HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-160-04
,. 10 S
~:'" ~~_-"-i-
....
-^ Cl~-mgton
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: December 6. 2004
Report #: PSD-160-04
File #: PLN 1.1.9
{l.eb jJrJ.jJlI. Lf8'f-DL(
By-law #:
Subject:
COMMENTS ON THE PROVINCIAL DRAFT GREENBELT PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT report PSD-160-04 be received;
2. THAT report PSD-160-04 be endorsed as the Municipality of Clarington's
comments on the Draft Greenbelt Plan FORTHWITH;
3. THAT a copy of report PSD-160-04 be forwarded to John Gerretsen, Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Municipal Affairs and Housing Greenbelt
Group and the Region of Durham Planning Department.; and
4. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of
Council's decision.
~
Submitted by: Reviewed by:- ~
D id Crome, M.C,I.P., R.P,P. lin Wu,
Director of Planning Services -1f' Chief Administrative Officer
HB/CP/DJC/lb
2 December 2004
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOW MANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
699\.113
",,'r.-
~
t J,lI
-REPORT NO.: PSD.160-o4
PAGE 2
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 The Province has increasingly recognized the need to control sprawl, deal with gridlock
and protect natural features and agricultural land as the principle elements in
maintaining a strong economy. As part of the Liberal campaign platform, a Greenbelt
was proposed for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The new government introduced Bill
27, the Greenbelt Protection Act on December 16, 2003 to set the process in motion to
establish a permanent Greenbelt. The purpose of this Bill was to initiate a study to
establish a greenbelt around the GTA and place a one year moratorium on development
of urban uses outside of urban settlements,
1.2 During the spring of 2004, a Greenbelt Task Force was struck and consultation began.
In May 2004, the Province released the Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper _
Toward a Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt. This was an initial discussion paper identifying
general themes and directions and the overall vision and goals advocated were in
keeping with both the Durham Region and Clarington Official Plans. Clarington provided
written comments on this document to the Province.
1.3 A second related Provincial initiative was announced in July 2004 with a release of
"Places to Grow: A Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Discussion Paper".
The Province recognizes that a plan is needed to guide growth within the Greater
Golden Horseshoe and this document addresses where and how growth should occur,
what infrastructure is needed to support growth and what elements need to be protected
when growth occurs, Staff provided a summary and comments on this paper in PSD-
114-04.
1.4 On October 28, 2004 the Province introduced Bill 135 - The Greenbelt Act, Bill 136 _
Places to Grow Act. Bills 135 and 136 are framework legislation allowing the Province
to prepare provincial plans for a Greenbelt focused on the GTA and Growth Plans for
various areas of the Province. The Greater Golden Horseshoe is the first growth plan
area. Regional and area municipal plans must be amended to conform with the
provincial plans.
1.5 The Province intends that the Greenbelt Plan will coordinate with the Greater Golden
Horseshoe Growth Plan ensuring that wise, rational and balanced decisions are made
regarding where and how growth will occur and to ensure that agricultural areas and
natural systems are protected.
1,6 The Province has an ambitious time- table with respect to adoption of a Greenbelt Plan.
Comments on the draft Plan are to be received by December 12, 2004 allowing 45 days
for municipalities, agencies and the public to review and respond to the draft Greenbelt
Plan. Although is was originally anticipated that the Province would adopt a Greenbelt
Plan by December 161h, provincial officials indicated at public meetings that the
Greenbelt Plan will likely not be adopted until 30 to 90 days. This is necessary to allow
time for review of public submissions and further work on certain aspects of the Plan.
Since the Greenbelt Protection Act expires on December 161h, it is anticipated that a
further zoning order will be enacted to extend the freeze.
6991Hi.1
~ '"
, ~-!
!.
-REPORT NO.: PSD-160-o4
PAGE 3
2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE DRAFT GREENBELT PLAN
2.1 The broad objectives of the Greenbelt Plan are to protect the environment, protect
specialty crop lands, tender fruit and grape lands, protect prime agricultural lands and
promote healthy, vibrant rural communities. From Niagara to Clarington, the Greenbelt
Plan encompasses approximately 1.8 million acres of land. This includes lands currently
protected by the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) and the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and approximately 1 million acres of new lands. The lands
beyond the NEP and ORMCP, but within the Greenbelt are designated "Protected
Countryside". Lands within the NEP and ORMCP shall continue to be governed by their
respective plans.
2.2 The Protected Countryside is made up of the following areas:
· an Agricultural System that includes Specialty Crop Areas, Prime Agricultural Land,
and Rural Areas,
· a Natural System comprised of a Natural Heritage System and a Water Resource
System;
· Settlement Areas, and
· Parkland, Open Space and Trails.
2.3 The components of the Agricultural System have the following purpose:
a) The Specialty Crop Areas include the Niagara Peninsula Tender Fruit and Grape
Area and the Holland Marsh. They are to protected for a full range of agriculture and
agriculturally-related uses. No urban expansions are permitted. There are no
Specialty Crop Areas in Clarington.
b) Prime Agricultural Areas are those areas where Canada Land Inventory Classes
1,2, and 3 soils predominate. The Prime Agricultural Area policies support normal
farm practices and a full range of agricultural, agricultural related and secondary
uses. These areas cannot be re-designated in municipal official plans for non-
agricultural uses. Urban expansions are not permitted into Prime Agricultural Areas.
The draft Plan proposes eliminating the ability to create farm retirement lots in Prime
Agricultural Areas. Villages and Towns within the Greenbelt are permitted to expand
in Prime Agricultural Areas but hamlets are not.
c) Rural Areas are characterized by a mixture of agricultural lands, natural features,
recreational and historic land uses, Agriculture and agriculturally related uses
continue to be recognized and are supported within the Rural Areas. Recreational,
tourism, leisure uses and resource based uses are permitted within the Rural Areas.
Countryside or estate residential developments are not permitted in the Rural Areas,
Towns, Villages and Hamlets are permitted to expand in Rural Area subject to their
respective policies.
699Vl;}
"
\" ~
-REPORT NO.: PSD-160-o4
PAGE 4
2.4 The Natural System policies protect areas of significant and/or sensitive natural
heritage, hydrologic and landform values and consists of a Natural Heritage System and
a Water Resource System. The Natural System includes areas where there is a high
concentration of natural heritage, hydrologic and landform features (Key Natural
Heritage Features). A full-range of agricultural uses can continue to occur in the Natural
System and new development and site alteration is subject to environmental studies to
determine if there will be any negative effects on a natural feature or its function.
