09 22 2004 COW Agenda
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA
DATE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22,2004
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
ROBINSON ROOM
************************************************************************************************
1. NOTICE OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE
THEREOF: - "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT"
4. DEPUTATIONS:
None.
5. CORRESPONDENCE:
a) Oro-Medonte History Association, minutes of August 19, 2004 meeting.
b) Oro-Medonte History Association, minutes of September 14, 2004 meeting.
c) Bonnie MacDougall, correspondence dated September 3,2004 re: Carcasses on
Township Roads.
d) Tom Chillman, correspondence dated September 8,2004 re: 971 Line 7 South, Oro
Station, Part Lot 26, Concession 8, Request for Reimbursement of Fees.
e) Ernie Dryden, correspondence dated August 26,2004 to Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing re: Provincial Policy Statement, June 2004.
f) Frederick Frank, correspondence dated September 8, 2004 re: Letter of Appreciation
re: Four Way Stop, Oro Station Intersection.
g) Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority correspondence dated July 28, 2004 and
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority correspondence dated August 20,2004 re:
Re-Investment in Ontario's Conservation Authorities.
h) Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, correspondence dated August 20,2004 re:
Request for Municipal Support re Draft Drinking Water Resource Protection Act.
i) Ann Jorgensen, correspondence dated August 26, 2004 re: Hawkestone Hall Rentals.
6. FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND FIRE:
a) Mayor Neil Craig, re: County Wide Growth Management Study.
7. PUBLIC WORKS:
None.
8. ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES:
None.
9. BUILDING, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT:
a) Planning Advisory Committee, minutes of September 13,2004 meeting.
b) Committee of Adjustment, minutes of September 16, 2004 meeting.
c) Report No. PD 2004-43, Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, re: Removal of Holding
Provision - Heights of Horseshoe Townhomes/ New Millennium Homes Limited,
Concessions 3 & 4, Part of Lots 1 (Medonte), Township of Oro-Medonte.
d) Report No. PD 2004-45, Nick McDonald, re: Modifications to OPA #17.
e) Report No. PO 2004-46, Nick McDonald, re: Modifications to OPA #16.
f) Report No. PD 2004-47, Nick McDonald, re: Modifications to OPA #17 - Water Taking.
10. IN-CAMERA:
a) Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Legal Matter.
b) Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Property Matter.
11. ADJOURNMENT:
2
.
Oro-Medonte History Association
Minutes of August 19, 2004
Attendance: Sheila Kirkland, Jadeen Henderson, Allan Howard, Bruce Wiggins, and
Geoffrey Booth
Agenda approved as circulated.
Minutes of Aug. 1 meeting circulated. MOVED by Bruce, SECONDED by Jadeen that
the minutes be accepted. PASSED.
Business Arising
a Correspondence from Royal Ontario Museum--communication to continue through
the Association, via the Township.
a Parks and Recreation circular proof is ready-members were shown a copy. To be
distributed across the Township in the near future.
a Advertising in Toronto newspapers-rejected, due to time and fiscal restraint.
a Oro Fall Fair-Association will have space with the Car Club.
a Bruce had two plaques made for recent donation. MOVED by Allan, SECONDED
by Jadeen, that the Association incur the cost of the plaques. PASSED
1. African Church
a Through the Association, the Township has acquired an original painting of the Oro
African Church, donated by Jack Holden. MOVED by Allan, SECONDED by
Jadeen, that the piece be suitably preserved and that a plaque be produced, according
appropriate recognition. PASSED.
a When hosting at the site, Members were reminded to keep book sales separate from
donations to the Church.
a Jadeen attended a service in Priceville on Aug. 14, commemorating the black
settlement there. She infonned members that Carolynn Wilson might come to a
future meeting, as a guest speaker.
a Concerns were raised regarding repairs to the chimney, which is leaking into the
building, and the deteriorating condition of exterior walls. The coming winter could
seriously damage the building, if these concerns are not addressed. Association
members also discussed the placement of a garbage can onsite, as well as a flagpole,
to be located near the southwest comer of the site, to fly a Canadian flag. Geoff
would donate a 20-foot flagpole for this purpose. MOVED that the Township cleans
and caps the chimney immediately, and investigates the need for additional repairs to
the building prior to winter; also, that a garbage can be placed on site and that a flag
pole be erected at the southwest corner of the property. MOVED by Jadeen,
SECONDED by Allan. PASSED.
a Ground radar at the site remains a possibility.
Q Jadeen will design a Church pamphlet, to offer at site.
a Postcard examples shown-will investigate using existing pictures.
'..
2. Medonte book
Q A page will be inserted in each copy, informing readers to forward any
correspondence regarding the text to the Association, c/o the Township. Sheila to
draft the content.
3. Gowan Train Station site
Q Sheila was contacted by Councilor Marshall, regarding the former site of the Gowan
train station, located just east of Line 2 north of Ridge Road, alongside the current
hiking path. Members discussed the issue and decided not to become involved in the
issue, as there is nothing remaining of historical value at the site.
4. New Logo
Q Several submissions were presented and discussed. MOVED that the logo designed
and drawn by Jadeen be approved as the new Association logo. MOVED by Geoff,
SECONDED by Allan. PASSED.
5. Heritage Committee Meeting in Midland, October 19, 2004
Q Slide backgrounds to be roughed in by Allan (e.g. new logo, Medonte book cover,
Kith'n Kin cover, African church painting, Rice-Lucas drawing, Whiston drawing,
'plak-it', etc).
Q Sheila and Jadeen will research traveling case options for mobile displays.
6. Kith'n Kin
Q Sheila asked the Association for direction regarding the project. Discussion ensued.
The Association directs the subcommittee to proceed as per Township request, to
reprint the book in its original form, accompanied by subsequent errata and correction
sheets that were added after its publication.
Q Sheila will investigate related costs and report back.
Q Sheila to contact Ellen at the Archives for legal obligations re birth dates, etc.
New Business
Q Sheila handed out a map of the Township and asked Members to consider historically
significant sites for possible inclusion on a tour of sites, for the general public to pick
up at Ontario Tourism information sites.
Q Allan to do a rough draft for the website.
Next meeting September 1, 2004, 7 p.m. at Quigley's.
Oro-Medonte History Association
Minutes, September 14, 2004
Attendance: Sheila Kirkland, Jadeen Henderson, Allan Howard, and Bruce Wiggins.
Regrets: Geoffrey Booth, Ruth Fountain
Allan MOVED that the minutes be accepted as amended. SECONDED by Bruce.
PASSED
Business Arising
1. Oro Fair: Bruce has made up a display case for our books and artifacts. Allan will
look after the display set up and man the booth in the afternoon as Bruce has arranged
for people to be there in the morning. Jadeen will attempt to relieve people
throughout the day on Saturday. Sheila will call Margaret Ayers for three passes.
2. Coldwater Fair: Allan will try and arrange for area to display at this fall fair as well.
3. Heritage meeting in Midland: Sheila will ask Chris Carter to e-mail Allan the picture
and article used in the Parks & Rec. brochure for our power point presentation.
4. ROM visit September 15,2004 is being looked after by Jadeen and Sheila. We are
expecting 44 people at 3: 15 p.m.
5. Ground radar: discussed creating a calendar for next year so sale may assist in paying
for this.
6. Kith'n Kin: a) legal obligations as per Ellen is that it is a very gray area as once
people put birth announcement in the paper or your dates on a gravestone then it is
part of the public domain. Whatever we decide to use as guidelines she suggests we
stick with them and make no exceptions. B) Cost of publishing the book as is with
errata sheets discussed as the fIrst quote is in. Sheila will get two more quotes from
Rose printing in Orillia and Transcontinental in Toronto.
7. Web site design-DEFERRED.
8. Historical map of Oro-Medonte-DEFERRED.
9. African Church pamphlet-Jadeen will continue to work on this project. Discussed
possible fall dates to open the site and decided that we will only be opening for pre-
booked tours for now and reassess in the spring.
10. Report on Saturday visit to inspect the outside of the African church discussed,
New Business
1. Motion 1 and Motion 2 (as attached) discussed amended and PASSED.
2. Possible dates to photograph the tank range on the 12th Conc.-DEFERRED.
3. Jadeen will generate a report on the summer activities at the African church.
4. Jadeen attended the Collingwood Black museum to listen to three guest speakers
about newly published books on black history.
5. Allan received e-mail and address from a descendant and will follow-up for pictures,
etc.
6. Jadeen spoke to Ms. Thompson-Kort (descendant of James Thompson), about
pictures and genealogies. She had previously phoned and spoke to Sheila at great
length as well.
7. Council to be asked about visiting the Collingwood museum for possible dates this
fall.
8. Letter :ITom Mr. Fleming about the service at the African church read and will be
attached to minutes.
9. Letter :ITom a Mr.Norrena was read to the group and my response. Attached to the
minutes.
10. Bruce will get small donation plaques made up for Loreens' picture and the church
pew donated :ITom Waverley United Church and he will submit the expense with the
previous plaque purchases.
11. Post card information on costs given to Jadeen :ITom Sheila.
Committee wishes to congratulate Dave and Sheila Kirkland on their 25th Wedding
Anniversary.
Next meeting October 14th at 7 p.m. at Quigley's.
Meeting Adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
4
Motion 1
Moved by: Bruce
Seconded by: Allan
That a letter of thanks be sent from the Township to
Q Mr. J. Holden for the original Childs painting of the Oro African
Church done in 1948.
o Rev. Nina Fulford and the Waverley United Church
congregation for the early 1900's church pew.
Q Loreen Rice-Lucas for her prints ofOro Township sites.
Q Rita Whiston for her prints ofMedonte Township.
o Walter Shelswell for Indian stone skinning knife and a corn
cutter.
PASSED
Motion 2
Moved by: Allan
Seconded by: Bruce
That the Township staff on behalf of the Oro-Medonte History
Association have someone with historical building experience
carefully remove the half round from the bottom row nearest the
foundation for the purpose of assessing the original logs and
foundation and further that they report their observations and
recommendations to us and Council.
PASSED
From: Bonnie MacD. [mailto:bonmacd@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 1:21 PM
To: Marilyn pennycook
Cc: John Crawford
Subject: Road Kill
Letter to Mayor Neil Craig and Members of Council
The death of another poor creature on our roads prompts me to write about what might seem like a trivial matter.
This time it is a raccoon, whose body is about 300 feet south of your administration offices. It was there on
Monday, August 31. It was still there at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday (in a somewhat altered/splattered state). And it
will probably remain there until the elements reduce it to a mere grease spot on the pavement.
This happens repeatedly on the busier roads in the township and it surely leaves a bad impression of our beautiful
township.
Apart from the aesthetics, there are safety issues to consider. Children, people walking dogs, and stray animals
may disturb the carcass, so spread of disease is a factor of concern. Also, many drivers swerve to avoid hitting
the dead animal. Should this result in an accident, would the township be liable?
While disposing of road kill is not a pleasant task, it takes only a few minutes to bury it in the shoulder of the road
or to take it to a landfill site. In 34 years with the county roads department my husband disposed of hundreds of
small carcasses, from moose right down to turtles, even when he was a supervisor. He has even tossed a few off
the 7th when he got tired of veering around them.
If Oro-Medonte does not have a policy regarding disposal of road kill (or perhaps there is a ruling in the provincial
books?) I hope you will consider drafting one up. I'm sure many residents will appreciate it - I know I will!
I look forward to your response on this matter.
Yours truly,
Bonnie MacDougall
12 Lakeshore Road East
9/3/2004
Township of oro-Medonte
The pines
971 ne 7S, R.R.#l
Oro Station, ont
LOL 2EO
september 8, 2004
To
It
Concern:
In an attempt to put up a laroe workshop (30 X 40) on my property,
I was instructed by the planner to apply for a minor variance, as I was
advised 1 am near full capacity for outbuildings.
1 d so paid Township of oro-Medonte the $500. fee, plus
$100. for a septic inspection??? Then on April 23rd 1 attended a meeting
to see if the minor variance would be approved or not. And of course the
application was denied.
I then spoke with Adrian Lee and she advised to apply to change my
propery to full commercial, (1 thought I was already commerical, as I have
been paying commercial taxes for over ten years!) that this would make it
easier to get approval to build the shop I wanted. so, On June 14th 1 issued
a cheque in the amount of $2450. payable to the Township of oro-Medonte to
do this.
There a meeting in August (sometime),
therefore not attend. I was only aware
was to be held on september 13th.
In conversation the followin~ week I spoke to a past council member
advised me to back off, that lf I was full commercial it would give
me more headaches that I need. Also, if I want s route I d have a
problem if I ever decided to sell my property that it would have to sell as
a fi hut on only, no business d be allowed.
ch I was not informed,
a scheduled meeting that
I have decided not to continue on this
way it is, and am applying to
and leave my property
rse me the $3000.00.
Yours
Tom llman
1
26,2004
Municipal Affairs and Housing
Provincial Planning and Environmental Services Branch
777 Street
M5G 2E5
Madam/Sir
1 read the Provincial Policy Statement: Draft Policies dated June 2004.
It is encouraging to read the document which should help the planning process in
Ontario.
said this it is still very discouraging to see the policy statement with regard to
Aggregates is basically unchanged.
It is unfortunate that natural features such as the Oro Moraine are unprotected by
need for "cheap" aggregates. There are other alternatives to this source which should be
used. I have attached a letter dated June 20/03 I sent to our M.P.P. Garfield
Unfortunately this matter was put on hold because of the general election in October/03.
Sincerely,
67 Cathedral Pines
R.R. #1 Barrie,Ont. L4M 4Y8
705-835-6497
copy to Garfieid Dunlop
Oro Council
County Council
2003
M.P.P.
Re:- Ground Water Protection & the Oro Moraine
As yon know the Oro-Medonte Council has created a review process to help them
to protect Oro Moraine's natural features & its function as a
groundwater recharge/discharge area.
Stake holders were brought together to recognize the needs of the residents of the
municipality, the mineral aggregate industry, developers & conservation
authorities.
This has been a difficult task and the Council desires a great deal of credit for
many months of discussions and public meetings a draft plan is now before
its consideration.
Based on my experience as a participant in this review process I would like to
express my personal opinion and recommendations to you and your Government as
1. issue of protecting water sources, such as the Oro Moraine, is one which
neither the Municipality nor the County of Simcoe can resolve on their own.
It will take the leadership and legislative power of the Ontario Government.
For example - The Provincial Policy Statement (P.P.S 1997) states that
mineral aggregates as close to market as possible (or should we say cheap
gravel) and ground/surface water must be protected. The P.P.S is not clear
however, on what happens when the two are in conflict in an area such as a
moraine
Council enacts policies to protect the water related functions of the Oro
Moraine it will most likely bring down the wrath of the aggregate industry.
will probably take the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) for a
decision.
I believe this matter is too important to be left in the hands of a quasi-judicial
process such as the O.M.B.
the Planning Act only requires that "
regard to (its) policy statements" the Provincial Policy is
seriously the planning process & should therefore be dear & concise.
P.P.S. been under review since 2001, but the Ontario Government
appears reluctant to make much needed revisions.
2.Mr. Justice O'Connor in Part Two of the Walkerton Inquiry states
is no when it comes to water resources, sustainability must a
cornerstone of public health." His report is quite dear "that source
protection planning must be carried out on an ecologically meaningful scale -
that is, at the watershed level."
Premier Eves said earlier this year his Government would provide legislation
this Spring to encompass watershed planning. To my knowledge has not
happened.
As know all of 01'0 Medonte Township and about 90'% Simcoe
depend on groundwater for their potable water. I know you have serious
concerns for this matter. The 01'0 Moraine Symposium (March 29, 2001)
you sponsored provided a great forum for public education and input. We
also greatly appreciate the funding from the Ontario Government for the
very valuable ground water research done by the South Simcoe Ground
Water Study.
Your Goverhment's Operation Clean Water action plan was a necessary
to improve water quality & delivery in the Province.
I would request, Garfield, that you bring before Premier Eves & your
Government the matter of the need for a revised Provincial Policy Statement
and for legislation to encompass Justice O'Connor's Part Two Report to
protect the Watershed.
Keep up your good work.
Sincerely,
67 Cathedral Pines
1 Barrie, Onto 4Y8
Copies to 01'0 Medonte Council
Simcoe County Council
Nick McDonald
Ministry of
Municipal Affairs
and Housing
Office of the Deputy Minister
777 Bay Street
Toronto ON M5G 2E5
(416) 585-7100
Ministere des
Affaires municipales
et au logement
Bureau du Sous-ministre
777 rue Bay
Toronto ON M5G 2E5
(416) 585-7100
September 15, 2003
Mr. Ernie Dryden
Barrie ON LAM 4Y8
Mr. Dryden:
Mr. Garfield Dunlop has forwarded to the Honourable David Young, Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing, for response your letter of June 20,2003, regarding the Oro Moraine,
Provincial Policy Statement and the protection of the province's water resources.
As you know, the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario has issued a Writ calling for a general election
in Ontario on October 2, 4003, and candidates for election to the Legislature of Ontario are
presently engaged in the process of seeking the support of the electors.
In keeping with customary practice in the Ontario Public Service, and to ensure the neutrality
the public service, only matters of routine government activity will be carried out during the
election period.
We do recognize that the matters raised in your correspondence are important to you and merit
consideration by government. We would therefore suggest that you raise these matters again
once the post-election Cabinet has been sworn in.
Thank you for your understanding, and for your support of a practice that aims to ensure that
integrity of democratic process is paramount.
Yours
Michael Fenn
Minister
c: Mr. Garfield Dunlop
~
.,----.,-----------
TQo\A ,~t=:1t;cl 'fit~t0k
J+. \~-~~ P/L..- ~Qw~t>
10 ~ TOtDlJ-of oto -~A~o~rE-J
\\I:w~ i OLl .~ M~ ",L * R14~ ~f:4~ ~~
~1 Co~Qt=ri.:.J ~ r-iIt- ~ ~~ \'0W)6Eqro'V
to I Jil' 4r tcx>C/ l~iLi ~~ L ~ R~ ~J.t'tBJr~
~ Dh~ f2-t.GJf~ ~~ rr~ 10 r~
~41s'a.........l.O ,i-EM? Ie kl4--.0i ~ b~r-: M~
OCG{~tW .Ii':> Tik ~ OU~ ]'0 T\tt:; 3- ~
5fO? (0rJ~. Ti% IJOt.'\4- BQL/rvD ~i: ~
T~ ~t ~~ let -f1~ 4-f LQ "1l~i~.
~ 'I~~ 4J ;LL liJ<9ILiL 1OA. EWt~ 0IvB'
RECEIVED
I
SEP 8 :'O~4
ORO-MEtjONT
TOWNSHiP
,.._".....i""~;r:-_.-_~.~~.<
.
el: 905.895.1281
1.800.465.0437
ax: 905.853.5881
~Mail: info@1srca.on.ca
Veb: www.1srca.on.ca
.20 Bayview Parkway
lox 282
~ewmarket, Ontario
,3Y 4X1
Leaders In
Watershed
~
July 28,2004
Ms. Marilyn Pennycook
Clerk
Township of Oro-Medonte
Box 100
Oro, ON LOL 2XO
RECEIVED
AUG J 7004
ORO-MEDONTE
TOWNSHIP
Dear Ms. Pennycook:
Re: Re-Investment in Ontario's Conservation Authorities
On Friday, July 23rd, 2004, the Authority's Board of Directors, at their Meeting No. BOD-
07-04 held at the Regional Municipality of York Administration Offices, passed the
following resolution:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
P. Brown
P.Marshall
BOD-04-156:
RESOLVED THAT WHEREAS the Conservation Authorities Act
is recognized as a provincial and municipal partnership since
1946;
AND WHEREAS THE Conservation Authorities have provincially
delegated responsibilities for the implementation of flood and
erosion control programs for the protection of life and property
in Ontario;
AND WHEREAS the Province has previously committed to
paying 50% of flood and erosion control programs and other
related eligible programs as defined in the 1997 Policy and
Procedures Manual, but has not met that funding commitment;
AND WHEREAS the Province of Ontario, when establishing new
policies and procedures in 1997 to define the level of funding
to support its partnership with Conservation Authorities,
omitted: (1) Municipal Plan Review, (2) the implementation of
the Conservation Authority Act Section 28 Regulation, and (3)
Shoreline Management as eligible activities for funding
assistance by the Province;
AND WHEREAS predictable, stable funding (adjusted for
inflation) is critical to successful program delivery;
.../2
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Reinvestment in Conservation Authorities
July 28, 2004
Page 2 of 2
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority endorse the report entitled
"Submission to the Minister of Natural Resources: Re-
Investment in Ontario's Conservation Authorities - Now and In
the Future" which requests: (1) a re-investment in the
Conservation Authorities by the Province of Ontario based on
definitions within the 1997 Policy and Procedures Manual for
Conservation Authorities; (2) are-investment offunds for items
deemed of provincial interest currently excluded from transfer
payment funding; and (3) implementation of annual Consumer
Price Index adjustments retroactive to 2002; and
FURTHER THAT the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority seek endorsement of this report from its member
municipalities.
Attached is a copy of Staff Report No. 39-04-BOD as well as a copy of a letter dated July
15, 2004, addressed to The Honourable David Ramsay, Minister of Natural Resources,
from Mr. Peter Krause, Chair, Conservation Ontario, regarding this issue.
On behalf of the Authority's Board of Directors, I am respectfully requesting that this
information be shared with your Council Members at their first meeting in September or
as soon a possible thereafter and, if approved, that a letter of support be provided to the
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Yours truly,
~-
D. Gayle Wood, CMM III
Chief Administrative Officer/
Secretary- T reasu rer
/glc
Attach.
c: D. Hunter, General Manager, Conservation Ontario
R. Powell, CAO, Central Lake Ontario CA
R. Horst, CAO, Credit Valley C.A.
I. Macnab, CAO, Kawartha Region C.A.
W. Wilson, CAO, Nottawasaga Region CA
B. Denney, CAO, Toronto & Region C.A.
Conservation
ONTARIO
NaturaJ,'Champi()rIS
RECEIVED BY LS.R.C.A.I
IMS# I
DATE' J 'U' ; ",f !,. "r;.o'4
'I.. L f.i ZuU
C A 0 IS"C -Tf)":;~;:-" i ,.
. .. t:... ~ 1; :.;.....:."; '"Vii: ~'i =
CHAIR .___~I~
~Dm. Wr.\FYi.~',Hc.;,} "",hF/.i ! '
. --__.........,a._,......._.""'-..__".,.;....
OFi ro.,r.1(;"':rr cp' I
t_~~=~:.llV.
i"n;.~..~,!\P.~"l'"r I - l
f ,'>' ".'.....".,.1 .\d:1,;1 ,
:; - ,', ....-...-......-....---
j" ...'I;..".""'-~IT.'-..-. I -=1
t ;.' ,. '. :.J" ,;., ,~Jj"n'lb,; ~fJ,:.> 0tH'J.
t f3D~:.,;"~[1 ~. j
I
July 15,2004
The Honourable David Ramsay
Minister of Natural Resources
6th Floor, Room 6630 Whitney Block
99 Wellesley St. W.
Toronto, ON
M7 A 1 W3
.~-.....,...-.., ","-.,--~- -,- -~.
--C_..r' ~...
Dear Minister Ramsay,
Since 1992, Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities have seen transfer payments from the
Province cut by 87 percent. The total transfer payment in that year was almost $59
million. Since 2000, the transfer payment available to Conservation Authorities is
approximately $7.6 million per year. There has not been a provincial review of transfer
payments since 1996.
In October 2003, as a result of concerns expressed by Conservation Authorities and their
member municipalities, Conservation Ontario struck a committee to perfonn an in-depth
examination of the status of provincial transfer payments.
Provincial transfer payment funding now accounts for only 5% of the average
Conservation Authority budget. In order to deliver provincially mandated programs such
as floodplain management, flood forecasting and warning, and erosion control, to name
but a few, Conservation Authorities have had to secure additional municipal support as
well as increase the level of self-generated revenues. Self-generated revenues now
represent a substantial source (on average 47%) of revenue to support these programs.
But this support is market-driven and has largely been maximized.
...2
P.O. Box II, 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket Ontario L3Y 4W3
Tel: (905) 895.0716 Fax: (905) 895-0751 Email: infola\conservation-ontario.on.ca
\ti').1.'W. cons'ervalion-ontario. on. ca
Page 2
This Conservation Ontario review, now completed, is entitled "Submission to the
Minister of Natural Resources: Re-Investment in Ontario's Conservation Authorities -
Now and In the Future ". It requests:
1. Fair, equitable and sustainable funding for basic operational activities defined
in the 1997 Policy and Procedures Manual for Conservation Authorities to be
eligible for provincial transfer payment;
J
2. A re-instatement of funding to some activities that were specifically excluded
in 1997 and;
3. An annual Consumer Price Index adjustment to funding.
We realize that your Ministry is currently dealing with the allocations for 2004 and all
Conservation Authorities look forward to receiving that funding in the near future. I
want to make it clear that the attached submission focuses on adjustments that are
required for 2005. We realize that the provincial budget approval process is a lengthy one
and therefore we want to give you considerable lead time to deal with our request.
Conservation Authorities are committed to watershed management, which includes
management of natural hazards. A re-investment in the Conservation Authorities will
enhance their capacity to deliver existing programs and, through the reapplication of
other sources of revenue, allow them to further' advance the protection of our natural
environment and healthy watershed communities. A re-investment in Conservation
Authorities will also strengthen the Ministry leadership in the continued development of
leading edge watershed management efforts in Ontario.
Conservation Ontario respectfully submits our report for your review. We thank you in
advance for your attention to this matter and look forward to meeting shortly to discuss
how we may, together, move forward on this matter.
Yours truly,
Jl;L
Peter Krause
Chair
c.c. Gayle Beggs, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Natural Resources
David deLaunay, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Ministry of Natural Resources
Rob Messervey, Acting Director, Lands and Waters Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources
Leslie Demal, Acting Manager, Waters Section, Ministry of Natural Resources
CAO/General Manager, All Conservation Authorities
P.O, Box 11, 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket Ontario L3Y 4W3
Tel: (905) 895-0716 Fax: (905) 895-0751 Email: infolaJ.conservation-ontario.on.ca
)'1.').1/101'. COflS'(JrValion-ontario. On. ca
Staff Report No.
Page No.
File No.
Agenda Item No.
39-04-BOD
1 of 3
13 BOD-07-04
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
DATE:
D. Gayle Wood, CMM III
Chief Administrative Officer/
Secretary-Treasurer
SUBJECT:
July 12, 2004
Re-Investment in Ontario's Conservation
Authorities
RECOMMENDATION:
WHEREAS the Conservation Authorities Act is recognized
as a provincial and municipal partnership since 1946;
AND WHEREAS THE Conservation Authorities have
provincially delegated responsibilities for the
implementation of flood and erosion control programs for
the protection of life and property in Ontario;
AND WHEREAS the Province has previously committed to
paying 50% of flood and erosion control programs and
other related eligible programs as defined in the 1997
Policy and Procedures Manual, but has not met that
funding commitment;
AND WHEREAS the Province of Ontario, when
establishing new policies and procedures in 1997 to
define the level of funding to support its partnership with
Conservation Authorities, omitted: (1) Municipal Plan
Review, (2) the implementation of the Conservation
Authority Act Section 28 Regulation, and (3) Shoreline
Management as eligible activities for funding assistance
by the Province;
AND WHEREAS predictable, stable funding (adjusted for
inflation) is critical to successful program delivery;
90
Staff Report No.
Page No.
File No.
Agenda Item No.
39-04-BOD
20f3
13 BOD.()7.()4
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Lake Simcoe
Region Conservation Authority endorse the report entitled
"Submission to the Minister of Natural Resources: Re-
Investment in Ontario's Conservation Authorities - Now
and In the Future" which requests: (1) a re-investment in
the Conservation Authorities by the Province of Ontario
based on definitions within the 1997 Policy and
Procedures Manual for Conservation Authorities; (2) a re-
investment of funds for items deemed of provincial
interest currently excluded from transfer payment funding;
and (3) implementation of annual Consumer Price Index
adjustments retroactive to 2002;
AND FURTHER THAT the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority seek endorsement of this report
from its member municipalities prior to September 2004;
Purpose of the Staff Report:
The purpose of this Staff Report is to seek the Board's approval of a document entitled
liRe-Investment in Ontario's Conservation Authorities - Now and In the Future".
