5. OFFICIAL PLAN APPEAL 16 - DEFINITION OF "ADVERSE IMPACT"

APPEL NO 16 DU PLAN OFFICIEL - DÉFINITION DE L'EXPRESSION « EFFET NÉFASTE »

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council approve the definition of “adverse impact” as proposed in Document 1 and confirm the modification to Policy 3.2.4.2 as proposed in Document 2.

Recommandation du comitÉ

Que le Conseil confirme la définition de l'expression « effet néfaste » proposée dans le présent rapport, comme l'a demandé la Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario.

Documentation

1. A/Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management report dated 11 October 2006 (ACS2006-PGM-POL-0078).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes 35, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meeting of October 26, 2006.

Report to/Rapport au :

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales

and Council / et au Conseil

11 October 2006 / le 11 octobre 2006

Submitted by/Soumis par : John L. Moser,

Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint,

Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Carol Christensen, Manager

Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy/

Politiques d’urbanisme, d’environnement et d’infrastructure

(613) 580-2424 x21610, Carol.Christensen@ottawa.ca

Bell-South Nepean (3), Kanata (4), West Carleton (5), Goulbourn (6), Gloucester-Southgate (10), Cumberland (19), Osgoode (20), Rideau (21)

Ref N°: ACS2006-PGM-POL-0078

SUBJECT:	OFFICIAL PLAN APPEAL 16 - DEFINITION OF "ADVERSE IMPACT"

OBJET :	APPEL NO 16 DU PLAN OFFICIEL - DÉFINITION DE L'EXPRESSION « EFFET NÉFASTE »

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve the definition of “adverse impact” as proposed in Document 1 and confirm the modification to Policy 3.2.4.2 as proposed in Document 2.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales recommande au Conseil de confirmer la définition de l'expression « effet néfaste » proposée dans le présent rapport, comme l'a demandé la Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario.

BACKGROUND

The Official Plan designates over 30,000 hectares of land as Rural Natural Features on Schedule A with supporting policies found in Section 3.2.4 Rural Natural Features. These lands contain woodlands, wetlands and wildlife habitat that have been identified as significant.

Land uses consistent with the General Rural Area designation, including farms, golf courses, and small clusters of residential and commercial development, are permitted within lands designated Rural Natural Features, as outlined in Section 3.7.2 of the Official Plan. However, in recognition of the natural features within this designation and to have regard for Section 2.3 Natural Heritage of the 1997 Provincial Policy Statement, Official Plan Policy 3.2.4.2 Rural Natural Features states the following:

“The provisions of Section 3.7.2 for the General Rural Area also apply to Rural Natural Features. In addition, any development:

a) Involving the creation of more than one lot; or

b) Requiring a zoning by-law amendment or a variance to change a use or expand a use; or

c) Requiring site plan approval;

must be supported by an Environmental Impact Statement, as described in Section 4.7.8, which demonstrates that development can occur with no adverse impact on the significant ecological features and functions in the natural area. Any allowed uses should avoid significant encroachment on the features for which the area has been designated.”

Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital appealed this section of the Official Plan as the term “adverse impact” is not defined and therefore lacked specificity. Greenspace Alliance also requested that the last sentence of Policy 3.2.4.2 that refers to “significant encroachment” be deleted as it lacked meaning in the absence of a definition.

In mediation meetings, Greenspace Alliance requested that staff replace the term “adverse impact” with the term “negative impact” as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement. Both the definition in the 1997 and 2005 versions of the Provincial Policy Statement were discussed. City staff felt that the 1997 Provincial Policy Statement definition did not provide sufficient specificity to the term, while the definition in the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement was too broad and addressed matters not yet fully considered since adoption of the Official Plan in 2003. Staff also believed that the definition would best be developed in the context of a comprehensive review of all Official Plan terminology, and how Official Plan language relates to terms and concepts in the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement. An agreement could not be reached with the appellants, and the issue was brought to a Board hearing dealing with environmental matters held from May 9-11, 2006. The Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders’Association (OCHBA) was a party supporting the City position at the hearing.