Development or site alteration is generally prohibited within Key Natural Heritage
Features. The Natural System does not encompass all the Key Natural Heritage
Features within the Greenbelt and as such, the policies regarding development or site
alteration within or adjacent to Key Natural Heritage Features located in the Protected
Countryside prevail.
2.5 Settlement Areas include towns, villages and hamlets. Towns and villages are
permitted modest growth at the 10 year review if servicing capacity exists. However new
Great Lake based servicing is prohibited. Within Hamlets infill and intensification is
permitted. In addition, a one-time minor rounding out of Hamlet boundaries is permitted
through the conformity exercise.
2.6 Parkland, Open Space and Trails recognize existing trails, conservation areas,
provincial and municipal parks within the Greenbelt and supports increasing the supply
of pUblicly accessible lands. Municipalities are encouraged to provide a range of
publicly accessible built and natural settings for recreation. Municipal official plans
should incorporate strategies to guide the adequate provision of recreation facilities,
parklands, open space areas and trails.
2.7 Non-Agricultural Use Policies of the Draft Greenbelt Plan
The Greenbelt Plan contains policies dealing with mineral aggregates, infrastructure
and non-agricultural uses. Non-agricultural uses are not permitted within Prime
Agricultural Areas, but may be permitted in other areas. Non-agricultural uses include
passive and active recreational and tourism uses, including golf courses, as well as
commercial, industrial and institutional uses that serve the rural and agricultural sectors.
In recognition of the future need for infrastructure and mineral aggregates, the draft
Greenbelt Plan permits these uses provided adverse effects are minimized. Aggregate
extraction is prohibited within Key Natural Heritage Features, but may be permitted in
significant woodland if the woodland is occupied by a young plantation or early
successional habitat.
2.8 Municipal Implementation of the Draft Greenbelt Plan
Municipalities will be required to implement the Greenbelt Plan. This will require that
the Greenbelt Plan policies be incorporated into their respective Official Plans and
Zoning By-laws. Like the ORMCP, Clarington's official plan policies cannot be more
restrictive with respect to agriculture and aggregates than the policies that are provided
for in the Greenbelt Plan. Unlike the ORMCP, a timeframe for the conformity
amendments have not been specified. Instead, municipalities will be required to
incorporate the provisions of the Greenbelt Plan into their Official Plans during their
statutory 5 year review.
.J! ,a t. L. ;, !;,
UoiS,.t., ~:..,jL ',-#
!
-REPORT NO.: PSD.160..Q4
PAGE 5
2.9 Boundary of the Draft Greenbelt,
The boundary of the Greenbelt Plan will be defined by the Surveyor General, and will be
established by Ontario Regulation. This will fix the boundary of the Greenbelt with
precision.
2.10 Administration and Greenbelt Advisory Council
The Greenbelt Plan will be reviewed every 10 years to assess the effectiveness of the
policies and to update or include new information or improve the effectiveness and
relevance of the Plan's policies.
It is proposed that a Greenbelt Advisory Council will administer the Plan. This Council
will give advice to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on matters such as
implementation, performance measures and the 1 O-year review of the Plan.
3.0 IMPLICATIONS OF THE DRAFT GREENBELT PLAN FOR CLARINGTON
3,1 The draft Greenbelt Plan covers approximately 80% of Clarington's land area, The Oak
Ridges Moraine covers approximately 30 % of the Municipality and the new
Unprotected Countryside covers approximately 50% of the Municipality. The imposition
of a Provincial land use plan severely limits Regional and municipal planning powers for
a large portion of the Municipality. It should be noted however, that the Provincial Policy
Statement enshrines many of the same requirements on municipalities. Given the
current planning policies enshrined in the Clarington Official Plan and the proposed
directions of the Regional Official Plan Review, it is only if and when urban expansion
were to be contemplated that it would be a significant intrusion in municipal decision-
making ability (e.g. if the Municipality wanted to expand Courtice and Bowmanville
northward).
3.2 The draft Greenbelt Plan does not include the urban areas of Courtice, Bowmanville,
and Newcastle Village. Outside of the urban areas are rural lands known as the
"Unprotected Countryside". A total of 7,400 ha (18,000 acres) are in the Unprotected
Countryside. Clarington has one third of the Unprotected Countryside in Durham
Region.
The Region and the Municipality of Clarington can control the planning destiny for the
Unprotected Countryside. Conceivably future urban expansions could be considered in
the context of the future Provincial Growth Plan. There is the potential for Clarington to
have urban growth on these lands to accommodate a future population of at least
300,000 at current development densities.
3.3 The Greenbelt prohibits the northerly urban expansion of Courtice and Bowmanville due
to the presence of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline. The most serious consequence of the
Provincial Plan is the implicit direction that over time, future urban expansions will occur
between urban areas, eliminating the distinctive separation of Courtice, Bowmanville
and Newcastle, pOSSibly creating one large urban area. It should be noted that some of
this area includes very good agriculture land.
6:9Sii 1 ','
"
,
REPORT NO.: PSD-160..o4
PAGE 6
4.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT GREENBELT PLAN
4,1 The establishment of a Greenbelt is supported
Over the last 25 years. the forces of growth around Toronto have proven to be strong,
complex and creating an array of problems that are increasingly difficult for government
and business. Regional government has not been successful in providing a overall
approach to address growth issues in the GTA. The establishment of a Greenbelt is an
important new planning tool to provide a structure for growth. By first identifying the
areas where urban growth should not occur, the groundwork is laid for the development
of a growth plan. Obviously, both plans must work in tandem and it will be important to
understand how both plans will intersect. Despite the significant erosion of regional
planning function, the Greenbelt Plan will provide a comprehensive and stable planning
environment that will enable area municipalities to plan their detailed growth plans.
Clarington supports the vision of the draft Greenbelt Plan to permanently protect the
countryside to ensure that agriculture, natural systems and continued opportunities for
recreation and tourism are provided for future generations.
4.2 The Greenbelt should be more tightly aligned around existing urban centres
Provincial officials have indicated that the Unprotected Countryside includes almost
double the amount of new urban lands anticipated to be required in the next 30 years.
By having such a large area for possible urban expansions, there is limited incentive to
adjust development patterns to more sustainable forms. The Province should consider
a more tightly aligned Greenbelt around existing urban centres to ensure that the status
quo development situation does not continue for years to come.
4.3 The Greenbelt should be extended eastward to cover portions of Northumberland
County
The Greenbelt was originally contemplated only for the GTA but has been extended to
other areas on the west side of the GTA. The east limit of the Greenbelt is the
Clarington/Port Hope townline. Given that Cobourg and Port Hope are within the
commutershed around Toronto, have potential for extensive growth on lake-based
services and has a less restrictive land severage regime in surrounding rural areas,
there is a rationale to extend the Greenbelt to the west portion of Northumberland
County.
