REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES

Transcription

1 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES Tuesday, September 25, :30 P.M. Room Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario Present were: Chair J. Jackson, W. Caston, L. Cymbaly, A. Dean, R. Donaldson, L. Ehnes, A. Featherstone, A. Merry, G. Michalenko, Y. Muhammad and C. Priddle Members absent: T. Creese, P. Duxbury, J. Ehgoetz, D. Marks, C. Millar DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT a) W. Caston declared a conflict with respect to Report EEAC , Proposed Sherk Pit Zone Change Application and Aggregate Licence, Lot 24, Concession IX, Township of North Dumfries, Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas 48, 52, 53, Dumfries Carolinian Environmentally Sensitive Landscape Report from Sub-Committee, due to a family member s employment. b) A. Featherstone declared a conflict with respect to Letters from Mr. Neil Taylor to Councillor Jean Haalboom (dated August 14, 2012) and to Chris Gosselin (dated August 27, 2012) Re: South Kitchener Transportation Corridor and River Road Extension Class EA & Response from Chris Gosselin, Region of Waterloo (dated September 18, 2012), due to her employment. c) A. Merry declared a conflict with respect to Report EEAC , Proposed Mixed Use Development, Fairway and Lackner Roads, Kitchener, Lackner Woods [ESPA 25] and Core Environmental Feature, due to his employment. MINUTES April 24, 2012 MOVED by R. Donaldson SECONDED by G. Michalenko THAT the minutes of the Ecological and Environmental Advisory Committee meeting held on April 24, 2012 be approved. REPORTS CARRIED a) EEAC , Proposed Mixed Use Development, Fairway and Lackner Roads, Kitchener, Lackner Woods [ESPA 25] and Core Environmental Feature Tim Van Hinte, Principal Planner, provided an overview of the proposal. He explained that the site is contiguous to a core environmental feature as designated in the Region Official Plan.

2 Conflict: A. Merry EEAC /09/25 The new Region Official Plan extends the boundary of the Core Environmental Feature a little closer to the site than the boundary of ESPA 25 shown in the Regional Official Policies Plan. He highlighted the significant woodland and indicated that there was concern about Cottonwood trees on the site since they are considered significant if native-occurring. Bill Green, GSP Group, provided an overview of the application for a school board site and mixed used development. Shari Muscat, Stantec Consulting, EIS, advised that the applicants have been working with the Region, City of Kitchener, and Grand River Conservation Authority over the last two years on this site and that the detailed fieldwork has been completed. They are also working with the Grand River Conservation Authority on delineating the wetland boundaries. She said that the Cottonwood appears to be Carolina Poplar. The EIS will confirm the identification. A member expressed concern for the large area of surface parking. MOVED by R. Donaldson SECONDED by A. Featherstone THAT the Ecological and Environmental Advisory Committee take the following actions with respect to the proposed development of lands at the northeastern corner of Lackner Road and Fairway Road in the City of Kitchener, on lands contiguous to the Lackner Woods Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area [ESPA 25] and Core Environmental Feature: 1. Advise Planning, Housing and Community Services staff that the Environmental Impact Statement required in support of this application be scoped, as per Policies 7.C.9 and 7.G.4(b) of the Regional Official Plan, to address the following: a. confirmation of an ecologically appropriate boundary of the Lackner Woods Core Environmental Feature upon and contiguous to the subject property; b. delineation and design of a suitable buffer between the proposed development and the Lackner Woods Core Environmental Feature; c. a biophysical survey to identify natural habitats and/or populations of Regionally significant plant and animal species on the subject lands that might be adversely affected by the proposed development, with special attention to the grove of Cottonwoods (Populus deltoides); d. maintaining quantitative and qualitative aspects of the hydrological and hydrogeological regimes sustaining the Lackner Woods Core Environmental Feature through the design and operation of the stormwater management system required to support the proposed development; e. content of a during-development and post-development monitoring program; and f. stewardship plan for the portion of the Core Environmental Feature on the subject property. 2. Strike a sub-committee to review the scoped Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed mixed use development when it is submitted. CARRIED R. Donaldson, G. Michalenko, A. Featherstone, A. Dean, L. Cymbaly expressed interest in participating in the Sub-committee

