1. PROPOSED
WORKPLAN FOR RESOLUTION OF COMMUNITY WETLANDS CONCERNS PROPOSITION DE PLAN DE
TRAVAIL EN VUE DE LA DISSIPATION DES INQUIÉTUDES DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ CONCERNANT
LES ZONES HUMIDES |
That Council endorse the attached workplan for City
staff to work with a Wetland Stakeholder Group, as defined in this report, to
resolve rural community concerns regarding wetlands.
Recommandation du comité
Que le Conseil municipal appuye le plan de travail ci-joint afin que le personnel collabore avec
un groupe de parties prenantes sur les zones humides, tel que défini dans le
présent rapport, en vue de dissiper toute inquiétude de la communauté rurale
quant aux zones humides.
1.
Deputy City Manager, Planning and
Growth Management report dated 1 March 2006 (ACS2006-PGM-POL-0017).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes 22, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meeting of March 9, 2006.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Comité de l'agriculture et des
questions rurales
and Council / et au Conseil
Submitted by/Soumis par : Ned Lathrop,
Deputy City Manager/Directeur
municipal adjoint,
Planning and Growth
Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : Dennis Jacobs, Director / Directeur,
Planning, Environment and Infrastructure
Policy /
Politiques d’urbanisme, d’environnement et
d’infrastructure
(613) 580-2424 x25521, Dennis.Jacobs@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
PROPOSED WORKPLAN FOR
RESOLUTION OF COMMUNITY WETLANDS CONCERNS |
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
PROPOSITION DE PLAN DE TRAVAIL EN VUE DE LA DISSIPATION DES
INQUIÉTUDES DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ CONCERNANT LES ZONES HUMIDES |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council
endorse the attached workplan for City staff to work with a Wetland Stakeholder
Group, as defined in this report, to resolve rural community concerns regarding
wetlands.
RECOMMANDATION DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité de
l’agriculture et des questions rurales recommande au Conseil d’appuyer le plan
de travail ci-joint afin que le personnel collabore avec un groupe de parties
prenantes sur les zones humides, tel que défini dans le présent rapport, en vue
de dissiper toute inquiétude de la communauté rurale quant aux zones humides.
BACKGROUND
As part of the review process for consideration of a subdivision application at 6851 Flewellyn Road, work was conducted on behalf of the City of Ottawa and the Ministry of Natural Resources in 2004 to identify potential new wetland areas in the vicinity of this address, located within Goulbourn Township. In 2005, the City began an Official Plan Amendment process to designate the potential new wetland areas for protection in its Official Plan.
Many of the 60 affected landowners, and others, raised a number of concerns regarding this process that included impact upon property values, existing drainage problems, the wetland evaluation process and outcome, and the need for wetland designation. Given the strength of the concerns raised, the City stopped the designation process in early November 2005 with a promise to resolve these community concerns.
To respond to a number of rural concerns, including wetlands, the City of Ottawa sponsored a Rural Summit in November 2005. This event was organized by rural residents to identify their priority issues, potential solutions and a program for the City and its residents to continue to work together to implement workable solutions. Rural communities in Ottawa, as well as across the country, have experienced significant pressures in the last several years. Given evolving concerns within local rural communities that government agencies are delivering inadequate services, increasing their controls on land uses as well as changes experienced through municipal amalgamation, the City of Ottawa has committed to collaboratively work with the community to find appropriate solutions. This commitment fits with the responsibility of all levels of government for ongoing refinement of their service delivery approaches to adequately respond to changing conditions and still balance the needs of the whole community without unduly impacting upon any one segment.
The City's recent Rural Summit concluded that a number of specific actions and processes must be implemented to correct the growing negative impact being experienced within our rural community. Resolution of landowner and community concerns in regard to wetland identification and designation is one of the key areas that the City committed to address as part of the 2006 work program arising from the Rural Summit. This report presents the proposed workplan for approval by the Agricultural & Rural Affairs Committee and Council. Input to and endorsement of this workplan was sought from the Rural Task Force, prior to Committee consideration of this item.
DISCUSSION
Under the planning authorities delegated to municipalities within Ontario, the City of Ottawa is responsible to deliver land use planning and management services that guide our community's land use and development to achieve protection of:
resources of provincial interest,
public health and safety, and
the quality of the environment,
as outlined in the Provincial Policy Statement (2005). To achieve the directions within the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and other requirements under the Planning Act, the City of Ottawa's Official Plan (2003) is one of the main tools available to manage our growth and land use. The integrated policies within our Plan aim to "manage our growth in ways that reinforce the qualities of the City most valued by its residents: its distinctly liveable communities, its green and open character, and its unique characteristics that distinguish Ottawa from all other places".