The Board heard that while both the City and the appellant recognized the value in providing some meaning to the term “adverse impact” in the Official Plan, Greenspace Alliance’s own expert witness, an official of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, described how the definition as provided in the 1997 Provincial Policy Statement had proved inadequate for their own purposes. Waterloo developed its own definition and has found it to add clarity to the Environmental Impact Statement process.

In its decision dated June 20, 2006, the Board did not feel that definitions from either the 1997 Provincial Policy Statement or the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement were appropriate. Rather, it directed that a definition of the term “adverse impact”, as it refers to Section 3.2.4 Rural Natural Features of the Official Plan, be drafted to the satisfaction of the City, Greenspace Alliance, and OCHBA and that the definition be placed in the glossary to the Official Plan. The Board further ruled that the last sentence of the policy referring to “significant encroachment” could be removed from the Plan if the term “adverse impact” were defined with sufficient specificity. The ruling also stated that the definition be conveyed to the Ontario Municipal Board by July 31, 2006. Staff requested an extension of this timeline into November, 2006 to accommodate consultation with Advisory Committees to Council.

This report provides a proposed definition of “adverse impact” as agreed to by City staff, Greenspace Alliance, and Ottawa-Carleton Homebuilders’Association (Document 1) as well as the proposed modification to the Plan to delete the sentence dealing with "significant encroachment" (Document 2).

DISCUSSION

At the direction of the Ontario Municipal Board, City staff has worked with Greenspace Alliance and the OCHBA to arrive at a definition of “adverse impact” (Document 1) as per Section 3.2.4 Rural Natural Features of the Official Plan. The definition will be placed in the glossary of the Official Plan, which is considered to be outside of the Plan. While the glossary has less weight than policies in the Plan, the definition will still serve to aid in policy interpretation.

The definition has been modified from the definition of “adverse environmental impacts” used successfully by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The first part of the definition clarifies both the characteristics of lands (“significant natural features and functions”) and the magnitude of the impact (“widespread, long term and irreversible”) associated with an adverse impact. The second part of the definition provides a non-inclusive list of nine types of changes to a natural feature that may result in an adverse impact if the conditions of the first part of the definition are met.

It has been mutually agreed as well, that if this definition is approved, the last sentence of Official Plan Policy 3.2.4.2, “Any allowed uses should avoid significant encroachment on the features for which the area has been designated”, could be removed from the Plan. This sentence is considered redundant with approval of the definition, as the definition provides a more defined methodology for characterizing adverse impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

The definition will provide further guidance to the existing Environmental Impact Statement process by identifying the kinds of changes to natural features that will be considered as adverse impacts. Defining the term “adverse impact” in the Official Plan will have a positive effect on the environment.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

An Environmental Impact Statement is already required for certain types of development proposed within lands designated Rural Natural Features. Addition of the definition will simply add further guidance through the Official Plan to the preparation of these statements.

As noted by the Board, the definition will provide additional clarity to Official Plan policies, consequently reducing the potential for misinterpretation of Plan policies, and the number of OMB hearings.

CONSULTATION

Staff sought the input of the Rural Issues Advisory Committee, the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee, and the Environmental Advisory Committee in the preparation of the definition. A representative from each Advisory Committee was identified in June 2006 to represent the interests of their respective committee in the review of the definition. A draft definition as prepared by the City and Greenspace Alliance was circulated to committee representatives on July 28th, along with the Ontario Municipal Board decision on this issue. Committee representatives had the option to bring the item to the full Advisory Committee for discussion at their discretion. Two committee representatives provided individual comments directly to staff, while the Environmental Advisory Committee representative brought the definition to a full committee meeting. After the definition was circulated to the Advisory Committees, a minor change in wording was made in order to reach an agreement on the definition with parties listed in the Board order.

