ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD WITNESS STATEMENT

Transcription

1 ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD WITNESS STATEMENT RE: BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION OMB CASE NUMBER PL NICK MCDONALD, RPP Meridian Planning Consultants 9100 Jane Street, Unit 208 Vaughan, Ontario L4K 0A4 Office phone #: ext. 203 Website: Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 1

2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXPERT S DUTY Case Number PL Municipality Town of Oakville 1. My name is Nick McDonald. I live at the City of Vaughan in the Region of York in the Province of Ontario. 2. I have been engaged by or on behalf of the Region of Halton to provide evidence in relation to the above-noted Board proceeding. 3. I acknowledge that it is my duty to provide evidence in relation to this proceeding as follows: a. To provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan; b. To provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within my area of expertise; and, c. To provide such additional assistance as the Board may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue. 4. I acknowledge that the duty referred to above prevails over any obligation that I may owe to any party by whom or on whose behalf I am engaged. Dated August 27, 2015 Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 2

3 1. Experience and Qualifications 2. I am the president of Meridian Planning Consultants, a planning consulting firm in Vaughan. I have worked as a private planning consultant throughout my 26-year career. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A. 3. Much of my work throughout my career has been for the public sector. In this regard, I have prepared a number of official plans, secondary plans, strategic plans, zoning bylaws and land use studies for numerous municipalities. I am currently responsible for the preparation of three Official Plans, three Secondary Plans; two comprehensive zoning by-laws and am involved in a number of other projects for municipalities in Ontario. 4. I have provided advice to over 40 municipalities in my career and have from time to time provided advice to the Province of Ontario. My current municipal clients include: the Township of King; the Towns of Halton Hills, Caledon, East Gwillimbury, Blue Mountains, Whitby, Innisfil and Cobourg; the Municipality of Port Hope; the Cities of Brampton, Cambridge, Vaughan and Markham; the Regions of Halton and York; and, the Counties of Northumberland, Elgin and Lennox & Addington. 5. With respect to Provincial policy, I am routinely asked to interpret Provincial Policy documents and write policy and regulatory documents that implement Provincial Policy. In the last 10 years, I have worked with all Provincial Plans within the Greater Toronto Area. I have become very familiar with the intent of each Provincial Plan, the different policies in each and how they have been applied. I also have a considerable amount of experience in particular with the Growth Plan as a consequence of my work in a number of municipalities. 6. With respect to growth management, I have been the project manager responsible for a number of growth management initiatives involving Greenfield development and intensification over the last few years. In this regard, recent and current Greenfield projects include the Cobourg East Secondary Plan, the West Whitby Secondary Plan and the Green Lane Secondary Plan for the Town of East Gwillimbury, the Georgetown Southwest Secondary Plan for Halton Hills and the Bolton Residential Expansion Study for the Town of Caledon. 7. I have also been the project manager responsible for the preparation of intensification strategies for the Town of Milton and the Town of Whitby. The intent of both projects was to determine what potential exists for intensification within the Built Boundary and to then determine what form it should take on a go forward basis. 8. In addition to my work for the public sector, I also provide advice to the private sector on a range of Planning Act approvals. 9. I have appeared before the OMB on numerous occasions. On behalf of the Region of Halton, I recently provided evidence to the OMB on aggregate policy issues and on two site-specific appeals to ROPA 38 (TSI International Canada Inc. and Evergreen Community (Burlington) Ltd.). I am also involved in other site-specific appeals of ROPA 38 that have not been heard as of yet by the OMB (Don Johnson and Crosswinds Golf and Country Club). Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 3

