County of Haliburton Planning Committee Agenda Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Transcription

1 County of Haliburton Planning Committee Agenda Wednesday, October 12, :30 A.M. County Council Chambers Page 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING 2-5 Minutes of the June 22, 2016 Planning Committee Meeting 4. ITEMS OF BUSINESS 6 Road Closures Application and Reporting Tool - Draft Version County Official Plan Update Planning Committee Terms of Reference 5. CLOSED SESSION 6. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION 7. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 36

2 County of Haliburton Planning Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 22, 2016 Haliburton County Planning Committee convened a meeting on Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 11:30 a.m. in the County Council Chambers with the following in attendance: Council: Councillor Dave Burton, Chair Councillor Liz Danielsen, Vice-Chair Warden Carol Moffatt Councillor Brent Devolin Councillor Cheryl Murdoch Councillor Murray Fearrey Councillor Andrea Roberts Councillor Suzanne Partridge Reeve Deputy Reeve Reeve Reeve Deputy Reeve Reeve Deputy Reeve Deputy Reeve Highlands East Algonquin Highlands Algonquin Highlands Minden Hills Minden Hills Dysart et al Dysart et al Highlands East Staff: Michael Rutter Michele Moore Charlsey White CAO/County Clerk Deputy County Clerk Director of Planning APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion No. PL Moved by: Councillor Liz Danielsen Seconded by: Councillor Suzanne Partridge CARRIED Be it resolved that the June 22, 2016 Haliburton County Council Planning Committee Agenda be approved. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST The Committee members did not disclose any pecuniary interest. ADOPTION OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Minutes of the April 27, 2016 Planning Committee Meeting Page 2 of 36

3 The draft minutes of the April 27, 2016 Planning Committee meeting were circulated to the members for approval. Motion No. PL Moved by: Councillor Suzanne Partridge Seconded by: Councillor Murray Fearrey CARRIED Be it resolved that the minutes of the April 27, 2016 meeting of the Haliburton County Council Planning Committee be adopted as circulated. ITEMS OF BUSINESS Planning Department Update The Committee reviewed the Planning Department activities report. The members questioned the implications of the MNRF Wildland Fire Guide and its effect on land severance applications. Staff were directed to bring a report to a future meeting of the Committee. The Planning Director provided an update on the MNRF's permit requirement for docks as a result of the June 17th meeting with the local CAO's, CBO's and planners. She advised that the CBO's would meet to further discuss the topic and that planning staff of the local municipalities were implementing consistent zoning bylaws to deal with the matter. Committee members directed staff to circulate the minutes of the June 17th meeting to them for review. Motion No. PL Moved by: Councillor Murray Fearrey Seconded by: Councillor Liz Danielsen CARRIED Be it resolved that the June 22, 2016 staff report on Planning Department activities be received for information by Haliburton County Planning Committee. Bill 73 - Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 The Committee received for information the staff report on Bill 73. Motion No. PL Moved by: Councillor Andrea Roberts Seconded by: Councillor Suzanne Partridge CARRIED Be it resolved that the June 22, Planning Department report on the Bill 73, be received for information by Haliburton County Planning Committee. Page 3 of 36

4 Planning Advisory Committee Composition The members received for information the staff report on the composition of a Planning Advisory Committee. The members agreed that the Committee would be composed of all of County Council and 2 members of the public. It was further agreed that the two members of the public could not be from the same Municipality. Motion No. PL Moved by: Councillor Liz Danielsen Seconded by: Councillor Andrea Roberts CARRIED Be it resolved that the June 22, Planning Department report on the Planning Advisory Committee Composition, be received for information by the Haliburton County Planning Committee; and THAT Planning staff be directed to prepare a Terms of Reference for the Planning Committee that will detail membership, role and meeting schedule. Draft Official Plan The Committee members reviewed the draft official plan and directed staff to make the changes as proposed. Motion No. PL Moved by: Councillor Andrea Roberts Seconded by: Councillor Liz Danielsen CARRIED Be it resolved that the June 22, Planning Department report on the Draft Official Plan, be received for information by the Haliburton County Planning Committee; and THAT the Haliburton County Planning Committee provide staff direction on each of the items listed in the June 22, 2016 Draft Official Plan report. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION No Report Page 4 of 36

5 ADJOURNMENT Motion No. PL Moved by: Councillor Liz Danielsen Seconded by: Councillor Murray Fearrey CARRIED Be it resolved that the June 22, 2016 meeting of the Haliburton County Planning Committee now adjourn. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:47 p.m. Certified Correct Councillor Dave Burton, Chair Michael Rutter, CAO/County Clerk Page 5 of 36

6 County of Haliburton P.O. Box Newcastle Street Minden, Ontario K0M 2K phone fax Warden Carol Moffatt Charlsey White, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Joanne O Keefe GIS Technologist jokeefe@county.haliburton.on.ca To: From: Chair and Members of Haliburton County Planning Committee Joanne O Keefe, GIS Technologist Re: Road Closures Application and Reporting Tool Draft Version 1 Date: October 12, 2016 Recommendation: Background: That Haliburton County Planning Committee receives for information the October 12, 2016 staff report and demonstration on the Road Closures Application and Reporting tool (Draft Version 1). The Road Closures online application has been developed for use by Road Superintendents to record road closures for the County and local municipalities. A Road Closure consists of sections where a road is washed out, under construction or flooded. Road Superintendents will have sign-in access to add, edit or mark a Road Closure for deletion within the application. A separate online application will be available to the general public. The general public may only click on sections of a road to identify information about a Road Closure. The information available includes; the road name, location description, comments/reason for the Road Closure, if the road is fully or partially closed, an alternative route if available, the start and end date of the Road Closure, a contact person, the municipality and township location, as well as the Road Superintendent who added or updated the Road Closure in the application. IT has developed an automated monitoring tool to generate a report that will be ed to the GIS Technologist. The report will identify daily road closures that have been added, edited, expired (past the road closure start and end date) or marked for deletion by a Road Superintendent. The tool also automatically removes road closures marked for deletion within 10 minutes of the request. This automated tool will help to ensure the accuracy of the road closure information and also save employee time spent on monitoring the application. Financial: Reviewed by: Attachments: None at this time. Charlsey White, MCIP, RPP, Director of Planning Mike Rutter, CAO/Clerk None at this time. Page 6 of 36

7 County of Haliburton P.O. Box Newcastle Street Minden, Ontario K0M 2K phone fax Warden Carol Moffatt Charlsey White, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning To: From: Re: Chair and members of the County of Haliburton Planning Committee Charlsey White, Director of Planning County Draft Official Plan 2015 Update Date: October 12, 2016 Recommendation: That Haliburton County Planning Committee receives for information the October 12, 2016 staff report on the County Draft Official Plan 2015 Update; and That the Haliburton County Planning Committee review and revise the Official Plan Process timeline. Background: Process The County of Haliburton is required by Provincial legislation to update its Official Plan every 5 years. In 2015 an update was initiated by County Council and the Draft Official Plan was submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in May Provincial One Window Comments The Draft Official Plan document updates and expands on the existing Official Plan policies to manage land and resources within the County of Haliburton. Policies focus on growth and development, minimizing land use conflicts, protection of resources and consistency with provincial requirements. Provincial One Window Comments (Schedule A) were provided to the County on September 22, The comments were delayed 46 days beyond the 90 day review period. Therefore the Official Plan timeline (Schedule B) has been revised to account for a longer time period for review, public consultation and adoption. Next Steps October 2016 staff review of the Provincial One Window comments and discuss with local municipal planning staff comments related to specific municipalities. November 2016 Bring forward review and recommendations related to Provincial One Window comments provided on the County Draft Official Plan. Financial: Reviewed by: Attachments: Official Plan Update budget = $ exclusive of wages and benefits Total spent to date = $ (19.7%) Mike Rutter, CAO Schedule A Provincial One Window Comments Schedule B Official Plan Process Timeline Page 7 of 36