Provincially Significant Wetlands are one of the resources of provincial interest that municipalities are required to "protect for the long term". Section 2.1.3 of the PPS directs that development and site alteration shall not be permitted within (provincially) significant wetlands.
Within the City of Ottawa, as well as other municipalities across Ontario, the standard approach to fulfill protection of significant wetlands is to designate them in Official Plans with relevant land use restrictions. Although this is the standard approach for Ontario municipalities, other methods to protect significant environmental lands are known to be employed in Ontario, other Provinces and the United States.
Through 2005, in discussions prior to, at and following the City's Rural Summit, many questions and concerns have arisen in regard to the processes used to identify and protect wetlands. City staff have developed a workplan (see Document 1) for resolving the priority wetland items within the Policy section of the December 6, 2005 Rural Summit Task Force Report as well as respond to related items raised by Goulbourn landowners:
share information with and petition the Province, as appropriate, to understand and input to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, parts of which (such as complexing critieria) are scheduled for review in early 2006;
develop relevant policies and procedures that recognize and plan for the potential effects of City actions on owners' use of their lands, including consideration of an approach with terms similar to expropriation and a compensation policy for designated wetlands;
evaluate the need for designation of wetlands within the Official Plan in comparison to other conservation methods (e.g. purchase of development rights, stewardship agreements, compensation, conservation easements, etc.); consider a process that requires landowner consent for changes in land use designation or zoning;
ensure that cumulative effects of development and water taking are adequately considered by relevant agencies (the City, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation Authorities); and
resolution of existing drainage questions and issues within Goulbourn ward.
This workplan will be completed by working closely with a stakeholder group that is proposed to include representation from the following:
Rural Task Force;
Goulbourn Landowners Group;
Ottawa-Carleton Rural Council;
Environmental Advisory Committee/Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee;
local Conservation Authorities;
Ministry of Natural Resources;
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing;
Councillor Stavinga's office.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
Jurisdictions world-wide restrict land uses within wetlands because of the ecological functions that wetlands serve and the potential for significant loss of function that can result from human activities.
The ecological functions or services provided by wetlands include capture and storage of precipitation and surface water, removal of contaminants (if present) from waters flowing through wetlands, regulated release of stored water to replenish watercourses (at cooler temperatures) and aquifers and provision of habitat for a diverse range of species. Resolution of this workplan aims to achieve a balance that both protects the City's remaining significant wetlands as well as respects landowners' ability to use their properties.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
The completion of this workplan will fulfill recommendations from the Rural Summit for resolution of policy items related to identification and conservation of wetlands and related City services within the rural area of the City of Ottawa. The resulting policy principles and directions from this workplan will also be reviewed for the potential to apply their context to other City land use policies within both the rural and urban areas of the City.
CONSULTATION
Consultation and discussion with community stakeholders and relevant government agencies at key workplan stages, as outlined in the attached document, will occur with input from the Rural Issues Advisory Committee, once constituted.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
This workplan will be completed through the use of existing staff resources, primarily from the Environmental Sustainability Division within the Planning and Growth Management Department. As the work proceeds, should additional assistance be required to complete some of the research or analysis tasks (likely needed in the area of property value impact analysis), the relatively small amount of financial resources expected (<$10,000) can be obtained from the Division's Watershed/Subwatershed Planning budget, capital account #902042.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Proposed Work Program for Resolution of Wetlands Concerns
DISPOSITION
Staff within the Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy Branch will work closely with a Wetlands Stakeholder Group to coordinate completion of the attached workplan with other City and agency staff. The completion of this workplan will result in submission of a recommended approach to wetlands policy, including compensation considerations, for review by a joint Committee meeting of Agricultural and Rural Affairs and Planning and Environment, projected to occur in June 2006.
PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM FOR RESOLUTION OF WETLAND CONCERNS Document 1
Current Status: The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is undertaking a review of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System; the review’s timing and scope are expected to be finalized in late January.
|
Action |
Timing |
Participants |
|
Clarify understanding of proposed MNR Review of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System and submit relevant City issues for consideration in the review |
City, MNR |
|
|
Discuss likely direction and timing of MNR review with stakeholders |
After initial meeting with MNR |
City, Wetland Stakeholder Group |
|
Explore broad range of options for wetland conservation and identify alternatives to Official Plan designation; alternatives include range of approaches to land conservation and landowner compensation |
Conduct research in Feb./Mar. 2006; Discuss preliminary findings with stakeholder group by end of March Finalize options with stakeholder input by May 15th |
Natural Systems staff (in Planning, Environment & Infrastructure Policy (PEIP) Branch, MNR, Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing (MMAH), Community, Conservation Authorities |
Current Status: Redirected drainage water has been confirmed to occur in the Conley Road area due to beaver activity upstream; City staff have engaged a trapper to remove the beavers and the dam. The work has not yet been completed due to landowner reluctance to allow property access.
|
Action |
Timing |
Participants |
|
Complete beaver and dam removal to restore natural drainage movement of water |
As soon as feasible, practical for removal of beavers |
Public Works & Services staff / contractor |
|
Confirm that development over the last 10-20 years in the area to the north of the potential wetlands in the Flewellyn Road area of Goulbourn ward has not resulted in increased water to the Conley Road vicinity |
Complete assessment by early April |
Natural Systems / Planning & Infrastructure Approvals (PIA), Public Works (Drainage), Ministry of the Environment (MOE ) re: Permits to Take Water, MNR |
|
Explanation of known aspects of wetland development, progress on wetlands research and MNR review |
Discuss with stakeholder group in late March |
Wetland Evaluator, City, Landowners, MNR, Stakeholder group |
|
Develop approach for evaluation of cumulative effects from development and water-taking |
2006/7; timing depends upon finalization of Provincial Clean Water Act and associated regulations for source water protection legislation |
PEIP, MOE, Conservation Authorities (CA’s), PIA |
|
Action |
Timing |
Participants |
|
Prepare materials that outline benefits of wetlands to groundwater and surface water quality and quantity (also emerged as concern at Rural Summit) |
By April 2006 |
PEIP, CA’s |
|
Communicate likely impact of Clean Water Act, source water protection planning, to rural community, and rest of the City |
Public notification and committee meetings - Planning & Environment (Jan. 24) and Agriculture & Rural Affairs (Jan. 26) to discuss City comments on draft legislation; ~ four sets of associated regulations expected for circulation in first six months of 2006 |
PEIP |
|
Ensure integrated communication and consultation efforts with rural community on related current planning initiatives – rural aspects of Greenspace Master Plan, Forest Strategy, Good Forestry Practices By-Law, City response to new Provincial Policy Statement |
Advertisements through community newspapers, e-mail lists, as appropriate Specific meetings within the rural community on these subjects, as they arise; Most of these are likely to occur in 2007 with some discussion on the new Provincial Policy Statement (2005) by June 2006 |
PEIP |
|
Action |
Timing |
Participants |
|
Compile/Summarize results of Legal Services’ review of the approach of other jurisdictions in the area of wetlands protection and application of the Provincial Policy Statement |
By end of March |
Natural Systems, Legal Services |
|
Conduct research on impacts of environmental designations on property value; identify options for mitigation; build into environmental areas acquisition policy or other policies, as appropriate |
Research complete by mid April Review findings and options with Wetland Stakeholder Group, in April/May |
Natural Systems, support from Real Property & Asset Management, property appraiser, Legal |
|
Develop overall policy for wetland protection, including options for landowner compensation and assessment of how this policy’s context might apply to within urban area and to other Official Plan environmental designations |
Finalize recommended approach in May/June and consult with relevant stakeholders Policy approval at joint Committee meeting of Agricultural & Rural Affairs and Planning & Environment in June |
City, Rural Task Force, MNR, Conservation Authorities, community, Wetland Stakeholder Group |
PROPOSED WORKPLAN
FOR RESOLUTION OF COMMUNITY WETLANDS CONCERNS
PROPOSITION DE PLAN DE TRAVAIL EN VUE DE LA DISSIPATION DES INQUIÉTUDES
DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ CONCERNANT LES ZONES HUMIDES
ACS2006-PGM-POL-0017
The Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management, Mr. Ned Lathrop and Ms. Cynthia Levesque, Program Manager, Environmental Management, Planning and Infrastructure Policy, presented the report. He began by restating City staff’s commitment to revisiting, with the Ministry of the Environment (MNR), the “complexing”criteria” that are part of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. He indicated that staff shares the concerns of residents with respect to property rights. He also made reference to the new provincial Clean Water Act, which he said would have an impact on wetlands, and to the province-wide need for a long-term, sustainable water supply.