4.4 The Greenbelt Plan should recognize Orono as a Village
The draft Greenbelt Plan has identified Orono as a hamlet. Orono is designated as an
Urban Area in both the Clarington and Durham Region Official Plans. Orono also
enjoys the benefit of a municipal water system and there have been studies on
implementing a sanitary sewer system. It is recognized that with the Greenbelt Plan,
any future muniCipal sanitary sewer system would need to be stream rather than lake
based. Moreover the Municipality is currently undertaking a Community Improvement
Plan to address existing problems and augment Orono's role as a rural service
community. Towns and Villages are recognized as areas having the largest
699iilb
"
REPORT NO.: PSD-160-G4
PAGE 7
concentration"of population, employment and development in the Greenbelt. To ensure
that the Towns and Villages continue to support the surrounding rural areas, modest
growth on existing servicing may be permitted. However, this same opportunity for
continued growth is not afforded to hamlets. The implications are significant if Orono
continues to be recognized as a hamlet. The Greenbelt Plan needs to recognize the
"urban" designation of Orono and designate it as a Village.
4,5 The Greenbelt Plan should permit unserviced industrial areas in Villages and
Hamlets
One of the objectives of the Greenbelt legislation is to sustain countryside and rural
communities. One opportunity for rural communities to remain healthy and to provide
employment opportunities is to permit industrial activities of appropriate scale and in
appropriate locations. This includes accommodating industrial uses which do not
require expensive serviced industrial land. In the conformity exercise, area
municipalities should be permitted to identify unserviced industrial areas as part of
rounding ouUmodest growth.
4.6 Further work is required in defining the south limit of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline
There is a discrepancy on the alignment of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline identified by the
Province and other sources. Attachment 1 compares the limit of the Lake Iroquois
Shoreline as identified on Map C in the Clarington Official Plan with the limit of the
Greenbelt Plan. Clarington has identified the limit of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline in the
Official Plan based on Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Environmental
Sensitivity Mapping Project prepared by Gartner Lee Associates Limited in 1978 and
Physiography of Canada by Chapman and Putnam, 1984. Provincial official's indicated
that the draft Greenbelt Plan limit did not yet incorporate hydrogeologic features such as
seepage areas and springs. Once this is completed, this may have an impact on
identification of the extent and limits of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline. The Province needs
to have a good scientific definition of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline since in Clarington,
the south limit defines the limit of the Greenbelt. The Province should confer with the
Conservation Authorities to confirm the extent of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline.
4.7 The Greenbelt Plan should include the entire Maple Grove Wetland Complex in
Greenbelt, including the portions In the Bowmanville urban area.
In February 2004 the Ministry of Natural Resources informed the Conservation Authority
and the Municipality that the Maple Grove Wetland Complex had been evaluated and
ranks as a Provincially Significant Wetland Complex. Portions of this wetland are
included in the north halves of Lots 17 and 18 in former Darlington Township. Some of
this wetland is situated on lands designated "Future Urban Area" within the Bowmanville
Urban Area. As the Greenbelt did not include lands within existing urban areas, it is not
surprising to find that those areas of the wetland within the urban area were not
identified within the Greenbelt. However, there are some portions of the wetland,
beyond the urban limit that have not been identified within the Greenbelt. All of the
Maple Grove Wetland Complex should be identified within the limits of the Greenbelt,
including those portions of the complex within the Bowmanville Urban Area.
I!:! il'l i,l ,'u '.,
fJ.~"t6.k..i.i._>:~'
.
REPORT NO.: PSD-160-o4
PAGE 8
4.8 The Greenbelt Plan should identify and provide more specific policy direction
connecting portions of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline through Urban Areas (e.g.
Whitby, Oshawa)
The draft Greenbelt Plan identifies external connections beyond the limits of the
Greenbelt in order to support connections between the Greenbelt Natural System and
the broader natural system of southern Ontario. More specifically north-south urban
stream corridors that connect Lake Ontario with the Greenbelt are identified and have
explicit policy direction. Although the Lake Iroquois Shoreline is an important element
of the Greenbelt, it is not identified on the Greenbelt Plan through the urban areas and
has limited policy direction, The draft Plan would be strengthened by schematically
identifying portions of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline in designated urban areas (similar to
urban streams) and has providing more explicit policy direction for these areas.
4.9 As a minimum, the future extension of Adelaide Avenue should be used as the
southerly limit of the Greenbelt between Townline and the Farewell Creek in
Courtice
The Region is currently undertaking a Class Environmental Assessment to determine
the alignment of Adelaide Ave east from Townline Road to Trulls Road. A number of
alignment alternatives are currently being considered and it is anticipated that the EA for
Adelaide Avenue will be completed within the next few months (Attachment 2). The
future extension of Adelaide Avenue has been generally interpreted to represent the
northern urban limit of Courtice. All proposed alignments for the extension of Adelaide
Avenue are located within the proposed limits of the Greenbelt. It is recognized that the
draft Greenbelt Plan provides for infrastructure, including roads, to be built within the
Protected Countryside, however, having fragments of Greenbelt separating Adelaide
Avenue from the urbanized area of Courtice will not be desirable, It is recommended
that the limit of the Greenbelt Plan follow the preferred alignment of Adelaide Avenue
from Townline Road to Farewell Creek representing the northern limit of urban
development within Courtice.
4.10 The rural cluster of Taunton at the OshawalClarington boundary should be
excluded from the Greenbelt to allow for the extension of services and the
renewal of the area
One half of the former hamlet of Taunton is located on the Clarington side of the
Oshawa/Clarington boundary. The Oshawa portion is located within the urban area but
the Clarington portion remains outside the urban area and therefore cannot access full
municipal services. At the present time, this area is deteriorating and in many ways
appears blighted.. Buildings on small lots have insufficient room for functional private
servicing systems. Given that urban services are available across the road, there is a
public benefit to allow a very limited extension of services in Taunton to provide for
renewal of the area with proper sanitary sewer and water supply services.
699lJi:U
, C
1.' "
REPORT NO.: PSD.160-o4
PAGE 9
4.11 Although the Greenbelt Plan protects the land base for agriculture in the GT A, the
Province must take more targeted action to make agriculture more viable
The Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington (AACC) recognizes that the
Greenbelt Plan is concerned with land use. However, the AACC places more emphasis
on the Agricultural Advisory Team advice and have commented on the
recommendations made by the Agricultural Advisory Team to the Province (Attachment
3). Generally they agree with many of the recommendations of the Agricultural Advisory
Team, They note that all decisions regarding mapping of the greenbelt should be
based on science and groundtruthed. They recommend that MPAC collaborate with
OMAF and other agricultural stakeholders to determine appropriate farm assessment.