8 A. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. First Nations Consultation As the County moves into the next phase of the Official Plan (OP) review, we would encourage you to continue your efforts in engaging the range of stakeholders who have an interest in this important initiative. In this regard, we encourage the County to continue to engage with First Nations groups to advise them of the County s new OP and to provide an opportunity for detailed consultation. We note that the County has already undertaken consultation with First Nations groups, including the Algonquins of Ontario, and we commend these efforts. In addition, we commend the County for including a policy section (Section 7.2) to provide direction on Aboriginal Consultation. 2. Ministry Changes Since the preparation of the Official Plan, there may have been some ministry name changes. Please ensure that the correct ministry name and acronym are being used: Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA) Ministry of Housing (MOH) Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) 3. Source Water Protection The County s draft Official Plan includes sections intended to address source water protection, specifically Sections and and Schedules G, H, and J. To be consistent with Section (e) of the PPS, 2014, the OP should include goals, policies and objectives to ensure that sources of municipal drinking water are appropriately protected. Policy direction may include requiring additional reports to identify how an area will be protected (i.e. planning justification report, chemical storage disclosure report), and/or may restrict/direct development away from vulnerable areas where possible. All designated vulnerable areas should be delineated in OP schedules as shown in the assessment report, including Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPAs), Intake Protection Zones (IPZs), Highly Vulnerable Aquifers (HVAs) and Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRAs). The County's OP policies should provide sufficient direction to ensure that land uses or development associated with threat activities will be prohibited or managed as specified by the Source Protection Plan (SPP) policies. We recognize that the OP for Haliburton County sets out broad policy direction that will be implemented in detail through the lower tier municipal official plans. At this time, there are no vulnerable areas where threats could be significant within Haliburton County in the area where the South Georgian Bay-Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan applies. However, the County's OP should conform with the following significant threat policies in the Trent Source Protection Plan: G 7(2) prohibition of future significant drinking water threats, S 3(2) prohibition of future sewage facilities, S 4(3) and S 5(1) support for connection to municipal sewage systems, S-5(1) and S 7(1) support for Ontario Building Code standards for small onsite sewage (septic) systems, R 4(3) design of impervious surface areas to address road salt application, W 2(2) prohibition of future waste disposal sites, As well as G 1(1 3) transition provisions, G 9(3) provision for section 59 of the Clean Water Act and G- 10(1-2) timing and reporting. Source protection plan policies are written to achieve the objectives of the Clean Water Act, therefore municipalities must consider how an OP policy may achieve source protection conformity in language appropriate for an OP. Some source protection policies direct actions to address drinking water threat activities. Whereas, the powers of the official plan under the Planning Act are limited to the regulation of land uses not Page 8 of 36

9 activities. Therefore, municipal staff may need to identify the activity or groups of activities in question (e.g. application of untreated septage to land, landfilling of municipal waste) and relate these activities to land uses and/or types of development that may be associated with the activity (e.g. waste disposal sites). Once this analysis is complete, we recommend that the OP policies be developed to prohibit or manage these associated types of land uses/development (e.g. waste disposal sites), to complement the SPP policies. 4. Employment Lands Section of the PPS states, Where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with lower-tier municipalities shall identify, coordinate and allocate population, housing and employment projections for lower tier municipalities. It is noted that the Haliburton OP draft, as submitted to MMA for review, does not include the employment allocations as required by the PPS, although the Haliburton Growth Management Strategy provided the recommendations for these allocations. Employment allocations should be added to the Official Plan. Planning for employment uses promotes economic development and competitiveness by providing lands to meet long-term needs, promoting a diversified economic base which supports a range of economic activities, and ensuring the necessary infrastructure is in place to support employment (Section 1.3.1). Planning for employment lands is further supported by Section of the PPS, where it is stated that Planning authorities shall plan for, protect and preserve employment areas for current and future uses and ensure that the necessary infrastructure is provided to support current and projected needs (Section ). The PPS also speaks to the protection of employment lands in proximity to major good movement facilities and corridors (PPS Section ). In order to protect and plan for employment lands for current and future uses, the County may wish to map employment lands on schedules and provide further policy direction. 5. The Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 (Bill 73) As of July 1st, Bill 73 has come into full force and effect. Bill 73 includes multiple Planning Act changes that have both administrative as well as policy implications for the County and the Official Plan. Although Bill 73 changes affect many different parts of this plan, the comments pertaining to the Planning Act will be included in this section for your information, as well as throughout Section B of this comment letter, as necessary. Section of the Official Plan clarifies that all public input at the municipal level must be considered by approval authorities. To complement this policy, the County may wish to consider a policy speaking to the new Planning Act requirement that municipalities and approval authorities must explain the effect of public input, if any, on planning decisions. At minimum, the notice of decision must now include explanation of the effect of public input on Council s decision. As an upper tier municipality in Southern Ontario, the County is now required to establish a Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). The Ministry commends the County for the work it has already done on establishing this committee and providing details in draft Official Plan Section 8.2 with respect to the composition of the PAC and the scope of their review. Section of the OP relates to the Bill 73 changes prohibiting amendments to Official Plans and zoning bylaws for the two year period following the document being repealed and replaced. For transparency, the County may wish to also name zoning by-law amendments in this policy. The Ministry commends the County for the work it has already undertaken with respect to the Planning Act changes pertaining to public consultation policies. It is noted that Section 8.3 of the Official Plan speaks to creating a policy and procedure document outlining how the County will inform and gain the opinion of the public on certain application types. It is recommended that the County insert policy in this section to speak to the current and applicable Planning Act requirements for public meeting and open house while the procedure manual Page 9 of 36

10 is being developed. The Ministry commends the County for planning to make available both hard and digital copies of planning documents for the public. In addition, several regulation changes have been made to now require a public consultation strategy as a component of a complete application for several different application types (O.Reg. 543/06, O.Reg. 545/06, O. Reg. 544/06, O.Reg 546/06). It is suggested that the words public consultation plans in Section of the Official Plan be replaced with the words public consultation strategy for consistency with the Planning Act and the subsequent sections of the Official Plan. The County may wish to further define what it considers to be a public consultation strategy in order to provide clarity to the applicant and the public on what the County will consider to be an adequate public consultation strategy for the different application types. Municipalities now have the ability to implement greater alternative notice provisions within their Official Plan to include reference to additional application types (Plans of Subdivision and Consents) and additional notice procedures (complete application and open house). Section of the Official Plan speaks to the County s intention to develop a consultation strategy that includes alternative notice provisions. Please note that the Planning Act states that alternative notice provisions need to be in the Official Plan. The Planning Act now requires that OPs contain policies related to the built environment: goals, objectives and policies established to manage and direct physical change and the effects of the social, economy, built and natural environment of the municipality. The PPS provides some policy direction regarding built form in Section d), which states, Long-term economic prosperity should be supported by encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well-designed built form and cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. The County s Official Plan Section directs lower tiers to adopt alternative parkland dedication rates. Please note that another key area of change relates to planning for parkland and the acquisition of either land or cash-inlieu of parkland. Parks plans have been introduced as a requirement in the Planning Act and are required should a municipality wish to consider the use of an alternative standard for either parkland dedication or cash-in-lieu of parkland. A parks plan will better position a municipality to plan strategically for parks and be prepared for potential opportunities to acquire parkland to meet community needs. A parks plan is to be undertaken in conjunction with school boards and the public and will assist in the determination of the appropriate alternative parkland dedication rate for inclusion in the Official Plan. The parks plan will need to be completed prior to the inclusion of an alternative standard for land dedication or cash-in-lieu. Further to Section of the Official Plan, approval authorities and applicants have been given new tools to deal with appeals through Bill 73. The County may wish to consider the use of these tools and to develop policies in the Official Plan to provide guidance for how to administer them: The ability for approval authorities and applicants to agree to a 90 day timeout or extension to the decision timeframe by 90 days in order to resolve outstanding disputes without the threat of a third party appeal. The ability for an approval authority to establish a time limit for additional appeals, following the appeal of a non-decision. The ability to determine, after an appeal is made, whether Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is appropriate prior to sending the appeal to the Board. B. POLICY SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. Section 1.1 Background It is suggested that the word cultural be added to the list of issues expressed in the second paragraph, alongside economic, social, environmental and infrastructure. 2. Section 1.2 How the Official Plan Works In the first paragraph, it is recommended that wording be added to address how the Official Plan works in relation to the Provincial Policy Statement. For example, and consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, Page 10 of 36