Ms. Levesque gave a detailed presentation of the staff report by means of a PowerPoint presentation (on file with the City Clerk). Her presentation included a brief history of events to-date, information on the Rural Summit Task Force recommendations and details about the next steps for resolution of the wetlands issue. Ms. Levesque then introduced her colleagues, Ms. Susan Murphy and Ms. Leslie Vanclief, from the Planning/Environment /Infrastructure Policy Branch.
The following public delegations were then heard:
Mr. Terry Hale, President, Goulbourn Landowners’ Association
Reading from a prepared statement (on file with the City Clerk), Mr. Hale commented on the issue of “complexing”and the provincial guidelines on wetland criteria. He cited as example the fact that indicator species such as oak, elm, maple, ash, birch, spruce, pine, cedar, poplar, tamarack and willow can also grow in non-wetland areas. He listed the following areas: 3,4,5, 10, 11 and 18, which he stated were incorrectly identified as wetlands and should not be included in the study. Mr. Hale expressed the view that the basis for undertaking the study was not to protect the environment but to freeze development in the area. He called for the City to make a commitment to not implementing an incorrect study. He cautioned that, while the landowners group was committed to help resolve the situation, this did not mean they would accept everything that came out of workplan.
Councillor Stavinga thanked Mr. Hale for his presentation. Addressing her question to Mr. Lathrop, the Councillor first asked whether, at the end of the study, the lands that were cleared and re-seeded would be pulled out.
Mr. Lathrop responded by saying that the workplan would identify how to reach the objective of protecting clean water and wetlands for the long-term interests of the City and the rural areas in general versus landowner rights. Staff is committed to innovative ways of accomplishing this, either through some form of compensation or through landowner agreements. The lands in question will be taken into consideration as part of the workplan process. When pressed by Councillor Stavinga to say whether those lands would be taken out in their entirety, Mr. Lathrop said he could not answer the question at this time. He added that “complexing” deals with the inter-linking of wetlands below and at grade, and this will be part of the evaluation process.
Councillor Glenn Brooks said he would be surprised if the Province agreed to different rules being applied to different areas and other significant changes. He asked whether the lands in question were inside or outside the wetland designation in the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan (OP). Ms. Levesque indicated they are outside the designation and fall into the categories of General Rural, Rural Natural Features and Aggregate Resource. In reply to a query from the Councillor about whether the MNR’s maps coincided with the City’s and the RVCA’s, Ms. Levesque confirmed that the Ministry maintains data sources and other related information for regulation purposes.
Councillor Brooks wanted to know whether a property owner in General Rural would be granted a severance if he applied for one. Mr. Lathrop replied that nothing prevented an individual from appearing before the Committee of Adjustment and having a decision rendered one way or another. The Councillor asked whether the Department would appeal a positive decision. Mr. Lathrop said the City would review whether or not there are grounds for appeal, but as things presently stand, it would be difficult to recommend this course of action, as it was doubtful the City would win.
Mike Westley, a 36-year resident of the area, provided a detailed history of events that led to the current drainage problems. He also expressed concern about the rate of development in the areas. Councillor Brooks asked the speaker whether any consideration had been given to making part of the Flowing Creek drain into a municipal drain. Mr. Westley said this was tried, but nothing happened and one person reneged on giving permission. Councillor Brooks said he was assured that the City would clear the drain along a section of Flewellyn Road, remove the beaver dams and undertake the necessary roadwork. He asked whether the speaker was willing to wait and see how much water this would take away from his and his neighbours’ properties. Ms. Wesley agreed it would be nice to see positive results from this work.
In the face of Councillor Stavinga’s uncertainty about whether a study was ever done on the cumulative impact of the many quarries in this area on water flows, Mr. Lathrop indicated it would also be part of the process.
Bruce Webster, Chair, Rural Council, pointed out that the City is duplicating what the MNR is doing, when it should be taking a position with landowners against the MNR’s process. He posited that, in the absence of proper guidelines, there could be no proper evaluation. Mr. Webster also felt that the Committee was being asked to charge forward to a June deadline when it appears that other problems, such as drainage need to be addressed before any determination is made. He asked that the Committee now declare that the City has no interest at this time, nor in the immediate future, of designating any lands as wetlands until drainage issues are resolved and designation characteristics are clearly understood.
When asked by Chair Jellett if staff is “married” to a June deadline, Mr. Lathrop indicated that staff are being asked to bring closure as quickly as possible. He added that the decision about designation was really up to the MNR and the Conservation Authorities, as agents of the MNR. Staff will ask the MNR for details on how the “complexing criteria” were crafted, with a view to resolving the issue in a timely manner.
