall read: “5. Ecological functions are defined as: the natural processes, products or services that living and non-living environments provide or perform within or between species, ecosystems and landscapes, including biological physical and socio-economic interactions.” The existing proposed policies which follow this new policy (formerly identified as policies 5, 6, and 7) shall be renumbered accordingly. Note: This modification has been requested by the MNR in order to provide clarity for implementation purposes. This definition is based on the definition for ecological function as included in the PPS. b) That, subsection 4.7.8 (6), be deleted in its entirety and shall be replaced with the following new text: “Where significant woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, significant valleylands or other natural heritage features are not designated, development and site alterations will not be permitted for: a) any development permitted under the policies of this Plan within the feature; b) any development permitted under the policies of this Plan within 120 metres of the feature; c) any development permitted under the policies of this Plan within 30 metres of an Urban Natural Feature; unless an Environmental Impact Statement demonstrates that there will be no negative impacts, as defined in section 4.7.8, on the natural heritage features or their ecological functions.” Note: This modification has been requested by the MNR in order to ensure that the requirements for an EIS are applied to development proposed within, or adjacent to, significant valleylands and significant wildlife habitat in addition to the current requirements for an EIS. This modification is required in order to ensure that the Plan is consistent with section 2.1.4 and 2.1.6 of the PPS. c) That in subsection 4.7.8(7), the second sentence and third sentences should be deleted and replaced with the following text: “Aerial photographs, Annex 14 – Natural Heritage System, watershed and subwatershed studies, field investigations and other information sources such as the Natural Heritage Information Centre may be consulted. The screening should consider the potential for endangered or threatened species habitat, significant woodlands, valleylands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat that are not designated in the plan, in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement definition of significant and the relevant identification and evaluation factors specified in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual for the Provincial Policy Statement.” Note: This modification has been requested by the MNR in order to reflect that information contained in Annex 14 – Natural Heritage System should be consulted when undertaking an Environmental Impact Statement and to recognize that the EIS should be undertaken in accordance with the Natural Heritage Reference Manual.	a. STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF MODIFICATION 21 a) This modification improves the clarity of the Official Plan, and its consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement. b. STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF MODIFICATION 21 b) WITH CHANGES AS FOLLOWS: “b)  any development permitted under the policies of this Plan within 120 metres of the feature in the rural area;” “c)  any development permitted under the policies of this Plan within 30 metres of the feature in the urban area;” to be consistent with the changes recommended by the Minister in Section 4.2.3 (see Modification 17). c. STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF MODIFICATION 21 c) This modification improves the clarity of the Official Plan.