11 2014 could be added to the seventh sentence of the first paragraph of this section. In addition, the words in accordance with the Planning Act could be added to the final sentence of the first paragraph. In the third and fourth paragraphs, it is recommended that the wording be revised and/or removed. The land use schedules show features and designation firmly identified based on GIS layers. Changes to land use schedules require a re-designation. In the ninth paragraph, it is recommended that the words and make decisions consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement be added after the words provincial interest for consistency with s.3(5) of the Planning Act. 3. Section 1.3 The County may wish to consider some additional land use objectives, such as these examples from Section of the PPS: a) promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term; f) improving accessibility for persons with disabilities and older persons by identifying, preventing and removing land use barriers which restrict their full participation in society; g) ensuring that necessary infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities are or will be available to meet current and projected needs; h) promoting development and land use patterns that conserve biodiversity and consider the impacts of a changing climate. In addition, the County may wish to speak to promoting a range and mix of housing, including second units, affordable housing and housing for older persons (PPS Section 1.4), and protecting natural heritage and other resources (PPS Section 2.0). 4. Section 1.4 Planning Period and Official Plan Updates It is recommended that the planning timeline be articulated in this section ( ). 5. Section 2.1 Introduction It is suggested that the County list the settlement areas in policy according to the hierarchy of settlement areas listed in 2.1 (urban serviced, urban unserviced, and rural settlement area). This would more clearly outline how each settlement area is to develop. 6. Section It is recommended that this policy be reworded in accordance with the intent of Sections and of the PPS. The following proposed wording is offered for your consideration: The County of Haliburton directs new development and growth to settlement areas and away from significant or sensitive resources and areas which may pose a risk to public health and safety. Local Official Plans shall designate the listed Settlement Areas to ensure that sufficient lands are available at the municipal level through intensification and redevelopment, and, if necessary, designated growth areas, to accommodate current needs and expected population growth over the next 20 years. Land use patterns shall be based on efficient development patterns to optimize the use of land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities. A mix of housing, employment, parks, open spaces, institutional uses and transportation options will be promoted. 7. Section 2.4 Intensification Targets This section contains policies pertaining to housing mix and density targets, but does not appear to contain an intensification target. As per Section c) of the PPS, this section of the OP should include minimum intensification targets for the lower tier municipalities. Intensification targets may vary between lower tiers or be consistent across the County. In addition, the OP should contain policies that the intensification targets are to be Page 11 of 36

12 met before the expansion of settlement areas is permitted as part of a comprehensive review. It is also recommended that a definition for intensification be added to this section as part of policy or to a glossary. In addition, section a) of the PPS requires planning authorities to provide population, in addition to unit, allocations in their Official Plans. Please add population allocations for the lower tiers, and consider adding the assumption that the unit numbers are based on an average household of 2.3 people, as per your study. Adding population allocations will provide additional clarity and consistency, as unit numbers and assumptions may change over the time horizon of this plan. As outlined in comment #A4 of this letter, this section should also include an employment allocation for each of the lower tiers in accordance with PPS Section a). The County is encouraged to map these areas, in order to protect them for the long term. The PPS requires planning authorities to establish phasing policies, as stated in PPS Section where it is stated that: Planning authorities shall establish and implement phasing policies to ensure that specified targets for intensification and redevelopment are achieved prior to, or concurrent with, new development within designated growth areas; and the orderly progression of development within designated growth areas and the timely provision of the infrastructure and public service facilities required to meet current and projected needs. With regards to both serviced and unserviced settlement areas, the OP should address how growth happens within settlement areas, as articulated in PPS Section : New development taking place in designated growth areas should occur adjacent to the existing built-up area and shall have a compact form, mix of uses and designations that allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public service facilities. The settlement area policy section should include policies to address Section and The County may also wish to consider providing direction with respect to intensification and built form in this section. An example of policy wording is offered for your consideration: All intensification projects, through infill or redevelopment, are to be sympathetic to the overall character of the established area and sensitive to the existing scale, massing and development pattern. 8. Section With regards to Section of the OP, this policy wording appears to be inconsistent with the Growth Management Strategy Report (May 2014) and should be clarified. The report speaks to a target of 50 new units for the Village of Wilberforce with the remaining new medium and high density development split between Minden and Haliburton at a ratio of 55 percent to 45 percent. The policy in the Official Plan states that The Village of Wilberforce would be allocated no medium or high density development with the goal of maintaining 50 existing units. The allocated new % of total development column in the chart on page 8 should be adjusted accordingly. It is also noted that in the Low Density Distribution table on page 9, the fifth row, first column should read Minden Hills, not Minden. 9. Section Serviced Consideration The chart on page 9 shows the lower tier unit allocations for low density development. Low density residential development may be located in urban or rural settlement areas or in rural areas, as servicing permits. Since this chart speaks broadly to lower tier allocations, not just allocations for serviced settlement areas, it is suggested that this chart, as well as OP policies , , and may be better located in a general section on growth allocations/growth management. Furthermore, it is suggested that the County consider targets or allocations by lower tier for the low density development to settlement areas in order to support the policy direction of directing growth to settlement areas and away from rural areas. In addition, this allocation would provide the basis for the monitoring outlined in OP policy An example of a table that would achieve this is offered as an example of something the County may wish to examine: Page 12 of 36

13 Low Density Unit Forecast to 2036 Share of Low Density (%) SCHEDULE A Med-High Density Unit Forecast to 2036 Share of Med-High Density (%) Total Unit Allocation Algonquin Highlands Urban N/A N/A X settlement area Rural settlement X 0 X area(s) Rural lands X 0 X Total % (7%) Dysart et Al. Urban settlement area X 208 X Rural settlement X 0 X area(s) Rural lands X 0 X Total % % 697 (36%) Minden Hills Urban settlement area X 254 X Rural settlement X 0 X area(s) Rural lands X 0 X Total % % 743 (39%) Highlands East Urban settlement area X 50 X Rural settlement X 0 X area(s) Rural lands X 0 X Total % 50 50% 330 (17%) COUNTY TOTAL 1398 (73%) 100% 512 (27%) 100% 1,910 units (100%) It is suggested that OP policies through to may be more appropriate in sections named Public Services, Infrastructure and/or Servicing. 10. Section / The County is encouraged to add a policy tying financial viability to infrastructure and land use planning. In accordance with PPS Section a), the County should add a policy linking the OP to the County s Asset Management Plan in this section along with policies related to public service facilities and infrastructure. 11. Section It is recommended that OP policy provide further criteria for a County comprehensive review in order to ensure that the tests of PPS Section are met. As such, it is recommended that at a minimum, the following wording be added to this policy: only where it has been demonstrated that: - sufficient opportunities for growth are not available through intensification, redevelopment and designated growth areas to accommodate the projected needs over the identified planning horizon, Page 13 of 36

