Jan Mowbray – Ward 3 Councillor

Update. Oct 12.  The Region has changed the date of the Public Information Centre to Oct 14 (was to be Oct 20th). Location:  Milton Seniors’ Activity Centre off Childs Drive behind the Milton Police Detachment.

One of the primary impacts of an NHS will be the necessity for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) any time a property owner wishes to build or replace, a structure – be it a shed, barn, detached garage, etc. or even a house on a lot.  An EIA is the process to determine establishing that there will not be a negative impact with the building.  It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative.

An EIA, from all reports, can be expected to cost around $20,000.  This would be on top of existing development charges and building permits, etc, not to mention the time involved in completing an assessment, and the difficulty of trying to prove a negative.
The cost of an EIA is a problem.  The farming community doesn’t have the ability to recover that kind of money.  It isn’t a simple matter for a farmer, or any other business person for that matter, regardless of the economy.

“Existing uses” will be ‘allowed’ to continue but what if the owner wishes to change the use?  There is quite a bit of idle land in Nassagaweya. Given the move toward growing food locally, if, sometime in the future, a landowner would like to convert the land to food production, through what hoops will he/she have to jump in order to effect that change in use?

No matter the answer, I would recommend you ask to see the written policy to cover it.

The following is copied from the Natural Heritage Resource Manual from which policies in the Region are supposed to be developed…I don’t see anywhere where it insists that a Natural Heritage Overlay is necessary, or required, to achieve protection of our natural features…
Natural Heritage
Reference Manual
for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement

Working Draft for Environmental Registry
May 21, 2009
Second Edition

3.4.5 Natural Heritage Systems in Agricultural Areas
Agricultural lands can be important areas for developing natural heritage systems particularly in fragmented landscapes. Farmland in a rural area may function to some extent as a linkage between natural features, or at least it may not impede the movement of many species. This area could be included in its present form within a natural heritage system and remain that way for as long as the agricultural use remains. If in the future the area is no longer desired for agriculture and is contemplated for urban* development, then its role as a linkage should be recognized and maintained, with appropriate consideration to other provincial interests that may be relevant. Coordinated planning for prime agricultural areas and agricultural uses along with natural heritage systems can prevent a land use change that would impede or eliminate this ecological function.

The PPS definition for natural heritage system means that areas with the potential to be restored can be components of a system. Such lands may be agricultural areas that contribute to the long-term ecological functions (e.g., as linkages) or areas that are ideally located for purposes of restoring or improving habitats and natural connections with the participation of willing farmers. In fact, stewardship provided by farmers has produced excellent examples of the maintenance, restoration and improvement of natural heritage systems. The inclusion of potential restoration areas should not be used to diminish the importance of maintaining existing natural corridors.

Municipalities, when developing land use planning policies for natural heritage systems within prime agricultural areas, need to ensure that agricultural uses and activities are permitted in appropriate locations. It is a common municipal practice to use an overlay approach in the official plan to identify natural heritage systems within prime agricultural areas. The full range of permitted uses as outlined in policies under 2.3.3 of PPS >(see note below) would be permitted, thereby satisfying policy 2.1.7 <(see section 2.3). The identification of linkages in agricultural areas would indicate an intention for both interests to be achieved in the working landscape, e.g., through good farm practices and stewardship, and not an intention to restrict existing agricultural uses through land use controls.

*The reference to urban development in the rural area is ludicrous in that urban development of the Nassagaweya rural area is not contemplated now or in the future – as per Milton’s Official Plan, the Region’s Official Plan, Places to Grow Act, the Provincial Policy Statement and the Greenbelt Protection Act.  That, and referring to the Italicized bits above on stewardship, it would seem that a jackhammer is being used to hammer out a solution where no problem exists.

> PPS 2.3.3 Permitted Uses. Agricultural uses, secondary uses and agriculture uses. Proposed secondary uses and agriculture-related uses shall be compatible with, and shall not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations.

<PPS 2.1.7 Nothing in policy 2.1 is intended to limit the ability of existing agriculture uses to continue.