3 Conflict: W. Caston EEAC /09/25 b) EEAC , Proposed Sherk Pit Zone Change Application and Aggregate Licence, Lot 24, Concession IX, Township of North Dumfries, Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas 48, 52, 53, Dumfries Carolinian Environmentally Sensitive Landscape Report from Sub-Committee A. Featherstone provided a review of the Sub-committee report. A. Merry added that the site is a relatively small area in a large catchment. Infiltration will be very high and the underlying sands and gravel will allow groundwater to move toward wetlands within the ESPA. David Sisco, IBI Group, indicated support for the recommendation, and will be happy to address the recommendation concerning species to be planted. Dan Menard, exp Global Inc. was in attendance. Janette Berenz, a resident of Taylor Court, expressed concern for the disruption of wildlife, native plant species, and the water table in the area. She questioned how the Region monitors the impacts and ensures that the applicant does what is asked of them. Brad Howarth, a resident of Taylor Court, had attended the subcommittee s site visit, and was pleased with the subcommittee s review of the issues. He would like to ensure there is monitoring of the impacts on wildlife and groundwater. B. Howarth questioned the cumulative environmental affects of a number of aggregate pits in the area. D. Sisco advised that there would be groundwater monitoring quarterly through the Ministry of Natural Resources pit licensing processes. Chris Gosselin, Manager, Environmental Planning, explained the Ministry oversight processes for pits and annual compliance reports required to be submitted by the licensee. There was discussion about the rehabilitation of the pit and potential effects on the Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area. D. Sisco showed and explained the draft three phase site plan. MOVED by A. Merry SECONDED by R. Donaldson THAT the Ecological and Environmental Advisory Committee advise Planning, Housing, and Community Services staff that it generally accepts the conclusions of the scoped Environmental Impact Statement to the effect that the proposed sand and gravel pit will not result in adverse environmental impacts to the Dumfries Carolinian Environmentally Sensitive Landscape and to the contiguous areas of the Hungry Hills Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area (ESPA 48), Sudden Tract Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area (ESPA 52), Alps Woods Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area (ESPA 53), and further: 1. with respect to the proposed re-zoning by the Township of North Dumfries of the property described as 1864 Greenfield Road, Part Lot 24, Concession 9, North Dumfries Township, that it has no objection in principle from an environmental perspective to the proposed rezoning to permit aggregate extraction; 2. with respect to the proposed Class A Pit Licence, that Regional staff request the Ministry of Natural Resources to consider the following in approving the site plan:

4 EEAC /09/25 a. That the Operational Plan notes be amended to require the preparation of a plan for preventing fuel spills on the site; b. That the Rehabilitation Plan and Vegetation Plan notes be amended such that rehabilitation of the lands to the north of the Union Gas easement include plantings of locally-appropriate prairie-type grassland vegetation as outlined in this report; c. That the Planting Plan be amended to contain the list of locally-appropriate native species included in this report in the proposed plant list. CARRIED c) Paul Willms, City of Cambridge, City of Cambridge Proposed Tree Preservation By-law, Summary and How to Provide Input P. Willms provided a PowerPoint presentation explaining the proposed City of Cambridge Tree By-law. A copy is appended to the original minutes. He advised that he was seeking input from committee with respect to the draft by-law. P. Willms gave details about the proposed By-law which would be applied to all properties in Cambridge, except those now subject to the Regional Woodland Conservation By-law, as provided for under the Municipal Act. Members posed questions to P. Willms regarding the exemptions under the Municipal Act, how permits will be used, and how the by-law would be enforced by the City. Generally, members were in support of the proposed by-law and offered suggestions for encouraging retention and planting of native species and recommendations for developers to improve soil conditions in new subdivision in order to foster better tree survival. A member suggested that the 76 cm be reduced to cm since an entire neighbourhood could be devastated with a minimum of 76 cm. The Westmount area in Kitchener was discussed as an example. A working group comprised of G. Michalenko, A. Featherstone, and L. Cymbaly will review the proposed City of Cambridge by-law and report back to this Committee with formal comments. OTHER BUSINESS a) Proposed Empire Riverland (Area 2) Subdivision, Breslau, Township of Woolwich, Verbal Update from Sub-committee and Staff C. Gosselin advised that the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) had been distributed to the subcommittee which had visited the site on September 5, 2012 and came to the realization that delineation of the southern boundary of the Core Environmental Feature will be a highly complex matter requiring assessment of the use of the area by Regionally significant breeding birds. He added that closer review of the EIS revealed that it is seriously deficient in addressing the terms of reference adopted by the committee on October 25, Further review of the EIS will be suspended until Regional staff meet with the applicants to discuss what needs to be done to submit an adequate EIS for further review by the subcommittee

5 EEAC /09/25 INFORMATION/CORRESPONDENCE a) Letter to Stantec Consulting Ltd. Re: Waterloo Westside Subdivisions/ (Draft Plans 30T , 30T-05402, 30T-05403): Buffers and Natural Areas (dated August 17, 2012) & Response from Stantec Consulting Ltd. (dated September 7, 2012) C. Gosselin provided an overview of the matter. b) Letters from Mr. Neil Taylor to Councillor Jean Haalboom (dated August 14, 2012) and to Chris Gosselin (dated August 27, 2012) Re: South Kitchener Transportation Corridor and River Road Extension Class EA & Response from Chris Gosselin, Region of Waterloo (dated September 18, 2012) C. Gosselin provided introductory comments. He indicated that the Ministry of Natural Resources has jurisdiction over Endangered and Threatened species. Once that aspect of the Environmental Assessment has been resolved and the detailed design phase initiated, the subcommittee will be re-involved. ACTIVE EEAC SUBCOMMITTEES a) The Al s Stone Service Greenfield Road Pit EIS Subcommittee, which was originally established in 2005, was re-constituted. G. Michalenko and W. Caston will join C. Millar and J. Jackson on the subcommittee. NEXT MEETING October 30, 2012 ADJOURN MOVED by G. Michalenko SECONDED by R. Donaldson THAT the meeting adjourn at 8:28 p.m. CARRIED COMMITTEE CHAIR, J. Jackson COMMITTEE CLERK, J. Reid

6 Proposed Tree Preservation By-law Region of Waterloo Ecological and Environmental Advisory Committee September 25, 2012

7 Why a tree by-law? June 27 th Management Committee report consult with the public Current legislative and guideline tools aren t working and/or could be improved Slow the annual loss. - normal loss (not cutting, just death/disease) results in loss of 1-2% of urban forest each year - becoming more difficult to grow out trees to their natural lifespan protect medium and large trees part of good governance and stewardship of urban forest but only one tool Most trees on privately-owned land benefits of trees go beyond owner s property Mid to larger municipalities in Ontario planted at the turn of the century and in the 1950s and 1960s following residential development..now an asset to neighbourhoods

8 Why a tree by-law?

9

10 food Creates a sense of place and identity Increases the life of assets roofs, pavement Natural heritage Reduces stress, improves mental health, ADD greentime The urban forest in and around cities provide many benefits including: sequestering of gaseous air pollutants and particulates; energy conservation; storm-water attenuation; noise buffering; provision of wildlife habitat; increased property value; improved aesthetics; psychological well being; and recreational and educational opportunities. These benefits accrue not only to the owners of the trees and forest but to the entire community. Canadian Urban Forest Strategy (July 20, 2012) Increases property values Beauty, Intrinsic BENEFITS OF URBAN TREES