The Rural Issues Advisory Committee supported the definition, but wanted assurance that it would not impact Council decisions regarding the Goulbourn wetlands. On April 12 and July 11, 2006, Council approved a number of actions as part of a workplan to resolve wetland issues in the vicinity of Flewellyn Road that included municipal drain maintenance, confirmation of cancellation of the wetland designation process within the Flewellyn Road area of Goulbourn Ward, and continued consultations with the Wetland Stakeholders Group. The proposed definition will have no impact on these decisions of Council and how they are implemented. However, the term “adverse impact” as it currently appears in the Official Plan will apply consistently to all lands currently designated as Rural Natural Features in the Official Plan. Thus, the definition would apply equally to any lands in Goulbourn designated Rural Natural Features or elsewhere in the City.

The Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee (OFGAC) also supported the definition, but were concerned about the lack of definitive conservation thresholds within the definition. They wanted specific quantifiers and methodology to guide the decision whether identified changes would be considered acceptable, acceptable with mitigation, or adverse. OFGAC recognized that the exploration of thresholds and the addition of specificity around each identified change would be more appropriately addressed in a pending review of Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines and related processes, and were assured by staff that they will be considered through this work.

The Environmental Advisory Committee felt that the definition should emphasize the concepts of preservation of ecological integrity as well as net gain, as per federal legislation and as supported by various non-governmental organizations. Staff felt that these terms would need to be supported by Official Plan policy and then defined, and consequently fell outside of the scope of the definition. In addition, the Environmental Advisory Committee felt that the definition should address the impact of development on human health and society. However, Section 3.2.4. Rural Natural Features states that the definition of adverse impacts is intended to apply only to impacts of development on natural features and functions, and is not intended to address societal impacts. Staff provided a written response to these comments and the item was further discussed at the September 14, 2006 Environmental Advisory Committee meeting.

Discussion of environmental matters typically garners a range of views and opinions. Consultation on this report focused specifically on seeking agreement on a definition of an existing term within the existing policy context of the Official Plan that applies solely to lands designated as Rural Natural Features. Advisory Committees are encouraged to raise policy considerations through the upcoming Official Plan review and review of Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines and related processes, where a discussion of more fundamental shifts in current policy direction could be given full consideration.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Proposed definition of "adverse impact" as per Section 3.2.4 of the Official Plan.

Document 2 Proposed modification to the City of Ottawa Official Plan.

DISPOSITION

Legal Services Branch will advise the Ontario Municipal Board that the definition of “adverse impact” has been inserted in the Glossary and seek approval of the modification to Section 3.2.4.2.

PROPOSED DEFINITION OF ADVERSE IMPACT AS PER

SECTION 3.2.4 OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN. DOCUMENT 1

Adverse Impact – For the purpose of Section 3.2.4, adverse impact means changes likely to arise directly or indirectly from development proposed within lands designated as Rural Natural Features that result in widespread, long-term, or irreversible degradation of significant natural features, impairment of significant natural functions, or both. Examples of changes to be considered in determining if an adverse impact is likely to occur within lands designated Rural Natural Features include, but are not limited to, the following:

a) fragmentation or reduction in size;

b) increase in perimeter-to-area ratio;

c) disruption of natural corridors and ecological linkages;

d) alteration of natural topography;

e) disruption or alteration of ecological relationships among significant or representative native species, or their habitat;

f) alteration of quantity, quality, timing (hydroperiod) or direction of surface or groundwater flow;

g) alteration of the structure, functions, or ecological interrelationships of natural habitats;

h) reductions in the populations or reproductive capacity of significant species;

i) erosion or compaction of soils or deposition of sediment.

PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE CITY OF OTTAWA

OFFICIAL PLAN DOCUMENT 2

Delete the last sentence of Section 3.2.4.2, which states the following:

“Any allowed uses should avoid significant encroachment on the features for which the area has been designated.”