Councillor Stavinga expressed the hope that situations such as Mr. Hale’s, who long ago agreed to allow sheet water to cross his property without knowing the difficulties this would later cause, could be addressed through the workplan. Mr. Lathrop pointed out that, because many family farms are being reclaimed to their natural state and the situation is made worse when drains and roadside ditches are not maintained. He felt the issue the MNR would need to consider related to the right of the Province to discuss “complexing” issues against the right of landowners to maintain the drains and farm the land to prevent it reverting to a wetland. Councillor Stavinga said she thought this would still be inconclusive for those properties and that a middle ground would need to be found
Iola Price, Chair, Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee (OFGCA), read from a prepared statement on file with the City Clerk. She described OFCAC’s mandate, which includes commenting on wetlands, and signified the committee’s intention to work more with ARAC as its mandate expands. Speaking to the workplan, Ms. Price stated it has many positive features and she offered the following suggestions for strengthening the plan:
· Clarifying the language of the workplan to address issues such as landowner consent, wetlands development and the approach of other jurisdictions;
· Increasing stakeholder representation to add groups from the rural southern and eastern part of Ottawa and residents of Goulbourn not represented by the Goulbourn Landowners’ Group
Brian Finch, Friends of the Jock River, was concerned that aggrieved landowners had felt they had to destroy their lands because of a wetland designation. The Friends group decries the loss of many wetlands and believes this has to stop.
The MNR’s evaluation is based on a scientific process, and the City is obligated, through the Provincial Policy Statement, to include wetlands in the Official Plan: this means that many aspects of the situation are out of the City’s hands. Mr. Finch stated that the Environmental Bill of Rights Bulletin Board contains generic regulations and deals with more than Provincially Significant Wetlands. On the issue of water, Mr. Finch stated that we are all downstream from someone else and all upstream from our neighbours, and it is important to retain as much water as possible in the upper systems. Councillor Brooks, commenting on the Clean Water Act and on generic regulations, advised that these should be read with great care, as they will have an impact on anyone moving surface and sub-surface water in any direction.
Ken McRae said he disagreed with the position of the Goulbourn Landowners’ on the status of the 20 lands but he agreed on the importance of protecting wetlands. He expressed the view that any additional drains would shift water problems onto landowners further downstream. The speaker said that the Provincially Significant Huntley wetland to the west, between Hwy 7 and the Trans-Canada Trail, has been identified as a Wellhead Protection Area for Munster and Richmond area wells. He posited that the owners of that property, which was purchased prior to being designated, would be happy to see the lands drained so that they could sell it to developers for country estate lots. Mr. McRae also suggested that the proposed workplan action of developing an approach to evaluate the cumulative effects from development and water taking be enlarged to look at the cumulative effect of land drainage ditches. Speaking to the possibility of compensation, Mr. McRae pointed out that there are already are 6700 hectares of Provincially Significant wetlands and the owners of these lands would demand similar treatment if the Goulbourn group got compensated for their 260 hectares. He spoke about the workplan action of requiring landowner consent for changes in land use designation or zoning, saying it was contrary to a City objective as stated in a document from March 2005, that it has the duty to designate the areas appropriately, within the Official Plan, to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
Nick Tolgner, requested that there be a similar workplan process for the upcoming Clean Water Act and wellhead protection.
Eric Bowden, the Osgoode representative on the Workplan group, asked whether there was any possibility of controlling the mining and removal of organic material from significant wetlands. He said this was a problem in Osgoode Ward at the moment, and it will negatively affect the environment and the watershed. Councillor Doug Thompson pointed out that the former Township of Osgoode had a strict by-law about the removal of topsoil. The Province would not let the Township regulate this, and there are no indications that this has changed.
Frank Pope, Ottawa Field Naturalists’ Club, said he expected that the City would enforce the wetland designation as required under the Municipal Act, and to go further by identifying local wetlands.
He stated that
the owners of wetlands are stewards of their properties, and must evaluate the
impact of their actions for several years to come. Many water problems can be attributed to poor watershed
management, and owners of wetlands should think of them as a gift to their
grandchildren and to the community.
Doug Healey, asked whether, following a site visit by the City Biologist, lands that were found not to be wetlands would be removed from the designation, as stated by the MNR. In response, Ms. Levesque confirmed this was the case, and that a person such as Mr. Healey would not be part of any future process. She added that staff was unwilling to make the same promise before the workplan is completed, so as not to encourage other landowners to remove more vegetation from their lands.