Background:
Conservation Authorities were created in 1946 under The Conservation Authorities Act as
a provincial municipal partnership.
Historically, municipal and Provincial governments supported Conservation Authorities by
sharing the costs of the program. In 1992, the total transfer payment to the CA's was
$58,900.00. Today the provincial share is around $7,600.00.
Conservation Ontario struck a Committee to review this situation and they have developed
the attached report entitled Re-Investment in Ontario's Conservation Authorities. Sandra
Hanson, Director, Corporate Services and Land Management sat on this Committee.
Staff Report No.
Page No.
File No.
Agenda Item No.
39-04-BOD
3 of 3
13 800-07-04
Issues:
It is vital that the province re-invest in Conservation Authorities if we are to have a
accountable and responsible program.
Impact On Authority Finances:
Re-'investment in the Authority's program will ensure that municipal support is augmented
by provincial funding support.
Summary and Recommendations:
It is recommended that Staff Report No. 39-04-BOD be received and approved and
distributed to watershed municipalities for support and approval.
Recommended by:
O. Gayle Wood, CM 1\1
Chief Administrative Officer/
Secretary-Treasurer
Attachment:
1. Re-Investment Report
92
Submission to the Minister of Natural Resources
Re-Investment in Ontario's Conservation Authorities
- Now and In the Future-
~
Conservation
ONTARIO
Nawr.. Ctl.lmjAlI".
June 2004
93
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Conservation Ontario is a non-governmental organization that represents the common
interests of the network of 36 Conservation Authorities across Ontario. The Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources is the lead Ministry for the Conservation Authorities Act
under which the Conservation Authorities operate. This report has been prepared by
Conservation Ontario to address a serious funding issue that affects all Conservation
Authorities and the safety of the residents of Ontario. This report deals only with transfer
payments from the Ministry of Natural Resources and does not address current or future
funding relationships with other Ministries or other initiatives.
Historically, municipal and provincial governments supported Conservation Authorities
by sharing the costs of the program. In 1992, the total transfer payment to the
Conservation Authorities from the Ministry of Natural Resources was $58,900,000.
Today, the provincial share has been drastically reduced. In total, sources of revenue for
the 36 Conservation Authorities are: provincial (11 %), municipal (40%), self-generated
(47%) and federal (2%): At issue, and the subject of this report, is the total transfer
payment available to Conservation Authorities administered by the Ministry of Natural
Resources which currently totals $7,600,000.
This report fonnally requests that the Ministry of Natural Resources provide:
1. Fair, equitable and sustainable funding for those basic operational actIvItles
defined to be eligible for provincial transfer payment in accordance with its own
policies;
. 2. A re-instatement of funding to some activities that were specifically excluded in
1997; and
3. An annual Consumer Price Index adjustment to funding.
There is a significant shortfall in funding to Conservation Authorities by the Ministry of
Natural Resources particularly as it relates to items' deemed of provincial interest, and
eligible for provincial funding, as outlined in the 1997 Policy and Procedures Manual for
Conservation Authorities. Based on the 2002 audited [mancial statements of the 36
Conservation Authorities, the total expenditure for items eligible for 50% funding was
$33,445,000. Based on the definition of eligibility this should have translated into a
funding of $16,722,000. However, as only $7,600,000 had been allocated, there was a
provincial shortfall of $9,122,000. .
The 1997 Policy and Procedures Manual specifically exclude three activities that had
previously been funded, defining them as being of "no provincial interest." These are:
Municipal Plan Review; Conservation Authority Act Section 28 Regulation; and
Shoreline Management. Conservation Ontario believes these activities are of provincial
interest as they are integral to a successful program of flood and erosion control both
inland and on the Great Lakes shoreline. F or this reason, there is an obligation on the
94
part of the Ministry of Natural Resources to financially support the'se functions, as a
minimum, at the same rate as other items of provincial interest. The total expenditure by
Conservation Authorities in 2002 on these programs that have provincial delegation of
responsibility was $7,493,000. The total cost to the Ministry of Natural Resources in
2002 dollars should have been $3,746,000.
Sustainable funding is critical to successful program delivery. Key concerns of the
Conservation Authorities are rising overhead costs and inflation, which are eroding the
value of unchanged funds currently provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources. To
address these concerns, an annual cost of living adjustment should be applied to transfer
payments to the Conservation Authorities. It is recommended that the commonly used
Consumer Price Index from Statistics Canada be the instrument for detennining this
adjustment.
The total estimated 2005 cost to the Ministry of Natural Resources using 2002 as a base
year and applying the Consumer Price Index retroactive to 2002 is estimated at
$21,421,000 (+ CPI Adjustment for 2005). This will increase the total transfer payment
to Conservation Authorities in 2005 by $13 ,821,000 (+ CPI Adjustment for 2005). The
total cost includes items eligible for 50% funding under the 1997 Policy and Procedures
Manual as well as items of provincial interest that were previously excluded from
provincial funding.
Conservation Authorities are committed to watershed management and to their long
standing relationship with the Ministry of Natural Resources in natural hazards
management. A re-investment in the Conservation Authorities will strengthen the
Ministry partnership in the continued development of leading edge watershed
management in Ontario. Such a re-investment will also enable Conservation Authorities
to enhance their capacity to deliver existing programs and through the reapplication of
other sources of revenue, further advance the protection of our natural environment and
the health of our watershed communities.
95
Table of Contents
List of Figures................................. ..... ..........,.. ............. ........................... ...... ......... ........... ii
List of Tables ............................... ........ ........... ................ ........ .................. ....... ........ ........... ii
1.0 Introduction............... ..................... ....... ...... ........................... ..... ......... ....... .................. 1
1.1 The Issue.. ........... ............... ............ .............................. ............... .............. ........ 2
2.0 Fair, Equitable, and Sustainable Funding for Operational Activities Eligible for
Provincial Transfer Payment. .......... ............. .... ..... ...... ....... ...... ..... ..,... ...... .................... 4
2.1 Policy and Procedures Manual (1997) Exclusions from This Review.............. 4
2.2 Operational Activities Eligible for Provincial Transfer Payment..................... 5
2.3 Summary............................. ...... ......... ..................... ....... ......... ......... ................. 8
3.0 Re-investment of Funding to Items Currently Excluded from Provincial Transfer
Payment......................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Municipal Plan Review (Natural Hazards) ....................................................... 8
3.2 Section 28 Regulation....................................................................................... 9
3.3. Shoreline Management............................................................................ ...... 10
3 .4 Summary..... .............................. ...................................................................... 10
4.0 Annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) Adjustments to Funding .................................. 11
5.0 Conclusion ........ .... ;.................. ........................... ......... ..................... ........... ...... ......... 12
References......................................................................................................................... 14
Appendix 1 Chapter 3 - Policy and Procedures for Conservation Authorities: Policy and
Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Provincial Grant Funding to
Conservation Authorities. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..15±
Appendix 2 Chapter 4 - Policy and Procedures for Conservation Authorities: Business
Plan For Determining Provincial Grant Funding to Conservation
Authorities. . . . . . ................................................... .........................................27
Appendix 3 Letter from the Minister of Natural Resources (dated April 1995) ...... .....37
96
List of Fie:ures
Figure 1. 2002 Conservation Authority Expenditures ....................................................... 2
Figure 2. 2002 Conservation Authority Revenues............................................................. 3
Figure 3. 2002 Cost Sharing for Operational Activities Eligible for 50% Funding .......... 7
List of Tables
Table 1. Assessment of Provincial Shortfall for Operational Activities Eligible for
Provincial Transfer Payment...... ...... .... .......... ................. '," ....... ......... ..... .............6
Table 2. Assessment ofProvin"cial Shortfall for Items of Provincial Interest Currently
Excluded from Provincial Transfer Payment..................................................... 11'
Table 3. Annual Consumer Price Index Adjustments to Funding and Funding Shortfalls
. .... .. .... . ............ . . ...... .. ........ ..... .. ..... .. ..... ..... .... . ............ .. ... .. .. .. .. . . .. ..... ........ . ....... ... 12
Table 4. Proposed Total Re-Investment to Ontario Conservation Authorities in 2005... 13
11
97
1.0 Introduction
Conservation Ontario is a non-governmental organization that represents the common
interests of the network of 36 Conservation Authorities across Ontario. This report has
been prepared by Conservation Ontario to address a serious funding issue that affects all
Conservation Authorities and the safety of the residents of Ontario.
The Conservation Authorities, established by provincial legislation in 1946, are
community-based resource management organizations working on a watershed basis.
Almost 90% of Ontario's population (approximately 10.5 million people in over 250
municipalities) is located within a Conservation Authority's jurisdiction. These
populated areas are where resource conflicts and degradation are greatest and where
provincial investment is needed most.
Conservation Authorities deliver community-based, practical solutions on a wide range
of natural resource issues (e.g. flooding, erosion, drought, wetland conservation, source
protection, natural heritage protection). Conservation Authorities are also recognized
globally for their watershed stewardship activities through the development and delivery
of comprehensive science-based programs that work with nature arid landowners to
protect, restore and effectively manage Ontario's water and land resources.
Conservation Authorities have a strong and publicly recognized track record of
partnering with all levels of government, providing advice on decisions that directly
affect the long term sustain ability of our water and land resources. Their greatest 'on the
ground' achievements have been realized through their working relationships at the
provincial and municipal levels.
Figure 1 presents the distribution of Conservation Authority expenditures in 2002. The
majority (87%) of expenditures were for water and land management programs. Water
management programs include watershed planning and management; environmental land
use planning; flood and erosion control; water quality and quantity management;
agriculture and rural landowner assistance; and protection of sensitive wetlands,
floodplains and valley lands. Land management programs include; reforestation and
sustainable woodlot management; habitat protection and restoration; environmental
education; outdoor recreation; and infonnation management.
1
98
Figure 1. 2002 Conservation Authoritv Expenditures
Water
Management
39%
Water Management - includes watershed
planning and management; environmental land
use planning; flood and erosion control; water
quality and quantity management; agriculture
and rural landowner assistance; and protection
of sensitive wetlands, floodplains and valley
lands.
Communication
Administration 2%
12%
Land
Management
47%
Land Management - includes reforestation
and sustainable woodlot management; habitat
protection and restoration; environmental
education; outdoor recreation; and information
management
Note: Based on total expenditures of $ 147,000,000 (as per 2002 audited financial statements) of Ontario's 36 CAs.
1.1 The Issue
Conservation Authorities achieve their goals through partnerships. Historically,
municipal and provincial governments supported Conservation Authorities by sharing the
costs of the program. Every dollar invested by municipalities was matched by the
province to ensure a fair and equitable sharing of the cost to deliver services that
benefited the greater public good. In 'total, the provincial share has been drastically
reduced. The current cost sharing is illustrated in Figure 2. In total, sources of revenue
for the 36 Conservation Authorities are: provincial (11%), municipal (40%), self-
generated (47%) and federal (2%). In addition, provincial supplementary grants (i.e.
equalization payments), which were once made available to Conservation Authorities
where the local property tax was insufficient to support the full municipal share, were
withdrawn, making the financial hardship that much greater in rural, less populated areas.
It should be noted that Provincial funding is received through transfer payments from the
Province of Ontario, administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources (under Section
39 of the Conservation Authorities Act) as well as "special project" funding from various
provincial ministries, such as the Ministry of the Environment, for special projects (e.g.
Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network, Provincial Water Quality Monitoring
Network, Low Water Response etc.). This report deals only with transfer payments
administered through the Ministry of Natural Resources and does not address current or
future funding relationships under source protection planning or other initiatives.
2
99
Fie:ure 2. 2002 Conservation Authority Revenues
Special Projects
Municipal
8%
Federal
2%
Levy
Municipal
32%
Generated
Self
47%
Transfer
Payment
Provincial
5%
Note: Based on total revenues of$149,000,000 (as per 2002 audited financial statements) of Ontario's 36 CAs.
Special Projects
Provincial
6%
The Ministry of Natural Resources is the lead ministry for the Conservation Authorities
Act under which the Conservation Authorities operate. The Conservation Authorities
have seen transfer payments administered through the Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources cut by 87% since 1992 when $58,900,000 was transferred. The most
significant withdrawal of funding occurred in 1995.
It should be noted that the requirement for increased municipal support, as a result of
reduced provincial funding, occurred without municipal consultation. The loss of this
provincial support has resulted in increases to municipal contributions. For example, in
the Lower Trent Conservation Authority, the provincial transfer payment in 1991 was
62% of the Conservation Authority's budget and in 2003 it was 11 %. In Maitland Valley
Conservation Authority, the provincial transfer payment in 1993 was 59% of the
Conservation Authority's budget and in 2003,it was 4%. These examples are not
isolated; similar funding shifts can be seen in all Conservation Authorities. As illustrated
in Figure 2, in 2002 self-generated revenues represented a substantial source of revenue.
It must be noted that self-generated revenues are market-driven and have been
maximized.
In 1997, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources approved the new Policy and
Procedures Manual for Conservation Authorities. This document not only defines those
programs which are considered to be of provincial interest but also defmes the amount of
funding that the province is committed to providing to the Conservation Authorities.
This document has not been revisited nor updated since 1997.
'.
Since 1995, Conservation Authorities have restructured, re-organized and re-focused
their policies and programs to reflect these major cuts in provincial funding. This has
been accomplished under the auspices of the provincial policy and procedures as well as
under the direction of their Boards of Directors (comprised of local municipal
representatives).
3
100
Over the last few years, the municipalities have requested, thIough their local
Conservation Authorities and Conservation Ontario, that the Province of Ontario and
more specifically, the Ministry of Natural Resources provide:
1. Fair, equitable and sustainable funding for those basic operational activities
defined to be eligible for provincial transfer payment in accordance with its own
policies;
2. A re-instatement of funding to some activities that were specifically excluded in
1997; and
3. An annual Consumer Price Index adjustment to funding.
Although it has been determined that the reinstatement of a provincial equalization
payment to those Conservation Authorities that lack a strong local property tax base is
beyond the scope of this report, it must be noted that this issue also needs to be re-
examined by the Ministry.
2.0 Fair. EQuitable, and Sustainable Fundin2 for Operational Activities Eli2ible for
Provincial Transfer Pavment
Chapter 3 of the Policy and Procedures Manual (PPM) (Appendix 1) forms the basis for
the discussion on fair funding to Conservation Authorities for eligible activities.
It is not the objective of this paper to fe-define the items eligible for provincial transfer
payments except in those instances where it is the position of Conservation Ontario that
present definitions exclude items of provincial interest. These are covered in Section 3.0
of this report.
2.1 Policv and Procedures Manual (1997) Exclusions from This Review
This review excludes capital for major maintenance of existing flood and erosion control
infrastructure. The role of the Province of Ontario in providing funding assistance to
municipalities with respect to the capital construction of flood and erosion control
projects was eliminated with the application of the PPM in 1997. Once again it must be
emphasized that removal of provincial support was done unilaterally by the Province and
without municipal .consultation. The province did however, recognize its on-going
responsibility for the regular maintenance and operation of those projects funded by the
province in the past. The major maintenance of these same structures is the subject of a
separate initiative of Conservation Ontario, working with the Ministry of Natural
Resources, through the Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure Working Group.
The overall shortfall excludes costs associated with the upgrading of hazard mapping
required in support of the Section 28 Regulation under the Conservation Authorities Act.
4
101
This mapping is critical in providing advice for the application of Section 3.1 of the
provincial policy statement under the Planning Act. Decisions, reliant on the accuracy of
this mapping, protect life, reduce property damage and minimize disaster and emergency
response costs. It also promotes safe, economic, and timely development. Much of the
current hazard mapping is 15 or more years old and was financed through MNR and in
later years through the Flood Damage Reduction Program (FDRP). Conservation Ontario
will be addressing the cost of updating this mapping and the associated modeling
separately with the Ministry.
2.2 Operational Activities EIi2:ible for Provincial Transfer Pavment
Section 3.1 of Chapter 3 of the PPM (see Appendix 1) lists the items eligible for transfer
payment funding in order of provincial priority. It specifies the amount of funding
available in 1997 as $8,000,000 (Section 3.2.1 of the PPM) and the funding rate as 50 %
of the total approved costs (Section 3.2.2 of the PPM). It should be noted that the total
funding to Conservation Authorities were unilaterally reduced by the Province in 2000 by
a further 5% to $7,600,000.
At issue is the total dollars that are available to Conservation Authorities. Transfer
payments administered through MNR currently total $7,600,000.
Using the 2002 approved audited financial statements of the 36 Conservation Authorities,
the total expenditure by Conservation Authorities in 2002 for items eligible for 50 %
funding was $33,445,000. According to the definition of eligibility this should have
translated into funding of$16,722,000. However, as only $7,600,000 had been allocated,
this leaves a shortfall of $9,122,000. Table 1 provides a summary of the above
assessment.
Provincial transfer payments are therefore distributed more on the basis of availability
rather than eligibility. In actual fact, 77% of the cost of these items that are deemed of a
high priority provincially, are paid for by the Conservation Authorities (as illustrated in
Figure 3). The Province is not maintaining its [mancial participation in equal sharing with
the member municipalities.
The total provincial transfer payment dollars available has also led to a significant
reduction in the ability of Conservation Authorities to undertake items 3.1.10 to 3.1.12
which by their very nature keep Authorities at the forefront of resource management. In
1999, because of the high demand for funds in the higher priority items (3.1.1 to 3.1.9)
the Ministry reallocated 42.5% of the funding available for plan input (3.1.10),
information (3.1.11), legal costs (3.1.12) and administration (3.1.13) to the higher priority
items, further exacerbating the issue of lack of funds.
5
102
Table 1. Assessment of Provincial Shortfall for Operational Activities Eligible for Provincial
Transfer Payment
A !! C D
Business Plan Categories Total Eligible Funding Funding
(see Appendix 1 for full description) Project Funding Approved Shortfall
Cost 2002 2002 2002 2002
($) ($) ($) ($)
3.1.1 Operation of Flood Control Structures 2,788,000 1,394,000 1,293,000 ' 101,000
3.1.2 Routine Maintenance of Flood Control 1,562,000 781,000 624,000 158,000
Structures
3.1.3 Preventative Maintenance of Flood 1,451,000 725,000 452,000 273,000
Control Structures
3.1.4 Operation of Erosion Control 199,000 100,000 100,000 . 0
Structures
3.1.5 Routine Maintenance of Erosion 309,000 155,000 151,000 3,000
Control Structures
3.1.6 Preventative Maintenance of Erosion 384,000 192,000 191,000 2,000
Control Structures
3.1.7 Flood Forecasting and Warning- 4,047,000 2,024,000 1,718,000 306,000
Operation
3.1.8 Flood Forecasting and Warning - 816,000 408,000 379,000 29,000
Rationalization
3.1.9 Ice Management 596,0001 298,000 306,000 (8,000)
3.1.10 Plan Input (Official Plan and Official
Plan Amendment input) 2,098,988 1,049,494 602,745 446,749
3.1.1.1 Infonnation (Watershed Studies and
technical studies) 4,036,000 2,018,000 851,000 1,167,000
3.1.12 Legal Costs 180,000 90,000 16,000 74,000
3.1.13 Administration -
(based on total Administration costs for
Conservation Authorities as per definition 14,976,060 7,488,030 941,235 6,546,795
in Section 4.9 ofPPM)
TOTAL 33,445, 000 16,122,000 (7,643,000) (9,097,000)
7,600,0002 9,122,0003
Note: 2002 audited financial statements of the 36 CAs do not consistently reference the categories in the PPM
(MNR, 1997); however, best estimates were applied. Values have been rounded to the nearest thousand
dollars.
I 2002 was an unusual year in tenns of spring flows and ice breakup and therefore 2002 expenditures
for ice management were significantly lower than nonnal.
2 2002 Funding Approved values differ between MNR and CAs due to surpluses in previous years
and/or differences in MNR/CA fiscal year. Tota12002 Funding Approved by MNR was $7,600,000.
3 Based on Total 2002 Funding Approved by M1\TR the overall shortfall is $9,122,000.
6
103
Fi!:!ure 3. 2002 Cost Sharin!:! for Operational Activities Elil?:ible for 50% Fundin!?:
50% funding line
~
EEl Conservation Authority
Expenditures (77%)
[J MNR Transfer Payment in
2002 (23%)
Funding ShortfaH -
paid by CAs (27%)
Administration is. a critical component of the Conservation Authority program. The
important partnership between the Conservation Authorities and the Province must be
recognized in this regard, and the cost to properly administer programs must be
acknowledged. Administration, as it is defined in the 1997 PPM, is currently being
funded 90% by municipalities and 10% by the province. This is inequitable and a
partnership must be reestablished.
Of particular concern is the variability of the application of the definition for
administration (Section 4.9 of the PPM) which specifically states:
'Overhead and support costs of the Conservation Authority which are not directlv
related to the delivery of a specific prO'2:ram (underlined for emphasis) and which
typically include general management, clerical, financial and board staffing and
expenses; office equipment and supplies; main office occupancy costs etc. ' (MNR,
1997)
This defmition clearly identifies total administration costs associated with all
Conservation Authority programs as eligible for funding of 50%. This is inconsistent
with the business plan submission fonn (Chapter 4 of the PPM as seen in Appendix 2)
which identifies only that portion of administration costs applicable to' items 3.1.1 to
3.1.13 to be eligible for funding. A further variation in application was expressed in the
budget allocation principles laid out by MNR in 2000 wherein it was stated that:
'Administration expenditures should be in the order of 15% of the total grant
funded program - in no case more than 20%. '
The lack of adequate funding by the province to meet its own definitions has led to the
downloading of significantly higher costs ontD the municipalities. The 50% funding
partnership has been ignored and must be established.
7
104
2.3 Summary
There is a significant shortfall in funding to Conservation Authorities by the Ministry of
Natural Resources particularly as it relates to items deemed of provincial interest, and
eligible for provincial transfer payments, as per the Policy and Procedures Manual. This
shortfall totals $9,122,000.
3.0 Re-investment of Fundin2: to Items Currently Excluded from Provincial
Transfer Payment
By defining them as being of "no provincial interest", the 1997 Policy and Procedures
Manual specifically excludes three activities that had previously been funded. In the
opinion of Conservation Ontario, these activities are of provincial interest as they are
integral to a successful program of flood and erosion control both inland and on the Great
Lakes shoreline. These are:
1. Municipal Plan Review;
2. Conservation Authority Act Section 28, Regulation of Development, Interference
with Wetlands and Alterations to Watercourses (formerly Fill, Construction and
Alterations to Watercourses; and
3. Shoreline Management.
3.1 Municipal Plan Review (Natural Hazards)
Under its definition in the PPM, Municipal Plan Input (Section 4.6) only relates to the
"Policy support... ....through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on matters of
provincial interest relating to the Natural Hazards Policy... ...and focusing on the
Official Plan and Official Plan Amendment stage at the upper tier municipal level. " As
per Table 1, these plan input activities have a shortfall in funding of $447,000. In
addition to this, the Conservation Authorities provide municipal plan review on zoning
by-laws, draft plans of subdivisions, draft plans of condominiums, consents and variance
applications, and site applications. In 2002, Conservation Authorities spent $4,359,000 in
municipal plan review without provincial funding.
Municipal Plan Review activities undertaken by the Conservation Authorities are a
critical component to ensuring consistent implementation of policy for the protection of
life and property. Through their on-going participation in the process, Conservation
Authorities are diligent in their responsibility to identify hazard areas and to ensure that
these lands are properly avoided and addressed through the development process. The
exclusion of the Conservation Authorities' role in municipal plan review ignores the fact
that plan review is perhaps the most powerful and cost effective non-structural flood and
erosion damage prevention measure that one can implement. With the elimination of the
capital program for the control of flooding and erosion, municipal plan review has also
8
105
become the single most important tool in minimizing the need for futUre capital funding
by the province. The delivery of plan review services will realize immeasurable benefit
in the future. It ensures public safety through risk reduction and sound watershed
management. The designation of Conservation Authorities as the 'lead commenting
agency' under Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement relating to the Natural
Hazards Policy warrants provincial cost sharing of this program.
The Province of Ontario should provide 50% funding for plan review activities. This is
the same rate as that applied to plan input. The total cost to the province, based on an
assessment of Conservation Authority municipal plan review in 2002 dollars should have
been $2,179,000.
3.2 Section 28 Re2ulation
Under the Conservation Authorities Act, the Section 28 regulation is a provincial
regulation that is delivered by Conservation Authorities. The previously funded
implementation and enforcement of Section 28 regulations is, as mentioned above,
specifically excluded as an item of provincial interest in the PPM. Historically, the
Ministry of Natural Resources encouraged and funded the preparation of fill and
floodplain mapping, in accordance with its terms of reference and rigorous approval
system. The registration of mapping as regulatory instruments was critical to successful
enforcement. The enforcement of these regulations puts the Conservation Authorities
front and centre in the protection of streams, rivers, lakes, valley lands and wetlands and
hence water resource management.
The enforcement of these regulations by Conservation Authorities is also the first line of
defense to prevent inappropriate development in the province of Ontario. This ensures
that areas susceptible to flooding, erosion, unstable soils, unstable slopes, etc. are not
developed. This loss prevention program significantly reduces the probability of future
government expenditures for capital projects as well as the potential for loss of life and
property damage.
The approval of the generic regulations by the province on April 19, 2004 confirms its
relevance and importance in watershed resource management and enforcement is an
integral part of maintaining regulatory integrity.
In 2002, Conservation Authorities spent $2,534,000 in enforcing the Section 28
regulation without provincial funding. As previously indicated, costs associated with the
updating of hazard mapping (required in support of Section 28 Regulation) has been
excluded from the overall shortfall, as this issue will be addressed separately with the
Ministry. There is an obligation on the part of the Province of Ontario to provide funding
for the enforcement of a provincial regulation that addresses issues of both provincial and
local interest. At the 50% level of funding, the total cost to the province in 2002 dollars
should have been $1,267,000.
9
106
3.3. Shoreline Mana!:!:ement
In correspondence dated April 19, 1995, (Appendix 3), the Conservation Authorities were
delegated the sole commenting responsibility on plan input and review matters related to
natural hazard issues by the then Minister of Natural Resources, Howard Hampton.
Delegated responsibilities from the Ministry of Natural Resources included dynamic
beaches along the shorelines of the Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River System. This
designation became effective March 29, 1995. The designation as outlined in the
Minister's letter has never been fonnally withdrawn, although funding was eliminated.
The PPM is silent on shoreline matters either in its inclusion as a provincial interest or in
its specific exclusion.
Consultation with Conservation Authorities that have shorelines in their jurisdiction
indicates that, with the withdrawal of provincial funds in 1995/96, the Conservation
Authority role in shoreline management has, for the most part, been rolled into the on-
going plan review function in an effort to fulfill its obligations under the designation of
responsibility. As well, with the transfer of funds from 'information' (3.1.11 of the PPM)
by MNR (see section 2.2 above), efforts by Conservation Authorities and municipalities
to do preventative management of Great Lakes shorelines have been compromised.
In 2002, Conservation Authorities spent $601,000 in shoreline management services.
This is a very conservative record of costs as much of the costs are likely combined into
the municipal plan review function.
Of critical importance is the fact that shoreline management is just as important today
with lower lake levels as it was in the late 1980' s when water levels were significantly
higher. Lake level fluctuations are a natural phenomenon that must continually be
addressed. Preventative shoreline management, that aims to protect life and property
from flooding and erosion hazards, is therefore necessary.
Conservation Ontario believes that there is an on-going obligation on the part of the
Province of Ontario to financially support its designation of responsibility to the
Conservation Authorities. For the province to meet its obligation in 2002 dollars, at a
50% funding rate, there needs to be an investment of $300,000. It is important that
shoreline management be reviewed in its entirety to assess the real costs in delivering this
program.
3.4 Summarv
The total expenditure by Conservation Authorities in 2002 on programs that have
provincial delegation of responsibility was $7,493,000. Conservation Ontario believes
that there is an obligation on the part of the Province of Ontario and more specifically,
the Ministry of Natural Resources, to financially support these functions as a minimum at
the same funding rate as other items of provincial interest. The total cost to the Ministry
of Natural Resources in 2002 dollars should have been $3,746,000. Table 2 summarizes
the above assessment.