This land use plan is a good step in the protection of agriculture but the Province needs
to do more than protect the land use base to ensure the viability of agriculture.
4,12 The Municipality supports the Lot Creation Policies of the Greenbelt Plan
The draft Greenbelt Plan permits lot creation for land acquisition for infrastructure,
facilitating conveyances for conservation purposes to public bodies or non-profit
organizations, lot line adjustment, agricultural parcels greater than 100 acres, existing
agriculturally-related uses and surplus farm dwellings. This is consistent with the
directions of the Durham Regional Official Plan. The lot creation policies are supported.
4.13 Aggregate Extraction Rehabilitation Policies need to be strengthened
The draft Greenbelt Plan has policies regarding rehabilitation of aggregate operations.
Generally the intent of these policies is good ensuring that progressive rehabilitation
occurs. The draft Plan requires rehabilitation within an operation be to a "viable after
use" before expansion of the operation is considered. The term "viable after use" is not
defined and could be interpreted in many ways, nor is this term a practical one in that
zoning by-laws limit land uses within a licenced area to aggregate extraction activities.
It is recommended that this term be removed from the Plan. The draft Plan also states
that aggregate operations within the Natural System will be required to rehabilitate at
least 30% of the operation area to a natural self sustaining state. It is recommended
that rehabilitation requirements include that 100% of any woodland destroyed in an
aggregate operation and/or that 30% of the total licenced area be replaced in a self
sustaining vegetation.
4.14 The Greenbelt Plan must provide for Amendments to Local Official Plans during
the conformity exercise to provide for Modest Growth and/or Rounding Out of
Towns and Villages
Towns and villages have a defined boundary in the draft Greenbelt Plan limiting the
amount of growth, The draft Greenbelt Plan states that modest growth of a town or
village can only be considered during the 10 vear review of the Greenbelt Plan.
However, during the conformity exercise that municipalities must undertake, minor
rounding out of Hamlets can be considered. This same opportunity has not been
afforded to towns or villages. Through the municipal conformity exercise, limited growth
or minor rounding out of towns and villages should be permitted. Also, to encourage the
vitality of towns, village and hamlets, the Greenbelt should provide opportunity for
699U~1
~l'.
REPORT NO.: PSD-160-o4
PAGE 10
municipalities to consider identification of areas for limited industrial development,
without full municipal services, during municipal conformity amendments and during the
10 year review of the Greenbelt Plan.
4.15 The Province should Exempt Municipal Conformity Amendments from Appeal to
the OMS
The Greenbelt Act does not specify that municipal conformity amendments will not be
subject to appeal to the OMB. The Greenbelt Act provides the Minister with the ability
to stay appeals and direct appeals on municipal conformity amendments to a hearing
officer. The Minister may modify or refuse to approve or modify the hearing officer's
recommendations. Depending on whether the Minister forwards an appeal to a hearing
officer or not, municipalities may face expensive hearings defending the policies of the
Province. Costs associated with municipalities defending the Provincial Greenbelt Plan
should not fall on local municipalities.
4.16 The Province needs to provide assistance to Municipalities to undertake
conformity exercise
The Greenbelt Task Force recommended that, unlike the Oak Ridges Moraine
conformity exercise, the Province should assist municipalities in undertaking the
detailed studies necessary to implement the details of the Greenbelt Plan. The
5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 The draft Greenbelt Plan supports many of the goals and objectives of the Clarington
Official Plan and provides further support for the protection of agricultural lands and the
natural system helping to maintain the rural atmosphere of Clarington and preserve
agriculture as a key economic force within this Municipality.
5.2 The Greenbelt Plan has focused the potential for growth to very specific areas. For
instance, the Plan has curtailed northern expansion of the urban areas of Bowmanville
and Courtice. However the possibility for future urban expansion to the east and west
of Bowmanville and east of Courtice may exist depending on release of the Province's
Growth Plan and if the Region and Clarington desire.
5,3 The Greenbelt Plan will have major implications on the review process for the
Clarington Official Plan Review and the preparation of a new Zoning By-law. The
Greenbelt Plan will make it imperative to conduct a detailed review of agricultural and
rural land use areas and to examine the rural settlement policies. Staff will continue to
assess the implications of the evolving provincial planning environment.
5.4 This report contains Clarington's comments on the draft Greenbelt Plan. It is
recommended that prior to the release of the final Greenbelt Plan, the Province give due
consideration to the comments provided in this report.
6 9 ,\ 0,', "
, :;v~~
. .-'
REPORT NO.: PSD-160-o4
PAGE 11
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Draft Greenbelt for Clarington - Map
Attachment 2 - Alternative Alignments for Adelaide Avenue
Attachment 3 - AACC comments
Interested Parties:
Linda Gasser
Libby Racansky
John Gerretson
Victor Doyle
699lJ~3
en
to
(~'
,.-
f
CO
Greenbelt Plan, 2004
J
Courtice
-----1
,
Lake Ontario
~ Protected Countryside Area.
- - Lake Iroquois Shoreline
,"
~
-l
>
o
J:
I:
m
z
'-I
~
OJ
W
C;:
c:
c
~ --
~Area Subject To Draft Greenbelt Plan
_____ Study Area
Adelaide Avenue Extension
Preliminary Alignment Alternatives
Preliminary Alignments
Note: Preliminary Alignments Supplied by The Region of Durham
j
ATTACHMENT 3
Greenbelt Draft Plan
October 2004
Summary of Comments from the Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington
From their meeting of November 11 th, 2004
Introduction
The Agricultural Advisory Committee ofClarington (AACC) members were provided
with a copy of the Greenbelt Draft Plan, two weeks in advance of the meeting and have
had time to review the proposed legislation. The timeframe in which to comment is quite
compressed, information sessions for this area are not being held until late November and
it is the intention of the government to introduce this legislation in December. Many of
the members of AACC in their capacity on other committees are familiar with how the
proposed legislation is being received throughout the agricultural community.
Particularly noteworthy to the AACC is the weight that is being given to the Agricultural
Advisory Team Advice to the Government of Ontario. This team sought input from the
agricultural community and attempted to form consensus on some fundamental issues
from those they heard from in their travels across the Province and from key
stakeholders. Unfortunately, much of the Advisory Team's consultations were during the
summer (a typically busy time for farmers) and with insufficient notice of meeting times.