14 - and the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available are suitable for the development over the long term, are financially viable over their life cycle, and protect public health and safety and the natural environment, - the new or expanding settlement area is in compliance with the minimum distance separation formulae, and - impacts from new or expanding settlement areas on agricultural operations which are adjacent or close to the settlement area are mitigated to the extent feasible. The County may also wish to consider inserting a policy supporting the notion that monitoring forecasts and land supply absorption will be a consideration in the completion of a comprehensive review. 12. Section In the fifth sentence, it is recommended that the wording because of physical constraints be clarified or removed in order to meet the intent of PPS Section for partial servicing. In the sixth sentence, it is recommended that the word minor be added in front of the words rounding out in order to reflect the language and intent of Section b) of the PPS. Furthermore, the words with no negative impacts should be added to the end of the sixth sentence after the words and that site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services. 13. Section It is recommended the word with no negative impacts be added to the end of the second sentence. It is also recommended that the words settlement area in the second sentence be replaced with the term built up area for clarity, a term used in PPS Section As well, it is recommended that the words development boundaries in the third sentence be replaced with the words built up area to clarify an ambiguous term. 14. Section We noted that the rural land vacant lot supply table is not connected with the policy text in or elsewhere in this section. It is recommended that the County include policies that connect this table to the growth management policies in this section. 15. Section 3.1 Introduction It is recommended that the words cultural heritage landscapes be added after the words natural heritage features and areas. 16. Section It is recommended that the final sentence of Section 3.3.3, These guidelines may incorporate provisions to allow for studies to support alternative separation distances, be clarified. MDS Guideline #46 states that in some cases minor variances may be appropriate for MDS I, but only where MDS I is applied to existing lots of record. Circumstances that meet the intent, if not the precise distances of MDS I, or mitigate environmental impacts, may warrant further consideration. 17. Section We noted that the rural land vacant lot supply table is not connected with the policy text in or elsewhere in this section. It is recommended that policies be developed which connect this table to policy direction on growth and development in rural lands. It is noted that OP policy speaks to lot creation in rural areas. The County may wish to consider tying OP policy to the chart in Section Section OMAFRA wishes to commend the County of Haliburton for encouraging local municipalities to identify and preserve locally significant agricultural lands. Page 14 of 36

15 It is suggested that the County consider clarifying or removing OP policy , which states, The investigation for a reasonable alternative shall be limited to the lot to be developed, in order to expand the ability to find alternatives to developing agricultural lands. The PPS states that for rural lands, Opportunities to support a diversified rural economy should be promoted by protecting agricultural and other resource-related uses and directing non-related development to areas where it will minimize constraints on these uses (Section ). OP policy could provide more protection for agricultural uses on rural lands. 19. Section It is suggested that this policy, or a new policy, include wording promoting green infrastructure, as per Section of the PPS. 20. Section We commend the County for limiting growth in rural areas surrounding settlement areas in support of the goals of efficient and orderly development and directing growth to settlement areas. We suggest that the term rounding out in this policy be removed or clarified, as this term may be misinterpreted and have the effect of unintended extensions to development. A clear definition of infilling is also recommended to be added. 21. Section It is recommended that the two instances of Rural Areas be replaced with the term Rural Lands for consistency with the rest of this section of the Official Plan and the definition of the PPS. This also applies to Section Section 3.4 Permitted Uses Subsection b) states that agriculture is a permitted use in Rural Lands. It is recommended that the word agriculture be replaced with the words agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses, and on-farm diversified uses in order to protect all forms of agricultural uses and for consistency with PPS Section In addition, it is recommended that these terms be defined in a glossary or through policy. Subsections d) and f) state that tourism uses and resource-based recreational uses are a permitted uses on Rural Lands. It is also recommended that these terms be defined in either policy or in a glossary to provide further direction. 23. Section 4.3 Policies This section would benefit from the inclusion of the definition of affordable as well as the term low and moderate income households in order to support monitoring and measurement over the time horizon of the Official Plan. 24. Section It is recommended that the words, redevelopment and intensification be added after the words new development in the third sentence for clarity and consistency with Section 1.4.1b) of the PPS, which asks that municipalities maintain a three year supply of lands zoned for residential infilling or draft approved plans. 25. Section It is recommended that this section include an affordable housing target for the County. Section 1.4.3a) of the PPS states that minimum affordable housing targets shall be established by planning authorities to meet project requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area. Upper tiers, in consultation with lowertiers, may identify higher targets, which shall represent the minimum. 26. Section Please note that recent changes to the Planning Act made through Bill 73 have affected alternative provision of parkland rates. Please see Section A, Comment #5 of this letter for further explanation. Page 15 of 36

16 In addition, as the County is the approval authority for subdivisions, it is recommended that the County insert a policy regarding the 5% and 2% parkland dedication rates in the County OP. 27. Section 4.4.8/4.4.9/ The County may consider putting these topics (Garden Suites, Demolition Control and Bonusing (Section 37 of the Planning Act)) in their own respective policy sections for clarity, since they are not directly related to second units. 28. Section 5 Environment It is recommended that this section be updated with information regarding Conservation Authorities and their regulations in order to provide information to applicants regarding other permits or reviews that may be required for development. These policies could be included in Section 5.3.1, 5.3.3, 5.3.6, and In addition, the County should add a policy section on climate change adaptation and mitigation in accordance with PPS Section Section The County is encouraged to include a general policy recognizing linkages/corridors between natural heritage features and areas, as articulated in Section of the PPS. An example of additional text for this policy could be added to Section of the Official Plan, as follows: The integrity and function of Natural Heritage features and areas will be protected, restored and enhanced for the long term. The diversity and connectivity of natural heritage features in an area, and the long term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features. 30. Section It is recommended that the word within the habitats of be removed from policy , as per Section of the PPS which prohibits development and site alteration in significant wetlands. 31. Section It is recommended that the words the habitat of provincially identified before the words significant wildlife habitat be removed for consistency with Section of the PPS. The responsibility for identifying wildlife habitat lies with the municipality, using criteria from the Province. In addition, it is recommended that the following text be included as a policy to recognize other types of significant wildlife habitat not mapped on Schedule K, in accordance with the policy test of Section 2.1.5d) of the PPS: Most significant wildlife habitats in the County of Haliburton have not been mapped. Other types of significant wildlife habitat beyond that identified on Schedule K may include: other seasonal concentrations of animals, specialized habitats for wildlife, rare vegetation communities, and habitats of species of special concern. Policies in this plan applicable to significant wildlife habitat shall be applied to any area that is subsequently determined to be a significant wildlife habitat. MNRF s Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide and EcoRegion Criterion Schedules for the Identification of Significant Wildlife Habitat shall be used by proponents of development to identify significant wildlife habitat during site-specific investigations. It is recommended that the words provincially significant be added in front of the words Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest for clarity and consistency with Section of the PPS. 32. Section It is recommended that the following sentence be added to this policy, for consistency with Section of the PPS, to clarify where fish habitat is not mapped: Page 16 of 36