22	Details of the Amendment – Item 226 – Section 4.8.1 – Flood Plains (pg. 142) That in the proposed policy 4.8.1(4) the second sentence should be deleted and replaced with the following new sentence: “Development in the flood plain is regulated under the Conservation Authorities Act and will require written permission from the appropriate Conservation Authority prior to a building permit from the municipality under the Building Code Act.” Note: This modification has been requested by the Conservation Authorities (CA) in order to recognize that the appropriate CA permissions should be received prior to a building permit.	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION WITH CHANGES This modification clarifies the important role that the City’s Conservation partners have in the review of any development in the flood plain and reinforces the fact that approval under the Conservation Authorities Act is required as well as Building Permit approval. However, it is also important to clarify that the Zoning By-law also regulates what is built on the land. Staff recommends that this be reinforced in the wording of the Ministry’s modification to ensure that the zoning is referenced before the Conservation Authority is contacted. Staff recommend amended wording as follows: “Where development in the flood plain is permitted by the Zoning by-law it is also regulated under the Conservation Authorities Act and will require written permission from the appropriate Conservation Authority prior to obtaining a building permit from the municipality under the Building Code Act.”
23	Details of the Amendment – Item 253 – Section 4.11 – Urban Design and Compatibility (pg. 161) That in the proposed policy 4.11(14), the word “harm” shall be deleted and replaced with the word “impact”. Note: This modification has been requested in order to ensure that this policy does not distract from the overall importance of intensification by associating “harm” with high-rise buildings. Specifically, this modification is supported by section 1.1.3.4 of the PPS, which states that “appropriate development standards should be promoted which facilitate intensification and redevelopment and compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety.”	STAFF RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFICATION This modification increases the clarity and consistency of the Official Plan.
24	Schedules a. Schedule R15 to Amendment No. 76 – “Amending Schedule A” dated 7/11/2008 shall be deleted in its entirety and shall be replaced with a new Schedule R15 to Amendment No. 76 – “Amending Schedule A” dated ******. b. Schedule R31 to Amendment No. 76 – “Amending Schedule A & B – Rural & Urban Policy Plan” dated 12/01/09 shall be deleted in its entirety and shall be replaced with a new Schedule R31 to Amendment No. 76 – “Amending Schedule A & B – Rural & Urban Policy Plan” dated *******. c. Annex / Appendice 14 – Natural Heritage System, dated April 2009, shall be deleted in its entirety and shall be replaced with a new and shall be replaced with a new Annex / Appendice 14 – Natural Heritage System, dated ******.	a. THE MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULE R15 IS NOT SUPPORTED Schedule R15 introduces the Flewellyn Special Policy Area. The Minister’s modification to this schedule will remove this Special Policy Area overlay and in its place it will identify the Significant Wetlands that form part of the Goulbourn Wetland Complex. Staff developed the Flewellyn Special Policy Area to reflect the City’s commitment to the landowners and also to best reflect the intent of the Provincial Policy Statement (see the discussion for Modification 11 above). b. THE MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULE R31 IS NOT SUPPORTED Schedule R31 revises the boundaries of the designated Significant Wetlands comprising the Goulbourn Wetland Complex outside of the Flewellyn Special Policy Area. The Minister’s modification to this schedule would designate a number of small wetlands, identified within the existing Limestone Resource Area, located in Concessions 10 and 11 Goulbourn and north of Flewellyn Road, as significant wetland. These lands are not licensed for extraction but are designated as Limestone Resource Area, and form part of the City’s mineral aggregate reserves. These areas are already protected by: this designation, which does not permit development; the Ministry of Natural Resources’ authority over aggregate extraction; and, the Conservation Authority’s ability to regulate site alteration under Ontario Regulation 174/06 – Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses. The City provided an undertaking to the landowners that the wetlands within this Limestone Resource Area would not be redesignated as part of the Official Plan Review. Instead these wetlands should be re-evaluated at the same time as the wetlands incorporated within the Flewellyn Special Policy Area. In the interim, the policies added to Section 3.2.1 Significant Wetlands, including Modification 6 above, apply to these lands. c. THE MODIFICATION OF ANNEX 14 IS NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE MINISTRY’S RESPONSIBILITY Annex 14 is not a land use schedule, and is not legally part of the Official Plan. As such, it is not subject to Ministerial modifications. The City will update it from time to time as new information becomes available, including new wetland mapping from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. The inclusion of any such information in Annex 14 does not constitute a change in land use designation.

MINISTERIAL MODIFICATIONS TO OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.76 - FIVE YEAR REVIEW

MODIFICATIONS MINISTÉRIELLES APPORTÉES À LA MODIFICATION N^O 76 DU PLAN OFFICIEL – EXAMEN QUINQUENNAL

ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0219 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

The following correspondence was received as is held on file with the City Clerk:

· Memorandum dated November 17, 2009 from the Rural Issues Advisory Committee

· Memorandum dated November 23, 2009 from the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee

· Letter dated May 8, 2009 from the Friends of the Jock River

· Letter dated May 25, 2009 from the Friends of the Jock River

· Letter dated November 23, 2009from the Friends of the Jock River

· Letter dated November 23, 2009 from Lisa Dalla Rosa, Richcraft Group of Companies

· Letter dated November 24, 2009 from Gregory Winters, Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd.

Chair Hume noted there had been some questions as to what was before the joint Committee and what motions could be entertained. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel confirmed that the only matters before Committee were the Ministerial Modifications to Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 76 outlined in Item 1, and the staff-recommended modifications to OPA 76 as outlined in Item 2. He confirmed that a motion to re-designate a portion of land would be out of order.

As requested by the Chair, Mr. Marc confirmed that when Council considers this item, staff would provide a written opinion as to what was properly before Council. He added that there would also be a full legal briefing at the time the formal appeals come in.

Bruce Finlay, Planner II provided an overview of Item 1 (ministerial modifications) and Item 2 (staff-recommended modifications) by means of a PowerPoint presentation. A copy of Mr. Finlay’s presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

In response to questions from Councillor Jellett regarding Item 2, Document 1, No. 26, as to whether the modification would affect two of his constituents, Mr. Finlay confirmed it would, as it as it allows them to do what the what the original change to the plan was intended to do by correcting what previously made it difficult for them.

In response to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry regarding the Goulbourn wetlands issue, Mr. Finlay confirmed that the policy adopted by Council in OPA 76 mirrors the agreement with the landowners, and includes a future review of wetland status. The Minister wishes to remove that policy completely and to designate wetlands as part of the approval, which would remove that review. The City could still do that review but it would require an OP amendment at that time to remove any wetlands that are not considered Provincially significant.

In response to further questions from Councillor El-Chantiry regarding the next steps for the landowners the City is working with on this issue, Mr. Finlay explained that there were a number of steps. The first is for Council to decide whether they support the Minister’s modifications. If they do support them, and the Minister subsequently modifies the OPA, there is an appeal process whereby the land owners can appeal. If Council agrees with staff and opposes the modification, the Minister will decide if he agrees with Council or whether he will modify the plan anyway. Should he modify the plan, Council will need to decide whether it will appeal that decision.