4 10. Nature of Retainer 11. I have been retained by the Region of Halton ( Region ) to provide opinion evidence on certain issues relating to the applications submitted by Bronte Green Corporation ('Bronte Green Applications') to develop its lands at 1401 Bronte Road in the Town of Oakville ('Bronte Green Lands'). 12. Materials Relied Upon 13. I will refer to the following documents at the hearing: a) Relevant Provincial Plans, policies and legislation including the Planning Act and the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement; b) The Regional Official Plan, as amended by ROPA 38; c) The Town s Official Plan (Livable Oakville Plan); d) D-Series Guidelines; e) The Region s Land Use Compatibility Guidelines; f) Relevant staff reports and correspondence from the Town regarding the Bronte Green applications and the Merton Planning Study; g) Relevant staff reports and correspondence from the Region regarding the Bronte Green applications and potential expansion of the Halton Regional Centre and Woodlands Operations Centre; h) Documents describing the Region s easement for the Trunk Sewer; and, i) Relevant materials prepared by the applicant. 14. Background a) Bronte Green Lands and Bronte Green Applications 15. The Bronte Green Lands were previously the site of the Saw-Whet Golf Course, which is no longer in operation. Lands to the south of the Bronte Green Lands are the site of the Deerfield Golf Course, which is currently operating on lands that are leased from the Province of Ontario. The Mid-Halton Wastewater Treatment Plant is also located to the south, just east of the Deerfield Golf Course. Lands to the immediate east include the Fourteen Mile Creek Valley, with residential uses further to the east, Upper Middle Road to the north and Bronte Road, the Halton Regional Centre and the Halton Woodlands Operation Centre to the west. 16. There are four Planning Act applications that apply to the Bronte Green Lands. The Town of Oakville Official Plan Amendment (OPA) application, as amended, applies to the Bronte Green Lands and other lands located to the immediate west of Bronte Road owned by the Enns and others. This Witness Statement does not contain any land use planning opinion evidence respecting the other lands owned by the Enns. Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 4

5 17. The Zoning Bylaw Application (ZBA) only applies to the Bronte Green Lands. The purpose of the ZBA is to amend both Town of Oakville Bylaws and Applications for Draft Plan Approval of a Plan of Subdivision and Plan of Condominium are also being dealt with. The two applications apply only to the Bronte Green Lands. 19. The application for Plan of Subdivision anticipates the creation of 760 residential units and a number of other blocks. Eleven of these residential units will be located within a Plan of Condominium that is proposed in conjunction with Road 'BB'. 20. Prior to the appeal of the four applications to the OMB in February 2015, the approval authority for the Official Plan Amendment had not been determined (Region or Town), with the approval authority for the rezoning and Plan of Subdivision/Condominium applications being the Town of Oakville. b) Merton Planning Study Process 21. Prior to the appeal of the four applications, the Town of Oakville initiated a study of the Merton lands in 2012 (which include the Bronte Green Lands), which are identified as the undeveloped lands generally located on the north side of the QEW and south of Upper Middle Road between Bronte Road and Third Line. The Town of Oakville Official Plan ( Livable Oakville Plan ) identifies these lands as a Special Policy Area for potential future development and directs that the area be studied comprehensively to determine future land uses and policies. Most of the lands in the Merton study area were the site of the two golf courses (Deerfield and Saw-Whet), which were both operational when the Merton Planning Study was initiated. The Saw-Whet golf course has since closed. 22. According to information available on the Town of Oakville website, the Merton lands were settled in 1812 as an ideal location halfway between Dundas Street and Lakeshore Road. The name Merton came from a local settler, Ed Wrench, who originated from Merton, England. The community grew to include a blacksmith service, two schools, a Methodist church, post office, orchards and mixed farming. Merton began to decline in the early 1900s with the loss of the post office, low church attendance and the development of the Queen Elizabeth Way. Merton is now a part of the Town of Oakville with several properties of heritage significance to be considered through the Merton Planning Study. 23. There are two major landowners within the Merton study area, Bronte Green Corporation (owner of the former Saw-Whet golf course) and the Province of Ontario (owner of the Deerfield golf course). It is my understanding that both landowners had initially expressed interest in developing their lands when the Merton Planning Study was initiated in Technical studies were initiated in support of future development applications. 24. On April 14, 2014, it is my understanding that Town staff presented a draft preferred plan (including a land use plan, policies and the implementing OPA) for the Merton study area at a public meeting. The draft preferred plan proposed to: Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 5