17 Where fish habitat has not been comprehensively mapped, all water features including permanent and intermittent streams, headwaters, seasonally flooded areas, municipal or agricultural drains, lakes and pond will be considered fish habitat unless it is demonstrated otherwise by a qualified professional. 33. Section Natural Heritage It is recommended that the following wording be added to this section as a new policy: Nothing in this section is intended to limit the ability of agricultural uses to continue. Section of the PPS states that natural heritage policies are not intended to limit the ability of agricultural uses to continue. 34. Section Bullet a) can be deleted. The PPS 2014 removed the adjacent lands criteria for habitat of threatened and endangered species. Habitat is now consistent with the Endangered Species Act. Municipalities can choose to identify and protect adjacent lands as long as doing so will not conflict with other policies in the PPS. 35. Section It is recommended that the following wording be added to Section in accordance with PPS Section and Section 4.7, which states that To determine significance of some natural heritage features and other resources, evaluation may be required. To address unevaluated wetlands, it is recommended that the following be added to require the evaluation of unevaluated wetlands where warranted to determine their significance, prior to allowing development: If development is proposed on or within 120 metres of an unevaluated wetland that has characteristics or contains components that are typical of a PSW, as determined through a site evaluation report prepared in accordance with Section of this Plan, a wetland evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified professional and submitted to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry for approval to determine if it is a PSW. 36. Section Site Evaluation Reports It is recommended that additional wording be added to this section, or alternately in Section , to scope the types of applications that will be required to complete a site evaluation report, in accordance with the Natural Heritage Reference Manual. The County and lower tier municipalities will require development proponents proposing the following types of development to retain a qualified person to undertake a site evaluation report: - Creation of more than three lots through either consent or subdivision, - Change in land use, not including the creation of a lot, that requires approval under the Planning Act. - Shoreline consent along a large inland lake or large river (denoted on :50,000 National Topographic Systems maps being two lined) that is within 120 metres along the shoreline of an existing lot of record or a lot described in an application for subdivision or consent; and - Construction for recreational uses (e.g. golf courses, serviced playing fields, serviced campgrounds and ski hills) that require large-scale modification of terrain, vegetation or both. 37. Section It is not clear that this by-law prevents the removal or alteration of natural vegetation within the 30 metre setback from the high water mark. The intention of MOECC s requirement regarding setbacks speaks to nondisturbance of native soils and very limited removal of shoreline vegetation. It appears that the Shoreline Tree Preservation by-law speaks only to tree removal or injury, which does not meet the intent of MOECC s direction for setbacks. It is recommended that this policy wording be included in this section in order to ensure the protection of shoreline areas. Page 17 of 36

18 38. Section It is recommended that this policy include updated wording to clarify and address matters not covered by the Shoreline Tree Preservation By-law and to provide protection for shorelines with regards to development that falls under this Plan, outside of a by-law which could be amended. An example of a re-worded policy is offered for your consideration: Development and site alteration, including septic system tile beds, shall be set back a minimum of 30 m from the high water mark of lakes, rivers and streams, with no disturbance of native soils and very limited removal of shoreline vegetation. This setback shall not be subject to a minor variance etc. which would lead to encroachment of development on the respective surface water feature(s). 39. Section It is recommended that the phrase local official plans shall including criteria for determining an appropriate setback be removed. Where an existing lot of record cannot achieve the minimum setback of 30 metres, the greatest setback possible shall be required. It is also recommended that a policy be added to address water quality and larger developments. Example wording is as follows: Large development proposals (i.e. greater than 5 lots, resort/condominium development) must be supported with a site evaluation report in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. This is to ensure water quality protection. The study should take into consideration the existing water quality of the water body, surface water run-off, impact and loadings of phosphorous from septic systems, type of soils, stormwater management and nature of vegetation. 40. Section Source Water Protection Please note that the commonly used terminology is Source Protection Plan and the acronym used is SPP (not SWPP). To this point, the most commonly used name is the Trent Source Protection Plan, or Trent SPP (Not Trent SWPP). Please revise all reference to SPPs and the Trent SPP to reflect this terminology, including policies , , , , , and Please note that at this time, all Source Protection Plans have been approved and are now in effect, and, as such, all policies in the OP should refer to the applicable SPP, not the approved SPP. Please revise all references to the applicable SPP, including policies , , , and The SPPs use the acronym WHPA for Wellhead Protection Areas. Please update OP policy with the correct acronym. 41. Section The following is suggested re-wording for Policy to clarify the requirements of the Clean Water Act and also to clarify that the quality and quantity of ground and surface water will be protected at all times. The quality and quantity of ground and surface water will be improved in areas of degradation. The following revised wording is proposed to clarify when quality and quantity of water is to be protected and improved: The quality and quantity of all ground and surface water will be protected. In areas of degradation, where identified, the quality and quantity of ground and surface water will be improved. The supply, efficient use and conservation of water is a provincial interest as identified in the Planning Act. Where the Trent Source Protection Plan or South Georgina Bay-Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan applies, land use planning decisions shall conform with significant drinking water threat policies and have regard to other policies. 42. Section It is recommended that hazardous sites also be added to this policy. Hazardous sites are defined in the PPS as property or lands that could be unsafe for development and site alteration due to naturally occurring hazards. These may include unstable soils or unstable bedrock. Page 18 of 36

19 43. Section The words and activities should be removed from this policy, as discussed in comment #3 of this letter. This also applies to subsection a) of the Official Plan. The following example of revised policy wording is provided for your consideration: Proposed land uses which are identified as a significant drinking water threat in the applicable Source Protection Plan (SPP) shall be prohibited, regulated or restricted by the local municipality. This may be achieved through municipal zoning by-laws. 44. Section The following revised wording is provided for your consideration, in order to align with the language and requirements of the Clean Water Act: Where the Clean Water Act does not require proposed applications to be circulated to an RMO, the local municipality shall review applications under the Planning Act to ensure that significant threats are prohibited, regulated, or restricted as set out in the applicable SPP. 45. Section The following revised wording is provided for your consideration, in order to align with the language and requirements of the Clean Water Act: Development and site alteration may be restricted: - To protect all municipal drinking water supplies and designated vulnerable areas as identified in the applicable SPP; and - To protect, improve or restore vulnerable surface water features and sensitive groundwater features, and their hydrologic functions. 46. Section For the implementation of the Clean Water Act, it is important that municipalities not unduly restrict agricultural uses or normal farm practices as a result of application of land use restrictions. It is recommended that municipalities have pre-consultation and pre-screening policies to clarify early on in the process whether an activity (as part of the proposed use) would be a significant drinking water threat, and to explain any requirements involved at the outset. 47. Section It is recommended that the first sentence of this policy read as follows: Local municipalities shall identify areas where Source Protection Plan (SPP) policies apply, through their local Official Plan or by by-law. For alignment with the Clean Water Act, it is recommended that the revised following policy wording for subsections a)-f) be used: a) Consultation will occur between the County and local municipalities on all applications made under the Planning Act for lands identified as being in a Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA) and/ or in an Intake Protection Zone (IPZ) where policies for significant threats apply to ensure that prohibited uses and activities are directed to locate outside of these identified areas; b) Local municipal official plans shall include policy direction for approval requirements of applications related to activities and uses within the WPA and IPZ, in conformity with the policy of the applicable SWPP; c) Legally existing uses that are located within a SPP Policy Applicable in an area where SPP policies apply, but which and are regulated by the provisions of the applicable SPP a Source Protection Plan Page 19 of 36