Thus, there is some question as to whether their recommendations truly represent what
the agricultural community thinks as a collective. The Agricultural Advisory Team
Advice to the Government of Ontario is attached.
In reviewing the Greenbelt Plan, the AACC felt that providing comments on the
Advisory Team recommendations and where they feel they could be improved or
adjusted would be helpful as they form part of the basis for the proposed legislation. In
other words, they have looked to the root of the policy initiative rather than the actual
policy and are providing comments on those policy roots.
MappiUl;! Ontario's al!ricultural resource
The recommendation from the Advisory Team is "begin immediately to map Ontario's
agricultural resource, enabling sound-decision-making that would encourage and
strengthen the viability of agriculture." While the AACC agree with this comment and
a number of the sub-points they question how the decisions have been made on the
mapping of the greenbelt and countryside. It appears that the decisions are being made
on criteria other than the protection of prime agricultural lands. As such, they do not
want to see the Province taking on the role of on-going oversight until they have
completed mapping and groundtruthed the results. The application of provincial policies
without understanding the practicality of the on-farm situations equals inadequate
planning.
69Jv,~ j
Urban boundaries
The recommendation from the Advisory Team is "Establish clearly defined urban
boundaries for residential, commercial and industrial uses to provide the
agriculture industry with the confidence needed to plan its long-term investments."
The AACC agree with this statement and ask that land use decisions outside the
greenbelt, such as Northumberland County be monitored to ensure that "Ieap- frogging"
does not happen. They strongly endorse the need for companion policies in the
Provincial Policy Statements. In addition, they would like to see Clarington and other
municipalities maintain the urban densities set out in the Official Plan and provide for
infill and intensification.
Severances
The recommendation from the Advisory Team is "develop a strong provincial policy
statement prohibiting severances for residential purposes on agricultural land,
except" as listed. The AACC agrees with the intent of the lands staying in agricultural
use, but are cautious about the legal tools suggested, they feel the exceptions may create
100 acre single family estate lots rather than maintain the land in agricultural production.
Minimum Distance Separation (MDS)
The recommendation from the Advisory Team is "Integrate MDS I and MDS II into a
common MDS formula that treats livestock uses and non-farm development the
same." The AACC agree with the recommendations listed in this section.
Farm and Food Production Protection Act (FFPPA)
The recommendation from the Advisory Team is "urge greater reliance on the Farm
and Food Production Protection Act to clearly identity normal and approved farm
practices. Improve the application and awareness...:" The AACC agree with the
recommendations listed in this section.
Al!ricultural Advisorv Committees
The recommendation from the Advisory Team is "Mandate that agricultural advisory
committees be established in all municipalities with lands zoned for agriculture
within their boundaries." The AACC agree with the recommendation listed in this
section.
Permitted on-farm uses
The recommendation from the Advisory Team is "Allow on-farm businesses of any
kind, provided they are secondary to the agricultural operation and meet the
following criteria." The AACC agree with the recommendation; however, they disagree
with the income restriction and the size restriction and feel that both need to be
60",.
Vv:t,;';..",,',.J
reexamined keeping in mind the economic ravages that many agricultural sectors have
experienced in the global economy.
Tax and assessment of permitted on-farm uses
The recommendation from the Advisory Team is "Apply the farm tax rate to auxiliary
on-farm businesses, as described in the above advice. For businesses outside those
criteria, we urge MP AC, in consultation with the farm community, to define within
the next 12 months a clear set of rules so farmers know what is allowed and at what
tax rate." The AACC agree that the recommendation as it appears to make sense;
however, tax rates are not set by MP AC rather they are set by the municipalities. Taxes
are based on the assessments by MP AC, it is the assessments that are worrisome. There
is very little trust in the agricultural community that the assessments by MP AC represent
farmer to farmer sales, they would like MP AC to work with OMAF and the agricultural
community stakeholders (such as the Federations) to determine appropriate farm
assessments.
Control of predation and crop damal!e bv wildlife
The recommendation from the Advisory Team is "Instruct and appropriately fund the
Minstry of Natural Resources to improve its wildlife management strategies...:"
The AACC agree with the recommendations listed in this section and welcome the
appropriate reimbursement for damages being provided.
Trespassinl! on farm property
The recommendation from the Advisory Team is "Immediately develop a multi-
pronged approach to address trepass on private property,...:" The AACC agree
with the recommendations listed in this section and would like to see some action on this
item in the immediate future.
Support for research
The recommendation from the Advisory Team is "Lead in the creation of new
partnerships, which will achieve an increase in research investment of 10% per year
over the next 5 years." The AACC agree with the recommendations but believe the
funding should be 20% per year to restore it to the level that it previously was at within 5
years.
Promotion and marketinl!
The recommendation from the Advisory Team is "Enhance promotion and marketing
of Ontario agriculture...:" The AACC agree with the recommendations listed in this
section including suggestions for branding. They also believe the Province should take
the lead on education of suppliers such as HACCP about Ontario products since they
meet the HACCP guidelines.
C ijl'l "....
u ~,> "" '-.,
........... .....v
Land-use planninl! capacity at OMAF
The recommendation from the Advisory Team is "Expand and properly resource
OMAF's land use planning function...:" The AACC agree with the recommendations
listed in this section and believe that more weight should be given to the advice from
OMAF to the other Ministries. Agricultural land should not be treated as lands "in
waiting" for development. Training and education of local municipal planning staff and
decision-makers is necessary.
Compensation
The recommendation from the Advisory Team is "[Do] not provide direct
compensation for loss of perceived future opportunities...:" The AACC believe that
farmers, to survive need indirect forms of compensation such as adjustment of the MPAC
assessments, reduction/elimination of taxes on farming supplies, etc. In many ways the
agricultural community feels they are paying for the opportunity for urbanites to enjoy
and utilize the countryside without any gain; in fact farmers are having additional
restrictions placed on them; therefore other indirect forms of compensation need to be put
in place.
Environmental pavments
The recommendation from the Advisory Team is "Recognize and take seriously the
environmental benefits agriculture contributes to society...:" The AACC agree with
the recommendations listed in this section.
Land Trusts
The recommendation from the Advisory Team is "Work with the federal government
to change tax laws to recognize land trusts for agricultural lands...:" The AACC
agree with the recommendation listed in this section.
6 9 :.iV .:Hi
Agricultural Advisory Team
Advice to the
Government of Ontario
October 2004
6 ~ ':" ': 1
t:J v ._1 ~...,.A.