In response to further questions from Councillor El-Chantiry as to whether the Minister agrees with City’s position to have a moratorium on country estate lots, Mr. Finlay indicated that the Ministry did not object to the City’s position. He also confirmed that there was an appeal underway on the moratorium. Should the Minister approve OPA 76, which contains that policy calling for a five-year moratorium on country lot subdivisions, the Minister’s position will be posted and an appeal period will begin. At that point anyone can appeal the Minister’s decision and the policies in OPA 76, including the moratorium. In response to request for further clarification as to the Minister’s position on the moratorium, Mr. Marc confirmed that if the Minister is silent on an issue, and does not object, it can be taken to mean he is consenting to it. If there are no appeals the moratorium will come into force and should there be an appeal, it would go before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB.) He noted that for the Minister to appear at the OMB on OP matters is highly unusual.

In response to question from Councillor Holmes regarding the staff recommended modification to delete the central area policy restricting car-oriented development (Item 2, Document 1, Modification 24), Mr. Finlay clarified this policy that was included in one of the later versions of the draft of the OPA. Whereas staff generally documented the changes they made to the OPA so that Council was aware the change came into the plan at some point, this particular policy was added without any reference by staff that it was a change. Therefore, it is staff’s opinion that the change was not consulted on and Council was not aware of it at the time they approved OPA 76. Thus, staff is using an abundance of caution and suggesting it should be removed from the OPA. He confirmed that this policy could be a separate OPA, and that it would be staff-initiated. John Moser, General Manager of Planning and Growth Management, confirmed that it was staff’s intention to bring that amendment forward.

Committee then heard from the following Public Delegations:

Michael Polowin, solicitor for Metcalfe Realty Company, and Lloyd Phillips, urban planner for the same client, appeared to discuss what they believed to be a significant flaw in OPA 76. Mr. Polowin expressed his view that the City did not meet the requirements of the Planning Act with respect to public consultation. He noted the City generally stressed the need for appropriate public consultation by proponents of development, and suggested the City must not only honour those requirements but also be seen to honour them. He noted that Bill 51, which narrowed the rights of appeal of various municipal documents, also imposed a greater obligation with respect to public consultation to give the public more information on various initiatives. He suggested the following statutory requirements to be at issue in this case:

· The Planning Act provides that in the course of preparing an OP the Council shall ensure adequate information and material, including a copy of the proposed plan is made available to the public at least 20 days before the public meeting.

· On May 4, 2009 the City released the report containing what he considered to be the “current proposed plan” as required by the Act, which the third report issued by staff and contained a revised report on the issue of expansion of the urban boundary. The revised report on the expansion of the urban boundary set out a new scoring scheme, weighting and recommendations on what wetlands were to be included.

· The required public meeting was held by the joint Planning and Environment Committee and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee on May 11, 12 and 14, 2009, seven days after the release of the “current proposed plan,” which is less than the 20 day required by the Act.

For the above noted-reasons, Mr. Polowin submitted that the City did not legally or morally fulfill the requirements of the Planning Act concerning the provision of information and material to the public.

Mr. Polowin referenced a letter dated October 19, 2009 to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) in which they asked the Minister to refuse approval of OPA 76 and send it back to Council to fix the flaw. He suggested that should the minister refuse this request it would still remain a significant ground of appeal for anyone who chooses to appeal OPA 76. He provided the legal opinion that every member of the public would have the right to appeal, not only those parties whose lands were included in the third report. He predicted the OMB would concur that the flaw was fatal and send OPA 76 it back to Council. He suggested it would be wrong for Committee to approve the report before them and ask the Minister to approve OPA 76. He urged Committee to recommend bringing OPA 76 back to Committee and Council to do the appropriate public consultation. He suggested that, at a minimum, this would narrow the number of potential appeals to the OPA, even if nothing else changed.

Mr. Phillips wished to draw Committee’s attention to Item 2, Document 1, Modification 29, which recommends deletion of item 3.12 regarding the urban expansion study area and all the text and policy that follow in relation to this section. He challenged staff’s opinion that this is no longer relevant in light of Council’s decision. He understood the City’s legal position, and noted the Chair’s earlier comments that urban boundary expansion was not a matter for discussion at this time; however, he asked that Committee not move forward with this recommendation due to the possibility that there might be urban expansions. In conclusion, he recommended that the text pertaining to s. 3.12 urban expansion study area remain in the amendment.