20 policy and/or are incompatible but no longer conform with the provisions of this section of the Official Plan may be permitted to expand subject to the policies of this Official Plan and the applicable SPP Source Protection Plan. Such uses shall be required to undertake measures that would protect municipal drinking water sources in the SPP Policy Applicable Area; d) County Council and each municipal Council will not approve an application made under the Planning Act for development or site alteration, within a SWPP policy area in an area where specified SPP policies apply without a RMO notice, issued under S. 59(2) of the Clean Water Act (2006) or as established in a risk management plan; e) Identification of future Wellhead Protection Areas and Intake Protection Zones or amendments to delineations of highly vulnerable aquifers and significant ground water recharge areas, identified by an appropriate agency (a local municipality, a conservation authority or the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change) shall be implemented by an amendment to this plan and the local official plan; f) The policies in this official plan are a minimum standard. and Llocal municipalities may go beyond these minimum standards in the protection of municipal drinking water sources and aquifer/groundwater vulnerable areas. 48. Section Natural Hazards It is recommended that additional wording be added to this section that directs lower tiers to identify floodplains in the absence of engineered floodplain studies and to provide specific direction that inappropriate development will be directed away from these areas: Lower tier municipalities will be required to identify and map areas subject to flooding. At a minimum, this can be done through air photo interpretation of potential floodplains. All floodplains will be placed in a restrictive land use designation that permits only those uses that do not require structural development or site alteration. It is recommended that the OP include a policy addressing erosion hazards. We recommend the inclusion of a policy such as the following: Lower tier municipalities will identify the potential for erosion hazards through the review of Planning Act applications. Where the potential for erosion hazards has not been identified, new development and site alteration will not be permitted unless it has been demonstrated that the site and its access would be safe using the 100-year erosion rate. In accordance with Section of the PPS, policy should be including that provides direction for appropriate development restrictions with the engineered floodplain for the Gull River within the Town of Minden, where a two zone approach is being taken to floodplain management. Additional policy wording, such as the following, is recommended: In locations identified as Floodway on Schedule H of this Plan, no new structural development, expansion of existing development and/or site alteration will be permitted. On areas identified as Flood Fringe, new development will only be permitted if it first has been demonstrated there is safe access and egress, all buildings and additions are adequately flood proofed, and adequate provisions are made for the safe disposal of sewage. 49. Section Wildland Fire It is recommended that a definition of hazardous types for wildland fire be added to this section. An example of wording is: Page 20 of 36

21 Hazardous forest types for wildland fire are forest types assessed as being associated with the risk of high to extreme wildland fire using risk assessment tools established by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, as amended from time to time. The County should be commended for its policy direction requiring wildland fire assessment report for areas mapped. It should be noted that MNRF s mapping of potential risk areas is based on remote inventories of forest types, and actual risk must be verified in the field. 50. Section Human Made Hazards It is recommended that additional policy wording be added to this section to provide more guidance for development on, abutting, or adjacent to brownfields sites. It is recommended that the following policy wording be incorporated into this section: The development or redevelopment of potentially contaminated sites shall be assessed and remediated in a manner consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and relevant regulations and Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) guidelines and procedures. Sites known or suspected to have soils contaminated with residues of current or previous industrial or commercial land uses must have the environmental condition of the site assessed. When managing development on potentially contaminated sites, a Record of Site Condition (RSC) either prior to the development approval, at the time of release of conditions of approval, or at the time of issuance of building permits, as required or stipulated by the municipality must be received. When considering applications for development which include sites suspected or known to be contaminated, the municipality will require at its discretion a Phase I ESA to be undertaken by the applicant in accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04 as amended. If recommended by a Phase I ESA or mandated under Regulation 153/04, a Phase II ESA must be undertaken by the applicant in accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04. This would require sampling and analysis of the site to confirm and delineate the presence or absence of contamination suspected by the Phase I ESA report. As a condition of approval, the municipality will require that remediation, where required, is undertaken to appropriate standards of the MOECC, as specified in Ontario Regulation 153/04 and in the guideline Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, or other regulatory requirements of the MOECC, as amended from time to time. Mandatory filing of a Record of Site Condition in the Registry, by a qualified person, as defined in O. Reg. 153/04, as amended, is required for a change in use of a property from industrial or commercial to residential or parkland, as defined in the regulation, and will be acknowledged by MOECC A site cleanup plan may be required and the site may need to be cleaned-up in accordance with the O. Reg. 153/04, as amended and with MOECC guideline Records of Site Condition A Guide on Site Assessment, the Clean-up of Brownfield Sites and the Filing of Records of Site Condition dated October 2004 or associated guidelines. This requirement is to ensure, to the municipality's satisfaction, that any remediation or risk assessment and risk management necessary to permit the intended use is to the satisfaction of the MOECC. 51. Section It is recommended that a list of lakes at capacity and not at capacity be added as an appendix to the County OP. This way it can be easily updated if changes occur, as they usually do, without undergoing an Official Plan Amendment. 52. Section 6.3 Further to comments in Section C of this letter, please ensure that licensed aggregate operations are designated on Schedule A. Policies should be added to Section 6.3 to ensure that at the time of a 5-year review of this Page 21 of 36

22 Official Plan, the schedules will be updated to reflect the current boundaries of the licensed operations throughout Haliburton County. In addition, the County OP should include aggregate resource mapping, and policies 6.3.1, 6.3.2, and should provide policy direction in accordance with that mapping. 53. Section In accordance with Sections and of the PPS, it is recommended that policy read as follows, in order to clearly protect both undeveloped aggregate resources and existing aggregate extraction operations: Mineral aggregate resources and mineral aggregate operations will be protected for future use to ensure that these operations and undeveloped deposits will be able to meet current and future needs. Local official plans will identify mineral aggregate resources and mineral aggregate operations and protect them from development and activities that would adversely affect their expansion or continued use, or would be incompatible by way of public health, safety or environmental impact. 54. Section It is recommended that policy wording be added to protect sensitive land uses from the impacts of active or potential aggregate operations, in accordance with MOECC s D6 Guideline. Noise/Dust/Vibration Studies and/or hydrogeological studies should be required to assess the impact on development within the influence areas. This influence area should be applied reciprocally to new sensitive land uses proposed with the influence area of an existing extraction operation or lands committed to future extraction. In addition, it is recommended that wording be added to this policy in order to protect mineral aggregate resources from incompatible development. The following policy is offered as suggested wording: Incompatible land uses and activities both on site and adjacent to existing pits and quarries and extractive reserve areas shall not be permitted. For the purposes of this policy, adjacent shall be defined as 300 metres from a pit operation or sand and gravel resources, and 500 metres from a quarry operation or bedrock resources, measured from the outer boundary of the licensed area or the deposit. Incompatible uses include sensitive land uses, which are defined as buildings, amenity areas or outdoor spaces where routine or normal activities occurring at reasonably expected times would experience adverse effects from an extractive operation. For clarity, sensitive land uses includes residences. 55. Section A policy should be added to this section stating that a land use compatibility study is required when development is proposed adjacent to an existing aggregate operation and within or adjacent to an aggregate deposition to ensure the protection of the aggregate resources. 56. Section In addition to the current wording, it is recommended that the following wording be considered for addition to subsections 6.3.9/6.3.10, in accordance with PPS Section 3.2: The following policies apply to abandoned mines that may constitute an existing or potential hazard for future use and development: a) Where the location and extent of an abandoned mine site can be confirmed in consultation with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, a member municipality may denote these lands within an appropriate hazard zoning within its local comprehensive zoning bylaw prohibiting its future development until successfully rehabilitated; b) Development on, abutting or adjacent to lands affected by mine hazards or former mineral mining operations shall be permitted only if rehabilitation measures to address and mitigate known or suspected hazards are underway or have been completed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines; c) Applicants for development proposals affecting lands with 1 kilometer of known abandoned mine hazards shall, in consultation with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Page 22 of 36