Councillor Stavinga sought clarification from Mr. Lathrop about whether he had given the same answer to Mr. Hale about the areas that were cleared and re-seeded (areas 3, 4,5,10,11 and 18). Mr. Lathrop stated that, when asked, he was under the assumption that staff would go through the process and that people would let that process unfold: this would still be staff’s preference. He went on to say that staff had not been proactive in forwarding reports to the MNR because the process was on hold, but if the Committee directs staff to do so, it will be done.
Councillor Stavinga said she did not want anyone to leave thinking that the City is encouraging actions similar to those taken last year. Mr. Lathrop re-stated that staff wants to work through the process and believes that satisfactory outcomes will result. In reply to further questions from Mr. Healey, Mr. Lathrop indicated Mr. Healey would not have the option of accepting or not accepting the workplan’s findings if the Committee authorizes staff to release the information about his lands to the MNR. Councillor Thompson asked that staff be directed to release Mr. Healey’s information to the MNR.
Dr. Meg Sears pointed out that wetlands evaluation methods have been in development since the 1980s, and she felt these had been trivialized this evening. Within the evaluation system, the Province not only identifies provincially significant wetlands, but also regionally and locally significant wetlands and this information is available from the Conservation Authorities. Dr. Sears recommended that, if the City commits to major drainage, it also commit to monitoring the quality and the quantity of water. She added that recommendations to the Province have to be based on more than what is happening in Goulbourn. Recommendations about the wetlands evaluation system have to be made by a qualified Biologist, as this is a science-based system but if the City wants to recommend how the system is applied, that is something completely different. Dr. Sears also pointed out that a landowner’s veto over an official designation is not the way the Planning Act works. She added that landowners’ rights are not enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. She did not believe that anyone has the right to drain lands if this impacts negatively on their neighbours.
Jack MacLaren, President, Carleton Landowners’ Association, said his group has worked closely with the Goulbourn Landowners’ Group and are mainly concerned with property rights, which they believe are being overlooked in the process. Subsequent to a meeting with an appraiser last year, the Goulbourn group was advised that a wetland designation decreases the market value of land by 85%, a significant loss of real value. Mr. MacLaren said that, just as the City compensates for expropriations, it should pay full market compensation to landowners affected by a wetland designation: it this is not affordable, then nothing should be done.
Chair Jellett expressed the hope that Mr. MacLaren’s group would make the same argument to the Province, as he felt it should be the one compensating the landowners. Mr. MacLaren agreed this was the responsibility of all levels of government and he intimated there was lobbying at all levels for property rights and compensation, as they go together.
Committee
Discussion
Councillor Stavinga stated she has a long history of working hard to protect wetlands in the area. When she was made aware of the extent of the wetlands and the pressures being placed on residents who were unaware of the designation being put on their lands, she began to question the “complexing” process. The Councillor said what was regrettable was the discussion about property rights, and the lack of balance about responsibility: landowners felt backed in a corner and thought the only solution was to bulldoze their lands. Councillor Stavinga called the workplan a culmination of the efforts of the entire rural community. It will allow people to move forward, to deal with the concerns expressed over the past twelve months and to look at compensation and property rights. She asked for everyone’s cooperation, and she reiterated that any discussion about property rights must be balanced with responsibility to the concerns of others.
Councillor Thompson recalled the debate about removing rural country estates from the Official Plan, and how the rural Councillors fought to retain these as part of the fabric of the rural areas and the new City. He stated there are safety measures in place to protect development from running out of water in future years. The Councillor was pleased to hear that compensation would be a consideration, and he echoed a comment of Mr. MacLaren’s, specifically that if the Province and the City can’t afford to compensate landowners, they should leave the lands in their hands and respect their rights.
Councillor Eli El-Chantiry expressed the view that the workplan was a step in the right direction and he thanked staff and those in attendance for all their efforts.
The Councillor then quoted a passage from an e-mail submitted by Susan Springthorpe, a resident of Goulbourn since 1970:
“There are…joys associated with living in rural areas and certain property rights that can be justified. However, at the same time that landowners have rights, they also have responsibilities to sustain that which they own to contribute to the well being of future residents, including to their own descendants. For the most part farmers have done that over the past centuries in Canada. New rural residents and landowners need to learn the same skills and patience”.
He then put forward the report recommendation:
That the Agriculture & Rural Affairs
Committee recommend Council endorse the attached workplan for City staff to
work with a Wetland Stakeholder Group, as defined in this report, to resolve
rural community concerns regarding wetlands.
CARRIED