Janet Bradley, speaking on Behalf of Richcraft Homes and Claridge Homes, noted both companies construct high-density buildings and have concerns with respect to the modifications that relating to intensification policies. She noted that as part of the five-year OP review there were extensive public meetings, focused primarily on the extension of the urban boundary, with Council ultimately deciding to be quite restrictive with respect to that expansion. She suggest one could infer from that decision that the City is now dependant on intensification to achieve adequate housing to meet demands over the short term.

She expressed concerns with the restrictions to intensification policies put in place just prior to the approval of OPA 76. She submitted that those modifications, rather than encouraging intensification, appear to limit, restrict or create a burden to those attempting to provide intensification projects. Specifically, she pointed to Item 2, Document 1, Modifications 2 and 3, which relate to intensification targets. She objected that the new wording lead to a kind of innuendo that these targets should be maximum targets, rather than minimum targets. Additionally, she questioned whether the clause recommended under Modification 2, the targets should not be used as a planning rationale, was appropriate to have in an Official Plan. She asked Committee to consider whether it achieves Council’s intensification goals to have such restrictions placed on Council’s opportunity to review on a case-by-case basis what is appropriate. With regards to Modification 3 of the same document, referring to Community Design Plans and Secondary Plans, she suggested that one could infer from that clause that there shall be no applications made on a case-by-case basis in order to achieve intensification targets. She felt the tone of the OP appears to suggest one should be careful and restrictive in terms of intensification projects.

Speaking to Item 1, Document 1, Modification 23, which pertains to proposed policy 4.11 dealing with urban design and compatibility, Ms. Bradley noted the policy included wording that was added late in the process without much opportunity for public input. She noted the policy stated that high-rise buildings “perhaps have greater potential to harm the qualities that people value about a place than lower profile buildings,” with the Minister recommending changing the word “harm” to “impact.” She felt there was an allusion in that wording that high-rise development is bad and not as good for the community as other types of development.

Ms. Bradley referenced some other statements found within the plan, the first being the statement that the quality of architecture in urban design be consistent with Council-approved design guidelines. She submitted that this statement raises the guidelines, which have no right of appeal, to a higher level that was ever intended when Council first directed they be prepared. She suggested for the OP to require developments be consistent with the guidelines implies that the City is giving more weight than was originally intended to something only intended a guideline. She spoke to another OP policy which provides that when buildings are out of scale, do not take into account the common characters of their settings and the surrounding pattern of development, or do not use suitable materials and finishes in their design, they will no be considered consistent with the relevant guidelines and such projects will not be recommended for approval under the Heritage Act. She felt this section precluding analysis and debate, and noted these matters could become significant in areas like Centertown where there are large conservation districts, but also areas that might be appropriate for high-rise development. She indicated that she was speaking to these policies because there has been an effort on Council in to prevent urban sprawl, and this can only be achieved by intensification. She maintained that the above wording, which is causing difficulties for those that provide intensification developments, should be a concern for Council will have a negative impact on achieving its goal to accommodate growth through intensification.

Chair Hume clarified that Council had approved the amendments referenced by the delegate, as contained in item 2, document 1, Modifications 2 and 3, they were erroneously not been included in the amendment, and this is the opportunity to recommend that the Minister modify them to accommodate Council’s approval. As such, he wondered what ability Council had to object to those items. Mr. Marc stated that the ministerial modifications (Item 1) could be considered substantively before Committee and Council for debate; however, the intent of the staff-recommended modifications (Item 2) was seeking to include wording to implement the intent of Council as expressed in June 2009. Therefore, he suggested these matters were not before Committee for a substantive debate. He confirmed that Committee and Council could not delete these items unless they suspended the rules.

Mr. Kelly and Mark Purchase, Soloway Wright, commenced by referencing a letter from Greg Winters of Novatech Engineering dated 24 November 2009 pertaining to country lot developments and the ministerial modifications listed as Nos. 2 and 13 in Item 1, Document 1. A copy of this letter was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. With regards to the moratorium on country lot subdivisions and the study which is to be undertaken, he noted that study has not taken place and there are lands within the City for country estates that are not yet subdivided. Referencing the Planning Act, he noted that the City has an alternative to interim control the land and then they are required to complete a study within one year, which can be extended to two years. He felt the City, by OP policy, was giving itself another three years to do the study. He proposed this does not comply with the provisions of the Planning Act. He felt that to have a study span a long period is not appropriate for the landowners and developers who must wait until the study is complete to move forward. He recommended the moratorium be removed and the study be completed within the time frame referenced in the Planning Act.