23 conduct an impact assessment to determine whether hazards existing and, if so, whether they can be mitigated sufficient to permit development to proceed; and, d) Applicants for site-specific development proposals in areas of known or suspected abandoned mine hazards shall be required, through appropriate engineering studies, to confirm the presence of hazards that may affect development and that shall require mitigation measures consistent with the Mine Rehabilitation Code of Ontario set out in 1. O. Reg. 240/00, s.4 (1). 57. Section 7.2 Aboriginal Consultation As the approval authority for this planning document, the Ministry has circulated the draft OP as part of the duty to consult with Aboriginal communities. At the time of writing this letter, the Ministry has received one response from the Curve Lake First Nation. Any additional comments received will be forwarded to you at that time. Curve Lake First Nations has requested that in addition to the Algonquins of Ontario, Section 7.2 of the County s Official Plan should acknowledge and extend the same land use planning process to the Williams Treaty First Nations. The seven signatories of the 1923 Williams Treat are: Mississaugas First Nation, Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, Scugog Island First Nation, Chippewas First Nation, Beausoleil First Nation, Georgina First Nation, and Rama First Nation. 58. Section Subsection a) should also state that well abandonment should be done by a Licenced Well Driller. In subsection b), additional wording should be added to state that all municipal drinking water systems are required to obtain an approval under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Written consent of a municipality is required for non-municipal systems that will serve six or more private residences or for an existing system that is extended to service a major residential development. A municipality may require financial assurance as a condition of consent or subdivision. Subsections c) and e) should be removed in their entirety. These regulations pertain to large subsurface sewage works, not water works. It is also recommended that a policy be added to address the requirements of PPS Section that planning authorities may allow lot creation only if there is confirmation of sufficient reserve water system capacity. It may also be appropriate to address this requirement again in Section 7.15 Land Division. 59. Section 7.4 Sewage Services It is recommended that a policy be added to this section to address large sub-surface sewage systems, suggested wording is as follows: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) approval is required (Environmental Compliance Approval) under the Ontario Water Resources Act for large sub-surface sewage systems with a design capacity of greater than 10,000 litres per day. MOECC s Guideline B7 Reasonable Use also applies in this case and a study should be completed. Where development is serviced by a subsurface sewage system with a design capacity of 10,000 litres per day or less, the MOECC s guideline D-5-4: Technical Guideline for Individual On-Site Sewage Systems: Water Quality Impact Risk Assessment applies. These studies are required to assess the cumulative impact of development on the water supply and to protect the quality of groundwater. It is suggested that a new policy section be added to address land use compatibility between sensitive land uses and waste water systems. Example policies are as follows: Sewage Facilities: MOECC recommends separation distances and/or other control measures for sensitive lands uses close to sewage treatment facilities and waste stabilization ponds (lagoons). Separation distances are based on the Page 23 of 36

24 design capacity of the sewage treatment facility and the type of waste stabilization pond and the characteristics of the waste. These distances are outlined in MOECC Guideline D-2: Compatibility between Sewage Treatment and Sensitive Land Use. Sewage Treatment Plant Capacity Equal to or less than 500 m 3 /day Greater than 500 m 3 /day but less than 25,000 m3/day Greater than 25,000 m 3 /day Waste stabilization ponds/lagoons Separation Distance 100 metres Minimum 100 metres Recommended 150 metres Greater than 150 metres Site specific assessment Site specific assessment Between 100 and 400 metres 60. Section In subsection a), it is recommended that the following wording be added in order to clarify what no negative impact means for development: This may require a hydrogeological and a groundwater impact study designed to assess the potential risk to groundwater. 61. Section 7.6 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology It is recommended that the word Archaeology in the second and third sentence be replaced with the word Cultural for consistency with the terminology of the PPS. In the fourth sentence, it is recommended that the word buildings be replaced with the word structures for consistency with the terminology of the Ontario Heritage Act. In addition, the County is encouraged to include additional policies to support the protection of cultural heritage resources, as follows: Accessibility and Heritage Conservation In attaining its goal for establishing a barrier-free environment, local official plans shall endeavour to provide access solutions in a manner that respects the cultural heritage value or interest of a protected property. It is recognised that standardised designs may not always suffice and that each heritage property will require unique accessibility plans to ensure that alterations do not adversely affect the heritage attributes. Waste Reduction/ Adaptive Re-use The County supports the reduction of waste from construction debris as a result of the demolition of buildings by promoting and encouraging the adaptive reuse of older and existing building stock. Energy Efficiency and Heritage Conservation Local official plans should encourage retrofits to a heritage building for achieving energy efficiency only where it is demonstrated that retrofitting can be accomplished without compromising the heritage integrity of the building. 62. Section 7.7 Industrial Land Uses This section would benefit from clarity around the term area of influence and the minimum recommended separation distance. The influence area is the area that should be considered for compatibility study (noise, vibration, odour, and/or dust) in order to determine a suitable separation distance beyond the minimum recommended for each of the classes of industry listed. 63. Section 7.8 Waste Management The following wording is recommended to be added to this section to address closed landfill sites: Page 24 of 36

25 Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act requires that no use be made of land or land covered by water which has been used for the disposal of waste within a period of twenty-five years from the year in which such land ceased to be so used unless the approval of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for the proposed use has been given. 64. Section It is suggested that the words including active transportation be added to subsection b) after the words transportation modes in order to explicitly address active transportation as a form of transportation, in accordance with PPS Section and A new subsection e) is recommended that protects major goods movement facilities and corridors, in accordance with Section of the PPS: e) Major goods movement facilities and corridors shall be protected for the long term. 65. Section Provincial Highways In subsection , it is recommended that the following be added to the list of conditions of development: vii. Traffic Impact Assessment viii. Stormwater Management Report In subsection , it is recommended that the following two criteria be on the table summarizing MTO s permit control area under the category of Place a building, structure, entrance or any road : 180 metres from the centrepoint of any intersection on a Kings Highway 395 metres of the centrepoint of any intersection/interchange on a controlled access highway 66. Section Resource Access Roads Policy states that resource access roads may provide access to resource based recreational development based on Ministry approval. We would like to ask for clarification on the intention of these policies. Which Ministry would grant approval in this situation? 67. Section Airports The following wording is recommended to provide clear direction for development in the vicinity of airports: To address airport noise, Council may require detailed noise studies for new noise sensitive land use proposals that are located at or above Noise Exposure Forecast/Noise Exposure Projection 25 (NEF/NEP 25) contours set by Transport Canada. Section of the PPS 2014 prohibits new residential development and other sensitive land uses in areas near airports above 30 NEF/NEP and protects the long term functioning of airports from redevelopment and/or infilling of sensitive land uses above 30 NEF/NEP. It should be noted that certain airport facilities and activities such as mechanical systems serving terminals are considered as stationary sources of noise. In addition, the following wording is offered as example warning clauses that may be used by lower tier municipalities in purchase agreements, etc.: Warning Clauses: Noise warning clauses may be used to warn of potential annoyance due to an existing source of noise and/or to warn of excesses above the sound level limits. Warning clauses would be included in Offers of Purchase and Sale agreements, lease/rental agreements and condominium declarations. Noise warning clauses may be used to warn of excesses above the recommended sound level limits from road, rail, and aircraft. Warning clauses may also include structural recommendations regarding the types of windows, Page 25 of 36