10
107
Table 2. Assessment of Provincial Shortfall for Hems of Provincial Interest Currentlv
Excluded from Provincial Transfer Pavment
Hems of Provincial Interest Total Conservation Conservation
Currently Excluded from Authority Cost in Funding at 50% Authority
Commitment at
Provincial Funding 2002* 50%
Municipal Plan Review 4,359,000 2,179,000 2,179,000
UNaturallIazards)
Section 28 Regulation 2,534,000 1,267,000 1,267,000
Enforcement
Shoreline Management 601,000 300,000 300,000
TOTAL 7,493,000 3,746,000 3,746,000
* Based on the 2002 audited financial statements of the 36 Conservation Authorities. Values have been
rounded to the nearest thousand dollar.
4.0 Annual Consumer Price Index (Cpn Adjustments to Fundin!?
Sustainable funding is critical to successful program delivery. A key concern is that
rising overhead costs have resulted in the need for increased municipal funding at the
same time as inflation is eroding the value of the limited provincial investment that is
made to the Conservation Authorities. An annual cost of living adjustment should be
applied to the transfer payments to the Conservation Authorities. It is further suggested
that the commonly used Consumer Price Index (CPI) from Statistics Canada be the
instrument for determining this adjustment.
The actual month for which the year over year change in the CPI is applied is open for
discussion. lIowever, for Conservation Authority budgeting purposes, and accounting
for the difference in fiscal years between the province and the Conservation Authorities,
it is recommended that August (information is available in late September) be the month
of choice and that the CPI measure entitled by Statistics Canada as "All Items for
Ontario" be the unit of adjustment for the next fiscal year. This would allow the
Authorities to budget appropriately with ample time for the Ministry of Natural
Resources to accommodate the adjustment. Table 3 illustrates app.lication of the CPI
adjustments to the 2002 Transfer Payment administered by the Ministry of Natural
Resources, as well as the shortfall in funding for the existing eligible operational
activities and the additional areas of provincial interest that are not currently funded.
This process is simple, rational and will greatly assist Conservation Authorities in
addressing the "current" costs associated with undertaking all the aforementioned
activities.
11
108
Table 3. Annual Consumer Pri!:e Index Adjustments to Fundin2 and Fundin!! Shortfalls
Shortfall for Items
Currently Excluded
from Provincial
2002 Provincial Shortfall for Eligible Transfer Payment
Transfer Payment Operational Activities Fundin2
Total Dollars in 2002 $7,600,000 $9,122,000 $3,746,000
CPI Adjustment for 2003 $220,000 $265,000 $109,000
Aug 0 l-Aug 02 (2.9%)*
CPI Adjustment for 2004 $133,000 $160,000 $66,000
Aug 02-Aug 030.7%)**
TOTAL $7,953,000 $9,547,000 $3,921,000
(+CPI Adiustment for 2005) (+CPI Adiustment for 2005) (+CPI Adjustment for 2005)
Note: Values are rounded to the closest thousand dollar.
* Statistics Canada, 2004a
** Statistics Canada, 2004b
5.0 Conclusion
Since 1995, Conservation Authorities through their ongoing commitment to watershed
management have absorbed the. shortfall in provincial funding at the expense of local
priorities. It is the position of Conservation Ontario that it is time for the province, and in
particular the Ministry of Natural Resources, to meet its funding obligations as laid out in
its own policies. It is time to re-invest in the Conservation Authority movement by re-
instating at least three areas of provincial interest, and to establish an annual cost ofliving
adjustment to Conservation Authority transfer payments.
The total estimated 2005 cost to the Province of Ontario using 2002 as a base year and
applying the Consumer Price Index retroactive to 2002 is estimated at $21,421,000 (+
cpr Adjustment for 2005). This will increase the total transfer payment to Conservation
Authorities in 2005 by $13,821,000 (+ CPI Adjustment for 2005). This is summarized in
Table 4.
12
109
Table 4. Proposed Total Re-Investment to Ontario Conservation Authorities in 2005
2002 Provincial Items Currently
Transfer Excluded from
Payment Eligible Provincial Total MNR Re-
Administered Operational Transfer Investment
by MNR Activities Payment In 2005
($) ($) Funding ($)
Total dollars in 2002 7,600,000 7,600,000
Total New Dollars 9,122,000 3,746,000 12,868,000
Total CPI Adjustments 353,000 425,000 175,000 953,000
Total Proposed 2005 7,953,000 9,547,000 3,921,000 21,421,000
Transfer Payment (+ cpr (+ CPI (+ cpr (+ CPI
Administered by MNR Adjustment for Adjustment for Adjustment for Adjustment for
2005) 2005) 2005) 2005)
Conservation Authorities are committed to watershed management and to their long
standing relationship with the Ministry of Natural Resources in natural hazards
management. Conservation Ontario is committed to working with the Ministry on behalf
of the network of Conservation Authorities to make positive change. A re-investment in
the Conservation Authorities will strengthen the Ministry partnership in the continued
development of leading edge watershed management in Ontario. Conservation
Authorities could enhance their capacity to deliver existing programs and through the
reapplication of other sources of revenue, further advance the protection of our natural
environment and healthy watershed communities. This is a sign of our commitment.
Now we need the same from the Province.
13
110
References
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1997. Policies and Procedures for Determining
Eligibility for Provincial Grant Funding to Conservation Authorities.
Statistics Canada. 2004a. Consumer Price Index for Ontario from August 200l-August
2002. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/EnQ:lish/020920/d020920a.htm (website
accessed May 18,2004).
Statistics Canada. 2004b. Consumer Price Index for Ontario from August 2002-August
2003. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/EnQ:lish/030923/d030923a.htm (Website
accessed May 18,2004).
14
111
Appendix 1
Chapter 3 - Policy and Procedures for Conservation Authorities: Policy and
Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Provincial Grant Funding to
Conservation Authorities
15
112
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR PROVINCIAL GRANT FUNDING
TO CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES
1.0 BACKGROUND
Since the formation of Conservation Authorities over 50 years ago, the province
has provided a substantial financial contribution towards the construction and
maintenance of flood and erosion control structures. These structures were
constructed to reduce the risk of loss of life and property damage from floods and
erosion. The provincial funding was largely provided through transfer payments
through the Ministry of Natural Resources, but also included funding from other
government agencies.
Recent reductions in provincial transfer payments made Conservation Authorities
no longer eligible for grants to continue the construction of flood and erosion
control works. However, it was determined that there was to be a continuing
financial contribution for the routine operation and maintenance of the flood and
erosion structures, flood forecasting and warning, plan input, acquisition of some
supporting information, and some related legal and administrative costs.
This policy identifies the items that are deemed to be eligible for provincial grant
funding to conservation authorities under Section 39 of the Conservation
Authorities Act. A separate policy addresses eligibility for provincial grant funding
for taxes for Provincially Significant Conservation lands and Agreement/Managed
Forest lands.
2.0 LEGISLATION
2.1 Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act states that "before
proceeding with a project, the authority shall file plans and a description
thereof with and obtain the approval of the Minister". This section applies
where money is granted by the Minister under section 39.
2.2 Section 39 of the Conservation Authorities Act provides for the Minister to
provide grants to Conservation Authorities from .....money appropriated
therefor by the Legislature in accordance with such conditions and
procedures as may be prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in
Council...".
Policies and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Provincial Grant Funding to
Conservation Authorities
June 13, 1997 Page 1
113
3.0 POLICY
This policy provides a framework under which the provincial grant funding is
allocated (excluding provincial grant funding for taxes for provincially significant
conservation lands and Agreement/Managed Forest lands) to Conservation
Authorities, pursuant to Section 39 of the Conservation Authorities Act and the
definitions of eligibility are established.
3.1 Eligibility
The following items are eligible for provincial grant funding (for definitions of
eligibility see Section 4.0):
3.1.1 Operation of Flood Control Structures (see 4.2.1)
3.1.2 Routine/Minor Maintenance of Flood Control Structures (see 4.2.2)
3.1.3 Preventative Maintenance of Flood Control Structures (see 4.2.3)
3.1.4 Operation of Erosion Control Structures (see 4.3.1)
3.1.5 Routine/Minor Maintenance of Erosion Control Structures (see
4.3.2)
3.1.6
3.1.7
3.1.8
3.1.9
3.1.10
3.1.11
3.1.12
3.1.13
Preventative Maintenance of Erosion Control Structures (see 4.3.3)
Flood Forecasting and Warning - System Operation (see 4.4.1)
Flood Forecasting and Warning - Rationalization (see 4.4.2)
Ice Management (see 4.5)
Plan Input (see 4.6)
Information (see 4.7)
Legal Costs (see 4.8)
Administration (see 4.9)
3.2 Provincial Grant Funding Allocation
3.2.1 The total annual provincial grant funding available for Conservation
Authorities for items listed in 3.1 is $8 million.
3.2.2 For items 3.1.1 - 3.1.13 the provincial grant rate will be 50% of the total
approved cost.
Policies and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Provincial Grant Funding to
Conservation Authorities
June 13, 1997 Page 2
114
4.0 DEFINITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY
4.1 Minister - Minister of Natural Resources
4.2 Flood Control Structures - Structures which were approved by the
Ministry of Natural Resources and are owned, maintained and/or operated
by Conservation Authorities, which mitigate risk to life and property
damage from flooding. This includes dams, flood channel works and
dykes.
4.2.1 Operation of Flood Control Structures - Activities, functions or
requirements undertaken on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis
which are directly related to the operation of a flood control structure. This
includes:
staff time, vehicles, materials, supplies
dam/dyke inspections (e.g., annual/semi-annual)
property taxes for area integral to the structure (e.g., dam,
upstream reservoir, roadway, roadway access, downstream
channel, dyke, constructed channel)
items identified with health and safety concerns for both operator
and public (e.g., safety harnesses)
rent/i ns u ra nce/ uti I iti es
4.2.2 Routine/Minor Maintenance of Flood Control Structures - Activities,
functions or requirements undertaken on a daily, weekly. monthly or
annual basis to maintain a flood control structure. This includes:
measures required to upkeep the structure, ensure that the flood
control capability is preserved, and/or to mitigate major
maintenance
debris removal
routine painting
parging/minor repair to concrete surfaces
4.2.3 Preventative Maintenance of Flood Control Structures - Activities,
functions or requirements undertaken on an irreqular, qreater-than-annual
basis to maintain a flood control structure. This includes:
replacement of valves/gates/stop logs
painting (complete stripping/repainting of main spillway gates)
replacement of functional components (Le. heating/cooling plants,
backup power units, generators, motors, cables, gears, etc.)
Policies and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Provincial Grant Funding to
Conservation Authorities
June 13, 1997 Page 3
115
security items to reduce vandalism (i.e. fences, eleCtronic security
systems)
preparation and upgrade of operation/maintenance manuals and
schedules
maintenance of channels and emergency spillways
engineering studies or assessments associated with determining
structural integrity
4.3 Erosion Control Structures - Structures which were approved by the
Ministry of Natural Resources and are owned, maintained and/or operated
by Conservation Authorities, which mitigate risk tQ property damage from
erosion or bank instability. This includes erosion channel works.
4.3.1. Operation of Erosion Control Structures - Activities, functions or
requirements undertaken on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis and
which are directly related to the operation of an erosion control structure.
This includes:
staff time, vehicles, materials, supplies
erosion/slope stability inspections (annual/semi-annual)
property taxes for area integral to the structure (Le., erosion works,
slope works, roadway access)
rent/ins u ra nce/util iti es
4.3.2 Routine/Minor Maintenance of Erosion Control Structures - Activities,
functions or requirements undertaken on a daily. weekly. monthly or
annual basis to maintain an erosion control structure. This includes:
measures required to upkeep the structure, ensure that the erosion
prevention or slope stability capability is preserved, and/or to
mitigate major maintenance.
maintenance of erosion and slope stability works
4.3.3 Preventative Maintenance of Erosion Control Structures - Activities,
functions or requirements undertaken on an irreqular. qreater-than-annual
basis to maintain an erosion control structure. This includes:
engineering studies or assessments associated with determining
structural integrity
maintenance of erosion and slope stability works.
Sections 4.2 (Flood Control Structures) and 4.3 (Erosion Control
Structures) do not include works associated with maior maintenance of flood
or erosion control structures, such as:
Policies and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Provincial Grant Funding to
Conservation Authorities
June 13, 1997 Page 4
116
deck replacement
rebuilding of control structure beyond the replacement of individual
stop logs (i.e. replacement of stop log gains, replacement of gate)
structural modifications
reha bi litation/restoration
major repairs/reconstruction of structures
channel lining, (i.e. placement of gabions, concrete)
structural enlargements (i.e., increasing height of dykes, enlarging
spillway capacity of a dam)
staff time associated with the above functions
Also excluded are the following:
Operation and maintenance of structures where no flood control
function is performed (i.e. recreational, low flow augmentation
dams)
Implementation of other non-structural flood control measures (i.e.
municipal plan review, fill, construction and alteration to waterways
regulations, education)
4.4 Flood Forecasting and Warning - Procedures, undertaken by
Conservation Authorities, required to reduce the risk of loss of life and
property damage due to flooding through the forecasting of flood events
and the issuing of flood warnings, alerts and advisories to prepare those
who must respond to the flood event.
4.4.1 Flood Forecasting and Warning - System Operation - Development
and implementation of a comprehensive system developed to guide and
implement flood forecasting and warning activities, to effectively manage
flood control structures and to provide guidance during the response to a
flood. Basic components include:
4.4.1.1 Data Collection
operations and maintenance of existing and purchase of upgraded
equipment (i.e. streamgauge stations for water levels and flow,
meteorological sensors)
snow survey station operation and monitoring equipment
ice monitoring
data collection software forreal-time data access to those items
listed above
access to MNR Water Resources Information System which
includes purchase/maintenance/operations of a computer and
backup (such as a portable) and associated equipment to access
the above and to operate the procedure(s) under flood forecasting
Policies and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Provincial Grant Funding to
Conservation AuthorWes
June 13, 1997 Page 5
117
4.4.1.2
4.4.1.3
4.4.1.4
4.4.1.5
4.4.1.6
localized river/flood damage monitoring including after the event
assessment (i.e. field trips, ice jam monitoring, flood response
monitoring).
Flood Forecasting
approved forecasting models,
calibration of an accepted procedure(s) and its implementation in
order to quantify the flood/damage potential
training costs for staff
computers to run models
Communications
purchase/operations/maintenance of communications equipment
such as fax machines/software (backups) for the issuance of flood
warning messages and the reception of field related information,
pagers/cell phones to contact local flood duty officer
preparation of annual response plan and meeting to response
agencies (i.e. municipal staff, OPP)
issuing flood warnings to municipalities
Operations Centre
work area in which the flood operations take place
backup equipment
Systems Plan
a feasibility study/plan to determine resources necessary to deliver
local flood warning messages
Response to a Flood
field trips to assess flood damages, ongoing reporting, provision of
advice to municipalities during the event
assistance in the development of local flood contingency plans
flood event termination/follow up
This does not include:
Costs for actual flood response, e.g. flood combat is a municipal
responsibility
Flood response equipment (i.e. sandbags, boats and pumps) is
also not eligible
4.4.2 Flood Forecasting and Warning - Rationalization
Policies and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Provincial Grant Funding to
Conservation Authorities
June 13, 1997 Page 6
118
Currently, the ministry is considering a number of options which address
the operation and administration of the provincial flood forecasting and
warning function. One of the options involves rationalization of certain
components of the program with Conservation Authority roles and
responsibilities. The overall objective of potential rationalization is to
improve efficiency of weather forecasting and information dissemination,
to remove any duplication of effort and optimize costs. Part of this review
involves examination of funding support for the hydro-met network within
Conservation Authority jurisdiction and possible transfer of systems
operations to the Conservation Authorities program.
Pending further review and consultation with the Conservation Ontario,
activities associated with this review may be deemed eligible.
4.5 Ice Management - Preventative measures, supported by a current ice
management plan, associated with the removal of sediment from channels
or the control of ice in areas where there is a chronic problem occurring
annually, where there is an increase in the risk to life and property, and
where there is a method to reduce the possible adverse effects of the
sediment or ice. This includes:
removal of sediment
standby equipment (e.g., ice breaker) necessary to be placed
upstream of the ice problem prior to winter freeze-up
This does not include:
emergency response measures (including staff time) to deal with
unanticipated flood risk due to ice jam or debris jam conditions
4.6 Plan Input - Policy support provided by Conservation Authorities, through
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), on matters of
provincial interest relating to the Natural Hazards Policy (Section 3.1
under PUblic Health and Safety made under the Provincial Policy
Statement) and focusing on the Official Plan and Official Plan Amendment
stage at the upper tier municipalleve!.
This includes:
broad policy interpretation
transfer of data,information and science to municipalities
provision of advice on matters relating to natural hazards policy to
MMAH
4.7 Information - The portion of watershed planning projects and
technical studies as defined below which provide input into the Official
Policies and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Provincial Grant Funding to
Conservation Authorities
June 13, 1997 Page 7
119
Plan and Official Plan Amendment stage of the municipal 'planning
process at the upper tier municipal level with respect to the provincial
hazards policy ,including:
delineation of hazard areas
development of policies to guide appropriate management and use
of hazard lands
4.7.1 - Watershed Planning Projects - Projects undertaken by Conservation
Authorities to provide a broad understanding of ecosystem function and
status and to make recommendations for appropriate environmental
resource management, land use change, land management change, or
redevelopment and restoration, on a watershed basis. This includes:
Project management - e.g., project scoping, terms of reference,
report preparation, scheduling
Background data collection - pulling together existing data
Analysi s/i nterpretation
Development of recommendations
Public consultation - e.g., newsletters, workshops
Implementation - ensuring information is transferred to appropriate
Official Plans, resource management programs and other
implementation mechanisms
Monitoring - ensuring information is being implemented as
expected, and that recommendations are current
4.7.2 - Technical Studies - to support the preparation and monitor the
effectiveness of watershed planning projects (4.7.1); and Section 28
environmental regulation programs.
Hydrology/Hydraulics - the study of surface water flows and levels
(e.g., low/peak flow, water budget, surface/groundwater
interactions, flood hazard)
Stream Morphology - the study of mechanisms that operate as a
result of water flow within a stream channel (e.g. erosion,
sedimentation)
Policies and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Provincial Grant Funding to
Conservation Authorities
June 13, 1997 Page 8
120
Mapping and Data Management - The use of systems to collect
and store data and to provide spatial geographical representations
of data
This does not include:
Aquatics - The application of aquatic ecology and biology and the
study of aquatic systems and communities
Terrestrial - the application of terrestrial ecology and biology, or the
study of terrestrial systems and communities
Groundwater - the study of sub-surface water, its occurrence,
movement and chemistry and the factors that influence it including
interactions with surface flow systems
4.8 Legal Costs - Legal costs for law suits where the Conservation
Authority/Province is named pertaining to Conservation Authority capital
projects where the province has had significant financial involvement.
4.9 Administration - Overhead and support costs of the Conservation
Authority which are not directly related to the delivery of a specific
program and which typically include general management, clerical,
financial and board staffing and expenses; office equipment and supplies;
main office occupancy costs; etc.
Policies and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Provincial Grant Funding to
Conservation Authorities
June 13, 1997 Page 9
121
5.0 PROCEDURES
5.1 Conservation Authorities are to prepare an annual business plan
outlining eligible activities and anticipated eligible costs. The plan should
include a confirmation that the Conservation Authority has complete
records for these program areas which are accessible to the province for
audit purposes.
The business plan is to be updated annually and submitted by October
31 by the Conservation Authority to Conservation Ontario and to MNR at
the following address:
Director
Lands and Natural Heritage Branch
Ministry of Natural Resources
300 Water Street
P.O. Box 7000
Peterborough, Ontario
K9J 8M5
The business plan will be used to establish original allocations and future
refinements, and for a reference for future audits. A sample business
plan form is attached as Appendix A.
5.2 Conservation Ontario/MNR will jointly determine Conservation Authority
allocations under this policy.
Each year by December 15, Conservation Ontario must submit to MNR for
review, a report that proposes next year allocations to Conservation
Authorities, under this policy.
5.4 Each year Conservation Al,Jthorities will receive one cheque for the total
grant amount from the Province together with the Section 39 funding
approval form. Approval under Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities
Actwill be coincident with Section 39 approval.
At year end by January 31, Conservation Authorities must submit a year
end expenditure report (see appendix B) for all grants received, together
with a report indicating actual work accomplished with the grants received.
At year end by February 15, Conservation Ontario must submit to MNR for
review, a report that proposes year-end reallocations among Conservation
Authorities.
Policies and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Provincial Grant Funding to
Conservation Authorities
June 13, 1997 Page 10
122
If the surplus can be spent between January 1 and March 31 the
Conservation Authority will be allowed to retain the surplus and should not
return it to the Province. Approved year-end reallocations will be adjusted
with the next year original allocations.
5.5 MNR reserves the right to audit Conservation Authorities for adherence to
this policy. Audits may be done by a Conservation Ontario/MNR peer-
review process.
Policies and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Provincial Grant Funding to
Conservation Authorities
June 13, 1997 Page 11
123
Appendix 2
Chapter 4 - Policy and Procedures for Conservation Authorities: Business Plan For
Determining Provincial Grant Funding to Conservation Authorities
Draft - Not For Distribtttion
27
124
Annual Budget
For Determining Provincial Grant Funding
to Conservation Authorities
Note: This must be read in conjunction with the Policies and Procedures for
Determininq Eliqibilitv for Provincial Grant Fundinq to Conservation Authorities.
Numbering between documents is consistent.
Conservation Authority
4.2 Flood Control Structures
Complete table for each flood control structure.
Name of Structure:
Location (Watercourse and Municipality):
Total Eligible Costs
Budget Budget % Change
Actual Proposed
4.2.1 Operation of Flood Control
Structures
Wages/Benefits
Materials/Expenses
Subtotal
4.2.2 Routine/Minor Maintenance of
Flood Control Structures
Wages/Benefits
Materials/Expenses
Subtotal
4.2.3 Preventative Maintenance of
Flood Control Structures
Wages/Benefits
Materials/Expenses
>
Subtotal
Total -Flood Control Structure
If proposed allocation is >10% of previous year, provide a detailed explanation
Annual Budget for Determining Provincial Grant Funding to Conservation
Authorities
125
4.3 Erosion Control Structures
Complete table for each erosion control structure.
Name of Structure:
Location (Watercourse and Municipality):
4.3.1 Operation of Erosion Control
Structures
W. ages/Benefits
Materials/Expenses
Subtotal
4.3.2 Routine/Minor Maintenance of
Erosion Control Structures
Wages/Benefits
Materials/Expenses
Subtotal
4.3.3 Preventative Maintenance of
Erosion Control Structures
Wages/Benefits
Materials/Expenses
Subtotal
Total - Erosion Control Structure
Total Eligible Costs
Budget Budget
Actual Proposed
% Change
If proposed allocation is > 1 0% of previous year, provide a detailed explanation
Annual Budget for Determining Provincial Grant Funding to Conservation
Authorities
126
4.4 Flood Forecasting and Warning
Total Eligible Costs
Budget Budget % Change
Actual Proposed
4.4.1 System Operation
4.4.1.1 Data Collection
Wages/Benefits I I I I
Materials/Expenses
Subtotal
4.4.1.2 Flood Forecasting
Wages/Benefits I I I I
Materials/Expenses
Subtotal
4.4.1.3 Communications
Wages/Benefits I I I I
Materials/Expenses
Subtotal
4.4.1.4 Operations Centre
Wages/Benefits I I I I
Materials/Expenses
Subtotal
4.4.1.5 Systems Plan
Wages/Benefits I I I I
Materials/Expenses
Subtotal
4.4.1.6 Response to a Flood
Wages/Benefits
Materials/Expenses
Subtotal
Total - System Operation
If proposed allocation is > 1 0% of previous year, provide a detailed explanation
Annual Budget for Determining Provincial Grant Funding to Conservation
Authorities
127
4.5 Ice Management
Complete table for each chronic ice management location.
Location of Ice Management Activity (Watercourse and Municipality):
Total Eligible Costs
Budget Budget
Actual Proposed
Wages/Benefits
Materials/Expenses
Total -Ice Management
Explain why each ice management situation is chronic/recurring on annual basis
and please include your ice management plan(s).
If proposed allocation is >10% of previous year, provide a detailed explanation
Annual Budget for Determining Provincial Grant Funding to Conservation
Authorities
12B
4.6 Legal Costs
Total - Legal Costs
Budget
Actual
I
Total Eligible
Costs
Budget
Proposed
% Change
To support this request, provide a brief description of the legal activities
including the name of the flood/erosion capital project(s) which was
previously supported by the Province (through S. 24 & S.39 of the
Conservation Authorities Act).
Project Details: New _ Carryover
Projected Completion Date
Explain Request for Legal Costs:
Year Started
Total Cost to Date $
If proposed allocation is > 1 0% of previous year, provide a detailed explanation
Annual Budget for Determining Provincial Grant Funding to Conservation
Authorities
129
4.7 Watershed Management
4.7.1 Watershed Planning Projects
Complete table for each watershed plan.
Name of Watershed Plan:
Project Details: New D Carryover D Year Started
Projected Completion Date Total Cost to Date $
Location (Watercourse and Municipality):
A. Total Project Cost
B. Hazard Component of Total Project Cost eligible as
indicated in 4.7 of the Policies and Procedures for
Determininq Eliqibilitv for Provincial Grant FundinQ
to Conservation Authorities
C. % of Project that is Eligible (B/Ax100)
Total Costs
Project Management
Background Data Collection
Analysislinterpretation
Development of Recommendations
Public Consultation
Implementation
Monitoring
Total
x % Eligible (C, from above)
Total Eligible
To support this request, provide a brief description of the proposed watershed
planning project(s) including the name and rationale of the new Official Plan,
If proposed allocation is >10% of previous year, provide a detailed explanation
Annual Budget for Determining Provincial Grant Funding to Conservation
Authorities
130
revised Official Plan or Official Plan Amendment; as well as scheduling
information.
4.7.2 Technical Studies
Complete table for each technical study.
Name of Technical Study:
Project Details: New D Carryover D Year Started
Projected Completion Date Total Cost to Date $
Location (Watercourse and Municipality):
Total Eligible Costs
Budget
Actual
Hydrology/Hydraulics
Stream Morphology
MappinglData Management
Total - Technical Studies
Budget
Proposed
To support this request, provide a brief description of the proposed technical
study project(s) including the name and rationale of the new Official Plan, revised
Official Plan or Official Plan Amendment; watershed plan or Section 28
environmental regulation project; as well as scheduling information.
If proposed allocation is >10% of previous year, provide a detailed explanation
Annual Budget for Determining Provincial Grant Funding to Conservation
Authorities
131
4.7.3 Plan Input
Natural Hazard Components only - priority to Upper Tier Municipality
Project Details: New CJ CarryoverCJ Year Started
Projected Completion Date Total Cost to Date $
Project
Total Eligible Costs
Budget Budget
Actual Proposed
% Change
Wages/Benefits
Expenses
Total - Plan Input
To support this request, provide a brief description of the proposed plan input
project(s) including the name and rationale of the new Official Plan, revised
Official Plan or Official Plan Amendment; as well as scheduling information.
If proposed allocation is > 1 0% of previous year, provide a detailed explanation.
Annual Budget for Determining Provincial Grant Funding to Conservation
Authorities
132
4.8 Administration
Budget
Actual
Budget
Proposed
A. Total administration cost for the
authority
B. Total **eligible costs for items 4.2 - 4.7
C. Total authority budget (less large capital
expenditures)
D. C.-A.
E. Total Administration ( AxB/D)
**Eligible costs to be clarified in consultation with Conservation Ontario
If proposed allocation is > 1 0% of previous year, provide a detailed explanation
Annual Budget for Determining Provincial Grant Funding to Conservation
Authorities
133
Appendix 3
Letter from the Minister of Natural Resources (dated April 1995)
37
134
t~i
ccoo. -=
'''''''
Ontlno'
Ministry at
Natural
Resources
Minister
Ministere des
Richesses
naturelles
'.~ln~5UQ
UUf:en 5 P iU"-
Taronto. OntarlQ
M7...1WJ
4161 J14.2JOI
APR 1 91995
Mr. Donald Hocking
Chair .
Upper Thames River Conservation Authority
R.R. i6
London, ontario
11'6A 4CJ.
Dear Hr. Hocking:
This letter is with. regard to the responsibilities of
Conservation Authorities in commen~ing on development
proposals.