Mr. Kelly then spoke to Item 1, Document 1, Modification 6, pertaining to significant wetlands and aggregate resources, which seeks to modify the policy to state that Council consider exceptions only where land has the current required approvals under the Planning Act. He stated that, currently, if you have a license you can proceed to extraction notwithstanding any other designation, and to remove this right would be a regulatory expropriation where the owner must be compensated. He noted there are other lands with significant aggregate resources, such as in Goulbourn, and without the proposed ministerial modification, Council had the ability to consider the application and what conditions could be put on extractions of material. He advised that materials can be extracted and the land subsequently returned to its wetland status, possibly in an improved situation, and the land can then be given to the conservation authority or the municipality. He expressed his objection to taking away all rights from this land by way of the modification. He felt the courts might find this amounts to regulatory expropriation, because all commercial right to the land are being taken away. He asked Committee to advise the Minister that they wish to change the OP in respect to this policy, suggesting there is no need to have the right to extract aggregate trumped by the provincial significant wetland policies, when they can work together with the material removed for use and the land returned to a wetland state and given over to the appropriate authority.

With regards to Item 1, Document 1, Modification 6, Chair Hume noted the Ministry is requesting a modification that says Council may consider exceptions where the land has current required approvals under the Planning Act, and they are doing so as to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Mr. Kelly suggested the PPS has policies to protect both wetland and aggregate resources, and at the present time one can apply to the conservation authority for permission, to work in a provincially significant wetland. He suggested this was the first time he had heard the Province say that wetland policies trump aggregate policies and that they can’t work together. He noted there is viable aggregate material in Goulbourn, and this modification would sterilize the removal of the aggregate by policy. He confirmed his understanding that the modification meant a landowner whose quarry does not have the currently required approvals under the Planning Act would not be able to extract minerals, and further, they could not even apply for the approvals.

In response to a request from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Finlay explained that staff were also surprised by the position taken by the Ministry that the wording in the PPS gives provincially significant wetlands a higher status than mineral aggregate. He noted this impacts one particular aggregate reserve area only, namely the area in the Goulbourn wetlands. The PPS, and the interpretation that the Ministry has put on it, is that where there is land licensed for pit operation, and that land is also found to contain significant wetlands, the pit can continue. However, if the land identified as having an aggregate resource is also identified as provincially significant wetlands, there will be no license granted for mineral extraction within that wetland. He explained that, while staff has not objected to the policy, they have objected to the o the re-designation of the wetlands in the aggregate reserve area pending the resolution of the Flewellyn wetland issue. Thus, if the minister agrees with staff’s recommendations, the land that is currently mineral aggregate can stay mineral aggregate. Mr. Kelly, while he understood Mr. Finlay’s explanation, reiterated that this was the first he had seen of the elevation of wetlands over aggregate, and maintained one should at least have the option of examining it to determine if it is worthwhile to incur temporary interference with the wetland to take aggregate out.

Councillor El-Chantiry wished to understand what was being proposed and what action Committee and Council could take on this issue. Chair Hume explained, and staff agreed, that the amendments before them on this matter were substantive and Committee and Council could decide to agree or disagree with the Minister’s modifications. The City could say they do not agree with the modification, and he could then modify the plan anyway. Then Council would need to decide whether they would appeal his modification to the plan. The chair noted the Minister is seeking a resolution from Council endorsing his changes, staff is recommending endorsing some of the changes and not others, in addition to recommending their own “housekeeping” amendments.

Councillor El-Chantiry suggested what the minister was recommending was perhaps not coherent with the intent of the whole PPS. Mr. Kelly noted the change only gives extraction rights when they’re licensed, and suggested if they are licensed they have a right to extract anyway and to take that right away would trigger compensation. In response to further questions from Councillor El-Chantiry with regards to potential compensation, Mr. Kelly, while he could not be definitive, suggested if one has a permit to do something and it is taken away, one would be entitled to compensation. In this case, where the landowner does not have a permit, but has a resource that they currently have a right to use, removing that right may trigger compensation.

Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering, expressed his support for two of staff’s recommendations. Firstly, he expressed his support for staff’s position in relation to Item 1, Document 1, Modification 24, the recommendation with respect to the Flewellyn Special Study Area. He suggested it would be unfortunate for the municipality to change its course of action in respect to this long-standing issue. He encouraged Committee to support the staff position to object to the Minister’s proposed modification.

Secondly, he spoke with regards tot Item 2, Document 1, Modification 36, in support of staff’s recommendation relating specifically to the lands south of Stittsville. He suggested that, in a hurry to deal with this matter in May 2009, the City put the wrong label on those lands. He supported staff’s recommendation to correct that label. He wished to clarify that his silence on the remainder of the content of the reports should not be interpreted as tacit support of those recommendations. He noted he did not support many of the recommendations, but has protected the appeal rights of his clients in those regards. For example, he agreed with the previous delegation’s opposition to the moratorium on country estate lots, and on the requirement for storm water management policies on rural development. He supported the position of the first delegation with respect to maintaining the policies for the urban expansion study area.