6 a) Protect all of the natural heritage system lands as defined by the Regional Official Plan as amended by ROPA 38 ( ROP ), including the lands identified as Vegetation Unit 12 in the Consolidated Issues List; b) Maintain the existing use of the golf course at Deerfield; c) Permit some residential and mixed-use development on portions of the existing Saw Whet golf course (Bronte Green Lands); and, d) Retain as part of the natural heritage system the lands referred to as the Third Line lands located at the northwest corner of Third Line and the QEW. 25. At around the same time, it is my understanding that Bronte Green Corporation submitted applications for Plan of Subdivision/Condominium and re-zoning on March 7, 2014 (deemed complete by the Town on April 1, 2014) and an application to amend the Livable Oakville Plan on May 12, 2014 (deemed complete by the Town on July 11, 2014). The application to amend the Livable Oakville Plan was amended on September 12, In August 2014, it is my understanding that the Province of Ontario withdrew from the Merton planning process. Bronte Green Corporation appealed the application for a Plan of Subdivision/Condominium and re-zoning to the OMB on October 28, 2014 and the application to amend the Livable Oakville Plan on January 7, 2015 on the basis that the Town s Council did not make a decision with respect to the applications within the mandated timeframe under the Planning Act. 26. It is recognized that the Region participated in the Merton Planning Study process along with the other public agencies including the Town and Conservation Halton. However, formal comments regarding the implications of the Merton Planning Study including the draft preferred plan proposed were not provided, recognizing that revisions to the plan could occur based on completion of the technical studies. The Merton Planning Study was not advanced to a stage where the Region was in the position to provide detailed comments on the draft preferred plan. 27. In addition, formal comments on the Plan of Subdivision/Condominium, re-zoning and Livable Oakville amendment applications submitted by Bronte Green Corporation have also not been provided by the Region. As noted in a letter from the Region to the Town (copying Bronte Green Corporation) dated May 12, 2014, the Region advised the Town that the Plan of Subdivision/Condominium and re-zoning applications will not be processed by Regional staff until such time as the appropriate approvals are in place including the completion of the Merton Planning Study for the Bronte Green Lands. By a letter dated September 17, 2014, the Region advised the Town that the proposed Official Plan Amendment submitted by the applicant would not conform to the ROP and that a Regional Official Plan Amendment was required. 28. As a consequence, it is only now in a response to the OMB appeal that the relevant Regional departments are reviewing the implications of the proposed applications in greater detail than what was being considered as part of the Merton Planning Study. 29. I rely on the factual evidence of Ms. Laurielle Brooks to supplement my understanding of the Merton Planning Study as identified above. Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 6

7 30. Purpose of Witness Statement 31. The purpose of my Witness Statement is to provide my opinion on the implications of the Bronte Green Applications on the Region s infrastructure and community infrastructure/public service facilities that are located on or adjacent to the Bronte Green Lands, which include the following: a) The Halton Regional Centre (HRC) The Administrative Centre for the Regional Government and currently the main office of Halton Region Police Services; b) The Halton Region Woodlands Operations Centre (WOC), which is used for a wide range of public service uses, including an EMS hub, repair and storage of public works, police and ambulance vehicles and for the storage of aggregates and other equipment; c) The Mid-Halton Waste Water Treatment Plant (MHWWTP) which is in the process of expanding its capacity from 75 MLD to 125 MLD, and is planned to service growth areas in the Towns of Oakville, Milton and Halton Hills; and, d) A major 2,400 mm diameter concrete trunk sewer line traversing the Bronte Green Lands in a south-easterly direction that drains directly to the north pumping station of the MHWWTP (Trunk Sewer). 32. There are a number of opportunities and/or constraints associated with each of Regional assets listed above on the consideration of the proposed applications. I rely on the factual evidence provided by Ms. Brooks in her Witness Statement regarding each of the Regional assets, as well as the factual and opinion evidence provided by the other Regional witnesses in their respective Witness Statements, in identifying these opportunities and constraints. My evidence will focus on the land use compatibility issues related to each of these assets and provide my opinion on the interpretation of Regional and Provincial policy in the context of the Bronte Green Applications. 33. With respect to the MHWWTP, air quality and odour issues are to be considered. The concern of the Region in this regard is locating new residents near the MHWWTP who may experience adverse effects from the normal operation of the MHWWTP. 34. However, and perhaps more importantly, the addition of sensitive uses in the vicinity of a facility such as the MHWWTP may also have an impact on the potential for securing approvals in the future to expand the MHWWTP to accommodate forecasted growth. 35. For the Trunk Sewer, a range of issues relating to whether development can occur on top of, below, or adjacent to the Trunk Sewer need to be considered. The Trunk Sewer is located within lands subject to an easement granted in favour of the Region ( Easement Lands ). In accordance with that easement, only certain elements of the golf courses that existed at the time the Trunk Sewer was constructed were permitted on the Easement Lands. There are no permissions for new public paved roads, private lots or any other infrastructure such as storm water management facilities on the Easement Lands. Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 7