The Government of ontario is continuing to move t'orward:'.on
reforms promoting greater local involvement in decision-
making, streamlining of municipal planning and other
approval processes, and improved environmental protection..
Ontariofs Conservation Authorities continue to be important
partners in this process.
In J.98:3, Conservation Aut..~orities were delegated commenting
responsibility on. flood plain nlanagement matters.; This was
followed in . J.~)68by a similar delegation of commenting
responsibility for matters related to flooding, erosion, and
dynamic beaches along the shorelines of the Great Lakes~5t.
Lawrence River system.
At present, the Mini:stry and Conserva.tion Authorities
- continue to independently review' and provide input to
municipalities and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs on
development matters related to riverine erosion, slope, and
soil instability. Although Authorities and the Ministry'
share similar objectives, this overlap and duplication of
efforts have occasionally led to differences in comments:
which, in turn, have sometimes resulted in confusion, delays
and expense for development proponem::.s. As part of the ,
current Planning ReforD!. initiative, there is an opportun~ty
to clarify .the roles and responsibilities related to these
important hazard management issues.
2
38
135
- 2
Through their flood plain, watershed/and' Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence River shoreline management planning initiatives,
Conservation Authorities have made good progress in
streamlining approval processes and strengthening
provincial-municipal partnerships. By ex.tension, I believe
that it would. be appropriate to recognize the well-developed
expertige and capabi1:ities.of Conservation Authorities in
the evaluation of riverine erosion, slope and soil.
instability matters and to formally confirm Conservation
Authorities as the lead commenting agency. This would
.result in further streamlining of approval processes, the
promotion of environmentally. sound development, and the
provision of an economic stimulus.. far the prCJvince.
As of March 29, ~995, Conservation Authorities, where they
exist, will have sole commenting responsibilities on
development proposed in areas subject to riverine erosion,
slope instability and soil instability, such as in areas of
high water tables f orga.nic or peat soils, and leda, 'or
sensitive marine clay, soils.. Implementation of this policy
by authorities would continue to be eligible for provincial
grant. Where Conservation Authorities ex.ist, I have asked
Ministry staff to focus their comments on all other matters
of direct interest and concern to the Ministry. where
Conservation Authorities do not exist,' the Ministry will
continue its commenting role on these matters.
The Ministry of Natura'l Resources will continue as lead
acUninistrative Ministry having overall Goverruuent
responsibility for hazard management policies and programs.
In this regard, the Ministry will continue to provide
leadership, policydirect:ion and advisory assistance to the
Conserv.ationAuthorities.
Your continued participation in the delivery of this
important component of' the overall provincial hazard
management program will serve to strengthen the partnership
between the Ministry and the Conservation Authorities.
Yours sincerely,
#
"./7jL?
Howard Hampton
Minister
39
136
Chris Carrier, Chair
Fred Nix, Vice-Chair
Wayne R. Wilson, C.A.O.
August 20, 2004
Township of Oro-Medonte
Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO
148 Line 7 South
Oro, On
LOL 2XO
Dear Ms. Zieleniewski:
RE: REQUEST FOR MUNICIPAL SUPPORT FOR INCREASED
PROVINCIAL TRANSFER PAYMENT
At the NVCA Full Authority Meeting of August 13th, the Board unanimously
endorsed the following resolution requesting additional MNR Provincial transfer
payment::
MOVED BY: Walter Benotto SECONDED BY: Gord Montgomery
WHEREAS: The Conservation Authorities Act has been recognized as a
strong provincial and municipal partnership since 1946; and,
WHEREAS: The Province previously committed to paying 50% of flood and
erosion control programs and other related eligible costs as defined in the 1977
Policy and Procedures Manual, but has not met that funding commitment; and,
WHEREAS: The Province, when establishing new Policies and Procedures in
1997 to define the level of funding to support its partnership with Conservation
Authorities, omitted the following items of provincial interest:
1. Municipal Plan Review;
2 the implementation of Hazard Land Regulations; and
3. Shoreline Management as eligible activities for funding assistance by
the Province; and,
WHEREAS: Predictable, stable funding (adjusted for inflation) is critical to
successful program delivery; therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
endorse the report entitled 'Submission to the Minister of Natural Resources:
Re-Investment in Ontario's Conservation Authorities - Now and in the Future"
which requests:
1. A reinvestment in the conservation Authorities by the Province based
on definitions within the 1977 Policy and Procedure Manual;
John
Utopia, On
2. A Re-Establishment of funding for items deemed of provincial interest
currently excluded from transfer payment funding; and,
3. Implementation of annual Consumer Price Index adjustments
retroactive to 2002; and,
FURTHER THA T: The Conservation Authoritv Board seek endorsement of this
report from its member municipalities prior to September 2004.
I have enclosed key messages and information from Conservation Ontario
regarding their submission to the Ministry of Natural Resources.
The NVCA is seeking the support of your municipality in forwarding your
endorsement of this submission to the Honourable David Ramsay, Minister of
Natural Resources.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish further information on this.
Furthermore, I would be pleased to meet with your Council to answer any
questions regarding this important request.
Wayn . Wilson, B.Sc.
CAO/Secretary- Treasurer
c: NVCA Chair, Chris Carrier
Full Authority
encl.
KEY MESSAGE
PROVINCIAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
August 11,2004
CA Transfer Payment
· Provincial transfer payments have been cut by 87% since 1992, when the total transfer payment in that
year was almost $59 million. Since 2000, the transfer payment available to Conservation Authorities
(CA's) is approximately $7.6 million per year. NVCA funding was cut from $645,552 in 1996 to $188,483
in 2004 a 71 % reduction
· Provincial transfer payment funding now makes up only 5% of the average Conservation Authority annual
budget, (7.1% in the NVCA). This shortfall in funding, coupled with additional responsibilities being
downloaded to municipalities by the Province has created significant funding pressures for Conservation
Authorities and it has made it difficult or impossible for them to fulfill their legislated responsibilities.
.
CA's have had to increase or add new fees to the services they provide and obtain additional municipal
support in order to make up for the shortfall in funding but these are market-driven and have been
maximized. Municipal General Levy has increased from $350,000 to $1,380,388 between 1996 and 2004
at the NVCA.
.
The intention is not to increase local levy, but rather to ensure that the Province re-establishes a 50/50
funding partnership between the province and municipalities as per their original commitment in the 1997
Policy and Procedures Manual for Conservation Authorities.
.
If additional provincial funding is approved, member municipalities are asked to maintain the current level
of municipal levy.
Conservation
ONTARIO
Natura! Champions
F
URE
I
A Summary of the Submission
made to the Ontario Minister
of Natural Resources
(CAs) have seen significant
funding over the past decade.
Transfer payments from the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources have been cut by 87% since 1992.
As a result of the cutbacks, over the past decade
Conservation Authorities have reduced services and
increased other sources of revenue to focus on the
highest priorities. Self-generated revenue and increased
municipal levies cover the bulk of the cost of work
done by Conservation Authorities.
1992 Annual Transfer Payment to CAs: mil ion
2004 Annual Transfer Payment to CAs: $7.6 mill
2002
CONSER T
A T R T
SO R ES
REVE ES
47%
\II municipal plan review
\II land rental fees
\II gate fees, etc.
2%
32%
E ?
have restructured, streamlined and
to meet their most pressing
instituted fee structures and
with government, private
organizations in order to stretch available
however, CAs and their member
reached their capacity to generate
additional revenues and are finding it difficult to maintain
current services.
Almost ten and a half million people live in watersheds
Authorities. Ontario is
threats to our water and
exploding population growth,
growing demand for these limited
have much more work to do,
resources to work with.
PR
5
R
F
L l 5
Current (2002) Projected (2005)
Total Provincial funding required for eligible activities $ 16.7 M
Provincial funding required for excluded activities
. Municipal Review
. Floodplain/Hazard Land Regulations
. Shoreline Management
Provincial Funding Allocated
$ 17.5 M
$ 3.9 M
Shortfall
$ 9.1 M
$ 7.6 M
$ 13.8 M
$ 7.6 M
R E - I
E5T
5
T
E 5
On behalf of Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities,
Conservation Ontario has requested that the Minister of Natural Resources:
1. Provide a fair, equitable and sustainable funding for ba.sic
operational activities defined in the OMNR's 1997 Pol yand
Procedures Manual for Conservation Authorities;
2. Re-invest in some activities
1997, including the Municipal
Floodplain/Hazard Land
Management; and
3. Use the annual Consumer
living increases.
Municipal Review,
Shoreline Management are all
provincial interest and should
under provincial transfer
to successful flood and
It is critical that the
Authorities today in order to capacity to
continue to deliver existing programs and to meet
tom morrow's challenges.
Provincial Transfer Payment funding now makes up only 5%
of the average Conservation Authority annual budget. This
shortfall in funding, coupled with additional responsibilities
being downloaded to municipalities by the Province has
created significant funding pressures for Conservation
Authorities. This has made it difficult and even impossible
for them to fulfill their legislated responsibilities.
Are-investment
's
. The intention is not to increase local municipal levies, but
rather to ensure that the Province re-establishes a 50/50
funding partnership between the province and municipalities
as per the original commitment in the 7997 Policy and
Procedures Manual for Conservation Authorities.
leadership
. Additional provincial funding and sustained municipal
support will allow for Conservation Authorities to expand
current services and initiatives as well as develop new
programs required to meet today's increasing demands.
~
~
Conservation
ONTARIO
Natural Champiom
Conservation Ontario is a non-governmental organization
that represents the common interests of Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities across Ontario.
This report has been prepared by Conservation Ontario.
For more information, please contact
Conservation Ontario
P.O. Box 11, 120 Bayview Parkway, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4W3
Tel: 905-895-0716 Fax: 905-895-0751
Email: info@conservation-ontario.on.ca
Chris Carrier, Chair
Fred Nix, Vice-Chair
Wayne R. Wilson, c.A.O.
Member
Municipalities
Watershed
Counties
August 20, 2004
Township of Oro-Medonte
Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO
148 Line 7 South
Oro, On
LOL 2XO
Dear Ms. Zieleniewski:
RE:
.""
REQUEST FOR MUNICIPAL SUPPORT RE DRAFT
DRINKING WA TER RESOURCE PROTECTION ACT
At the NVCA Full Authority Meeting of August 13th, the Board endorsed the
following resolution regarding the new draft legislation, Drinking Water Resource
Protection Act, 2004,:
MOVED BY: Gord Montgomery SECONDED BY: Walter Benotto
BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
supports Conservation Ontario in commending the Minister of Environment on
the release of draft Drinking Water Source Protection Act; and,
THAT: The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority supports the proposed
source protection legislation and the role proposed for Conservation
Authorities, provided that adequate and sustained provincial funding is
available to fulfill conservation authority responsibilities; and,
THAT: The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority will continue to work
with the Ministry to complete the development of the source protection
planning process and looks forward to the timely implementation of drinking
water source protection for Ontario residents.
The NVCA and Conservation Ontario is lobbying the Province to ensure that
appropriate sustainable provincial funding is provided to enable the implementation
of this legislation.
We are seeking the support of your municipality in endorsing this draft legislation.
In keeping with this request, the following resolution was carried at the meeting of
August 13th:
NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Centre for Conservation
John Hix Conservation Administration Centre Tiffin Conservation Area 8195 Concession Line 8 Utopia, On LOM 1 TO
705.424.1479 Fax: 705.424.21 5 Web: www.nvca.on.ca Email: admin@nvca.on.ca
MOVED BY: Gord Montgomery SECONDED BY Walter Benotto
BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
forwards the following draft resolution to its member municipalities seeking
their support for the draft Drinking Water Resource Protection Act;
WHEREAS:
of our drinking water resources; and,
municipality supports the protection
WHEREAS: municipality supports the coordinating
role in drinking water source protection planning proposed for conservation
authorities; and,
WHEREAS: there must be substantial and sustained provincial funding for
drinking water source protection; therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED THAT: municipality generally
supports the draft Drinking Water Resource Protection Act and recommends
that the Province proceed with the approval of the legislation and the
commitment of provincial funding for implementation of source protection.
I have enclosed relevant background information for your use, including NVCA
Key Message and Ministry of the Environment media release.
The NVCA is seeking the support of your municipality in forwarding your
endorsement of this draft legislation to the Honourable Leona Dombrowsky,
Minister of the Environment.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish further information on this.
Furthermore, I would be pleased to meet with your Council to answer any
questions regarding this important request.
Wayne R ilson, B.Sc.
CAO/Se retary- Treasurer
c: NVCA Chair, Chris Carrier
Full Authority
KEY MESSAGE
SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
August 11,2004
Source Protection Plannina
. Every watershed in Ontario needs a source protection plan. The Province is committed to implementing
this.
. Public input is critical and the source protection planning process must be open and transparent.
. Additional provincial funding is required to meet this goal.
Source Protection Plannina Reaions:
. In order to facilitate more effective planning, the Province is combining some watersheds into 'source
protection regions'. Each region will have a source protection committee and most will involve two or
more Conservation Authorities. The NVCA will partner with the LSRCA (Lead), North Simcoe
Municipalities (SSEA ) and the Black River Watershed Municipalities.
Role for Conservation Authorities lCA's) in Source Protection Plannina
. Conservation Authorities will coordinate the development of plans
. CA's will bring together stakeholders in Source Protection Planning Committees
. CA's will provide technical support and expertise for informed decision-making and will gather and
analyze data required for source protection planning
. Conservation Authorities are already underway in collecting technical data and researching new
approaches.
Source Protection Plannina Draft Leaislation
. The Province's recently released draft legislation on source protection planning is also an important
step.
. CA's are reviewing this document and it looks very promising.
IS
must
The proposed new regulation make protection ofthe natural ecosystem a key deciding
factor in granting water-taking permits. Ministry directors would have to consider:
. potential impacts of the proposed water taking on ground and surface water, including
potential impacts on water quantity and quality;
. potential impacts of area water takings on water supply, including impacts on
groundwater aquifers in the area; and
. potential impacts of the proposed water taking on stream flows and water levels, as well
as on the habitat that depends upon certain flows and levels.
Thus, permit applicants would better know what specific expectations they are required to meet.
water
as a
must
on a
proposed new
to
are concerns
-
on water
IS
cornerstone
new
water takings by
holders. This
water
be on a
systems, major industrial dischargers and users that remove water from the watershed
users to Most users are a to
reporting water use. Other users would be required to based on a priority
currently under review by the ministry.
water
be
5) enhanced notification to municipalities and conservation authorities of water-
taking permit applications.
Under the proposed new regulation the ministry would send notification of water-taking
applications to all affected municipalities and conservation authorities.
The proposed regulation has been posted to the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry
for public comment for 60
days.
'"
or
26,
fundraising events.
room.
to
are as
at
I
I
was
I
Page 1 of 1
Marilyn Pennycook
Sent:
To:
From: GKnox@county.simcoe.on.ca
Thursday, September 16, 200412:16 PM
County-Council. ONT@county.simcoe.on.ca; juan ita@town.bradfordwestgwillimbury.on.ca;
gnorris@collingwood.ca; plandry@innisfil.ca; hbabcock@town.midland.on.ca;
pmidd lebrook@town.newtecumseth.on.ca; gvadeboncoeur@town.penetanguishene.on.ca;
wasagaadmin@georgian.net; bcolquhon@townshipadjtos.on.ca; bcampbell@clearviewtwp.on.ca;
ctrainor@essatownship.on.ca; Marilyn Pennycook; rbates@township.ramara.on.ca;
hsander@townshipofsevern.com; ERath@springwater.ca; twalker@tay.township.on.ca;
rrobita ille@tiny.ca; mayorsoffice@city.barrie.on.ca; mayor@city.orillia.on.ca;
jsisson@city.barrie.on.ca; lIee@city.orillia.on.ca
Cc: hmacrae@county.simcoe.on.ca; maitken@county.simcoe.on.ca; ibender@county.simcoe.on.ca
Subject: County of Simcoe Comments on "Places to Grow" Document
Please find enclosed a copy of the County of Simcoe's draft response to the Province of Ontario regarding the
"Places to Grow" document.
This revised "draft" has been prepared as a result of the discussions at the County's three standing committee
meetings held this week.
These comments represent the proposed submission by the County and detail the County's perspective, as per
our position and our responsibilities under the Planning Act, on the "Places to Grow" document.
It would be appreciated, if your municipality has further input on the draft document, that all comments be
forwarded to the myself by no later than 10:00 a.m. on September 23rd, 2004. This deadline is required as the
County must submit its draft position to the Province by September 24th, 2004.
County Council will be considering the County's final submission at its meeting on September 28th, 2004 and will
submit any approved amendments to the document following that meeting, if required.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Glen Knox
County Clerk
9/17/2004
The Corporation of the
County of
Simcoe
(705) 735-6901 Fax: (705) 727-4276
Toll Free (800) 263-3199
Email:planning@county.simcoe.on.ca
CORPORATE SERV1CES DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
1110 Highway 26
Administration Centre
Midhurst, Ontario LOL 1 XO
September 24, 2004
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
Smart Growth Secretariat
Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal
16th Floor
777 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
Dear Sir of Madam:
Re: Places to Grow Discussion Paper
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Discussion Paper, Places to Grow.
Better Choices. Brighter Future.
Council and staff of the County of Simcoe offer the following comments on the proposals
in the paper:
1. The goal of establishing a growth management strategy through the discussion
paper and public input is excellent and is long overdue. Placing a growth
management strategy in the planning policy regime for Central Ontario will
provide greater certainty for the public and especially for municipalities which
must plan for and finance a wide variety of public services necessary to
support population, housing, and employment growth. The County is also in
the developmental stages of a growth management strategy to be included as
part of our Official Plan. This will include participation from the County
member municipalities as well as the separated cities of Barrie and Orillia.
2. The general objectives of accommodating growth while protecting our natural
heritage and resources, such as geological features, greenlands, agriculture,
groundwater and aggregates, reinforces the current policy regime and sets out
the overall needs which must be balanced as change occurs. These resources
are an extremely important part of the essential resource base of rural Ontario.
County of Simcoe - Comments on 'Places to Grow' Discussion Paper
Page 2
3. While the identification of "priority urban centres" (Barrie, in the Simcoe
County geographical area) provides some indication with regards to the
priorities for provincial infrastructure initiatives, the complementary role of
the urban and rural structure of Simcoe County seems to have been ignored in
the discussion paper. Simcoe County and its member local municipalities are
developing as strong and growing entities which play an integral role in the
economy of central Ontario. The County, as noted through previous Council
resolution, supports our member municipalities with respect to the
maintenance of existing municipal boundaries where it is apparent that these
municipalities have strong Official Plans and planning policies, and where
these municipalities are positioned to accommodate growth, including the
required servicing and infrastructure capacities. The Town ofInnisfil is one
example of this. The County is also agreeable to amicable boundary
modifications where cooperative planning initiatives between municipalities
may lead to this conclusion. The future health of our member municipalities
would be assured with proper investment in infrastructure and attention from
other provincial initiatives, to complement a sound planning and growth
management framework for Simcoe County.
4. The diversity of the economy and the resources of Simcoe County must be
recognized and given priority when considering growth initiatives. Aggregate
development, agriculture, and tourism are established industries and are
integral parts of our economy which will flourish with continued
infrastructure support and further attention to matters such as natural heritage
conservation. Similarly, groundwater resources must be conserved for current
and future generations through effective groundwater source protection,
wellhead protection, and watershed planning.
5. The emphasis on intensification and redevelopment is an appropriate objective
for primary and secondary urban centres, this includes the re-vitalization of
many of our existing settlement areas. The opportunities for such
intensification and redevelopment in many of the County's urban places are
however limited by their size (fewer optional land development opportunities)
and by their recently developed growth patterns which reflect the presence of
finnly held urban or settlement boundaries. In some locations, the
conservation of the small town character and chann of certain settlements is of
greater priority and serves both the local community and the tourism industry,
which is very significant in Simcoe County.
County of Simcoe - Comments on 'Places to Grow' Discussion Paper
Page 3
6. Although highway expansion projects in Simcoe County are identified as "not
immediate priorities", according to the paper, such highway projects are
crucial to the ability of the County to establish appropriate employment
centres. Such employment centres are considered key to the diversification of
employment opportunities in Simcoe County and in the reduction of "out
commuting" to places particularly in the Greater Toronto Area. The
emergence of the Highway 400 corridor as an economic growth corridor is a
reality and should accordingly be recognized in the paper as a significant
component in the development of central Ontario. Other provincial
transportation corridor improvements, concepts and initiatives should likewise
be recognized. These matters need to be re-evaluated in this context.
7. The County endorses the identification, in Places to Grow, ofthe need to
provide employment growth in small towns and rural communities to sustain
and promote local economies and community services.
8. The County believes that it is in a strong position to accommodate growth in
its settlement areas, and that it can achieve effective and efficient management
of that growth through continuation of our planning initiatives and programs,
and through the continued and improved co-operation on planning matters by
all municipalities within the geographical area of the County of Simcoe. We
encourage the assistance of the province in these matters, including the
development of mechanisms for the provision of further employment growth
and economic development.
In conclusion, Places to Grow needs to be amended to recognize that Simcoe County is,
and can be in the future, a vital component in the evolution of central Ontario and its
accommodation of population, housing, and employment growth in the greater region.
We would be pleased to discuss these matters further with you.
Yours truly,
Ian Bender
Director of Planning
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
2003-2006 TERM
Monday, September 13, 2004 @ 7:01 p.m.
Robinson Room / Council Chambers
Present:
Council Representatives
Mayor J. Neil Craig
Deputy Mayor Harry Hughes
Councillor Dan Buttineau
Councillor Ralph Hough
Councillor Paul Marshall
Councillor John Crawford
Councillor Ruth Fountain
Public Representatives
Terry Allison
Robert Barlow
Mel Coutanche
Craig Drury
John Miller
Staff Present:
Andria Leigh, Senior Planner; Janette Teeter, Clerk's Assistant
Also Present:
John Strimas, Jane Burgess, Lester Cooke, Cristina Cooke, Kris
Menzies
1. Opening of Meeting by Chair.
Mayor J. Neil Craig assumed the chair and called the meeting to order.
2. Adoption of Agenda.
Motion No. PAC-1
Moved by John Miller, Seconded by Craig Drury
It is recommended that the agenda for the Planning Advisory Committee meeting of
Monday, September 13, 2004 be received and adopted.
Carried.
3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in
Accordance with the Act.
None declared.
4. Minutes of Previous Meetings - August 9, 2004.
Motion No. PAC-2
Moved by John Miller, Seconded by Craig Drury
It is recommended that the minutes of the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting held
on August 9,2004 be received.
Carried.
5. Correspondence and Communication.
None.
6. Planning Applications.
a. Planning Report prepared by Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, Re: John Strimas
- Part of Lot 12, Concession 8 (Medonte), Application P-129/01.
Motion No. PAC-3
Moved by Terry Allison, Seconded by Robert Barlow
It is recommended that Report No. PD 2004-42, Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, re:
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment for John Strimas and Jane Burgess, Concession
8, East Part of Lots 12 and 13, 51R-14221, Parts 1 and 2, 51R-31772, Part 2
(Medonte), Township of Oro-Medonte be received and adopted; and further that it is
recommended to Council that Zoning By-law Amendment Application P-129/01 for
John Strimas and Jane Burgess, Concession 8, East Part of Lots 12 and 13, RP 51 R-
14221, Parts 1 and 2, RP 51 R-31772, Part 2 (Medonte), Township of Oro-Medonte
proceed to a Public Meeting in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act.
Carried.
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting - September 13. 2004
Page 2
b. Planning Report prepared by Andria Leigh, Senior Planner Re: CRA
Developments - West Part of Lot 26, Concession 9 (Oro), Application 2004-
OPA-03 and 2004-ZBA-04.
Motion No. PAC-4
Moved by Terry Allison, Seconded by Craig Drury
It is recommended that Report No. PD 2004-39, Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, re: CRA
Developments Ltd., Concession 9, Part of Lot 26 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte,
2004-0P A-03, and 2004-ZBA-04 be received and adopted; and further that it is
recommended to Council that Applications 2004-0PA-03 and 2004-ZBA-04, submitted
by CRA Developments, Concession 9, Part of Lot 26 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte,
proceed to a public meeting in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act.
Carried.
c. Planning Report prepared by Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, Re: Laurel View
Homes Inc. - Part of Lots 3 and 4, Concession 4 (Oro), Application 2004-ZBA-
17.
Motion No. PAC-5
Moved by Craig Drury, Seconded by John Miller
It is recommended that Report No. PD 2004-41, Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, re:
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment for Laurel View Homes Inc. and Horseshoe Valley
Lands Ltd., Concession 4, Part of Lots 3 & 4, and Plan M-741 , Lots 1-66 (Oro),
Township of Oro-Medonte be received and adopted; and further that it is recommended
to Council that Zoning By-law Amendment Application 2004-ZBA-17 for Laurel View
Homes Inc. and Horseshoe Valley Lands Ltd., Concession 4, Part of Lots 3 and 4, and
Plan M-741 , Lots 1-66 (Oro) Township of Oro-Medonte, proceed to a Public Meeting in
accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act.
Carried.
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting - September 13, 2004
Page 3
d. Planning Report prepared by Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, Re: Lester and
Cristina Cooke - South Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 (Orillia), Application P-
159/03.
Motion No. PAC-6
Moved by Craig Drury, Seconded by John Miller
It is recommended that Report No. PD 2004-40, Andria Leigh, Senior Planner re: Lester
and Cristina Cooke, Development Application P-159/03 Concession 3, South Part of Lot
17 (Orillia), Township of Oro-Medonte be received and adopted; and, further that it is
recommended to Council that Application P-159/03, a proposed Official Plan and
Zoning By-law Amendment submitted by Lester and Cristina Cooke, Concession 3,
South Part of Lot 17 (Orillia), Township of Oro-Medonte proceed to a public meeting in
accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act.
Carried.
7. Other Business.
a. Next Meeting - Committee meeting following the Public Meeting scheduled for
Monday October 18, 2004.
8. Adjournment
Motion No. PAC-7
Moved by Robert Barlow, Seconded by Terry Allison
It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 8:16 p.m.
Carried.
Chair, Mayor J. Neil Craig
Senior Planner, Andria Leigh
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting - September 13, 2004
Page 4
Committee of Adiustment Minutes
Thursdav September 16. 2004. 9:30 a.m.
In Attendance: Chairman Dave Edwards, Member Lynda Aiken, Member Allan
Johnson, Member Garry Potter, Member Michelle Lynch, Senior Planner Andria
Leigh and Junior Planner/Acting Secretary-Treasurer Andy Karaiskakis.
1. Communications and Correspondence
Correspondence to be addressed at the time of the specific hearing.
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
Member Garry Potter declared a conflict of interest regarding Application
2004-B-48 and did not participate in the discussion.
3. HearinQs:
Ingrid & Manfred Kolbe 2004-B-42
Conc. 13, Lot 22, Plan 1242 Part 1, Plan 952 Pt Blk A (Oro)
2298 Lakeshore Road E.
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby grant Provisional Consent regarding Application
2004-B-42 subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject land prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer;
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. That the severed lands be merged in title with 2296 Lakeshore Road E.
and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning
Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the
subject lands;
4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands
and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title;
5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and,
6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of the notice.
... ..Carried."
Morley & Mervyn Bell
Cone. 7, West Part Lot 8 (Medonte)
525 Ingram Road
2004-B-43
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Lynda Aiken
"That the Committee hereby grant Provisional Consent regarding Application
2004-B-43 as amended to a rear property line which would follow the top of the
bank of the southerly boundary of the Coldwater River and be subject to the
following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the
severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to
the Secretary-Treasurer;
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. That the severed lands be merged in title with the lot described legally as
Conc. 7, West Part Lot 8, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 51 R-23064 and
that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act
apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject
lands;
4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands
and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title;
5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and,
6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of the notice.
.... .Carried."
2
Dale Plant
Cone. 9, Part Lot 10 (Ora)
744 Old Barrie Road E.
2004-B-45
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Garry Potter
"That the Committee hereby grant Provisional Consent regarding Application
2004-8-45 subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the
severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to
the Secretary-Treasurer;
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. That the severed lands be merged in title with Knox Cemetery and that
the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act
apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject
lands;
4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands
and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title;
5. That the applicant apply for and obtain a re-zoning on the severed land to
accurately reflect the institutional land use;
6. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and,
7. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of the notice.