The Chair agreed with Mr. Chown’s assessment that the real challenge would be when minister’s decision is finalized and the City decides whether it will appeal. In response to questions from the Chair, Mr. Marc confirmed that the process of the Minister asking Council to endorse his modifications had taken place in 2003, and he believed it had also been the case in 1997. The chair suggested it seemed an awkward way to do things.

Amy Kempster, friends of the Greenspace Alliance, voiced her support for all of the Minister’s proposed amendments, including those with regards to the Goulbourn wetlands. She recommended the Committee demonstrate that the City takes the protection of wetlands seriously by not objecting to the provincial decision with regards to the wetlands. She suggested that the designation should not affect existing agricultural activities, and noted the PPS says that nothing in the relevant policy is intended to limit the ability of existing agricultural uses to continue. She suggested many had not looked at the clause in the PPS that indicates existing agricultural activities can continue on designated wetlands. Therefore, she wondered why agricultural operators were opposed to the provincial designation of wetlands. She felt that for the City to go along with the drainage of wetlands was objectionable. In conclusion she encouraged Committee to disagree with the staff recommendation to object to those two ministerial modifications.

Ken McRae, resident, spoke in favour of the ministerial modifications to the City’s policy with regards to the Goulbourn Wetlands. Referencing a 2005 aerial photo showing the locations of the 20 provincially significant wetlands in the area, he pointed out wetlands whose designation as provincially significant had been removed due to the alteration by the landowners, and the City not protecting them by enforcing the PPS requirement for no site alteration. He referenced another wetland near Flewellyn Road where the landowner had intended to have a country estate lot subdivision there, who had donated that land as an eco-gift in exchange for a tax receipt. Thus, he challenged the assertion of the Goulbourn landowners group that these are not wetlands. He also referenced wetlands where the landowner had clear-cut most of his land.

Mr. McRae disagreed with staff’s statement that these areas need not be designated as provincially significant wetland in order to be protected. He noted that even those lands that had been designated for some time had been the subject of large-scale clear cutting. However, he suggested having the designation would give it some additional protection. He referenced a Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) staff report from May 2009, which catalogued the evaluated wetland features in the watershed and assigned a threat factor based on a number of variables to each wetland asset. He noted that the most threatened wetland feature in the watershed was identified as the Goulbourn wetland complex. He challenged a statement contained in the staff report that the RVCA had recently extended Ontario Regulation 174/06 to include these wetlands both within the Flewellyn special policy area and within the limestone resource area, noting he had spoken with the director of planning for the RVCA who indicated the board had not yet approved that; rather, such a recommendation would come before the board in the following month. He suggested even if the RVCA does applies the regulation to those wetlands there is no guarantee that it will offer any significant protection.

Mr. McRae expressed his support for the Minister’s change listed under Item 1, Document 1, Modification 11. He indicated his support for Modification 24 of the same document as well. With regards to Item 6 of the same document, he noted it was somewhat contradictory, as on the one hand staff are agreeing with the policy, but at the same time want the OP to not recognize three wetlands in a limestone resource area as being provincially significant. He noted that in the PPS classifies Goulbourn as an eco-region 6E, meaning it should be protected as provincially significant wetlands, those wetlands that are not already in a licensed extraction area.

Mr. McRae further suggested the minister’s modifications do not go far enough in protecting wetlands. He noted the City did not have a site alteration bylaw in place to deal with landowners carrying out site alterations in significant wetlands and other significant environmental features. He noted the PPS indicates no development and no site alteration. While the City does not approve any development applications, it does nothing about landowners who carry out site alteration that will destroy that feature and then remove the designation, allowing them to come back with a development application. In conclusion, he urged Committee to recommend to Council that a policy be brought in to address formulating a by-law to deal with site alteration that is not permitted under the PPS.

Brian Finch, President of the Friends of the Jock River, noted that the properties that are mentioned in the ministerial modifications listed under Item 1, Document 1, Modifications 11 and 24, lie within the Jock River Watershed. He expressed that the Friends of the Jock River do not support the staff recommendation that Council not support these modifications.

He explained that the Friends of the Jock River was an active member of the wetlands group struck by the City towards, and noted they had thought initially the formation of the Flewellyn Special Policy area might solve the concern of the Goulbourn Landowners and the other concerned parties while protecting the wetlands. However, upon further inspection of the relationship of the responsibilities imposed on the City by the PPS and the responsibilities imposed by the RVCA by the Conservation Authority Act and by the Regulation 174/06, he expressed the opinion that the expected protections of the wetlands was unacceptably reduced by the proposed OP amendment. As did the previous delegation, he referenced the statement in the staff report that the RVCA has recently extended Ontario Regulation 174/06, and indicated his understanding was that was to come before the board in November or early December 2009. He noted that, notwithstanding the anticipated approval of this extension, concerns remained.