. .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction. .. .. .. .. .... .. " . . . . ... . ... .. ........ .. ..... .. .. .... .. ...... 3
Our Mandate.. .. . . . . ... . . . . .. . .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . .. ... . .. 4
Consultation Process...... ....... ...................................... 4
What We Heard ......................................................... 4
Advice To Government................................................ 6
6 <fI c,., '/
avV,--,,!"<oI
2
'.
INTRODUCTION
In June 2004, Agriculture and Food Minister Steve Peters appointed us as advisors to the provincial
government to ensure that Ontario's growth management strategy addresses the concerns of agricultural
stakeholders, especially with respect to on-going economic viability.
In making the announcement, Minister Peters said the Agricultural Advisory Team would help protect
Ontario's agricultural interests while furthering the government's commitment to establish a greenbelt
and build strong communities.
We travelled the province and heard from a cross-section of Ontario fanners and other key stakeholders
about the concerns and opportunities facing Ontario agriculture today. While there was not always
consensus, or even agreement, on some fundamental issues among those from whom we heard, there was
an honest attempt to make constructive suggestions and define workable solutions to sustain and enhance
Ontario's agriculture industry.
We heard about the urgent need for government and the industry to work together to develop a clear
vision to enable Ontario agriculture to be sustainable both economically and environmentally, today and
in the future.
We heard about the wide range of things that must be done to enable sustainability, and the hard choices
that must be made if agriculture is to continue to be the successful economic driver it has been throughout
Ontario's history.
We also heard that some of the core functions of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food have been eroded
over the past several years, and there is a need to restore the Ministry's ability to be influential in areas
important to Ontario agriculture.
The advice we received during our meetings formed the basis of this report. Among the priorities going
forward is the pressing need to map Ontario's agricultural resource, the need to transform Ontario's land
use planning system and its tax and assessment regime, making them more responsive to the needs of
agriculture.
It is within this context - and at a time when the province is proposing wide-ranging change to its land
use planning and growth-management policies - that we have focused the mandate given us by Minister
Peters and the Ontario Government.
The complexity and diversity within the agriculture industry necessitates that many other Ontario
Government ministries must work in concert with Agriculture and Food to achieve solutions to the
challenges faced by the industry. These governmental partners include, among others, the Ministries of
Natural Resources, Attorney General, Environment, Finance, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Health and
Long-Term Care, and Tourism and Recreation.
Everyone must clearly understand that there is a finite amount of productive land in Ontario and without
it we lose the ability to feed ourselves and our children. Agriculture and fanners are vital to the quality of
life we enjoy in Ontario and must be recognized and respected for the contributions they make to our
communities, our environment and the well-being of our society.
/--A~
c- (pa C
Mkj'
The Honourable Lyle Vanclief
Bob Bedggood
69;;\;,'.0
3
....'
OUR MANDATE
In establishing the Agricultural Advisory Team, the Ontario Government asked us to seek input
from farmers and technical experts on a variety of land use and plarming issues, including:
. Land-use plarming policies that affect farm viability, including specific issues relating to the
Farm and Food Production Protection Act, the minimum distance separation formulae and
conflict resolution practices.
· Criteria to help identifY viable blocks of prime agricuituralland.
· The range of land uses suitable for specialty crop areas.
· The role non-government land trusts and other organizations could play, including
identifYing supportive and educational tools to protect agricultural land.
· Regional market/educational strategies to improve public/market awareness and strengthen
local opportunities for agricultural activities in protected areas.
We were also asked to suggest strategies to strengthen opportunities for agricultural activities in
protected areas and to identifY other, more complex, agricultural land use plarming issues to be
addressed in the long term.
CONSULTATION PROCESS
Acting on a recommendation from the Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt Task Force, the Minister of
Agriculture and Food established the Agricultural Advisory Team with a provincial mandate and
focus. To gather as much information as possible to provide relevant and practical advice to the
provincial government, the Agricultural Advisory Team conducted a consultation process that
focused on achieving both geographic reach and obtaining technical expertise and opinion.
Hence, our advice was shaped and influenced by both the commonality and divergence of
opinion we heard in our I I stakeholder meetings throughout the province. In addition, we
received a number of written submissions from stakeholders and the public.
WHAT WE HEARD
Because our mandate was provincial, we heard many comments and suggestions that reflected
local or regional viewpoints on such key issues as severances, zoning and the need for
infrastructure.
Yet, we also heard much common thinking on those topics and other fundamental issues such as
the need to refine the Minimum Distance Separations (MOS) formulae and the need for greater
use of conflict-resolution mechanisms to resolve differences before they escalate to the courts.
We also heard that the issues and challenges faced by farmers and rural residents on the edge of
major urban centres are significantly different than those who live just outside them and often
vastly different than those who live in more distant farming areas across rural Ontario.
69'" "
" t" ~ n..
V ~; '" .....
4
We acknowledge the work of the two broadly-based Task Forces in the Niagara Region and the
Greater Toronto Area (GT A). The issues and challenges faced by living and farming in the
"urban shadow" are well documented and analyzed in these reports: The Regional Chair's Task
Force for the Long-Term Viability of Farming in Niagara and the GTA Regions and Federations
of Agriculture Proposed GTA Agricultural Action Plan.
While we provide more context and detail in our advice, we believe the key issues identified can
be most effectively grouped under four key themes, with the sustaining economic viability of
agriculture being the common thread that links them all. Those themes are:
Land use and planninl!
Issues and items identified include:
· Use and granting of severances;
· Minimum Distance Separations (MOS) formulae;
· Provincial planning reforms, including the Greenbelt and Growth Management initiatives;
· "Leapfrogging" of development pressure;
· Easements and land trusts;
· Protection of specialty crop areas;
· IdentifYing viable blocks of prime agricultural land;
· Setting urban boundaries; and
· Zoning and related mechanisms to keep land in agricultural production
Tax and assessment reform
Issues and items identified include:
· Tax and assessment policies that support and encourage value-added, on-farm enterprises;
· Scope and scale standards or guidelines for on-farm enterprises;
· Better recognition of the environmental services and benefits flowing to society from
stewardship on rural lands; and
· Tax transfers, development charges and/or other fiscal mechanisms to protect farmland or to
"compensate" farmers who perceive potential loss of land value - or the opportunity to sell
their land at a higher value - because of provincial land use and planning initiatives.
Public education and promotion
Issues and items identified include:
· Increased promotion and marketing of Ontario agriculture;
· More profile and support for Foodland Ontario;
· Greater public and consumer education about the value of agriculture to Ontarians, the
province's economy and environment and the quality and safety of Ontario food; and,
· The need to maintain a secure supply of Ontario produced food.