... ..Carried."
3
Derek & Tracey Rynard
Conc. 1, East Part Lot 6 (Orillia)
932 Line 15 N.
2004-B-46
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby Defer Consent Application 2004-B-46 as per the
request of the applicant.
... ..Carried."
4
Dan & Mary Rupke
Cone. 5, East Part Lot 23 & 24 (Ora)
432 Line 5 S.
2004-B-47
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby approve Consent Application 2004-B-47 subject to
the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the severed lot indicating the
easement as a separate Part on the same Reference Plan be prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor and be submitted to the Committee Secretary;
2. That the conditions of consent application 2004-8-38 have been satisfied;
3. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance for the easement, for review by the Municipality; and,
4. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of the notice.
... ..Carried."
5
Leanne & Stacey Cunnington
Conc. 5, South-East Part Lot 20 (Ora)
30 Line 5 N.
2004-B-48
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby grant provisional consent for Application 2004-B-48
subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the new lot be prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor and be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer;
2. That the applicants' solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. That the applicant pay a cash-in-lieu of parkland levy in the amount of $
2000.00 in accordance with By-law 2004-076;
4. That the existing drainage be maintained to the satisfaction of the
Engineering Department;
5. That the applicants satisfy the comments of the Public Works Department
with regards to the natural water course running through the property and
that proposed buildings should not interfere with it;
6. That the applicants verify that the sewage system on the retained lot
meets the minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario
Building Code;
7. That the applicants obtain an entrance permit from the Roads
Department;
8. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee to the Township in
the amount determined by Council as of the date the fee is received by
the Township; and;
9. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of the notice.
... ..Carried."
6
Alexander Roeke & Barbara Lawson Robertson
Cone. 1, North Part Lot 38, South Part Lot 39 (Oro)
3015 Penetanguishene Road
2004-B..49
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby Defer Consent Application 2004-8-49 as per the
request of the applicant
... ..Carried."
7
Larry Tupling 2004-A-36
Concession 1, Plan 546, East Part Lot 6 (Orillia)
31 Bards Beach Road
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance Application 2004-A-36 as
follows:
THAT PERMISSION TO EXPAND A LEGAL NON-COMPLYING USE IS
GRANTED FOR 31 BARDS BEACH ROAD FOR A 26.75 M2 (288 FT2)
UNENCLOSED PORCH WITH A ROOF OVERHANG TO BE LOCATED
AT THE REAR OF THE COTTAGE AND BEING SETBACK
APPROXIMATELY 10 METRES (33 FEET) FROM THE AVERAGE HIGH
WATER MARK OF BASS LAKE AND 1.5 METRES (5 FEET) FROM THE
INTERIOR SIDE YARD FOR THE WEST CORNER OF THE
UNENCLOSED PORCH
and subject to the following conditions:
1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's
Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final
and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13;
2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of
compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2)
verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real
property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor;
3. That the proposed unenclosed porch with a roof overhang be no closer
than 10 metres (33 feet) from the average high water mark of Bass Lake;
4. That the proposed unenclosed porch be no closer than 1.5 metres (5 feet)
from the interior side yard for the west corner of the porch; and,
5. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the
application and by the sketch submitted with the application and approved
by the Committee.
.... .Carried."
8
Darren Vivian
Cone. 2, South Part Lot 4 (Orillia)
1147 Line 15 N.
A-24/02 (Revised)
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby grant Minor Variance Application A-24/02 as
submitted and be subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant obtain a permit or written approval from the
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority under the Conservation
Authorities Act prior to obtaining the building permit from the Township
Building Department;
2. That the applicant maintain the existing drainage to the satisfaction of
the Public Works Department;
3. That the applicant satisfy the comments of the Building Department with
regards to the design of the garage to include the requirements for
limiting distance in exterior wall construction and footing design for
footings within the water table;
4. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of
compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and
2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of
survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor;
5. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the
application and by the sketch with the application and approved by the
Committee;
6. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's
Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final
and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.
13;
7. That the attached garage be no larger than 66.88 m2 (720 ft2); and,
8. That the attached garage be located no closer 0.3 metres (1 foot) from
the interior side lot line.
... ..Carried."
9
6. Other business
-Revision of conditions for 2004-A-30 (Akers & Stavinga)
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION to MODIFY CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL
WHEREAS Committee deems it necessary to clarify the conditions of the
minor variance and finds the modifications to be minor and of a technical
nature, and
WHEREAS Committee deems the changes to the conditions to be minor
and therefore no Notice of the change to conditions is required;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Conditions to Minor Variance Application 2004-A-30 be modified to
state:
1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of
compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2)
verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real
property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor;
2. That the interior area of the proposed boathouse be no larger than 83.2
m2 (896 ft2); in addition to a 5.46 m2 (58.8 fe) unenclosed 'lean-to'
extension as illustrated on the sketch dated July 5, 2004 on 805
Woodland Drive;
3. That the applicants obtain approval from the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority for the proposed boathouse;
4. That the mean level between the eaves and ridge of the boathouse be no
more than 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) above the elevation of the average high
water mark of Lake Simcoe;
5. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the
application, as submitted; and,
6. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief
Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and
binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
'" ..Carried."
10
-Revision of conditions for 8-38/03 (Indian Park Association)
WHEREAS Committee may modify the conditions of Provisional Consent in
accordance with Section 53 (23) of the Planning Act R.S.O 1990. c.P. 13, as
amended.
WHEREAS Committee deems it necessary to amend the conditions of
Provisional Consent and finds the modifications to be minor and of a
technical nature, and
WHEREAS Committee deems the changes to the conditions to be minor
and therefore, pursuant to Section 53(26) of the Planning Act, no Notice of
the change to conditions is required;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Lynda Aiken
"That the Conditions to Consent Application B-38/03 be modified to state:
1. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte;
2. That three copies of a draft Reference Plan, along with a digital copy, be
submitted to the Township for approval prior to registration;
3. That the severed lands be appropriately rezoned;
4. That the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of the Planning Act
apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the parcel of
land subject of this consent and the applicants solicitor provide an
undertaking in a form acceptable to the Township that the severed parcels
will merge in title with the abutting lots in accordance with the Committee's
decision;
5. That the Secretary-Treasurer be advised by the Roads Department that
all works required as a result of the approval have been completed; and,
6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of this notice as noted below.
.... .Carried."
Note: Condition 4 from decision dated October 29, 2003 is removed
11
-Discussion for November Committee of Adjustment Meeting
-Adoption of minutes for August 12, 2004 Meeting
4. Other Business
Moved by Garry Potter, Seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the minutes for the July 15th 2004 Meeting be adopted as printed
and circulated
.. .Carried."
5. Adiournment
Moved by Garry Potter, Seconded by Allan Johnson
"We do now adjourn at 12:40 p.m."
. .. Carried.
(NOTE: A tape of this meeting is available for review.)
Chairperson,
Dave Edwards
Secretary-Treasurer,
Andy Karaiskakis
12
,
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
PD 2004-43 Council Andria Leigh, MCIP,RPP
Subject: Department:
Council Removal of Holding Planning
Provision - Heights of
C. of W. Horseshoe Townhomesl Date:
New Millennium Homes Sept 15,2004
Motion Limited, Concessions 3 R.M. File #:
# & 4, Part of Lots 1
(Medonte) D07 013029
Date: Roll #:
020-010-00400
BACKGROUND:
An application was submitted by Horseshoe Resort Corporation in October 2003 for a
Zoning By-law Amendment and a Plan of Condominium for a 24 unit town home
complex on the above noted lands. The lands are located within the Horseshoe Valley
Village designation and were contemplated as part of the Comprehensive Development
Plan approved by Council in August 2003. A zoning by-law amendment (By-law 2004-
031) was adopted by Council on April 7, 2004 and rezoned the subject lands to a
Residential Two Exception (R2*158) Zone which permitted the town house
development and allowed for site specific lot frontage and setback requirements. At the
time of adoption of this by-law it was subject to a Holding Provision that indicated that
the Holding Provision was not to be removed until such time as a Site Plan Agreement
was executed by Council to ensure development did not occur prior to the completion of
the appropriate site plan. On August 11, 2004 By-law 2004-092 was adopted by
Council to authorize the execution of a Site Plan Agreement on the subject lands.
As the rationale for the Holding Provision was satisfied with the execution of the Site
Plan Agreement, it is now being recommended that the appropriate by-law be given
favorable consideration by Council to remove the Holding provision leaving the property
with a Residential Two Exception (R2*158) Zone.
t
II RECOMMENDATION(S):
II
It is recommended to Council:
1. THAT Report No. PD 2004-43 be received and adopted; and
2. The a by-law to remove the Holding provision from lands located at Concessions 3
and 4, Part of Lot 1 (Medonte) (Heights of Horseshoe Townhomes/New Millennium
Homes Limited) be brought forward for favorable consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Andria Leigh, MCIP,
Senior Planner
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
- 2 -
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Committee of the Prepared By:
Whole
PD2004-45 Nick McDonald, RPP
Subject: Modifications to
OPA #17 Department:
Council Planning
C.ofW. Date: September 16,
2004
Motion # R.M. File #:
DOS 011937
Date: Roll #:
II BACKGROUND:
I~
Official Plan Amendment #17 was adopted by Council on August 21st, 2003. Since that time, the OPA has been
under review by the County of Simcoe and a number of meetings with County staff have been held to discuss the
OPA.
On this basis a review of OP A #17 by staff at the County of Simcoe and a further review of OP A #17 by Township
staff and Meridian, a number of relatively minor modifications are proposed to OPA #17. The majority of the
modifications have been identified by County of Simcoe staff. The intent of these modifications is to primarily
ensure that the policy direction in OPA #17 is as clear and concise as possible. A description of each of the
proposed modifications is attached, along with an explanation of the intent of each, as required.
OMMENDATION S :
On the basis of the above, it is recommended:
1. That Council receive and adopted Report PO 2004-45;
2. That Council support the modifications to Sections C1.3.2, C1.3.2.2, C1.3.8, C2.3.1, C2.3.3, C2.3.5,
C3.3.6.5 (g), C11.3 (j), C14, C14.3, C14.4, C14.5.4.1, 01.2.2, 01.2.3, 01.3, 02.2.1, 02.2.3, E1.2,
E1.9, E1.1 0, Schedule A, and Schedule B as identified in Appendix A attached; and
3. That the County of Simcoe be advised in writing of Council's decision.
Respectfully Submitted,
Nick McOonald, MCIP, RPP
Partner
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
Dept. Head
C.A.O.
- 2 -
OPA#17:
1. Section C1.3.2 (The Creation of New Lots for Non-Agricultural Purposes) is
modified by adding in the following sentence at the beginning of the
Section "In accordance with the intent of this Plan to protect land suitable
for agriculture and to maintain the rural character of the Township, the
creation of new lots in the agricultural designation for non-residential
purposes is not permitted."
This modification is proposed to re-include a policy that was inadvertently deleted
through the adoption of OPA#17.
2. Section C1.3.2.2 (Infilling Lots) is modified by deleting sub-section a) and
replacing it with the following:
"a) the lot is to be located between two existing non-farm residences
which are on separated lots of a similar size and which are situated
on the same side of the road and are not more than 100 metres
apart. "
This modification is proposed to ensure that the policy regarding Infilling Lots in
the Agricultural designation is consistent with the policies in both the Provincial
Policy Statement and the County of Simcoe Official Plan.
3. Section C1.3.8 (Farm Related Tourism Establishments) is modified by
adding new sub-sections c) and d) and re-numbering all other sub-sections
as appropriate:
"c) the use is clearly an accessory use to a farm operation or a single
detached dwelling on the same lot;
d) every effort has been made to locate the use in an existing farm
building such as a barn, or is to be located in a new building that is
designed to be representative of the area's agricultural and rural
character;"
In addition to the above, the last sentence of Section C1.3.8 is deleted.
This modification is being made to ensure that new such uses are clearly
accessory uses.
4. Section C2.3.1 (The Creation of New Lots for Residential Purposes) is
modified by replacing "2.0 hectares" with "1.0 hectares" in Subsection b)
and by adding the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph
"notwithstanding the above, a larger lot size may be considered for
environmental or topographical reasons."
9/17/04
This modification is proposed to ensure that the maximum lot size considered for
new residential lots in the rural designation is 1.0 hectare instead of 2.0 hectares,
in accordance with County of Simcoe policy. A larger lot size is possible,
depending on its location.
5. Section C2.3.3 (new institutional uses, commercial uses and corporate
meeting facilities) is modified by adding the word 'highway' before the
word 'commercial' in the first line.
This modification is being made to reflect the County of Simcoe Official Plan
requirement that commercial uses in the rural area be highway-oriented.
6. Section C2.3.5 (Industrial Uses) is modified by adding in Subsection i) and
j).
"will generate minimal traffic"; and
"has a small number of employees. "
This modification is proposed to ensure that the policy tests in the Oro-Medonte
Official Plan match those within the County of Simcoe Official Plan.
7. Section C3.3.6.5(g) (Secondary Plan - Hawkestone) is modified by deleting
all of the words after 'Highway 11/11th Line interchange' and replacing
those words with: "and the County and local roads in the area in
accordance with Section 01.5 of this Plan."
This modification is being made to simplify the traffic impact study requirements
and reference Section 01.5 of the Plan, which deals with Traffic Impact Studies.
8. Section C11.3(j) (Secondary Plan - Mount St. Louis/Moonstone) is modified
by deleting all of the words after 'Highway 400/Mount St. Louis Road
interchange' and replacing those words with: "and the County and local
roads in the area in accordance with Section 01.5 of this Plan."
This modification is being made to simplify the traffic impact study requirements
and reference Section 01.5 of the Plan, which deals with Traffic Impact Studies.
9. Section C14 (Horseshoe Valley Road) is modified by deleting Section C14.2
(Land Use Concept) and by re-numbering all other sections accordingly.
This modification is being made since Section A4.3 (Special Policy for Horseshoe
Valley Road) already contains a similar policy.
10. Section C14.3 (Road Improvements to Horseshoe Valley Road) is modified
by adding the following sentence at the end of the section: "The nature of
the proposed improvements will be identified in a Traffic Impact Study
prepared in accordance with Section 01.5 of this Plan."
This modification makes it clear that a traffic impact study is required when
development is proposed.
9/17/04
11. Section C14.4 (Sugarbush and Buffalo Springs nodes) is modified by
adding the words "Bed and Breakfast establishments subject to Section
C1.3.10" after the words "private recreational facilities".
This modification is proposed to ensure that Bed and Breakfast establishments
are permitted within the Sugarbush and Buffalo Springs nodes. Such uses are
currently permitted in every other land use designation where residential uses
are permitted.
12. Section C14.5.4.1 (Permitted Uses-Horseshoe Valley Low-Density
Residential Designation) is modified by adding the following "Bed and
Breakfast establishments subject to Section C1.3.10 of this Plan" after the
words "home occupations".
This modification is proposed to ensure that Bed and Breakfast establishments
are permitted within the low-density residential designation in Horseshoe Valley.
13. Section D1.2.2 {Access to Horseshoe Valley Road (County Road 22),
Highway 12 and County Road 93) is modified by adding the following
sentence after the first sentence: "The County Roads have been identified
as Arterial Roads by the County of Simcoe Official Plan."
This modification indicates that all County Roads are arterial roads.
14. Section D1.2.3 {Access to Ridge Road (County Road 20), Old Barrie Road
(County Road 11), County Road 19, County Road 57 and County Road 23)
is modified by adding the following sentence after the first sentence: "The
County Roads have been identified as Arterial Roads by the County of
Simcoe Official Plan."
This modification indicates that all County Roads are arterial roads.
15. Section D1.3 (Right-of-Way Widths) is modified by:
. deleting the second sentence of the first paragraph;
. deleting the third sentence of the first paragraph and replacing that
sentence with the following: "Right-of-way widths for County Roads
shall be in conformity with the County of Simcoe Official Plan."
. deleting the last sentence of the second paragraph and replacing
that sentence with the following: "The right-of-way width on line 7
North from Highway 11 to the northern extent of the Lake Simcoe
Regional Airport property and line 7 South from Highway 11 to the
southern boundary of the lands subject to the Oro center Secondary
Plan is 26.0 metres."
9/17/04
The above modifications recognize the downloading of Line 7 South to the
Township and the minimum right-of-ways widths established by the County of
Simcoe Official Plan.
16. Section D2.2.1 (General Criteria) is modified by deleting sub-section b) and
replacing it with the following: "does not have direct access to a Provincial
Highway or County Road, unless the Province or the County supports the
request."
This modification is intended to deal with the issue of access, not frontage, since
lots may have frontage on a Provincial Highway or County Road, but no access.
17. Section D2.2.1 (General Criteria) is modified by deleting the word "an" in
Subsection i) and replacing that word with the following words "a
negative" .
This modification is proposed to provide some clarity on how new lots will be
assessed, particularly as it relates to its potential impact on natural heritage
features and functions.
18. Section D2.2.3 (Technical Severances) is modified by adding a new
Subsection h). "Subject to the access policies of the relevant road
authority. "
This modification is proposed to ensure that the policies of the County of Simcoe
are considered when re-creating lots that have merged.
19. Section E1.2 (Temporary Use By-laws) is modified by replacing the last
sentence in the first paragraph with the following:
"Such a use shall generally conform to the intent of the Official Plan."
This modification is being made since the Planning Act requires that temporary
use by-laws conform to the Planning Act. Given the diverse nature of temporary
uses, the proposed modification is intended to reflect the intent of the Planning
Act.
20. Section E1.2 (Temporary Use By-laws) is modified by adding a new sub-
section f) and re-Iettering all other subsections as appropriate:
"f) The proposed use shall not warrant the need for road improvements
during the term of the use."
This modification is being made to further ensure that the use is temporary and
does not create a need for improvements to infrastructure.
21. Section E1.9 (Existing Draft Plan Approved Residential Subdivisions) is
modified by deleting the words "ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
9/17/04
Housing, or the appropriate approval authority by resolution" from the
second paragraph".
This modification is proposed since the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
is no longer the approval authority.
22. Section E1.10 (Official Plan Review) is modified by adding the words "and
future transportation needs" after the word 'development' in Subsection g).
This modification is proposed to ensure that the effects of development on
transportation needs is also assessed.
23. Section E1.10 (Official Plan Review) is modified by adding the words" "or
County-wide" after the words "Province-wide" in Subsection h).
This modification is proposed to ensure that County-wide initiatives are taken into
account at the time of the next Official Plan Review.
23. Schedule A is modified by placing the Recreational, Environmental
Protection One and Environmental Protection Two designations on lands
within Lots 1 0 and D in Concession 2, as per Official Plan Amendment 10.
This modification is proposed to ensure that the lands (Heritage Hills Golf
Course) are appropriately designated as per a previous approval.
24. Item #35 of OPA #17 is deleted and replaced with the following:
"Schedules A 1 to A24 are deleted and replaced with a new Schedule A, but
only in so far as it affects lands that are not subject to OPA #16."
This modification is required to ensure that the land use designations and
applicable planning policies in the approved Official Plan continue to apply to
lands that are subject to OPA #16, until OPA #16 is approved.
25. Item #36 of OPA #17 is deleted and replaced with the following: "Schedule
B is deleted and replaced with a new Schedule B, but only in so far as it
affects lands that are not subject to OPA #16."
This modification is required to ensure that the land use designations and
applicable planning policies in the approved Official Plan continue to apply to
lands that are subject to OPA #16, until OPA #16 is approved.
9/17/04
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
PD 2004-46 Committee of the Whole Nick McDonald, RPP
Subject: Department:
Council Planning
Modifications to OPA #16
C. of W. Date:
September 16, 2004
Motion # A.M. File #:
D08 011504
Date: Roll #:
II BACKGROUND:
II
OPA #16 was adopted by Council on August 215" 2003. The purpose of this report is to review the
changes proposed to the OPA by both the County and the Province and to provide a recommendation
regarding the designation of the Georgian North lands. A complete set of the proposed modifications
to OPA #16 is attached to this report as Appendix A.
PROVINCIAL COMMENTS:
A number of meetings have been held since that time to review the OPA. Both the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) also became
involved in the approval process, since a number of concerns about the OPA were initially raised by
the MNR.
The MNR was primarily concerned about the wording in the OPA that appeared to preclude the
consideration of new gravel pits on roads that are currently not identified as haul routes. In addition,
the MNR was concerned about the policy in the OPA that would prevent Council from dealing with
OPA applications for gravel pits in the Ora Moraine Core/Corridor Area designation. Lastly, the MNR
was concerned about the un-designation of lands for extraction purposes on the Oro Moraine.
A meeting was held on May 4, 2004 at the County to deal with the above issues. Representatives
from the MMAH and MNR attended the meeting. The meeting was very constructive and the result
was a memo from the MMAH dated June 15, 2004 that recommended that a number of changes to
the text of the OPA be made to ensure that the intent of the OPA was as clear as possible. The
MMAH memo is attached as Appendix 8, and it shows the changes suggested by the MMAH and my
suggested minor changes to their changes.
In their memo, the MMAH supports the policy in the OPA that restricts the development of new gravel
pits in the Oro Moraine Core/Corridor Area designation, provided an opportunity does exist in the OPA
for Council to consider applications in the Corridor Area. This means that the MMAH has recoonized
the sionificance of the Core Area and supports the Township's efforts to protect it.
However, the MMAH suggests deleting a policy in Section C12.2 that would indicate very clearly that
"given that the protection and enhancement of significant natural heritage features and ecological
functions and the character of the Oro Moraine is a strategic objective of this Plan, the protection of
these features, functions and the character of the area shall take precedence over the development of
these same lands." In their June 15, 2004 memo, the MMAH suggests that this policy be softened
considerably.
In response, it is my opinion that there is a compellinq need to be very clear in OPA #16 on what
takes precedence, particularly in areas identified as significant. This same approach was adopted by
the MMAH in the Oak Ridges Moraine. As a result, it is recommended that OPA #16 continue to
indicate that the protection of the environment takes precedence. However, and in recognition that
the issue of impacts on character is subjective, the revised policy recognizes, as the MMAH has
suggested, that there shall be no negative impacts on character "to the extent possible."
In addition to the above, the MMAH has recommended that the assessment of any application for a
gravel pit be based on "provincial standards, regulations and guidelines." I disagree. While these
standards, regulations and guidelines are very helpful, there is also a subjective element to every
application that needs to be considered. These subjective elements have to do with the impact of a
proposal on the rural character of the area and nearby communities and takes social impacts into
account. As a result, it is recommended that the MMAH suggestion be modified with the addition of
the words "where applicable and appropriate."
Lastly, the MMAH has recommended that the policy in the OPA that states that the Township shall
control use of haul routes in accordance with the Municipal Act be deleted. However, it is my opinion
that it would be entirely appropriate for the Township to consider the passage of such a by-law in the
future and we have received legal advice that the Municipal Act, 2001, does not preclude the
municipality from passing such a by-law. On this basis, it is recommended that the policy remain as
is.
Staff at the County of Simcoe have reviewed both the MMAH letter and my response and are
prepared to support the OPA as recommended. As of the writing of this report, the MMAH has not
responded to the suggested wording changes. It should be noted that only the MMAH can appeal
OPA #16 - the MNR is not permitted to appeal on its own.
With respect to the changes in the extent of the Mineral Aggregate Resources designation on the Oro
Moraine, a map (attached as Appendix C) identifying these changes has been prepared. The map
indicates that there are about 1,713 hectares of land designated Mineral Aggregate Resources in the
current Official Plan on the Oro Moraine. Approximately 1,024 hectares, or 60% of this amount will
remain designated for aggregate extraction. Of these 1,024 hectares, 441 hectares or 43%, are not
licensed. This means that a considerable amount of land continues to be designated for extraction
purposes on the Oro Moraine. Of the land that is being re-designated, the table below shows what
new designations will apply:
· Oro Moraine Core Area - 381 hectares
. Oro Moraine Corridor Area - 23.5 hectares
· Restricted Rural- 69.8 hectares
· Agricultural - 53 hectares
· Rural- 162.5 hectares
- 2 -
The table above shows that about 689 hectares is being re-designated. About 55% of this amount is
in the Core area. The remainder has been re-designated since the lands are located in a Corridor
Area or are not on an existing haul route. In addition to the above, it should be noted that about 85
additional hectares have been re-designated by both OPA #16 and #17 primarily to Agricultural along
the southern boundary of the Oro Moraine in the vicinity of the 13th and 14th Lines. These lands do not
front on existing haul routes.
It should be noted that the policies of OP A #16 do not preclude the consideration of applications to
establish a gravel pit within any of the rural designations listed above, except in the Core areas.
On the basis of the above and based on the comments of County staff, who have been very
supportive, it is recommended that the attached modifications to OPA #16 be supported by Council.
'I COUNTY AND TOWNSHIP COMMENTS:
I'
On the basis of a review of the OPA by staff at the County of Simcoe and a further review of both
documents by Township staff and Meridian, a number of relatively minor modifications are proposed
to both Amendments. The intent of these modifications is to ensure that the policy direction in both
documents is as clear and concise as possible. A description of each of the modifications contained
with Appendix A, along with an explanation of the intent of each, as required. The majority of the
suggested modifications are the result of County staff comments on the OPA.
II GEORGIAN NORTH LANDS:
II
An issue that has arisen with respect to OPA #16 and the application submitted by Georgian North Lands. On the
basis of my understanding of the proponent's position with respect to the processing of the application, the
proponent is of the view that:
. Current and commonly accepted practices regarding the protection of wetlands and their function and the
identification and protection of significant woodland areas should not be applied or considered with
respect to the proposed development;
. The planning approvals in place were obtained in 1994 after a significant amount of information and
evidence was provided to the OMS on the environmental impact of the proposed development; and,
. The development fully conforms to OPA #16, since OPA #16, in its adopted form, continues to designate
the property for residential development.
As the intent of OPA #16 was to develop a comprehensive land use plan for the Oro Moraine that would provide
the basis for considering future development applications, existing development approvals were not reviewed.
However, if the subject lands were not considered as residentially designated lands as part of the OPA #16
process, the western portion of the property would have been located within the Oro-Moraine Core/Corridor area
designation primarily because of the location of a wetland on the property and a number of upland forest areas
which provide habitat for wetland species in the area. It is my opinion that the decision of Council with
respect to OPA #16 and the subject property needs to be revisited. However, the extent to which the
designation should be revised is unknown at this time.
On this basis, it is recommended that Council request the County of Simcoe to not make a decision
with respect to the designation of the entire property as Residential. In addition, it is further
recommended that the policies contained within Section C14.4.1.4 of the Official Plan (as re-
- 3 -
numbered by OPA #16) be the subject of a Non-Decision as well. This Non-Decision is not subject to
appeal by the landowner and would mean that the policies in the existing Official Plan would remain in
effect on the property until they are changed in the future.
ECOMMENDATION S :
On the basis of the above, it is recommended:
1. That Council receive and adopt Report PO 2004-46;
2. That Council authorize staff to request that the County of Simcoe not make a decision with
respect to the designation of the Georgian North Lands Limited property for residential
purposes in Official Plan Amendment 16;
3. That Council authorize staff to request that the County of Simcoe not make a decision with
respect to the policies contained within Section C14.4.1.4 of the Official Plan; and
4. That Council support the modifications to Sections A2.1.2, A2.2.1 , A2.2.2, A2.3.2, A.2.3. 7,
A4.3, A4.2.4, A.5.2, A.5.3, 81.3.2, 81.6, 81.10.1, 81.10.1.4, 81.10.2, 81.10.2.4, 83.2,
85.1.13,85.1.1.1,85.1.1.3,85.1.1.4,85.1.6.1, 85.1.6.2, 85.1.9, C12.1, C12.2, C12.4.2,
C12.4.3, C12.4.5, C12.4.6, Section F, and Schedule A-1 as identified in Appendix A,8, and C
attached; and
5. That the County of Simcoe be advised in writing of Council's decision.
Respectfully Submitted,
Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP
Partner
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
- 4 -
, SEP-16-?-004 THU 01:39 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO, 17057375078
p, 06/23
[fROPOSED MODIFICATIONS T9 OPA#1~~
..
