Greenbelt Plan Under Review

Region Wants Greater Local Flexibility

NRU
Sept. 24, 2014
By Edward LaRusic

Durham Region wants more flexibility in implementing the Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the power to make limited refinements to the plans’ boundaries. Critics say this would threaten to “whittle away” the greenbelt.

Durham Region strategic planning director Roger Saunders said the 19 recommendations in the recently approved report come after extension consultation with local stakeholders, including farmers. A major theme of the report, he said, is to give municipalities more flexibility than they currently have under the plans. He said this will help keep agricultural businesses viable.

“Numerous times we heard about farmers, who wanted to build a new storage shed but were denied applications because they were too close to a natural heritage system boundary in the greenbelt.”

Five of the recommendations ask the province to allow municipalities and conservation authorities more flexibility with regard to implementing the policies of these plans. One asks for more latitude when interpreting natural heritage protection policies. Another asks for the ability to exempt or reduce the scale of hydrological studies for large agricultural buildings in the Oak Ridges Moraine. Another asks that municipalities be permitted to allow necessary servicing and infrastructure within protected countryside areas as long as such expansion “does not conflict with natural heritage or agricultural protection policies.”

“What we’re talking about here is the province considering provisions to allow some flexibility for a municipality - in consultation with a conservation authority - to provide a little bit of common sense in those situations, to help the farmers have viable operations and not have to jump through so many hoops simply because there is a perception that they may be infringing upon a natural feature, which, in a lot of cases, might not be the case.”

More contentious are the three recommendations asking that municipalities within the greenbelt be allowed to request boundary changes. As an example, one of the recommendations is to allow municipalities to swap lands that it believes should have been included in the greenbelt for lands within the greenbelt that can be used to “round out” municipalities by creating viable employment lands or building transportation infrastructure. The recommendation states that this revision would not permit a “net loss of protected area.”

“Right now, the only time that a boundary adjustment can be considered in those areas - and these are areas within the Greenbelt Plan area - is at the 10-year review of the Greenbelt Plan. Maybe that doesn’t always make sense, and maybe there should be provision to be able to look at those sorts of things in conjunction with the timing of growth management initiatives. We’re not talking about wholesale changes that are going to reduce the size of the greenbelt.”

Environmental Defence greenbelt program manager Susan Lloyd Swail said that her organization, which is part of the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance, is concerned that some of the recommendations, if adopted, may allow municipalities to grown “in the wrong places.” She said her organization has three main concerns.

“One of [Durham’s] recommendations is to [allow municipalities to permit necessary servicing and infrastructure] in the protected countryside,” said Lloyd Swail. “It doesn’t say the scope of that servicing and there are no defined limits to it. That’s a concern, because we know that servicing can be a precursor to sprawl.”

Giving municipalities and conservation authorities more flexibility, particularly in allowing them to exempt or reduce the scope of hydrological studies for large agricultural buildings in the Oak Ridges Moraine, is also a concern. Such a reduction would not be in the public interest.

“[The region finds] these science-based technical studies are a burden”.

Finally, Lloyd Swail said that the recommendation that would allow municipalities to “round out” their boundaries is problematic.

“We’re just saying that [this recommendation] needs to be defined. What is a ‘minor revision’ [in regard to] rounding out? What’s the size or scope?”

Ajax mayor Steve Parish shares the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance’s concerns. As one of the leaders of the Municipal Leaders for the Greenbelt, he said his interest is in expanding the greenbelt, and worries that the recommendations in this report were not fully vetted by commenting agencies and area municipalities. He was one of three members of Durham council that did not support the recommendations. The other two were Ajax councillor Colleen Jordan and Pickering councillor Peter Rodrigues.

“Durham Region, I think it’s fair to say, is not known for being a great supporter of the greenbelt, and I think the report has some recommendations that could lead to a kind of approach that seeks to chip away at the greenbelt.”

He said that giving municipality’s greater flexibility to support agricultural businesses is a good idea, but the “devil is in the details.”

“People will interpret [the flexibility] in a way that’s in their private interests to interpret it. I think the rules on the local flexibility have to be clear that they don’t, in any way, degenerate from the basic principles of the Greenbelt.”

“I know that the province is gathering this kind of input, and I will think in the new year will be announcing the terms of reference for the review. I would encourage the provincial government to stand by the principle of this government that created the greenbelt, to maintain its strong defence of the greenbelt, to make adjustments that make sense on the basic goals of the greenbelt but to give very clear direction as to what is on the table and what is not.”

The report was prepared by Urban Strategies Inc. and approved by Durham Region council September 17.