Government fundinl!, policv, rel!ulation or lel!islation
Issues and items identified include:
· The Farm and Food Production Protection Act (FFPPA);
· The Trespass to Property Act and liability;
· Mandated agricultural advisory committees at the municipal level;
· More funding for agricultural research and related programs; and
· Proactive resource management to better control predation and crop damage by wildlife.
69"" ,',
, '-' U -c) 't.J
5
ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT
This advice does not encompass all the issues and concerns we heard during the stakeholder
meetings. However, we have attempted to distill themes and issues that were common to the
industry .
Using our mandate as the focus, our advice is intended to move Ontario agriculture forward,
prevent further fragmentation offarmland and infrastructure, and enhance the viability of
farmers.
Mapping Ontario's agricultural resource
Without an identifiable and productive land base, Ontario cannot continue to support a viable
agricultural industry. A key priority must be to determine where the agricultural land base is,
what it produces and what its potential is for the future.
Viability is much more than just soil quality - although that is important. It covers a range of
factors from climate to access to markets; but most importantly it is about having the land we
need for on-going production of safe and secure Ontario-grown food.
We need to know as much about Ontario's agricultural resource as we know about Ontario's
natural and economic resources, if we are going to make sound land use and planning decisions
about agriculture. Moreover, the benefits and impacts move beyond agriculture, because iffarms
are viable, rural communities will also be more viable. Therefore we advise that the Ontario
Government, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food:
Begin immediately to map Ontario's agricultural resource, enabling sound decision-
making that would encourage and strengthen the viability of agriculture. This should
focus on:
. Exercising leadership in forging strong partnerships with key stakeholders to
develop comprehensive criteria, which will enable the quick and accurate
identification of this resource;
. Identitying, protecting and preserving unique specialty crops areas;
. Funding targeted research and using proven techniques such as Land Evaluation
and Area Review (LEAR) studies to help support this initiative;
. Providing resources for on-going oversight to monitor, support and ensure
compliance with provincial policies; and
. Developing these maps for agricultural lands in the Greater Toronto Area and the
Greater Golden Horseshoe as part ofthe release of the government's Greenbelt and
Growth Management initiatives.
Urban boundaries
Accurate mapping of Ontario's agricultural resource will enable better growth management
planning by both the provincial and municipal governments. Agricultural land can no longer
simply be seen as the place where urban development could occur.
6;b,j~0
6
~
We heard that growth management needs to focus as much on encouraging development within
existing urban boundaries through intensification, in-filling and brownfields development, as it
does on setting new boundary lines. Therefore, we advise that the Ontario Government:
Establish clearly defined urban boundaries for residential, commercial and industrial uses
to provide the agriculture industry with the confidence needed to plan its long-term
investments. These boundaries should address the following requirements and/or
concerns:
. Preventing fragmentation of agricultural land;
. Predictability for future land use and agricultural operations;
. Preventing 'Ieap-frogging' of development from protected areas into adjacent ones;
. Fulfilling urban density criteria before boundary expansion occurs; and
· Lowering infrastructure and servicing costs for urban communities.
Severances
At every regional meeting there was a lengthy discussion on the impact of severances on the
business of farming. Should there be a strong provincial policy statement that prohibits them, or
should there be sufficient flexibility to ensure that local and regional circumstances can be
addressed?
We heard that almost 80 per cent of new lots created on Ontario's agricultural land between 1990
and 2000 were for residential use.
We heard from some that severances attract ratepayers to support schools and pay for social and
public safety services and roads, but we also heard from others that these severances add cost
and servicing pressures to rural municipalities.
We heard allowing severances may provide farmers with needed capital, but severances may also
restrict future farm expansion and lead to conflict in local communities. Recognizing these
issues, and mindful of the continuing negative impact of fragmentation on Ontario's farmland,
we advise that the Ontario Government:
Develop a strong provincial policy statement prohibiting severances for residential
purposes on agricultural land, except:
. Surplus farm dwellings where the construction of a new dwelling on the property is
prohibited through a restricted covenant on the deed, an agricultural easement,
agriculture production only zoning, or a combination of the above.
This advice is conditional on the Ontario government finding and enacting the proper legal
tool(s) to ensure the severed property remains in agriculture over the long term.
Minimum Distance Separation (MDS)
Another topic raised at every meeting was the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS), a planning
tool used to determine a recommended distance between a livestock facility and other land uses.
The objective ofMDS is to prevent land use conflicts and minimize nuisance complaints.
6 (l, ..,
..., t..I J {) ..
7
....... '\
MDS varies according to a number of factors, including type ofIivestock, size of the farm
operation, type of manure system and the form of development present or proposed. There are
two MDS formulae:
. MDS I provides minimum distance separation for new development from existing
livestock facilities; and
. MDS II provides minimum distance separation for new or expanding livestock facilities
from existing or approved development.
Based on what we heard many have difficulty in understanding MDS and how it is applied and
enforced. We also heard that farmers need long-term confidence that other surrounding land
uses will not unduly hinder their present and future farm operations. We advise that the Ontario
Government, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food:
Integrate MDS I and MDS II into a common MDS formula that treats livestock uses and
non-farm development the same. As part of this process the government should also:
. Review MDS every five years to incorporate proven technological advances and
innovation;
. Ensure the MDS expansion factor is only applied to an existing livestock facility
after three years of use;
. Require existing lots of records to meet MDS standards;
. Allow minor variances from MDS of up to five per cent; and
. Provide additional training and guidance to planning authorities and the general
public to assist with implementation of MDS.
Farm and Food Production Protection Act (FFPPA)
We heard that there are locally-based mechanisms that have been effective in resolving conflicts
between farmers or between farmers and their non-farm neighbours. However, we frequently
heard the need to strengthen the Farm and Food Production Protection Act (FFPP A), to enable
farmers to engage in normal and approved agricultural practices. Therefore, we advise that the
Ontario Government, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food:
Urge greater reliance on the Farm and Food Production Protection Act to clearly identity
normal and approved farm practices. Improve the application and awareness of the Act
by:
. Emphasizing early-mediation and conflict resolution to address contentious issues
before they escalate, including calling upon and involving people with expertise and
knowledge of agriculture issues to act as mediators with the goal of avoiding a
hearing; and
. Increasing public education and communications to raise awareness and
understanding in both the farm and non-farm community about normal and
approved farm practices.
Agricultural advisory committees
To ensure that in municipal land use, planning and development decisions that may have a
significant impact on the viability of agriculture are made with the strong input and expertise of
farmers and others in the agricultural sector, we advise that the Ontario Government:
c: '" .
u J tJ. 0 ~) 0
8
'", oJ<.. ..