-~
/1.?r END X A
JI
1. Section A2.1.2 (Strategic Objectives) is modified by adding Subsection g).
liTo protect natural heritage systems as defined by the Township and the
County of Simcoe. "
This modification is proposed to ensure that the Natural Heritage system as
identified by both the Township and the County is protected.
2. Section A2.2.1 (Goals) is modified by deleting the only sentence and
replacing It with the fOllowing .sentence ."It is the goal of this Plan to protect
the function of significant recharge areas such as the Oro-Moraine in the
wider region. II
This modification is proposed to recognize that there are other areas within the
Township that function as significant recharge areas.
3. Section A2,2.2 (Strategic Objectives) is modified by adding the following
words at the end of Subsection c) "and in the remainder of the Township,"
This modification is proposed to ensure that monitoring occurs in other
components of the Municipality as well.
4, Section A2.3.2 (Strategic Objectives) is modified by adding a new
subsection c) and re-Iettering the remaining Sections as appropriate.
"To ensure that new extractive operations are dire(~ted to locations that are
not within the Oro-Moraine Core/Corridor area on the Oro-Moraine."
This modification is proposed to ensure that the Official Plan is very clear on the
policy direction to not permit extraction operations within the Oro Moraine
Core/Corridor area.
5. Section A2.3.2 (Strategic Objectives) is modified by replacing the word
"an" in Subsection d) (now Subsection e)) with "a negative".
This modification is proposed to ensure that there is a way to measure impact on
significant Natural Heritage features. The word "negative" assists in defining the
impact.
6. Section A2.3.7 (Strategic Objectives) is modified by adding the following
sub-section (m):
"'m) To encourage the expansion and diversification of existing
recreational uses so that these uses can take advantage of their market
potential"
9/16/04
. SEP-16-?004 THU 01:39 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO, 17057375078
P. 07/23
A similar objective was contained in the Official Plan, prior to the adoption of
OP A # 16. Horseshoe Resort Corporation has requested that the objective
continue to be included in the Official Plan to recognize the importance of the
recreational and tourism industry in the Township.
7. Section A4.3 (Special Policy for Horseshoe Valley Road) Is modified by
adding the following sentence fOllowing the bullet points: liThe ability of
the expansion area to be serviced with full municipal services shall also be
considered and options to service the existing development areas with full
services as a result shall be investigated."
This modification is proposed to ensure that full servicing options are considered
when expansions are contemplated,
8. Section A4.2.4 (Craighurst) is modified by deleting the words Umajor
highways" from the first bullet point and replacing those words with "major
County roads. ..
This modification is proposed to reflect the downloading of Highway 93 to the
County of Simcoe.
9. Section A5.2 (Preferred Means of Servicing and Settlement Areas) is
modified by removing the words "preferred means of" in the title of the
Section and the words "the preferred means of;1 in two locations in the
second paragraph.
This modification is proposed to identify the current means of servicing, instead
of the preferred means of servicing. in each of the settlements in the Township.
As per the County Official Plan, any expansion of a settlement area has to be
supported by a review of all servicing options, including a review of whether full
servicing is appropriate.
10. Section A5,3 (Expansions to a Settlement Area) is modified by adding the
words "and sustain" after the word "accommodate" in the second
paragraph and delating the words "on the basis of private services." at the
end of the first sentence of the second paragraph.
This modification is proposed to ensure that, whatever form of servicing is
proposed, it can be accommodated appropriately.
11. Section B1,3.2 (Functions) is modified by adding the words "and Bass
Lake" after the word ({wetlands" in Subsection C.
This modification is proposed to highlight the importance of Bass Lake in the
Township's Natural Heritage system.
12. Section 81.6 (Groundwater Management) is modified by adding the
following Section 81.6.5 as follows:
"B1.6.5
Wellhead Protection
911 6i04
SEP-19-2004 THU 01:39 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO, 17057375078
p, 08/23
It is the Intent of this Plan that a comprehensive Amendment to this Plan be
prepared and adopted to protect major wats/' supply sources in the
Township of Oro-Medonte, The intent of the Amendment will be to ensure
that water supplies are protected from incompatible land uses. Until this
Plan Is amended, Council shall ensure, as part of the review of any major
development proposal near an existing municipal water supply source} that
the impacts of the proposed development on tho municipal water supply
are reviewed and that the use will not have an adverse impact on the well. J1
This modification is proposed to highlight the importance of Wellhead Protection
in the Township. The Policy indicates that a further Amendment to the Official
Plan will be required to include source protection measures as appropriate in the
future.
13. Section 131.10.1 (OroMoralne-Natural Core/Corridor Area) is modified by
adding the following subsection d) to Section 13.1.10.1.4.
liThe development of any use that requires a Planfling Act approval may be
subject to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and a
Management Plan (MP) to the satisfaction of Cotlncil and the appropriate
agencies before stich an application is approved. Development on adjacent
lands that requires a Planning Act approval may also be subject to an EIS
and MP if the environmental feature is deemed to be sensitive to
development on adjacent lands. Adjacent lands are defined as aU lands
within:
a) 50 metres of a significant woodland;
b) 120 metres from a wetland;
c) 50 metres of any ANSI;
d) 50 metres of any significant wildlife area; and
0) 30 metres of any fish habitat area".
This modification is proposed to provide some direction on when an EIS is
required to support development on lands adjacent to the Oro Moraine Natural
Core/Corridor area designation.
14. Section 81.10.1.4 (Development Policies) is modified by adding the
following words after the words tJcreation of" in Subsection B "one new
residential lot per 20 hectare parcel" and by deleting the words "a new
residential lot".
This modification is proposed to provide some guidance on the size of the
original lot required to provide the basis for a severance within the Oro Moraine
Natural Core/Corridor area. As Council will recall, the intent of this Policy is to
encourage the dedication of lands that are considered to be sensitive into public
ownership or its conservation by an appropriate group.
15. Section 81.10.2 (Oro Moraine-Enhancement Area) is modified by adding a
new Subsection c) to Section 81.10.2.4.
9/16/04
SEP-16-2004 THU 01:39 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO. 17057375078
P. 09/23
"The development of any use that requires a Planning Act approval may be
subject to the preparation of an environmental impact study (EIS) and a
Management Plan (MP) to the satisfaction of Council and the appropriate
agencies before such an application is approved. Development on adjacent
lands that requires a Planning Act approval may also be subject to an EJS
and MP if the environmental feature is deemed to be sensitive to
development on adjacent lands. Adjacent lands are defined as all lands
within:
a) 50 metres of a significant woodland;
b) 120 metres from a wetland;
c) 50 metres of any ANSI;
d) 50 metres of any significant wildlife area; and
e) 30 metres of any fish habitat area"
This modification is proposed to provide some direction on when an EIS is
required to support development adjacent to lands within the Oro Moraine
Enhancement Area Designation.
16. Section B1.10.2.4 (Development Policies) Is modified by deleting the words
"a new residential lot" in Subsection B and replacing those words with the
following words "one new residential lot per 20 hectare parcel that existed
on the date this Plan was approved."
This modification is proposed to provide some clarity to the policy on lot creation
within the Oro Moraine Enhancement Area Designation
17. Section B3.2 (Location and Definition) is modified by deleting Section
B3.2(b} and r9~lettering all remaining sections accordingly.
This modification is proposed since all wetlands are dealt with by the EP1
designation.
18. Section B5 (Environmental Management Objectives) is modified by adding
a new Section 85.1.13.
"B5.1.13
Ground Water Monitoring.
It is the intent of this Official Plan that the monitoring of the health and use
of groundwater within the Township should be carried out wherever
possible. This monitoring wiJI be conducted in conjunction with the
appropriate Conservation Authority and will lead to a much better
understanding of the groundwater system within the Township of Ora-
Medonta. As a condition of development approval. proponents of
development within the municipality may be required to contribute
financially to assist with the operation of groundwater monitoring
programs".
This modification is proposed to highnght the importance of the monitoring of
groundwater within the entire Township and not just on the Oro Moraine.
9/16/04
SEP-le-2004 THU 01:40 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO, 17057375078
p, 10/23
19. Section 85.1.1.1 (Purpose of any EIS) is modified by deleting the word
"re/evant" and replacing that word with "all" in Subsection a).
This modification is proposed to ensure that all Nc,tural Heritage and related
ecological and hydrological features are considered.
20. Section 85.1.1.1 (Purpose of any EIS) is modifi(~d by deleting the words
"related significant" In Subsection b).
This modification is proposed to also ensure that all Natural Heritage features are
considered when an EIS is carried out.
21, Section 85.1.1.1 (Purpose of any EIS) is modified by adding the words:
"and related hydrological features" after the words 'ecological functions' in
the second line of the second paragraph.
This modification is proposed to ensure that hydrological features are also
studied.
22, Section 85.1.1.3 (Description of Changes) is modified by adding the words
"and quantity" after the words "water quality" In Subsection d).
This modification is proposed to ensure that quantity issues are also dealt with as
well.
23. Section 85.1.1.3 (Description of Changes) is modified by deleting
Subsection m) and replacing that Subsection with the following;
HErosion potential from grading and construction techniques and proposed
mitigation measures for steep slopes or unstable soils."
This modification is proposed to ensure that the policy is clear with respect to
erosion potential.
24. Section 85.1.1.3 (Description of Changes) is modified by adding the words
"or enhancements" after the words ""positive impacts" in the last Section.
This modification is proposed to ensure that enhancements of the Natural
Environment are a!so considered as part of any EIS.
25. Section 85.1.1.4 (What an EIS Should Demonstrate) is modified by deleting
the words "'not lead to a significant reduction in the" in Subsection I) and
replacing those words with "not have a negative impact on".
This modification is proposed since the words "significant reduction" are not
clear. Instead. it is suggested that the words "negative impact" be used instead.
26. Section B5,1.6.1 (Water Resource Management Reports) is modified by
adding the following at the end of the first paragraph. "'For the purposes of
this Section, major development is defined as any development with
9/16/04
SEP-16-2004 THU 01:40 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO, 17057375078
P. 11/23
buildings, structures, parking areas, and/or driveways that have a
combined area of more than 500 square metres",
This modification is proposed to provide some direction on when a Water
Resource Management Report is required. The Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan defines major development as any development over 500 sq.
m. and it is on this basis that this number has been l)elected for use on the Oro
Moraine.
27. Section 135.1.6.2 (Stormwater Management Reports) is modified by adding
the following sentence at the end to the first paragraph, uFor the purposes
of this Section, major development is defined as any development with
buildings, structures, parking areas, and/or driveways that have a
combined area of more than 500 square metres",
This modification is proposed to provide some direction on when a Water
Resource Management Report is required. The Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan defines major development as any development over 500 sq.
m. and it is on this basis that this number has been selected for use on the Oro
Moraine.
28. Section 85.1.6.2 (Stormwater Management Reports) is modified by deleting
the words lior its successor" and "or Energy" in the second paragraph and
adding the following words "and the MfO Drainage Management Manual
(1997), if applicable" after the word 'Environment'.
This modification is proposed to ensure that a complementary design manual for
stormwater is also taken into account.
29. Section 85.1.9 (Waste Disposal Sites) is modified by adding the words "and
implemented through a Site Plan Agreement" at the end of the fourth
paragraph.
This modification is proposed to ensure that the recommendations of all studies
are implemented in a Site Plan Agreement.
30. Section C12.1 (Objectives) is modified by deleting sub-section b) and
replacing it with the following:
lib) protect lands designated as Mineral Aggregate Resource Area -
Potential as well as high potential aggregate resource deposits, as
identified in Appendix 1, for possible future resourcc~ use."
This modification is being made to properly reflects the lands that have the
potential for resource use in the future, in appropriate locations.
31. Section C12.1 (Objectives) is modified by adding the following words at the
end of Subsection c) "and in the Township";
This modification is proposed to ensure that the policy framework applies to all
proposed aggregate extraction operations throughout thE: Township.
9/16/04
SEP-16-2004 THU 01:40 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO, 17057375078
p, 12/23
32. Section C12.2 (Location) is modified by replacing the second and third
paragraphs with the following:
.. The lands considered appropriate, in principle, for aggregate extraction in
the Oro Moraine Planning Area were determined based on a review of the
natural heritage features and functions of the Oro Moraine, the character of
the area, the presence of high potential aggregate resource deposits,
established licenced aggregate operations and the location of existing haul
routes. These lands are designated Mineral Aggregate Resource Area -
Potential.
Appendix 1 identifies high potential aggregate resource deposits for the
entire Township. A portion of these deposits have been designated as
Mineral Aggregate Resource Area. Potential. Although not designated,
high potential aggregate resource deposits are to be protected for possible
future resource use in keeping with the policies ami objectives of this Plan.
In the Oro Moraine Plarming Araa, the protection and enhancement of
significant natural heritage features and ecological functions takes
precedence over all development, including the establishment of new
mineral aggregate operations. In addition, the protection and enhancement
of the character of the Oro Moraine is a strategic objective of this Plan.
Only those applications to establish an aggregate extraction operation
which demonstrate no negative impacts to these features and functions,
and, to the extent possible, character of the area will be permitted".
33. Section C12.4,2 (Development Adjacent to Lands in Minerai Aggregate
Resources designation) Is modified by adding the following words in
brackets following the words 'Mineral Aggregate Resources designation':
"(Licensed and Potential)" In two locations.
This modification is proposed to ensure that the policy framework applies to
lands in both the 'licensed' and 'potential' designations.
34. Section C12.4.3 (New Mineral Aggregate Deposits or Expansions to
Existing Operations) is modified by deleting the last sentence of the
second paragraph and replacing it with the following:
UAmendments to the Official Plan will not be considered for any portion of
the subject lands that are located within the Oro-Moraine Core/Corridor
designation and are identified as Core on Schedule A.2."
This modification has been made to reflect the Province's position that only 'core'
areas should be identified for maximum protection.
35. Section C12.4.3 (New Mineral Aggregate Deposits or Expansions to
Existing Operations) is modified by adding the following new paragraphs
after the third paragraph:
9116/04
SEP-16-2004 THU 01:41 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO, 17057375078
p, 13/23
"Amendments to the Official Plan for lands designated Oro-Moraine
Core/Corridor and identified as Corridor Areas on Schedule A-2 shall only
be considered if It can be demonstrated that the ecological attributes,
functions and linkages have been assessed and that the significant
attributes, functions and linkages will be retained through retention of aU or
part of the feature(s) and/or will be replact3d through progressive
rehabl/itation in a manner that minimizes any interruptions to the
significant attributes, functions or linkages.
In prime agricultural areas, on prime agricultural lands designated as
Agricultural Area, extraction of mineral aggregates is permitted as an
interim use provided that rehabilitation of the site will be carried out
whereby substantially the same areas and same average soil quality for
agriculture are restored. On these prime agricultural lands, complete
agricultural rehabilitation is not required if:
a) there is a substantial quantity of mineral aggregates below the water
table warranting extraction; or
b) the depth of planned extraction in a quarry makes restoration of pre-
extraction agricultural capability unfeasible; and
c) other alternatives have been considered by the applicant and found
unsuitable; and
d) agricultural rehabilitation in remaining areas will be maximized.
Any application for Amendment to the Official Plan and/or the zoning bylaw
shall be supported by studies that are based on predictable, measurable,
objective effects on people and the environment. Such studies will be
based on provincial standards, regulations and guidelines, where
applicable and appropriate and will consider and identify methods of
addressing the anticipated impacts in the area affected by the extractive
operation. These studies shall address:"
This modification is proposed to introduce criteria regarding applications in
'corridor' areas and agricultural areas. Lastly. the modification introduces some
element of 'predictable, measurable and objective' effects being quantified.
However, the modification recognizes that a certain amount of subjectivity also
has to be applied.
36. Section C12.4.3 Is modified by replacing sub-section b) with the following:
"the effect of the additional truck traffic on the ability of an existing haul
route as identified on Schedule A-3 to function as a safe and efficient haul
route. "
37. Section C12.4.3 is modified by replacing sub-section c) with the following:
"the suitability of the proposed haul route for any operation proposed on a
Township road not identified as a haul route on SChedule A-3. Council
recognizes that one of the most significant impacts of aggregate extraction
is the use of Township roads for truck traffic. It is a policy of this Plan to
9/16/04
SEP-16-2004 THU 01:41 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO, 17057375078
p, 14/23
encourage the establishment of new aggregate operations on established
Township haul routes shown on Schedule A-3 to this Plan and to control
the use of haul routes in accordance with a By-law passed under the
Municipal Act. As such, an amendment to the Official Plan and/or zoning
bylaw to establish an aggregate extraction use on a road not identified as a
haul route shall only be considered if Council has been satisfied that the
new haul route:
i) has considered existing, permitted and proposed land use and land
use activities along the proposed haul route, and has demonstrated
that these uses will not be significantly affe(;ted;
ill has considered the eXisting road right of way characteristics
including existing trees and vegetation within the road right of way,
wood, wire, stump and stone fence lines within or adjacent to the
right of way or other historical landscape remnants and identified
means by which such features will be retained In order to minimize
the Impact on the character of the area;
iii) has considered the physical characteristics of the potential haul
route including road classification, load limits, road surfacing and
the identification of any physical constraints to heavy trucl< traffic,
such as vertical or horizontal curves, sight Jines or shoulders and
the means to address any deficiencies;
Iv) has minimized its length as much as realistically possible and is
located an appropriate distance from a County of Simcoe road:
v) has considered the traffic impacts (both operational and physical)
resulting from the truck traffic generated by the proposed operation,
including Impacts on road structure, traffic flow and safety and the
mitigation measures that will be employed to address these
impacts;
vi) will be accessed by County Road(s) that can accommodate the
increased traffic in a manner which has minimal impacts on existing
residents and businesses along the County I~oad. II
This modification is proposed to clarify the policy regarding haul routes.
38. Section C12.4.3, last paragraph, last sentence, is deleted and replaced with
the following: "During the course of this review, phasing of extraction shall
be considered as one means to minimize the combined Impacts of the
proposed and existing operations on the general area."
This modification is proposed to clarify this section.
39. Section C12.4.5 (Township Haul Routes) Is deleted and replaced with the
following sections;
9/16/04
SEP-16-2004 THU 01:41 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO, 17057375078
P, 15/23
UC12.4.5
The Creation of New Lots for Private Haul Routes
In cases where it is desirable and appropriate to do so, the creation of a
new lot that would have the purpose of providing for the creation of a
private driveway from one Township road to another that would be used
primarily by gravel trucks is permitted by this Plan. The creation of such a
Jot shall not have a bearing on the number of lots that can be created from
a parcel of land in the Agricultural and Rural designations as set out in
Sections C1 and C2 of this Plan. If such a private driveway on a separate lot
is proposed, the driveway shaJJ be located in such a manner so as to
minimize the impacts of the use of the driveway by gravel trucks on the use
and enjoyment of properties in the area.
C12.4.6
Routes
The Creation of New Lots for Resiciential Purposes on Haul
In order to protect the function of haul routes identified on Schedule A-3 to
this Plan, the creation of a new lot for residential purposes on any such
haul route in the Rural, Agricultural and Restricted Rural designations is
prohibited".
This modification is proposed to provide the Committee of Adjustment with the
ability to create lots for the purpose of facilitating the creation of a private
driveway. At the present time, such a policy basis is not clearly articulated within
the Official Plan and it was felt that it would be appropriate to ensure such a
policy basis existed, in order to support the Township's objective of directing new
mineral aggregate operations to existing haul routes. In addition, the modification
proposes to prohibit lot creation on these same roads, again to support the
Township's intent.
40, Section C12.4.6 (Areas of Potential Mineral Aggregate Extraction) is
modified by adding the word "or" at the end of Sub-section d) and by
adding the following sub-sections:
e) the proposed land uses or development serves a greater long term
public interest; and,
f) issues of public health, public safety and environmental impact are
addressed. "
This modification is proposed to ensure that the local policy is consistent with
Section 2.2.3.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement.
41. Part F (definitions) is modified by deleting the lIagriculturaJ usell definition
and by replacing that definition with definitions for "agricultural use",
"agricultural use, intensive" and tfagricultural use, specialized". These
definitions are below:
Agricultural use - means the use of land for the growing, producing,
keeping or harvesting of farm products and which may include, as an
accessory use, a single detached dwelling.
9/16/04
SEP-16-2004 THU 01:42 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO. 17057375078
p, 16/23
Agricultural use, Intensive - means the use of land for the purpose of
raising livestock such as poultry or cattle for consumption and may include
a feedlot and which may Include, as an accessory use, a single detached
dwelling.
Agricultural use, specialized - means land where specialty crops such as
tender fruits (peaches, cherries, plums) grapes, other fruit crops, ginseng,
vegetable crops, greenhouse crops and crops from agriculture developed
organic soil lands are predominately grown, usually resulting from:
a) Salls that have suitability to produce specialty crops, or lands that
are subject to special climactic conditions, or a combination of both;
andlor
b) A combination of farmers skilled in the production of specialty
crops, and of capital Investment in related facilities produced, store
or process specialty crops.
These modifications are proposed to ensure that the definitions of various
agricultural uses in the Official Plan are consistent with the definitions currently
included within By-law 97-95,
42. Section F (Definitions) is modified by deleting the words Hthroughout all of
a significant portion of its Ontario range" from the definition of
"endangered species".
This modification is proposed to ensure that the definition is consistent with the
definition currently in use by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
43. Section F (Definitions) is modified by adding the words "surface water
features" after the words lIecological features" in the definition of
groundwater resources.
This modification is proposed to ensure that surface water features are
considered to be part of the groundwater resourCes in the Township.
44. Section F (Definitions) is modified by adding the words IIsurface water
features" after the words Hecologlcal features" in the definition of
groundwater resources.
This modification is proposed to ensure that surface water features are
considered to be part of the groundwater resources in the Township.
45. Schedule A-1 is modified by deleting the Mineral Aggregate Resource Area
- L.icensed designation from the Evans property located In Part of the East
Half of Lot 12, Concession 13 (Oro) and designating the lands Agricultural
instead.
The lands subject to this modification on the west side of Line 13 North are
currently zoned for extraction purposes, but are not currently licensed.
9/16/04
SEP-16-2004 THU 01:42 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO, 17057375078
p, 17/23
Approximately 6.0 hectares are affected. In a letter n3ceived by the Township an
May 14. 2002. the landowner indicates that lands am the site of a closed gravel
pit. It is also requested in the letter that some consideration be given to
permitting the severance of two or three lots on the property. Notwithstanding
the request for severances, the continued designation of the property for
extraction is not appropriate. Given that lands to the west. north and east are
designated Agricultural, the subject lands should be designated Agricultural as
well.
It should be noted that the landowner does not support the designation of the
lands for agricultural purposes since the pOlicies of the Agricultural designation
do not permit severances.
46. Schedule A-1 is modified by deleting the Rural dnsignation from the south
half of Lot ii, Concession 7 (Oro) and designating the lands Mineral
Aggregate Resource Area. Potential instead,
The lands subject to this modification on the north side of County Road 11, to the
east of Line 6 North. are currently designated Mineral Aggregate Resources in
the Official Plan. Approximately 16.0 hectares arEI affected. The lands are
currently the site of a storage/contractors yard. The landowner made a verbal
request on in early 2004 requesting that the designation be maintained.
Given that the lands subject to the modification are not in the Core/Corridor Area
designation and have frontage and potentially direct i3ccess to County Road 11.
the modification is considered to be appropriate. Lands within the Oro Moraine
Core/Corridor Area designation a.nd.. the Ora Moraine Enhancement Area
designation on the lands are not affected by this mOdification.
9/16/04
SEP-16-2004 THU 01:42 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NQ 17057375078
p, 18/23
Amendment No. 16 to the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan
43-DP-0097 -03003
June 15, 2004
A-PPEN PI)! 15
June 15. 2004
MEMORANDUM TO:
Ian Bender, MCIP. RPP, Director of Planning, County of
Simcoe
Andrea Leigh, Planner, Township of Oro-Medonte
Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP. Pa/1ner, Meridian Planning
Consultants
Kathy Woel/er, District Planner, Ministry of Natural
Resources
FROM:
Tim Haldenby, MCIP. RPP. Municipal Planning Advisor
Victor Doyle, MCIP, RPP, Manager, Community Planning
and Development
Municipal Services Office - Central Ontario, Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing
SUBJECT:
Amendment No. 16 to the Township of Oro-Medonte
Official Plan
Meeting Follow-up
43-DP-0097 -03003
As a result of our meeting on May 4, 2004 it is our understanding that the following
commitments were made by the various parties present:
1. Simcoe County staff were to update Schedule 5.2.1, High Potential
Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas, of the County of Simcoe Official
Plan to reflect the primary and secondary aggregate resources shown
on Appendix 1 to the Township of Ora-Medonte Official Plan as
proposed in OPA 16. This can likely be achieved through the County s
Official Plan Review.
2. Meridian was to review and map lands currently designated Mineral
Aggregate Resources on the schedules covering the Oro Moraine
Planning Area in the Township s Official Plan and proposed to be
designated Rural or Restricted Rural on Schedule A-i, Land Use -
Oro Moraine, of OPA 16. (This has been comnleted)
3. Meridian was to review and map lands currently designated Mineral
Aggregate Resources on the schedules covering the Oro Moraine
Planning Area in the Township s Official Plan and proposed to be
designated Oro Moraine Core/Corridor Area (lr Oro Moraine
Enhancement Area, where no specific feature was identified through
the Natural Heritage Evaluation study prepared by Azimuth
Environmental Consulting Inc. And/or where the feature is solely a
SEP-16-2004 THU 01:43 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NQ 17057375078
p, 19/23
Amendment No. 16 to the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan
43-DP-0097 -03003
June 15. 2004
2
younger plantation, (All lands within Core are identified as a specific
feature)
4. Meridian was to review and update, as necessary. the policies of the
Rural. Restricted Rural, Rural Residential and Agricultural
designations to ensure adequate protection of primary and secondary
aggregate resources as identified in Appendix 1 to the Township of
Oro-Medonte Official Plan as proposed in OPA 16. In particular,
policies should be included to address the protection of these resources
from development and/or site alteration that would preclude or hinder
the establishment of new or expanded aggregate operations or access
to the resource, in accordance with policies 2.2.3.2 and 2.2.3.3 of the
PPS. (Section C12.4.2 will be modified to indicate that the policy
applies to lands within both the licensed and potential designations-
this will ensure compliance with Section 2.2.3.2 of PPS. Section
G12.4.6, as written. ensures that lands identifiod on Appendix 1 shall be
protected from uses and activities in accordanGe with Section 2.2.3.3 of
PPS. However, Section 2.2.3.3 (b) and (c) could be added to the
policv.