To clarify the responsibilities the City of Ottawa and conservation authorities with regards to wetlands, Mr. Finch provided the following information:

· The provincial acts and regulations indicate that the conservation authorities must protect provincially significant wetlands in a limited way, but the City is required through the PPS to protect all aspects of these wetlands.

· The RVCA operates under the Conservation Authorities Act, which specifically requires the authorities to protect all provincially significant wetland, wetlands greater that two hectares in size, and areas within 30 metres of wetlands less than two hectares in size. He explained that this power relates only to the hydrological character of those wetlands, and does not regulate the vegetation or wildlife except where there are delegated federal responsibilities concerning fish.

· The PPS requires the City to protect provincial significant wetlands without qualification, meaning it must pick up the protection that is not covered with the Conservation Authority.

· The legislative responsibilities for the City and the conservation authority are different and in some aspects overlapping. He expressed the opinion the largest responsibility for wetlands clearly falls more heavily on the City because it is directed by the PPS, which is a very high level piece of legislation.

Mr. Finch suggested the City has been negligent in not enacting by-laws to permit the protection of wetlands in areas where clear cutting can easily be remove the status of wetlands. He proposed the OP protects not only provincially significant wetlands, but also the buffer area containing the lands within 120 metres of the border of the designated wetland. He suggested in the proposed amendment there is no protection for this buffer unless someone applies for development. In summary, he requested that Committee reject the staff recommendation related to the ministerial modifications.

Mr. Finch also wished to propose a solution he felt would be worthwhile. He suggested the OP define the Flewellyn area in OPA 76 and add the following: “That the provincially significant wetlands in the Flewellyn area added by OPA 67 shall be re-evaluated five years after their implementation of the planned Upper Flowing Creek drainage works, and for any lands to be found not to be Provincially significant their provincially significant wetland designation should be removed.” He proposed that this would go a long way in dealing with the five-year review by actually mandating the re-evaluation of those wetlands. He suggested that the subsequent removal of provincially significant wetland status due to clear cutting would prove that the City had not protected wetlands as required by the PPS.

Terry Hale, President of the Goulbourn Landowners Group Inc, spoke in support of staff’s recommendation to oppose the ministerial modification with regards to the Goulbourn Wetlands area, as listed under Item 1, Document 1, Modifications 11 and 24. Mr Hale provided the following information by way of background:

· In June 2006 the City received an engineering report from Robinson Consultants regarding this area, which concluded that there was a failure in the drainage system known as Upper Flowing Creek. Due to that failure, and the subsequent rerouting of the water flow to Flewellyn Road, the surrounding area was flooded.

· In July 2006, Council approved the report of special task force, which included representation the MMAH, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), many environmental groups and landowner groups.

· The task force’s study recommended drainage works be initiated to correct the identified drainage system failure through establishment of a municipal drain in the Upper Flowing Creek area and that would be done under the Provincial Drainage Act. That procedure has been in place for three years and is under way.

· The Council-approved report contained a statement that the original wetland evaluation study done by the City in 2004/05 would be withdrawn. He suggested the reason for this was evidence showing the results of that study were incorrect, noting that evidence had been reviewed at several standing and advisory committee meetings over the past few years.

· Carleton University conducted a detailed investigation in 2008 into this situation, and their report corroborates the engineer’s report that there is a drainage system failure in Flowing Creek and, and which concludes that the wetland designations were wrongfully implied.

In conclusion, Mr. Hale reiterated his support for staff’s recommendation to object to the Minister’s recommendation, and urged Committee to do so as well.

Mike Westley, member of the Goulbourn Landowners Group Inc, noted he had been a resident in the area for 40 years. He suggested that, while people refer to the area as the Goulbourn wetlands, they should refer to it as the Goulbourn “flooded lands.” Mr. Westley provided the following information by way of background:

· In the 1970s there was an unopened road allowance across the road from his property, which could be traversed by car. By 1987 the same trip required a boat. He suggested the reason for this change was the departure of the farmer who had previously been keeping the beavers at bay, resulting in flooding.

· He referenced a 1987 letter to Goulburn Township requesting assistance to get rid of the beavers that blocked water going into an un-maintained ditch in Goulbourn Township. This ditch was turned into a Municipal drain in 1987.

· He suggested everyone in the area is taking advantage of the drainage system to the north, as the water comes down hill, but the people at the top are negligent in providing a proper outlet.

· There is now a request to turn Flowing Creek into a Municipal Drain. After three or four years of investigation, the RVCA hs given the approval to clean this drain out.

· He referenced a 2002 meeting with a City staff member who stated that water that would normally flowed to Poole Creek were deliberately diverted to come down into Flowing Creek because RVCA did not want the silt to go into Poole Creek and damage fish habitat.

· In 2005, additional diversions were made from Flowing Creek again, putting water down Connelly Road.