11 What are the objectives? Balance private property rights and public benefits long term and short term objectives City resources available and protection objectives simplicity and compliance objectives Focus on 1. pre-development 2. during development 3. immediately after development 4. mature trees (in general)

12 1. Pre-development In some cases the Region Woodlands By-law would apply in others the City proposed by-law

13 2. During development

14 Approved site plan shows this tree is to be preserved and Council also directed this tree to be preserved. 2. During development

15 Where s the tree?

16 3. Immediately after development

17 4. mature trees 76 cm dbh single trees. Heritage-designated trees or properties, trees that affect multiple property owners, mature trees that may yet long outlive us and are assets that provide multiple benefits for another few generations

18 Summary of By-law Applies to all properties in Cambridge Exemptions (Municipal Act) Permit for removing 4 or more trees in 1 calendar year between cm dbh Permit for any one tree 76 cm dbh Fines = $1,000 - $10,000 and $100,000 for economic gain; replacement cost; court costs Replacement Tree Fund if conditions require replacement plantings and no room available on lot

19 Summary of By-law (continued) No permit / fee required: if the number of trees to be removed is less than four (between cm dbh) if the trees are under 20 cm for emergency work golf courses or nurseries if a tree is dead, dying, or high risk (confirmed by arborist before removal) if removals are part of condition on Planning Application if removal is part of disease control program

20 What if I need a permit? What is the process? Assume 4 trees between dbh and/or 1 tree over 76 dbh You would need - a completed application form, a plan showing trees to be removed, applicable fee ($200 for 4 th tree, $500 for 76 dbh tree), arborist report, written consent of neighbour if tree straddles property line, written consent of property owner Commissioner of Community Services may issue a permit if the tree conflicts with building permit plans, pool, expansion of parking area if no reasonable alternatives exist - no negative impact on flood, erosion, slope - the tree is not Heritage-designated or relevant to a property designated Commissioner may include conditions on the permit: - Replacement trees, planting plans, equivalent into a Replacement Tree Fund if no room on lot, hoarding for tree protection during construction

21 What if I m developing a property? During development / Planning Application = same process Tree Management as a condition City could choose to not place a condition on a Planning Application (for Detailed Vegetation Inventory and Management Plan) and go the Permit route for certain applications (e.g. small site plan with one tree) No permits / no fees as removals are documented in Tree Plan However, if trees to be retained are removed, City can either choose to use the existing Tree Management Process / Letter of Credit / Compensation Plan process, or pursue replanting / compensation through the by-law process

22 What does 20cm dbh look like?

23 What does 76cm dbh look like?

24 Split trunk 76cm dbh

25 Remove up to 3 trees in this range (20-76 cm) per calendar year, (4 or more = permit) Trees under 20cm, no permit, no limit Single 76cm tree permit

26 How does the proposed Cambridge by-law compare to other municipal tree by-laws? less restrictive London No by-law Waterloo No by-law April 2012 survey (done every 10 years since 1992) 50 municipalities Hamilton Council did not support new Hamilton by-law (former municipal by-laws in effect) dbh, # of trees, fines, process, etc. Mississauga 15 cm / 5 trees But considering 30cm single tree this Autumn Cambridge 20-76, 76 Oakville 4 trees, 20-76, 76 Toronto 30 cm more restrictive Richmond Hill 20cm Markham 20cm Vaughan 20cm Sarnia No by-law Guelph 0.2 ha 10cm Brampton woodlot, 0.2ha Ottawa 2.5 acre, 10 cm Kitchener 1 acre 10cm Orillia 1 acre

27 Comments and Timeline In writing comments will be summarized in a table but also full text for Council report and Council consideration Presentations to Advisory Committees in September Public meeting October 4 th Comments deadline November 1 st Council consideration November 26 (TBC)

28 Thank-you! Questions? Paul Willms Sustainability Planner Community Services Department