5. MNR and MMAH staff were to review and propose modifications to the
proposed Mineral Aggregate Resources policies. in particular, policies
related to haul routes. The proposed modifications are as follows:
Section C12.1 b)
Section C12.1 b should be amended to read, protect lands designated as
Mineral Aggregate Resource Area - Potential as well as high potential
aggregate resource deposits, as identified in Appendix 1, for possible future
resource use. (ok with Meridian}
Section C12,2
Section C12.2, second paragraph. should be amended to read, The lands
considered appropriate, in principle, for aggregate extraction in the Oro
Moraine Planning Area were determined based on a review of natural heritage
features and functions of the Oro Moraine, the character of the area, the
presence of high potential aggregate resource deposIts, established licenced
aggregate operations and the location of existing haul routes. These lands
are designated Mineral Aggregate Resource Area - Potential. (ok with
Meridian}
Section C12.2, third paragraph, should be amended to read, Appendix 1
identifies high potential aggregate resource deposits for the entire Township. A
portion of these deposits have been designated as Mineral Aggregate
Resource Area - Potential. Although not designated, high potential aggregate
SEP-16-2004 THU 01:43 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO, 17057375078
p, 20/2::3
Amendment No. 16 to the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan
43-DP-0097 -03003
June 15, 2004
3
resource deposits are to be protected for possible future resource use in
keeping with the policies and objectives of this Plan. In the Oro Moraine
Planning Area, the protection and enhancement of significant natural heritage
features and ecological functions, and tho takes precedence over all
development. includinq the establishment of new mineral aqqreqate
operations.. In addition. the protection and enhancement of the character of
the Oro Moraine, is a strategic objective of this Plan. Only those applications
to establish an aggregate extraction operation which demonstrate no negative
impacts to these features and functions, and, to the extent possible, character,
of the area will be permitted. iChanqes made to reflect the Township s intent
to hiqhliqht the importance of protecting siqnificant features and areas)
Section C12.4.3
Section C12.4.3, second paragraph. .Iastsentence, should be amended to
read, Amendments to the Official Plan will not be considered for any portion
of the subject lands that are located within the Oro-Moraine Core/Corridor
designation and are identified as Cote on Schedule A-2. (ok with Meridian-
it is recognized that this is the approach taken in the ORMCP)
The following paragraph should be added to Section C12.4.3 after the fourth
paragraph, Amendments to the Official Plan for lands designated Oro-
Moraine Core/Corridor and identified as Corridor Areas on Schedule A-2 shall
only be considered if it can be demonstrated that the ('~cological attributes,
functions and linkages have been assessed and significant attributes,
functions and linkages will be retained through retention of all or part of the
feature(s) and/or will be replaced through progressive rehabilitation in a
manner that minimizes any interruptions to the significant attributes, functions
or linkages. (ok with Meridian)
The following paragraph should be added to Section C12.4.3 after the
preceding paragraph, In prime agricultural areas, on prime agricultural lands
designated as Agricultural Area, extraction of mineral aggregates is permitted
as an interim use provided that rehabilitation of the sitf~ will be carried out
whereby substantially the same areas and same average soil quality for
agriculture are restored. On these prime agricultural lands, complete
agricultural rehabilitation is not required if:
a) there is a substantial quantity of mineral aggregates below the water
table warranting extraction; or
b) the depth of planned extraction in a quarry makes restoration of pre-
extraction agricultural capability unfeasible; and
c) other alternatives have been considered by the applicant and found
unsuitable.. and
SEP-16-2004 THU 01:43 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO, 17057375078
P. 21/23
Amendment No. 16 to the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan
43-DP-0097 -03003
June 15, 20Q4
4
d) agricultural rehabilitation in remaining areas will be maximized. (ok
with Meridian)
Section C12.4.3. fifth paragraph. should be amended to read, Any application
for Amendment to the Official Plan and/or the z.oning bylaw shall be supported
by studies that are based on predictable, measurable, objective effects on
people and the environment. Such studies will be based on provincial
standards, regulations and guidelines, where applicable and appropriate and
will consider and identify methods of addressing the anticipated impacts in the
area affected by the extractive operation. These studies shall address:
(The concept of predictable. measurable and objective is laudable. but there
has to be an element of subiectivitv and discretion, particularlv when it comes
to impacts on nearby communities. the character of the area, the built or
cultural heritaae resources in the area, the effect of noise. the suitabilitv of
haul routes etc. One standard does not fit al/ in every communitv.)
There is overlap between Section C12.4.3 b). c) and C12.4.5 as they relate to
haul routes. It is recommended that Section C12.4.5 be deleted in its entirety
and that the studies required for haul routes be consolidated into Section
C12.4.3 as this section already outlines the studies rE~quired for the
establishment of an aggregate operation (both new and expansions to existing
licences). Furthermore Section C12.4.5 as written is inaccurate in that it
states that. there are no lands designated as Mineral Aggregate Resource
Area - Potential on roads not considered haul routes as shown on Schedule A-
3. In fact, potential lands are found along the 121h and 14th lines, neither of
which is a haul route on Schedule A-3.(Yes -there are lands desiqnated on
the 1 ih -I recommended that these lands be undesiqnated since Council had
refused a zoninq request to establish a pit on these lands since the 12th was
not an appropriate haul route. The OM~ hearinq has been held and an interim
decision has been made. The decision indicates that the 12th is not the
preferred route and all other options need to be explored. Because the OMB
hearinq was pendinq, Council decided to not undesignated the lands as ~art of
the OPA #16 exercise, The designated lands on the west side of the 14! are
actually accessed by the 13th. This is Hillway Pit #5)
With respect to the above, Section C12.4.3 b) should be amended to read,
the demonst;,:,tioFl that effect of the additional truck traffic gonor:Jted from
thol>o operations proposed on the abilitv of an existing haul route as identified
on Schedule A-3 to function as a safe and efficient haul route wi!! Rot h3W3-a
nagativ-9 impact on the 8:1(0 :1nd officiant usa of the haul road. (minor editorial
re-wordinq)
Section C12.4.3 c) should be amended to read, the suitability of the proposed
haul route for any operation proposed on a Township road not identified as a
haul route on Schedule A-3, Council recognizes that one of the most
SEP-16-2004 THU 01:44 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO. 17057375078
p, 22/23
Amendment No. 16 to the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan
43-DP-0097 -03003
June 15. 2004
5
significant impacts of aggregate extraction is the use of Township roads for
truck traffic. It is a policy of this Plan to encourage the establishment of new
aggregate operations on established Township haul routes shown on
Schedule A-3 to this Plan and to control the use of haul routes in accordance
with a By-law passed under the Municipal Apt. As such, an amendment to the
Official Plan and/or zoning.by/aw to establish an aqqreqate extraction use on a
road not identified as a haul route shalf only be considered if Council has been
satisfied that the new haul route: (note -it continues to be the Township s
intent to regulate the use of haul routes pursuant to the Municipal Act. 2001.
This matter has been reviewed by our solicitor and ho indicates that the
Municipal Act. as written. does provide municipalities with the ability to pass
such a by-law.)
a) has considered existinG. permitted and proposed land use and land
use activities along the proposed haul route, iAcJuding tho identific:Jtlon
of existing and permitt-od land uses and has demonstrated that these
uses will not be significantly affected; (minor editorial chanqe)
b) has considered the existing road right of way characteristics
including existing trees and vegetation within the road right of way,
wood, wire, stump and stone fence lines within or adjacent to the right
of way or other historical landscape remnants and identified means by
which such features will be retained in order to minimize the impact on
the character of the area; (qood policy -ok with Meridian)
c) has considered the physical characteristics ()( the potential haul route
including road classification, load limits, and surfacing and the
identification of any physical constraints to heavy truck traffic, such as
vertical or horizontal cu/Ves, sight lines or shoulders and the means to
address any deficiencies; (ok with Meridianl
d) has minimized its length as much as realistically possible and is
located an appropriate distance from a County of Simcoe road; (ok with
Meridian)
e) has considered the traffic impacts (both operational and physical)
resulting from the truck traffic generated by the proposed operation,
including impactson road structure, traffic flow and safety and the
mitigation measures that will be employed to address these impacts,;, ~
fJ the Countv Road(s) that will be used bv the increased truck traffic can
accommodate the increased traffic in a manner which has minimal
impacts on existinG residents and businesses alonq the County Road.
The final paragraph of Section C12.4.5 could be added to Section C12.4.3.
(added above in (f)).
SEP-1q-2004 THU 01:44 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO, 17057375078
P. 23/23
Amendment No, 16 to the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan
43-DP-0097 -03003
June 15, 2004
6
Section C12.4.3, last paragraph, last sentence, should be amended to read,
During the course of this review, phasing of extraction shall be considered as
one means to minimize the combined impacts of the proposed and existing
operations on the general area. (ok with meridian)
Please review and provide comments on MNR sand MMAH s proposed modifications,
and circulate the results of any work completed as committed to at the May 4,2004
meeting.
Changes to Mineral Aggregate
Designation as a Result" I", ~......J -' --,.' ~'~rt<;; 1;':,1'!
ofOPA-16 : ~;".., ~.._! ~~i\'/\~.
"EZ~~..,.'w" ."'-~:'\"
.. --- :,...-; .. --1,
.. ~ '(:-.,.r . .' . ", kJ"~",
,,-',,#' j:;/\ .....,.. "'.,; T} ! /''','1 \,
K.l/~"':',~ '\ \._ ! l' 'hj / {1'> ,
" 7./ '\,,)~~:.,./). 'V(;>., ' ~) \ \-' \\,
.. \7 '''.'''''''' t
,,":........\,.., \ ;:;;;::;T" ~-
,~, ! '~l~~
, ::"- A!II \ I !4.lk;\ "'" U I, ('\t c I J1iI~ L /',
/. ),. 'Ii", \, \',>, -.::....,.J
i '''-. ' " ...,........1.,
\. " \ \.
''''<::<, ''t-
37 .."..~>.;>tW,w.r.'&.:;;;. 3',_
Lands designated " "\,' 'N!~_'l"'::'
Mineral Aggregate ",,< '" f'"
Resources " J\,[.-----cj ''\ T
and proposed to be "., T "'...;>:. t' ( . L
designated:" .... . V ./-;:::'1 =J,
=-1 C'" /' :.....-
I7Y'Y'Y'1 ORO MORAINE 384.21 ha " :J C Pi1 .. = LL,
t:r::::COJ CORE AREA "...1 i,--EL.- . l n ,...... e'
~=~ ~ , r
~ CORRIDOR AREA 23.53 ha " ~ 1 J J ..~
~ RESTRICTED RURAL 69.82 ha .. 'J""'" E r.,(,1
_ ~:CULTURAL 53.13ha 27 r . fr r::1\ T
.. l/..!" '..,.,.,....,
.. " 0 . ..vt l Ii ..I ~..~Ji, ! 'H,,',.'" .JI .(
~;~7~:;::~GATE:::::: : .""'c<.' !:~"1: 1 b!/ /! f d;'>f'. ! 1R Ie r '/"""""\I~~(,~~~J+'J T 1 ,J
~ -LICENCED '" r<::' i ,tV j?;~i(d r \;~ If' S 1-'-1 \.....j )1 r 1'.
MINER,ALAGGREGATE .. ~d=\ . ,,".J; !;~" / },,., ./ (1'''';r ~"" t------='--.--.,. l':,~
RESOURCE AREA 441,57 ha " \., I /~) jlf:-? I, i ) ....)' ((..'~-::: I l
-POTENTIAL 20 V.\ I' \ / '/ r" '. ~"#-' ..~ "-;~Tcc /./ h--:A" , '-i rl-....\ L II/A'
::;::-<.~ i C_..P. / / ..,.- ~"l7~/ L ~ 'J!"--;=;- !~. "'.' j ---:. I.........~ ~'''l i\ '-.....-, i \, . ';\....,. .l__.'+~,
" ~J"! ,./' \.) I" (L./.4--~' --r". -~> .. .'" -LJi . 1\"..1 ..,..! 1 ..-: +f\/j~'"'"" f,L.1
,,;tp"'...... \Z.[ r,r ~---i t~-'~ '." .(11 ::;;;;. "'. n
" r;1 ,.1/ /'- t' :. ;~~ ' I j c.J ~ .1'-1__,_ (.:), r ..../.. __.....J LL,. 'k L: Ii .. ,__ "
. :ZL,. ' ~ ' JI' '1
:: ('J L1 fA [/__ ,';(J . ~.. '", ~I ! ~ .1 ~ TF;~I~ ;7~"L:1
....!:::::o". JI -'=' ..--'. ... , ' ::::::JLZ" I . ~,~.=::r ~ ::", L ..LJ::.
~,
j!
1
< l_....._. f- tJr;:-
~_._~-t---'7.~~4
'--___-<lr_""
d
(.
...__1"-
1<
F
...--
c::::=J ORO MORAINE PLANNING
c:::::::J AREA BOUNDARY
CI~~~!~!
,-- I'
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
r"
t=---. .
m ."
..
i] ,
r-"
! ! &
~ /I
. 1
,
,
,
,
. IORUl1A)
"
~ ,
(oitu.u.J
..v~ . HI
1. jOlllillA)
./
I. ...- ........
/
-,
"
I
.__0.
-'--.
/
,
.
:>.(
[I
.
"
\:
u
-........
"
"
"
"
~~f""
N.T.S.
SEP-16-2004 THU 01:14 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO, 17057375078
p, 02
." _..., ...- ...~ : ., .....~..:4... J. -
. ~~..f'~ '!o' 'i r: .J .
..'" .;, ...,~"...o.., ,,:;, '...
" · II. .ii;"" ~ .. .~ :..e.
... ~ ..'..: '.':..' 'J.
...... ,; '. '. .., .
.. ".. .......... .......~,...
. . ... .. ~'.. ~ 1'. .
:" ~'~' ~.. I....
........ ",.0:'" :. ,(
..... ~... ....... ."
. .. '. "J '. 'r. .. ", ...
''*'; . -. ~..' -"
. .. J" '\. \'
, ....' .... .. ...
. ,.,.....,.
.".
1.~.
~
SEP-16-2004 THU 01:15 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
8
16
~
(I
...'11
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
I Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
PD 2004-47 Township of Oro-Medonte Nick McDonald, RPP
Council
Subject: Department:
Council Modifications to OPA # 17 - Planning
Water Taking
C.ofW. Date:
September 16, 2004
Motion # A.M. File #: D03-113819
Date: Roll #:
OPA 17 was adopted by Council on August 21,2003. One of the policies in OPA # 17 dealt with water taking.
This new policy, in Section H4 of the new Official Plan, indicates "that the taking of more than 50,000 litres of
ground or surface water per day is deemed to be a land use in accordance with the Planning Act. "
When the policy was written, a decision of the Divisional Court that dealt with water taking as a land use was
under appeal. That appeal was withdrawn in October 2003 and as a result, the decision of the Divisional
Court (Grey Association for Better Planning versus Artemesia Waters Limited and Douglas Hatch, In Trust)
stands. In the above noted Decision, the Divisional Court ruled that the Ontario Municipal Board should
consider water taking as a land use for the purposes of assessing the planning merits of an application to
establish a water bottling operation. A few extracts from the Divisional Court decision are below.
"The entire operation constituted a single use of land and the question before the Board was
whether the entire operation, including the taking of water should be a permitted use. In
deciding that the taking of water was not a use of land and in confining the subsequent hearing
to issues relating to the storing and loading of water, the Board was refusing to consider an
essential, if not the most essential aspect of the appeal before it.
We are satisfied, however, that the installation of piping and pumps and other apparatus on
lands for the purposes of extracting water is a use of land not only in common parlance but
under the Planning Act as well."
Given that the appeal has been dropped, it is my opinion that the taking of water is deemed to be a land use
under the Planning Act. Attached to this report (Appendix #1) is an article in Municipal World (March 2004)
prepared by Juli Abouchar which indicates that Municipalities now have the ability to control water taking
through Official Plan policies and Zoning By-laws.
On this basis, it was recommended to Council in early 2004 that a process be initiated to review the issue
further to determine whether it would be in the best interest of the Township to regulate water taking through
the comprehensive zoning by-law. In this regard, a Discussion Paper on the issue was released in May 2004
and a public information session was held on July 6, 2004. Approximately 30 individuals attended the public
information session. At this session, it was indicated that comments could be submitted to the Township by no
later than August 13, 2004 on the issue. Following the receipt of these comments, it was intended that a
subsequent report be prepared that would outline a number of options for Council's consideration.
OF PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Following the public information session, six written comments were received. A brief review of these
comments is below.
Jim Woodford - July 14, 2004. In his submission, Mr. Woodford indicates that it is premature to pursue the
inclusion of water taking as a land use in the Zoning By-law until further scientific information has been
obtained, the comments of the Conservation Authorities considered and the Provincial initiatives and
groundwater protection understood.
Nelson and Margaret Robertson - July 16, 2004. In their letter, the Robertson's indicate that they
completely support the recommendation that water taking be included as a land use. In addition, it is indicated
that it should be the Oro-Medonte Council that makes decision relating to water use on the Oro Moraine.
Donald P. Hanney - Burls Creek Family Event Park - August 12, 2004. In his submission, Mr. Hanney
indicates that the Township of Oro-Medonte should not be the first municipality to enact rules regarding water
taking. Instead, it is recommended that we should be the 11th or 15th community to include water taking as a
land use in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Mr. Hanney's primary consideration is the cost of being the
first municipality to institute the new rules in Ontario.
David White (on behalf of Gold Mountain Springs Inc.) - August 13, 2004. In his submission, Mr. White
indicates that it is premature for the Township to take action on this issue prior to the Province completing its
review of the Permit to Take Water process. In addition, it is indicated that water is more properly a Provincial
resource and should be controlled at the Provincial level. It is also indicated that" If Oro-Medonte wishes to be
the first Municipality to venture into the field, it could result in lengthy and expensive hearings and litigation."
Lastly, it is requested that Gold Mountain Springs Inc. be zoned to permit the existing operation or that it be
considered as a legal non-conforming use.
Skelton Brumwell - August 16, 2004. In their letter, it is indicated that a Province-wide approach to dealing
with water-taking issues should be established instead of in one municipality at a time. In addition, it is
recommended that if water taking is deemed to be a land use, the Province should take the lead in
determining how municipalities should control the use. A number of other technical comments are raised in
the submission.
- 2 -
Christopher McGuckin (on behalf of Lafarge Canada Inc.) - August 19, 2004. In their letter, Lafarge
indicates that they do not support the premise that water taking should be considered as a use of land
pursuant to the Township's Official Plan and Zoning By~law. In their submission, they indicate that proceeding
in this manner would result in unnecessary duplication given that the Ministry of Environment is responsible for
the issuing of Permits to Take Water. It is also indicated in the submission that if the Township proceeds to
regulate water taking, a certain level of technical expertise will be required in order to review applications and
each application has "the potential to turn what should be a technical decision based on sound scientific
principles to be unduly influenced by political factors. "
Each of the above letters are attached to this report. (Appendix #2)
S OF THE MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING:
In a letter dated August 24,2004 Mr. Tim Haldenby of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing indicates
that the County approval of the Water Taking Policy within the Township of Oro~Medonte Official Plan is
premature until the Ministry of Environment completes its watershed based source protection planning
exercise. It is also indicated that it may be more appropriate for the County of Simcoe Official Plan to deal
with the Water Taking issue first before lower tier municipalities such as Oro-Medonte include such policies in
their Plans. The MMAH letter is attached to this report. (Appendix #3)
II STATUS OF CURRENT MOE INITIATIVES:
II
The MOE released its White Paper on Watershed Based Source Protection Planning in February 2004. The
White Paper is intended to address many of the recommendations made as a result of the Walkerton Inquiry.
While the White Paper does discuss source protection planning in great detail and advocates the creation of
source protection plans to be administered by Conservation Authorities, there is no recommendation within the
White Paper that the Permit to Take Water process be modified, particularly as its relates to who is
responsible for issuing the permits.
In June 2004, the first draft of the Drinking Water Source Protection Act, 2004 was released for public review.
The intent of this Act is to provide the basis for the creation of Source Protection Areas and Source Protection
Boards in Ontario. Once a Source Protection Board has been established, the Act then requires each Board to
prepare a Source Protection Plan for the watershed. The Act includes a number of technical requirements
that need to be dealt with in the Source Protection Plan. The Act also sets out the appeal process for Source
Protections Plans. The Draft Drinkinq Water Source Protection Act. 2004 does not deal specificallv with water
takinq permits.
On June 18, 2004, amendments to the Water Taking and Transfer Regulation were posted on the
Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) website. The Amendment requires that the Director, when considering an
application for a Permit to Take Water review all:
· Issues relating to the need to protect the natural functions of the ecosystem;
· Issues relating to water availability; and,
· Issues relating to the use of water and other issues, as required.
The intent of the Amendment is to ensure that all issues that should reasonably be expected to be reviewed in
considering an application are clearly spelled out in the Regulation. At the present time, this is not the case.
- 3 -
With respect to process, the Amendment requires the Director to give notice to both the upper tier and lower
tier municipality in which the application is being made and to the applicable Conservation Authority. The
Amendment further states that the Director is not prohibited from given any other person notice of an
application, "if the Director is of the opinion that it is consistent with the purposes of this Regulation to do so."
The Amendments proposed to the Water Taking process are a step in the right direction. It is anticipated that
further changes to the Amendment may be incorporated following a period of public review. However, it
should be noted that the Amendments do not recognize water taking as a land use nor do they instil any
element of control over the issuing of permits to municipalities. In essence, the Amendment does not
recognize the decision of the Divisional Court in the County of Grey. It should be noted that the Ministry of
Environment has not formally responded to the Decision of the Divisional Court.
s:
The request of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding the proposed Water Taking Policy is
timely since the County of Simcoe plans to make a decision on the Water Taking Policies (and on the other
policies and OP A's 16 and 17) in October 2004.
On the basis of the above, Council has three distinct options.
Option 1:
Council can request the County of Simcoe to render a "Non-Decision" on the Water Taking policy. Rendering
a Non-Decision at the time of approval means that the policy is not being approved and may not be approved
until some time in the future. It also means that the policy cannot be appealed.
Option 2:
Council can request the County to approve a modified policy that has deleted those components of the policy
that are no longer necessary as a result of the decision to abandon the appeal of the Divisional Court
Decision. A revised version of the policy showing the proposed changes is below:
SUGGESTED MODIFICA T/ONS TO SECT/ON H4
H4 Water Takina
It has long been Council's goal to be more involved in the process of approving and considering
applications that involve the extraction of more than 50,000 litres of ground or surface water per
day, on average. It is also Council's goal to ensure that a process is established whereby
landowners in the vicinity of a proposed water taking are informed of a proposed water taking
and given an opportunity to comment on the proposal. It is a policv of this Plan that the
takinQ of more than 50,000 litres of Qround or surface water per day is deemed to be a
land use in accordance with the PlanninQ Act.
It is recognized tha.t, a.t the time of tho a.doption of this Pbn, the a. pp ro'Ja. I of a.1I a.pplications for
\f{a.ter ta.king rests with the Ministry of Environment, in a.coerdance with the Ontario VVa.ter
Resourcec /\ct, a.s amended. Howover, appeals through the court system at the time thic Pbn
wa.s a.dopted ma.y lead to the esta.blishment of water ta.king as a bnd use in aocordance ',Vith
tho Planning J\ct. If this deoision is made, and is not appealed, it is a. policy of thic Plan that the
taking of more than 50,000 litre of ground or surface ....'ater pr day is deemed to bo a land use in
accorda.nce with the Pbnning Act.
- 4 -
The implementation of this policy can only occur if it is implemented in the Township's Zoning
By-law. On this basis, a comprehensive amendment to the zoning by-law to include water
taking as a land use will be required, but only 3fter it h3S beon determined that '.vator t3king is a
bnd use in accordance vvith the Pbnning Act.
In considering such an Amendment, Council shall determine which type of water taking will
require a rezoning and under what conditions such a zoning change could be granted. If a
water taking does require a rezoning, Council shall be satisfied that at a minimum:
a) the quality of groundwater and surface water in the area will be maintained and, where
possible, improved or restored; and,
b) the quantity of water available for other uses in the area and as base flow for rivers and
streams in the sub-watershed will not be affected.
As a condition of approval, Council may also require the proponent to enter into a monitoring
agreement to ensure that Council has the ability to ensure that neighbouring drinking water
supplies are not affected by the extraction. If it is deemed that the extraction is having a
negative impact on the quality and/or overall quantity of water available in the area, Council will
have the ability, pursuant to the monitoring agreement, to require the water extraction to cease.
Option 3:
Council could request the County of Simcoe to remove the policy from the Official Plan entirely. The intent
would be to potentially incorporate a policy in the future by way of an Amendment to the Official Plan, if
Council deemed it necessary.
COMMENDATION:
It is my opinion that the Province will not acknowledge that water taking is a land use pursuant to the Planning
Act. As a result, a final determination on how this issue will be dealt with by the Ministry of Environment
cannot be made unless a Municipality takes the lead and incorporates appropriate policies in its Official Plan
and Zoning By-law to regulate the use. Such a decision would be taken knowing that Divisional Court has
ruled that water taking is a use of land.
However, incorporating such a policy into the Official Plan and Zoning By-law at this time without there being a
formal response from the Province on the issue of water taking as a land use may lead to appeals and
subsequent OMB hearings. While it is my opinion that it would be in the public interest for the Township of
Oro-Medonte to further its objectives with respect to water taking, it is also recognized that sometimes being
the first can be very expensive. In addition, the final versions of the new legislation and amendments to
existing regulations have yet to be released/finalized.
On the basis of the above, it is recommended that Option 1 be selected and that the issue be reviewed further
following the release of final versions of the Drinking Water Source Protection Act, 2004 and amendments to
the Water Taking and Transfer Regulation. In the interim, it is recommended that Council formally ask the
Ministry of Environment for their views on the issue and ask for greater municipal involvement in the water
taking process.
- 5 -
On the basis of the above, it is recommended to Council:
1. That Report PD 2004-47 be received and adopted;
2. That Council authorize staff to request that the County of Simcoe render a "Non-Decision" with respect
to proposed Section H4 (Water Taking) of the Official Plan as amended by OPA 17;
3. That Council authorize staff to request the MaE to issue a formal statement about the Divisional Court
decision regarding water taking as a land use; and,
4. That Council request the MaE to give more control over water taking to local municipalities; and that
5. All municipalities in the Province be advised of Council's decision in this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
~d
Nick McDonald, MCI~, RPP
Partner
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
- 6 -
~EP-15-2004 WED 01:35 PM MERIDIAN PLAN
FAX NO, 17057375078
p, 02
.......
.................. .~.< ",''''..' . ,.; ,V",, ............ .. ," ,~, ....... ........... ....... .... ........-.....-........ ".-.
environment
"-..'
. .... ....,.. ._.......~....... ........................... ...........u_......_............. .........._.............. ..........,u..............''"''............................._. " ......
WATER TAKING:
Municipal role in C)ntario
Juli Abouchar
Recent events give Ontario municipalities support and
encouragement in their efforts to protect their drinking wa-
ter sources. Water bottler, Artemesia Waters L.td. haS aban-
doned its appeal; and the Province of Ontario has an-
nounced a one-year moratorium on new and expanded water
taking pennits for products such as bottled water.
Artemesia Water Case
The case of Grey Associationjor Better Planning v.
Artemesia Water.f Ltd. began in 1999 when the Ministry of
the Environment (MOE) issued a permit to take water from
a property in the County of Grey. The Environmental Ap-
peal Board (now the Environmental Review Tribunal) de-
_~~m~~ a citizen challenge to-~~4s:ioo.-
However, the official plans and zoning by-law did not per-
mit the land to be used for commercial water taking. 'When the
County of Grey and the Township of Artemesia rcfused to
amend their official plans and zoning by-law, ArtemesiaWa-
ters Ltd. appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).
The OMB. found for the company. Grey Association for
Better Planning appealed to the court.
The court had to decide whether water taking was a
"use of Ia.nd" under the Planning Act. The court found
that installing pipes and pumps on land for the purpose
of extracting water is a use of land, not only in common
parlance, but under the Planning Act as well. The court
set aside the OMB decision, and directed a rehearing be:-
fore the OMB. Artemesia Ws.ters Ltd. filed a leave to ap-
peal the court decision. In September 2003, the Munici-
pality of Grey Highlands joined the fray as a party in the
Juli Abouchar is;in EnvirOr'lmenl<lllawyer and Associate at Willms
& Shi(!r Environmental lawyers. Prior to joming thl'! firm. Juli was
Assistant Commission Counsel 10 the Walkerton Inquiry. Juli is a
member of the Source Water Protectionlmpleme/'1tation Commit-
lee.
appeal. However, Artemesia Waters Ltd. abandoned its
appeal the day bcfor~ the appeal was to be heard in early
December 2003.
This means (ha.t the lower court decision stands as the CUT-
rent law of Ontario.
Now, communities may regulate water taking through
official plan policies and zoning by-laws. Land use con-
trols may exist alongside, and independent of, MOE per-
mits to take water. Even where an MOE pennit exists, a
municipality may still apply official plan policies and
zoning by-laws to deny amendments required to permit
commercial water taking.
Moratori U~~[mi!$-~~"~~""
-~~--~~~
Ontario'5 moratorium applies to permits to take water for:
beverage manufacturing (including bottled water); fruit or
vegetable canning; ready-mix concrete manufacturing; ag-
gregate proce$1;ing where the aggregate and the water taken
are incorporated into a product in the fonn of a slurry; and
manufacturing where more than 50,000 litres of water a day
is incorporated into the product.
The moratorium will not apply to water taken for mu-
nicipal water !.upplies, agricultural purposes, and
dewatering of pits and quarries. It will not a.pply to re-
newals of ~xisting permits for the same volume from the
same location and for the same purpose. However, per-
mits that allow for an increase for future water takings
will be frozen at the cUlTent amounts.
The objective of the moratorium is to allow a review
of ground water supplies, Ontario has committed to de-
velop rules Ihat will allow the MOE to bette-r assess the
impact of watl~r withdrawa,ls on aquifers and watersheds
in the province before: issuing permits to take water.