Mr. Westley noted that one of the areas referenced by a previous delegation, Mr. McRae, was his property. He suggested his property was designated because a biologist identified his tree as wetland trees. He noted the previous year the MNR had indicated none of vegetation on his land was wetland species, nor that of his neighbours. He noted that new development has been allowed in the nearby area by the City of Ottawa. He maintained these properties are not wetlands as proved by MNR, and designations have been removed for a number of landowners.

He reiterated that diverted water from one watershed to another and flooding that property does not make it a wetland, and maintained the flooded properties should not be called wetlands. He asked Committee for their support, and offered to provide further facts, pictures and proof should the Committee require them.

Having completed the public hearing on both reports, the Joint Committee then turned to debate. Councillor Brooks introduced the following motion, with respect to Item 1 (ministerial modifications)

WHEREAS The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing proposes to approve Official Plan Amendment No. 76 with modifications that include the removal of the Council’s adopted policies related to the Flewellyn Special Policy Area, and that designate provincially significant wetlands in place of the Special Policy Area.

AND WHEREAS such a modification is contrary to the City’s undertaking to the landowners within the Flewellyn Special Policy Area and is not supported by the City.

AND WHEREAS The Ward Councillor, representatives of the landowners impacted by the Flewellyn Special Policy Area and City staff have met with representatives of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Ministry of Natural Resources and have agreed to negotiate a mutually acceptable policy for this area but do not wish to delay the Ministry’s approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 76.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Joint Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committeeand Planning and Environment Committee:

1. Direct the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management to report to Council on the outcome of the discussions with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing respecting the Flewellyn Special Policy Area; and

2. Refer to Council the proposed modification to Section 3.2.5 – Flewellyn Special Policy Area and the proposed designation of additional Significant Wetlands on Schedules R15 and R31 in the Goulbourn Wetland Complex.

Councillor Brooks, referencing the comments of the public delegations, noted that this is a very contentious area of the city. He recognized that wetlands everyone recognizes are important to the environment. He noted that the previous day he had chaired a meeting on this issue with the MMAH and his representatives, MNR representatives, City staff and the property owners. From that meeting he sensed that the ministries, the City and residents were prepared examine the situation more closely.

Further to the suggestion of the Chair, Councillor Brooks agreed that he would be amenable to withdrawing his motion and instead moving that recommendation 1c be referred to Council without recommendation. He clarified the intent is to provide an opportunity for the parties to find the common ground. He advised that, on the advice of all parties, including the ministries, the landowners and staff, he would suggest this matter be referred to Council and, in the meantime give those parties concerned an opportunity to find a common ground that would give them the same result.

Moved by Councillor Brooks:

That recommendation 1c be referred to Council without recommendation.

CARRIED

G. Hunter dissented.

With regards to Item 1, Document 1, Modification 6, relating to the policy on designated wetlands and aggregate resources, Councillor El-Chantiry inquired as to what recourse there was for the City or the delegations in opposition. Mr. Marc suggested that, based on his staff’s discussions with the Minister, there appears to be little flexibility from the Province with respect to its change in position that significant wetlands have priority over mineral extraction. He recommended Committee not seek to deviate from the proposed ministerial modifications in this regard, noting it may impact the City’s ability to reach an agreement in other areas where the City’s position deviates from that of the Minister.

Councillor Hunter suggested that significant wetlands seemed to have been elevated beyond where they should be in the hierarchy of society. He noted that wetlands and other natural features change over time and challenged the position that says every wetland should be sacred and every natural feature protected. He noted we would not have the Rideau Canal or Carleton University if this policy had been followed. He noted that a growing society needs buildings, more roads and the material that comes from aggregate. He suggested that preventing extraction of that aggregate because for a short period there is going to be a wetland on top of it will mean running out of aggregate resources. He maintained we need to prioritize and stop sterilizing an important resource for something that is temporary and changing. He noted the people who farm lands in the Goulbourn area have seen many changes, and rather than stopping the clock one has to manage the changes that are taking place and recognize that wetlands and forests will come and go. He concluded that we have to stop attempting to stop time and recognize there is an evolution.

Committee then approved the balance of the Item 1

1. That the Joint Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:

a. Support the modification of Official Plan Amendment No. 76 as detailed in items 1- 10, 12, 14, 16, 17-20, 21a & 21c and 23 in Document 1; and

CARRIED

E. El-Chantiry dissented on

Item 1, Document 1, Modification 6,

b. Support the modification of Official Plan Amendment No. 76 with additional modifications as detailed in items 13, 15, 21b and 22 in Document 1; and

CARRIED

c. Not support proposed modifications 11 and 24 to Official Plan Amendment No. 76 for the reasons outlined in Document 1.

REFERRED TO COUNCIL

2. That the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management advise the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in writing of the Council's decision in regard to the proposed modifications and request that Official Plan Amendment No. 76 be approved accordingly.

CARRIED