26 doors and walls that should be installed so that indoor sound levels comply with Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change sound level limits included in NPC-300. If daytime sound levels are greater than 55 dba and less than or equal to 65 dba and/or nighttime sound levels are greater than 50 dba and less than or equal to 60 dba, in the plane of a bedroom or living/dining room window, the dwelling should be designed with central air conditioning at the occupant s discretion. The following warning clause is recommended: Daytime/Nighttime Sound Levels: This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant s discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. If daytime sound levels are greater than 65 dba and/or nighttime sound levels are greater than 60 dba, in the plane of a bedroom or living/dining room window, then central air conditioning should be implemented along with the following warning clause: This dwelling unit has been supplied with a central air conditioning system which will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. 68. Section 7.15 Land Division It is recommended that the following is added to the Land Division section as a new policy, in accordance with Section of the PPS: The creation of lots shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae. 69. Section It is recommended that this policy also include wording to include mineral aggregate resources as a criteria for the review of consent applications. 70. Section / In addition to the policies in sections 7.9.5, , and with respect to private roads, it is noted that Policy states the County will develop appropriate mechanisms for growth on private roads in conjunction with its 2014 Growth Management Strategy. The PPS provides strong direction to municipalities for maintaining public health and safety by supporting efficient and effective emergency management services, limiting rural residential uses and avoiding additional servicing burden to municipalities. As such, it is recommended that the County provide additional criteria in the OP for development along existing and new private roads to ensure efficient and safe development throughout the County until such time as the County undertakes a full review of private roads. The municipality should set an appropriate minimum private road construction standard which considers, for example: minimum widths, surface material standards, grading standards, turning circle requirements, and demonstration of safe egress and ingress. Private roads should ensure year-round access for emergency services. Effective legal mechanics are recommended in order to achieve minimum road standards and long-term maintenance. Legal tools to achieve those objectives may vary based on the specific circumstances of a development, but may include Plan of Condominium or private easements. Legal agreements should be registered on title and achieve the following: - Minimum road standards - Long term maintenance - Permanent access Page 26 of 36

27 In addition, municipalities should use conditions to the granting of consent(s) in the form of legal obligations between the land owner and the municipality, to achieve, for example: - Maintaining the legal right of way in a single ownership; - That the right of way is registered; - That the obligations run with the land and are binding on future owners; and - Holding of financial securities by the municipality to ensure maintenance is undertaken. In accordance with these principles, it is recommended that the County s OP include resource-based recreational uses in policy , in order to restrict all new lot creation to existing municipally-maintained roads unless a private road is developed to service the lands through a plan of condominium. Further, it is recommended that the words or is available to be maintained by a local road association or is a provincial resource access road be removed. The County should include a policy in this section that states that development will not be considered where it would require an extension to an existing private road. 71. Section 7.16 Noise This section should include policies addressing stationary noise sources. The following policy wording is offered as an example of MOECC s requirements: Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Publication NPC 300: Environmental Noise Guideline, Stationary and Transportation Sources Approval and Planning produced in August 2013 is a guidance document that relates to the transportation and stationary sources of noise in the land use planning process. It also provides assistance in creating compatibility between noise sensitive land uses and stationary sources with respect to noise. Noise assessments conducted as part of the land use planning approval process for the development or introduction of noise sensitive land uses are important to protect: residents; operations of stationary sources; existing or approved transportation corridors; transportation sources of noise and to avoid potential adverse effects by creating compatible land uses. It is the responsibility of the proponent or developer of the noise sensitive land use, encroaching on a stationary source of noise, to ensure compliance with MOECC sound level limits. Council may require a noise study for new sensitive land uses adjacent to existing railway lines, highways, sewage treatment facilities, waste management sites, industries, aggregate extraction sites, or other stationary or line sources where noise and vibration may be generated. Feasibility and/or noise studies must be prepared by qualified individuals and in accordance with MOECC s Noise Pollution Control Guidelines (NPC-300). Caution will be exercised to ensure that Council does not approve sensitive development in proximity to stationary sources of noise that have an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) issued by MOECC that requires compliance with the applicable sound level limits at the surrounding points of reception. An ill-informed land use planning decision can affect the ability of a stationary source to comply with the applicable limits outlined in an ECA. 72. Section It is recommended that the following studies be added to the list of studies required, for consistency with the rest of the plan and to represent studies that should be considered by the municipality: - Traffic Impact Assessment - Stormwater Management Report - Site Evaluation Report - Lake Impact Assessment - Land Use Compatibility Study - Public Consultation Strategy Page 27 of 36

28 73. Section It is recommended that the County OP provide guidance by clearly listing the applicable dates. C. SCHEDULES & APPENDICES 1. Schedule A Schedule A designates urban settlement areas, rural settlement areas and communities. It is noted that the settlement area boundaries for Haliburton and West Guilford appear to not match the settlement area boundaries in the Dysart et al. Official Plan. As per the PPS, a comprehensive review is necessary to expand settlement area boundaries. Please review these boundaries and ensure they are accurate and reflective of current Official Plans are shown on the schedules. Communities are identified on Schedule A with dots. However, these communities have identified settlement area boundaries in their respective lower tier plans. It is not clear how communities and rural settlement areas differ and how each was determined. Please provide a rationale for the consideration of communities on the schedules. Please ensure that licensed aggregate operations are designated on Schedule A. 2. Schedule D The flood hazard of Paudash Lake has not been included on this map. Please revise. 3. Schedule E MOECC Section 46 guidelines state that both open and closed landfills should be identified on Official Plan schedules. Please identify in the mapping and legend accordingly. 4. Schedule F Two areas of significant mineral potential outlined by MNDM have been omitted on Schedule F. One area for nickel, platinum and palladium metallic mineral potential is located west of Fletcher Lake in McClintock Township. Another area extends from Snowden Township into Glamorgan Township. This area has significant metallic mineral potential for zinc. Both areas are predominantly on Crown land however they do extend onto patent lands. Active mining claims are located in both areas; some of which are adjacent to patent lots. Areas of mineral potential should be identified in order to protect these areas from any development that would preclude or hinder the establishment of new operations or access to these resources. A shapefile showing these areas will be sent to you. This file is called Haliburton Commodity. Areas of aggregate resources are not identified on Schedule F, in accordance with Section 2.5 of the PPS in order to ensure the appropriate policies of the OP can be applied to avoid sterilization through incompatible land use development. Digital aggregate mapping is available as a free download. Ontario Geological Survey recently released seamless aggregate mapping for southern Ontario and is available at this link: Mine Sites symbol for Abandoned and Closed Out are the same on Schedule F. For closed out, does this pertain to a closed quarry? A suggestion would be to use the same symbol and identify it as Abandoned/Closed Out or alternately use 2 different symbols. A number of AMIS site locations in Dysart et Al are not shown. Along with sites administered under the Mining Act, the AMIS database documents information on abandoned quarries for commodities administered under the Aggregate Resources Act, for example marble. Although MNRF administers the ARA, they often do not keep historic information on abandoned quarries. The AMIS database may be the only source for this information. Page 28 of 36

29 Some of these sites may still be deemed hazardous and the County of Haliburton should be aware of their locations. To be consistent with all Lower Tier Municipalities in Haliburton County, it is recommended all documented AMIS sites be shown on Schedule F. An up-to-date shapefile of AMIS site locations is available to download at this link: Some Mineral Deposits in Cardiff and Monmouth Townships have been omitted from Schedule F. Five points are not shown. They are for radioactive commodities and non-metallic minerals and are classified as producer, past producing mine with reserves and developed prospects with reserves. Mineral Deposit Inventory (MDI) records from within the Deposit Status classifications listed below should be considered known mineral deposits for the purpose of land use planning: Producer (mineral mining operation); Past producer with reserves; Past producer without reserves; Developed prospect with reserves; and Developed prospect without reserves. A GIS shapefile of Mineral Deposits for the County of Haliburton will be re-submitted. This file is called MDI- 2014Select 1. Page 29 of 36

30 Page 30 of 36 SCHEDULE B