Ontario's n(W emphasis on prote~ting watersheds from
excessive water extraction looks promising. MW
Find it NOW with Municipal World's extensive online index at:
I '~'..( ~. .., ('~:.. ~. !!"I.~! ~ 1:...,:;',.... r .i~"''':. .j.... f.' t.,' .(.. " E.... 1t"J-t" .,t.....,',.: I i :/.. , ....,....;. ~ .'~ ~ ~:: i" ~ ,.,' ;, f' ~'....,. '''. i
\;,. '" fi'~ \I' v.. ...l ..t..;,,1;; .t..\{., ~'i."."~ ",. \1-1;. \a....'1 ,:\..... '.,' \..... (; ..1 "... ",\. ,.'r....'..'.: :.... ...."t\ lo...,' C . to .
Municipal World
MARCH 2004
23
Questions A bout Water Taking
By
Jim Woodford
Presented to Oro-Medonte Committee of the Whole
14 July 2004
9.00 a.m.
Oro-Medonte Council is considering taking a bold step to regulate water taking at
the Township level.
I Support the concept of local control over water, but I have serious reservations
over what is happening in Oro-Medonte.
^,_~,., _._.d.~..~_'~_~_.M_'.._'_"'""~_'_' ^',
.. .......~~~Eir~t.Jh~[~ill!1~~!~Q~~12~[:I~~yi~':Y~.Q..~Q~fl!if!<::~!!!.g!~UJ:LP~~.~!.llil.!..Qt2y!~l!1~~_.~_.__..__....._~... .
Township with the volume of water that may be taken on a sustamable basIs, allowmg tor
future demands in the Township.
There must be peer-reviewed scientific studies that determine that the water Oro-
Medonte plans to regulate actually "belongs" to Oro-Medonte. This will involve drilling
deep wells and analyzing water samples.
Second, why the unseemly haste to push this matter through? The Province is
planning legislation that will give all municipalities some control over water.
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority has prime responsibility over
water in Oro-Medonte. Why is not an active player? The Water Taking Report should
have had major input from them. Why did it have this vital input not?
Oro-Medonte should stop work on water taking until clear directives come
from the Province of Ontario on the role of municipalities in water regulation. If
Oro-Medonte goes ahead it will be the first water taking local by-law and will likely
be challenged at the OMB at considerable cost to Oro-Medonte Ratepayers.
The main beneficiaries if this initiative continues will be consultants and lawyers.
Third, this initiative, if it continues, will be closely watched by the ever-growing
water taking and bottling industry, other major water takers and various levels of
government For example Coca Cola Corp. takes water south of Owen Sound. Industry
will not welcome new regulations.
1
Al1 the poJicy papers, supporting documents, and the zoning by-law will be
subject to intensive review and examination as will the people and companies who wrote
them.
Herein Jies a problem.
Nick MacDonald wrote the present policy paper. Mr. MacDonald appeared at the
Gold Mountain Springs OMB Hearing in support of commercial water taking and the
building of a water-bottling plant in Oro-Medonte. Mr. MacDonald's OMB performance
was not an auspicious one and his testimony was severely critized by Hearing Chair
Susan Fish.
Mr. MacDonald's OMB testimony was in defiance of Council who voted 7 - 0
against building the bottJing plant.
Question: Can Council risk having Mr. MacDonald testify against its water taking
policy at an OMB hearing?
Question: Is a policy written by someone in favour of commercial water taking
and building a water bottling plant in the Township in the best interests of Oro-Medonte?
Mr. Kimble of Horseshoe Resort voiced concerns about the Township's initiative
at a public meeting. The Resort holds two water-taking permits and is one of the largest
water-takers in the Township.
Mr. MacDonald does planning work for Mr. Kimble and on May 5, 2004 he
appeared before the Planning Advisory Committee asking for planning changes on behalf
of Horseshoe Resort.
Question: Can a consultant serve two clients who may be on opposing sides of an
important policy matter.
Question: Should Council determine if this represents a conflict-of-interest?
The way things stand MacDonald might be called by both Oro-Medonte and
Horseshoe Resort to testify at an OMB Hearing!
Oro-Medonte should immediately enact Conflict-of-Interest Guidelines for
consultants and advisors employed by the Township.
Question: Should Oro-Medonte Council then decide if Mr. MacDonald is the
best-qualified consultant. considering the above concerns, to write the Township's water
taking policy and zoning by-law and steer it through the regulatory processes?
If Council decides he is not the right person for this job then it should consider
putting the matter of providing Policy papers and a Zoning By-law for Township
2
Regulation of Water-Taking up for Tender and accept the bid from the best-qualified
consultants who qualify under the new Conflict-of-Interest Guidelines.
As an Oro-Medonte Ratepayer I have a right to answers, in writing, to the
following questions:
I - Since January 2003 how much has Oro-Medonte paid Nick MacDonald and
Meridian for consulting and other services?
2 - Why is so much planning work out sourced when there are two staff planners?
There would be an objectivity and transparency if the work was done by the staff. When
we have the answer to the above question Oro-Medonte could hire more staff planners.
3 - Why are projects like the Water Taking policy paper not put up for Tender?
This would ensure that tax dollars are being well spent.
4 - Why did Council not appoint an Advisory Committee to oversee the Water
Taking Project?
3
An Open Letter to the Chair of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Board
Members and Member Municipalities
I don't know much about water except that I like to drink it, occasionally bathe in
it and it is the basis of all life.
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority is working on a major study of
the municipal groundwater in South Simcoe. The study is currently being revised, but an
Executive Summary is available.
The Lake Simcoe Authority wisely and responsibly states in the Background
section of the Summary that: "The capacity of the local aquifers to continue to continue
to meet current and future demands, and the potential for historical, current or proposed
future land uses to impair groundwater quality or reduce available groundwater supplies
are not well understood."
Before they go any further with the Study I respectfully suggest that
comprehensive scientific studies aimed at understanding local aquifers should be
undertaken immediately. We need to know the size of each of the 4 aquifers, the volume
of water in each and how or if they are interconnected.
How can sustainable water use objectives be set if we don't know how much
water is actually there?
Along with the above there needs to be a complementary study of commercial
water taking in South Simcoe.
It appears that water takers such as aggregate producers, commercial water takers,
such as Gold Mountain Springs, and golf courses were not explicitly considered in the
current study.
Evidently they were included in overall estimates. But what data was used?
Aggregate producers evidently self-report water use to the Ministry of the
Environment. At least one, Stewart-Hillway Pit #5 on the 131\ apparently did not file all
the necessary reports. There are 27 aggregate pits in Oro-Medonte and their washing
operations may involve millions of litres of water. A monitoring system should be put in
place so that that accurate figures are available for ground water use calculations. Self-
reporting is an unreliable data source.
Neighbours of Gold Mountain Springs say that many large tanker trucks of water
are taken out each day. How much water is being taken is apparently not known. They
have a permit to take a certain volume of water - but who monitors the taking?
1
In fact, who monitors the amount taken by all permit holders? This is not to
suggest that the Lake Simcoe Authority should be doing this - but if accurate estimates of
water available for taking are to be made - it must be from the best possible data.
We are fortunate that in Oro-Medonte, where I live, there has not been residential
or commercial development that has stressed the water supply. A word of caution, in
other jurisdictions in North America large aquifers containing what was estimated to be
inexhaustible water supplies were drained dry!
Honda at Alliston built a water pipeline from Georgian Bay evidently because
local aquifers would not sustain the large volume needed for their operations.
There still appear to be as many questions as answers about our water. I would not
mind being wrong about the above - but it is too important an issue to remain
unchallenged.
I don't want my grandchildren to be thirsty!
Jim Woodford
2
Nelson and Margaret Robertson
1896 Old Barrie Road
R. R. 1 Hawkestone
Ontario LOL 1 TO
July 16, 2004
._--""
I RECEIVED i
Andria Leigh, Senior Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
148 Line 7 South P.O. Box 100,
Oro, . Ontario LOL2XO
2 1 200k
i
i ORO-MEDONTE \
1 TOWNSHIP
J..........______~,____~~__._
Dear Andria,
We are writing to express our complete support for the recommendation that
water taking be included as a land use, pursuant to the Township of Oro-
Medonte Official Plan and Zoning By-law. We also fully support the inclusion of
groundwater as a municipal responsibility.
The taking of water from our very precious moraine must be carefully considered,
both with respect to monitoring existing uses and to assessing applications for
new-uses:13otfFOf1fsnave-spoken-pu5ftCfyo~f1Ce-of-proteamg-tfje--~-----
water in the Oro-Medonte moraine. Most recently, I spoke at the July 6,2004,
public meeting, and I have enclosed a copy of my remarks that evening for your
consideration. As a society, we must protect the fresh, pure water supply we
currently enjoy in the Oro-Medonte moraine and ensure this supply stays
abundant for future generations.
For this reason, it is also very important to us that Oro-Medonte council be the
body which is responsible for making decisions related to water use on the
moraine, as well as for the on-going monitoring of water use. It is vital that our
local council be the group responsible for making decisions on such important
local issues.
......_."..,,-~
Thank you.
Sincerely,
~~~
Lf1ZaA--'j~ ~
Margaret j,iobertson
c, Neil Craig, Mayor, Township of Oro-Medonte
Nick McDonald, RPP, Meridian Planning Consultants
.
1
j REC'EI\rEDj
.~, I
MARGARET ROBERTSON - PRESENTATION JULY 2004
TO ORO-MEDONTE COUNCIL
JUl 2 1 lOOk
i ORO-MEDONTE
L.~~ TOWNSHIP
Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Ladies and Gentlemen,
My name is Margaret Robertson. Thank you for the opportunity to speak
to you tonight. I wish to address the issue of water taking as a land use in
reference to the Township's Comprehensive Zoning By-law. I feel very strongly
that water use must be included as a land use in this by-law and so be controlled
locally.
As some of you may know, for the last several years my husband and I
have spoken publicly and most recently at an O.M.B. hearing this past year,
... '" ....J~I~t~~:tJQJ.)[QQQ.~~~:tgI~~~LQils~QI.LCJ~!lG:.Jl_Qf QrQ.:M.E?.Qgr1tE?~.MYJ!@!r1J2QncE?rr1_.__._.__.~.
then, and now, has been protecting our water in the Oro-Medonte moraine.
Water is a very precious commodity, one that we in the Western World seem to
take for granted. We always assume there will be safe drinking water in our taps.
However, from an international perspective, water has become a commodity of
global concern. You should know that 2003 was declared the International Year
of Fresh Water by the United Nations. The fourth World Water Day was held this
past March 22, 2004. Every 3 years, United Nations Agencies will.produce a
World Water Development Report. I have here a 576-page book - produced by
the United Nations - entitled Water For People-Water for Life. It is a joint report
by the 23 UN agencies concerned with fresh water around the world. Why this
emphasis on water and water stress? Because in most places in our world, an
adequate supply of fresh water is considered the ultimate luxury.
My main point tonight is to warn against complacency with respect to our
water supply. Walkerton's water-related deaths and all the water scandals in
communities across Canada that followed Walkerton's tragedy should serve as a
warning beacon to us. There already is so much development on the Oro-
2
Medonte moraine: gravel pits, a water extraction facility, golf courses, ski
resorts, new housing developments. We must be extremely careful in allowing
additional trauma to our very precious moraine. Land use consultants have
recommended that Oro-Medonte adopt an Environment First philosophy for the
moraine, which I fully endorse. I further recommend a moratorium be placed on
any and all development of the moraine until adequate studies have been
completed on the effect of such development. It would be irresponsible to
proceed with any development until such investigation has been completed.
We have lived in Oro-Medonte for 18 years. But my husband's family
connection to Oro-Medonte dates back almost two centuries! I myself was
introduced to this beautiful Oro Township as a young child, when my family
would visit our cousin Smith Campbell. His picture hangs proudly on the wall
here~~~~~~~_QtQ!QTQ~~jQ_:__Y'l~~~~~~~~~~1rQI]9_9QDIt~c;tiQIl..tQ~__.~.~.~___.._.__.~
Oro-Medonte and to its continuing to be a healthy, vibrant community.
It is vital that we make wise decisions today to ensure the protection of
our ground-water, to ensure the water in the Oro-Medonte moraine stays clean,
clear and abundant for us and future generations, for we are the guardians of this
earth.
Thank you.
~
14:27
Burl's Creek Park
17054876280
tf!. . ,J" (i~'
iti-. !~
P.02
t$~
~..._~_.....-~._-_.__.
.. --------
.~ .."-.- .-. ."" ...~...-
Barrie Auiomotive Flea Market
;
......-.-,...,-.,.....-.........-.......... . .--.... f. .
.. - --..-...--------
August 12, 2004
Mayor Craig. Councilors, & Township Staff
VIA FACSIMILE: 487-0133
Hey Gang:
Just a few questions that crossed this old business mans mind regardipg the proposed
regulations of the taking of over. ~O,OOO litres a day. Let us not be first and crpsade the cause of
water controls in Ontario. Let a larger municipality host the cost, same as thd anti-smoking by-
law, Let Ils..acquire a bonifide se~on<tQQinion it seems to me we are spendj!1 ! to much of rate
payers hard eame momes creating contra s an aV01 109 serv1clOg t elr al y nee s.fVfy
questions are what is the cost to implement, police, and or prosecute? What ~aily usage
comparisons have been suppJied for over 50,000 litres a day? Wi11 this regul~tion (control) be
further restricting the types of commercial industrial or even fanns that can sbt up with in our
boundaries? .
Please provide me and others a cumprehensive list ofthe average usa~e of over 50,000
litres per day that exist with in our Township. Does the City of Barrie draw '-fater from our
underground aqui rers at the tune of 5-7 million gallons per day? That would ~e more than the
entire Oro-Medonte usage for a year. .
Let us proceed slowly and be the 11 [h or I 5[h community JO install th~ restrictive
regulation. How will it benefit all of us? What guarantee do we have our factPrs are right? What
insurance company is underwriting these facts? :
These an:: some of my thoughts, consider some of these whcn makin~ decisions that may
effect future generations. Please provide a written response. i
I remain. as always,
fO/f~~
~I .Donald P. Hanney
.......
--.,-....- ....---~ ----.-.-.-
.__..--~_...__..._-"'~ ._-~----"...- -- ----
.M_____".__
() c~ln:Hb U.n,lxn PiIOI\,:: '-01) I IK7....:.h():.~
Bur"~ Creek Famih.' Evcnt Park P.O, t!\)X 210 Or\), .' nl'J!"I",
."~ , I l'I"'"i\ inlll~lhllr\s,r",'k"'lll!l
\V"hs it,.: II'IVW .bIJTlsnn'" .CUI11 "
\";IX: ,i\}~) i~';'"7.~'.!.1-iU
I lU:~1 ~AA 1U~ 1J4 IJUJ
lJAV11J :;. WHITt; LAW flKtrl
f...,t-.f.1-'
A,l- .
~ 002/003
DAVID S. WHITE, Q.c.
BARRISTER AND SOLICITOR
11 Victoria Street
Suite 218
Barrie, Ontario
UN 61'3
Telephone: (705) 734-0100
Facsimile: (705) 734-1303
Email: david@davidwhite.ca
August 13, 2004
FAX to 487-0133
The Clerk
The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario
LOL 2XO
Dear Sir:
Re: Water Taking
I represent Gold Mountain Springs Inc. and I wish to make the following
submission in connection with the Municipality's initiative to amend its Zoning By-law to
include water taking as a land use.
1. Water is a public resource that does not respect municipal boundaries and there
is an important Provincial interest in this resource. The interests of a municipality
in the Province's decision making process regarding permits must be resolved in
a way that does not diminish the Province's authority over water taking and water
allocation.
2. It is premature for the Township of Oro-Medonte to take action prior to the
Province completing its review of the Permit-to- Take pr9cess.
3. To my knowledge, no local municipality in Ontario has passed a zoning by-law
that attempts to regulate or control the taking of water. If Oro-Medonte wishes to
be the first municipality to venture into this field it could result in lengthy and
expensive hearings and litigation.
4. Any decision impacting the right to take water must be based on Provincial
Policy, strong science and actual facts. At this time the Province has not
determined its new policy and local municipalities do not have any expertise or
experience in hydrogeology.
'"
5. If a local municipality wishes to participate in the permitting process, its
participation should. be limited to the land. use issues and the hydrogeological
issues should be left to the Province.
...2
4 10:57 FAX 705 734 1303
DAVID S. WHITE LAW FIRM
19J UU;j1 UUJ
r..:'
-2-
6. Any attempt to limit current water taking where monitoring and actual experience
indicate no impact will likely result in litigation,
7. If the Municipality proceeds with a zoning amendment, I specifically request that
the Gold Mountain Springs Inc. property in Lot 3, Concession 10 be zoned to
permit the existing operation which includes the taking, pumping and transporting
of water; or, in the alternative, the existing operation be recognized as a legal
non-conforming use.
The Township of Oro-Medonte should not take any action until the Province has
had an opportunity to complete its review and report on the Permit-ta-Take process.
Yours truly
DSW/lc
David S. White, Q.C.
Cc: Mr. Nick McDonald
Gold Mountain Springs Inc.
"-
Skelton Bromwell
&: ASS 0 C I ATE SIN C.
August 16, 2004
Township of Oro-Medonte
148 Line 7 South
Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO
Attention: A...~dria Leigh, Planner
Dear Andria :
Re: Water Taking as a Land Use
Our File: B\D 04-2376
93 BELL FARM ROAD
SUITE 10
BARRIE ONTARIO
L4 M 5 G 1
TELEPHONE:
(05) 26-]] 4J
FAX:
( 05) 726-0331
CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
AND
PLANNERS
(i)
We have reviewed the document entitled "Water Taking as A Land Use: Options for Municipalities"
prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Inc., May 3, 2004 and provide the following initial
comments in this regard.
1. The document describes at length the current Provincial regulatory system and recent initiatives
to address the shortcomings of the system and then concludes that, since "no reliable public
process exists for PTTW applications", water taking should be considered a land use.
A "reliable public process" that is consistent throughout the province cannot be created one
municipality at a time. However, the participation of AMO and other agencies is important to
initiatives at the provincial level.
2. Similarly, if it is determined that water taking is to be recognized as a land use under the
Planning Act, municipal Official Plan policy should be guided by the Province through the
Provincial Policy Statement with a view to developing a consistent approach across
municipalities.
3. Any planning action or consideration of water taking as a land use should distinguish water
taking which is normally incidental to a permitted use,and therefore an "accessory use",versus
water taking as a principal use.
4. Municipalities now have the authority to enter into agreements such as Site Plan Agreements
or other development agreements that may include water monitoring.
rn
...2...
..
Andria Leigh, Planner
August 16, 2004
Page 2
5. The impact of any development on other water users is now regulated through the through the
Ontario Water Resources Act.
6. The first paragraph of Section 2.1 refers to "aggregate tailings". It is not clear what is meant by
this, or why this would be a source of groundwater contamination.
Section 5.1 indicates that aggregate extraction "became a land use" in 1983. Aggregate
extraction has historically been a land use. Currently in areas of the province that are not
designated under the Aggregate Resources Act it is controlled through municipal zoning by-laws
and/or Municipal Act by-laws.
Please ensure that we are notified of any further discussions or meetings on this matter, and that we are
circulated with any further reports.
Yours truly,
SKELTON, BRUMWELL & ASSOCIATES INe.
Trudy P. Paterson, CET, RPP
Senior Planner
TPP/slc
C-04-370
cc Peter White - AP AO
08/20/04 FRI 16:41 FAX 9057380224
LAl-'Al<\:i.t;; LC~l .t;;A:'l
~U\,.;
ILAFARGE
NORTH AMERICA
Construction Materials
August 19. 2004
Mayor Craig and Members of Council
Township of Oro-Medonte
148 Line 7 South
Oro. ON
LOL 2XO
Re. Water Taking As A land Use: Options For Municipalities
Dear Sirs:
Thank you for the opportunify to provide comments on the Township of Ora-Medonte's
Discussion Paper entitled Water Taking As A land Use: Options For Municipalities. We do
not support the premise thot water taking should be considered os 0 land use pursuant
to the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan and Zoning By-Law.
In q.\'!LQ~ilJi9~f1!1'1€:2roposol would create unnecessary duplication in legislative
requirements g-oVeTr~ng~woT~,rorrl'9il\ff~lo'wnsnTp:-.cspeGto1!yirrtt:!e'Conte)(t\;t~.~ ... ..... '. ......~..
proposed changes currently being considered by the provincial Ministry of the
Environment (MOE). The MOE has plans to introduce protection of drinking water
through the proposed Drinking Water Source Protection Act (DWSPj, and also ore
planning to overhaul the current Permit to Toke Water (PTTW) process through proposed
amendments to the Water Taking and Transfer Regulation (WTIR). Many of the proposed
changes in the DWSP and WTTR would achieve the same goals contained in the
Township's Discussion Paper. including increased technical scrutiny of PTIW applications,
the requirement for 0 more holistic, watershed-based approach, conservation authorities
playing 0 central role, and greater opportunities for public input throughout the process.
We do not support the position advanced throughout the Discussion Paper that one
court ruling for a specific water taking application should be used os justification for
municipal regulation of all types of water takings. Many iypes of water takings. such os
water for aggregate washing. do not consume water by permanently removing it from
the watershed. The vast majority of these takings involve utilizing water and returning it to
the watershed where it originated, with minimal loss.
Determining potential impacts of water taking proposals on the quantity and quality of
groundwater and surface water is a technical undertaking based .on scientific
evaluation. Introducing 0 process under the Planning Act that '.N'ould mandate Township
Council to make decisions will require the Township to hove or obtain the appropriate
expertise to review 011 applications and the ability to follow through on any
recommendations. such as monitoring or enforcement requirements. It also has the
potential to turn what Should be a technical decision based an sound scientific principles
to be unduly influenced by political factors.
LAFARGE CANADA INC.
7880 Keele Street. 3rd floor, Concord, Ontario L4K JlG7
Office: (9Q5) 738-7070 Fax: (905) 73S-0224
web: W\NW.lafargenort/1america.com
Page 1 of 2
,08;:20/04 FRI 16:42 FAX 9057380224
LAFARGE LOt EAST
~ lJU;J
Finally, the implication for considering water asa land use is that there is a present and
potential future risk to the groundwater and sunace water resources in the Township of
Oro-Medonte. However, the Discussion Poperreveals that there is no central database
of watsr takings in the Township outlining the status of existing water quality and quantity.
It would seem incumbent on the Township to ascertain the existing state of its water
resources. and the present and potential future demands placed on the system. before
determining the need for 0 new level of municipal control for water takings.
We request to be kept informed in writing of any further developments on this motter,
including any further pubric meetings.
Sincerely.
~~~
Christopher McGuckin. OALA
ce. Moreen Miller. Laforge
Brian Hollingsworth. MNR
Page 2 of 2
AUB 24'04 15:46 FR
TO 917054870133
P.02/04
" t' . .
Ministry or
Municipal Aft'nirs
nnd Housing
M\lnicipiJl Sc:r\'ice~ Oftl.:e
Central Ontario
777 BIIY St 2nd Fir
Toronto ON M5G 2E5
Pr.C\ne: (416) 585-622b
Ftx: (4J6) 585-6882
Toll-Free: 1-800-668-0230
Ministh'e des
AtT';ires municipales
et du ~gemcnt
Bureau dc~ !(Crv'lCCS 3U)t munidpaJites
Cen~ tit: l'Onwio
777, rue B;ly a o!.....gc
Toronto ON M5G 2ES
Telephone (416) 585-6226
T€Io!copitur. (416) 585-6882
$3n~ frais: 1.800-668-0230
~ Ontario
August 24, 2004
Ian Bender
Director of Planning
County of Simcoe
Administration Centre
1110 Highway 26
Midhurst, Ontario
LOL 1 XO
Dear Mr. Bender:
~~._"
Re: Adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 17
-~~~~iowrrship-1JK:)ro=tvledonte-offictaJi>lan
MMA File No.: 43-DP~0097-04007
~~-'~~'~'~^_"'~~___~__~'_~~~~~~_'~'~~~~,'_""_~d..
This letter is in response to the County of Simcoe's request for comments on the
above noted Amendment to the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan (the OPA),
While the County is the approval authority for lower tier official plans within its
jurisdiction, it is recognized that the County may request provincial comments from
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs through the One Window Provincial Planning Service
on planning applications as part of Municipal Plan Review. Notwithstanding this,
MMA requests that, in the case of new OPs or GPAs dealing with a large number of
issues, the County scope its request .inorder to identify which items in particular are
to be commented upon, "
Water Taking Component ofthe OPA
With respect to water taking, it is MMAH staff's understanding that the general intent
of the OPA is to provide a policy framework for the Township to be more involved in
the approval process for water takings, which currently resides with the Ministry of
the Environment (MOE). More specifically, the OPA, if approved, would allow the
Township to amend its comprehensive zoning by-law to include water taking as a
land use, On this basis, any use of land that requires the taking of more than 50,000
lit res of ground or surface water per d~y would require an amendment to the zoning
by-law. In considering whether toadopt zoning by-law amendments to permit such
uses, the Township would consider a number of items, including. but not limited to,
the quality and quantity of groun~ ar'lpsurface water.
1:I~'1'JMj5)
AU~ 24'01 15:46 FR
T .
TO 917054870133
P.03/04
Mr. Ian Bender
Counry of Simcoe
43-DP-0097-D4007
August 24, 2004
2
Watershed-based Source Protection Planning
As you are likely aware, MOE released its "White Paper on Watershed-based
Source Protection Planning" in February 2004. Through the White Paper, the
government is addressing many of the recommendations of Commissioner O'Connor
and buiiding on the framework proposed by the Advisory Committee on Watershed-
based Source Protection Planning by:
Developing source water protection legislation. The proposed legislation
which has been posted for public comment looks at how source protection
areas and regions will be established, as well as roles and responsibilities for
those developing plans.
Engaging in wide consultation on the content of the proposed legislation
before introducing it into the Legislature.
· Ensuring that watersheds ac:fos;; ()ntario have source water protection plans.
... .~.._.Bff€f1g1nenlngpT6vlnCia1. ru!es'oensafetharthEn3.lYPtovatof:watcTt;:rkirr~rsis . ...__.....~......
based on a comprehensive approach to managing water.
.
.
As noted above, water taking (in particular, the permit to take water process) is a
significant component of MOE's consultations on the White Paper. MOE consulted
widely on issues such as strengthening the rules for issuing water-taking permits, as
well as requiring water bottling companies and other permit holders to pay for the
water they take. As a result of these consultations, MOE has proposed a number of
new rules for issuing permits to take water, including:
· improving the assessment of the impact of water-takings to ensure we have
the most accurate information possible on how a supply will be affected;
· ensuring ministry directors factor water conservation into their decisions;
· developing new conditions for the ministry's directors to refuse permits;
· requiring permit holders to report their water-takings; and
· requiring enhanced notification to municipalities and conservation authorities
throughout the water-taking permit process.
When the planning and implementation committees on Watershed-based Source
Protection Planning complete their deliberations, MOE intends to craft a
comprehensive source protection bill which is expected to be introduced to the
Legislature later this year. While MMAH staff cannot speculate on the contents of
the source protection bill, the nature of the White Paper consultations and the
proposed new rules for issuing permits to take water would indicate that any new
legislation could have significant implications for municipalities, including, potentially,
their roles under the Planning Act. Until MOE completes its Watershed-based
AU~ 24'04 15:46 FR
.
TO 917054870133
P.04/04
Mr. Ian Sender
County of Simcoe
43-DP-0097-04007
August 24. 2004
3
Source Protection Planning exercise, including the passage of new legislation, its is
MMAH staff's opinion that approval of the water taking component of the OPA is
premature.
County of Simcoe Official Plan Review
In light of the County's ongoing review of its Official Plan, it is MMAH staff's opinion
that the water taking component of the OPA is premature pending the completion of
this review. Furthermore, the Watershed-based Source Protection Planning exercise
being undertaken by MOE, including potential1egislation, could have implications for
the entire County, including the policies of its Official Plan.
If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (416) 585-6559 or
timothy.haldenby@ mah.gov.on.ca.
,
..~~
Tim Haldenby, MScPI, MCIP, PP
Senior Municipal Planning Advisor
Municipal Services Office - Central Ontario
cc Bill Armstrong, Ministry of the. Environment
Andrea Leigh, Planner, Township of Oro~Medonte
Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants
Peter White, Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario
** TOTAL PAGE.004 **