Mandate that agricultural advisory committees be established in all municipalities with
lands zoned for agriculture within their boundaries. These committees should be
constituted at the level of municipal government that has the responsibility for the land use
planning function.
Permitted on-farm uses
We heard one of the issues linked to economic viability is the opportunity for farmers to operate
auxiliary businesses on their farms. We recognize the importance of value-added and value-
retaining agricultural activities, provided they are secondary to the agricultural use on the farm,
and are derived from products from that individual farm operation. We advise that the Ontario
Government:
Allow on-farm businesses of any kind, provided they are secondary to the agricultural
operation and meet the following criteria:
. Gross income less than the gross income of the farm;
. No more than 1,600 square feet in size;
. No more than 4,500 hours annually of employee work time; and
. Serviced by approved on-site private systems.
Tax and assessment of permitted on-farm uses
Related to the issue ofperrnitted on-farm business uses is how they are assessed and at what tax
rate. We heard at many meetings that there is considerable uncertainty and frustration over how
these tax and assessment rates are applied.
We also heard about the urgency with which the province and the farm community must
continue and conclude current discussions to clarifY assessment policy and taxation levels. We
laud the recent approach taken affecting maple syrup production.
We advise that the Ontario Government:
Apply the farm tax rate to auxiliary on-farm businesses, as described in the above advice.
For businesses outside those criteria, we urge the Municipal Property Assessment
Corporation, in consultation with the farm community, to define within the next 12 months
a clear set of rules so farmers know what is allowed and at what tax rate.
Control of predation and crop damage by wildlife
Farmers across Ontario told us that they are experiencing significant loss due to livestock
predation and crop damage by wildlife. With estimates of crop damage alone identified at
approximately $40 million annually, farmers are growing increasingly frustrated and are calling
for strong and proactive action from government to address this costly and growing problem.
While we acknowledge the recent announcement by the Ministry of Natural Resources to help
farmers who face economic hardship due to deer-caused crop damage, this policy must be
extended to cover other wildlife predators that kill livestock and/or destroy crops. Therefore we
advise that the Ontario Government:
6(11" "
tJt.lU,,)J
9
.,.- ''''"' ~
. Instruct and appropriately fund the Ministry of Natural Resources to improve its
wildlife management strategies in a way that will reduce wildlife predation and crop
damage;
. Direct the Ministry of Natural Resources and other public service agencies to
significantly improve their response times to land owner concerns about wildlife
predation and crop damage;
. Continue to amend hunting laws and regulations to allow for more flexible and lengthy
seasons, additional tags and higher limits for those wildlife species linked to agricultural
loss and damage; and
. Develop a public education strategy to improve communications among farmers and
public safety agencies, such as the Ministry of Natural Resources, provincial and
municipal police agencies, about issues related to wildlife predation and damage.
Trespassing on farm property
Trespassing on private lands is an increasingly contentious issue for farmers and other rural
residents across Ontario. A proliferation of outdoor recreational activities and the desire of
urban residents to enjoy green spaces has heightened awareness around this issue. The issue of
trespass requires a concerted public education and communications effort to build greater
awareness and understanding about its impacts and implications. Therefore we advise that the
Ontario Government:
Immediately develop a multi-pronged approach to address trespass on private property,
including:
. Assessing the capacity of current legislation to address today's challenges;
. Stepping up enforcement of current legislation, and applying the full range of
sanctions to deter violators;
. Partnering with farm organizations to develop a signage program to help deter
trespassing; and
. Expanding public education and communications programs for both farmers and
the public on the due diligence and liability implications related to trespassing
Support for research
We heard strong support across Ontario for greater investment in applied agricultural research,
especially research geared to the needs of specific crops and climatic/soil zones throughout the
Province. We heard that the 'flat-lining' of research investment coupled with rising costs and
inflation has diminished our ability to conduct the range of leading edge research required to
keep Ontario agriculture viable and competitive. We advise that the Ontario Government:
Lead in the creation of new partnerships, which will achieve an increase in research
investment of 10% per year over the next 5 years. This should not fall completely on the
Ministry of Agriculture and Food and should include financial support from ministries
such as Health and Long-Term Care, Economic Development and Trade, and
Environment, as well as the agri-food industry, to address public health issues, food safety
and quality, and water quality.
6 ijl': . .
,., . v'
'<..I'tl' -.a;
10
:..-.~ .
Promotion and marketing
There was considerable discussion at every meeting about the need to more actively support,
promote and market Ontario products to both consumers and retailers. There was also
recognition of the strength and effectiveness of Food land Ontario, with many participants at our
meetings indicating they would like to see greater identification and promotion of Ontario
products so that they become the first choice of the consumer.
As well, there was widespread concern expressed that Ontario not lose its ability, through loss of
productive farmland, to maintain a safe, high-quality and secure locally-grown food supply. We
advise that the Ontario Government:
Enhance promotion and marketing of Ontario agriculture by:
. Building on the strong public and industry support for Foodland Ontario to better
position Ontario products in the marketplace;
. Increasing financial support by enlisting additional partners from within
government and producer, processing and retail sectors to promote Ontario
products;
. Working with industry stakeholders to highlight the role that Ontario agriculture
plays in ensuring a safe, high-quality and secure food supply; and
. Focusing promotion and marketing efforts on changing consumer behaviour so they
make Ontario-grown food their first choice and to ask for it by name at retailers.
Land-use planning capacity at OMAF
In concert with our advice regarding mapping of agricultural land, there needs to be an increased
capacity within the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) to develop, monitor and influence
land-use and planning policy and decisions that affect agricultural viability. This capacity should
be readily available to other provincial ministries and municipalities and should be geared to
identifying - and protecting, if necessary - those lands, which have potential for agricultural
production both now and in future. Therefore, we advise that the Ontario Government:
Expand and properly resource OMAF's land use planning function to:
. Conduct research and develop policies, tools and techniques for identitying and
protecting agricultural lands;
. Represent agriculture at Ontario Municipal Board hearings, committees of
adjustments, zoning and by-law changes, etc.;
. Monitor and track the province's effectiveness and success in protecting
agricultural lands; and
. Provide additional education and training to municipalities, planners and the
broader public, about the need to preserve agricultural land.
Compensation
Throughout our regional meetings, some presenters suggested that government adopt a range of
fiscal mechanisms to protect farmland or to "compensate" farmers who perceive potential loss of
land value - or the opportunity to sell their land at a higher value - because of provincial and
municipal land use planning initiatives.
6 G, , ,
t.1 v 1} ':1:.1.
11