8 36. According to the Plan of Subdivision drawing dated April 3, 2015, new public paved roads, private lots and storm water management facilities are proposed on the Easement Lands (although there has been some agreement that the stormwater management block proposed on the easement (Block 572) will be reconfigured such that no portion of a stormwater management pond will be located within the easement). 37. With respect to the WOC, noise, and to a lesser extent, odour and air quality impacts, have to be considered. In this case, rows of townhouses are proposed immediately adjacent to the WOC on the Bronte Green Lands. As with the concerns expressed above regarding the MHWWTP, I am concerned with the implications of locating residential uses in the vicinity of the Region s current and future operations. This is particularly the case where there is a possibility that the HRC and WOC may be expanded in both the area of use and intensity of use in the future. 38. With respect to the HRC, noise issues also need to be considered. However, a further consideration is how the proposed development on the Bronte Green Lands is to be integrated with the HRC over the longer term. 39. A further purpose of my Witness Statement is to provide opinion evidence on other aspects of the Bronte Green Application in relation to the ROP as amended by ROPA 38, the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement ('2014 PPS') and the Growth Plan. In particular, I will be addressing the Region s interest in maintaining the lands identified as Vegetation Unit 12 in the Consolidated Issues List as part of the Regional Natural Heritage System. I will also be addressing the potential for including Pond 7 as part of the Regional Natural Heritage System based on the Town s evidence. 40. Issues 41. With respect to planning/policy issues, I will be providing opinion evidence on Issues 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as set out in the Consolidated Issues List of the Public Agencies. 42. With respect to noise issues, I will be providing opinion evidence on the land use planning impacts related to Issues 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. This opinion evidence will relate to the community infrastructure/public service facilities that are located adjacent to the Bronte Green Lands (HRC and WOC). I will also rely on the evidence of Mr. Scott Penton in forming my opinion on noise issues. 43. With respect to air quality and odour issues, I will be providing land use planning opinion evidence respecting Issues 15, 16 and 17. This opinion evidence will relate to the Regional infrastructure that is located adjacent to the Bronte Green Lands (MHWWTP). I will also rely on the evidence of Mr. Nigel Taylor in forming my opinion on the air quality and odour issues. 44. With respect to infrastructure/servicing issues, I will be providing land use planning opinion evidence on Issues 25 and 34, with this evidence dealing solely with the Trunk Sewer that is within the Easement Lands. I will also rely on the evidence of Mr. Zahir Najak and Mr. Nigel Taylor in forming my opinion on the implications of proposed development on the Trunk Sewer. Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 8

9 45. With respect to natural heritage issues, I will be providing land use planning opinion evidence respecting Issue 44, and particularly as it relates to the proposed boundary adjustment of the Regional Natural Heritage System on the lands identified as Vegetation Unit 12 and Pond With respect to transportation issues, I will be providing land use planning opinion evidence respecting Issue 59, and in particular the implications of the road network as shown on the proposed Plan of Subdivision on the HRC lands and the WOC lands. I will also rely on the evidence of Ms. Alicia Jakaitis in forming my opinion on the proposed road network. 47. In addition to the above, I will be providing opinion evidence on the overall implications of the proposed development on the Bronte Green Lands on the HRC and WOC and on the opportunities that exist with respect to the integration of the HRC and WOC lands into the urban area. 48. Policies in the Regional Official Plan that have an impact on the Consideration of Sensitive Land Uses 49. There are a number of key policies in the ROP as amended by ROPA 38 that have an impact on the consideration of 'sensitive' land uses near and adjacent to the MHWWTP, the HRC and the WOC. Firstly, Section 143(11) sets out the Region's expectations with respect to the uses that should be permitted adjacent to industrial, transportation and utility uses: "143(11) Encourage the Local Municipalities to permit in those areas adjacent to industrial, transportation and utility uses, primarily land uses that require minimal noise, vibration, odour and air pollution abatement measures and require the proponent of development in those areas to undertake, in accordance with Regional and Ministry of the Environment guidelines, the necessary impact analysis and implement, as a condition of approval, appropriate abatement measures." 50. Section 288 defines utility and clearly indicates that the MHWWTP, the HRC and the WOC are utility uses: "UTILITY means a water supply, storm water or wastewater system, gas or oil pipeline, the generation, transmission and distribution of electric power including renewable energy systems, the generation, transmission and distribution of steam or hot water, towers, communication or telecommunication facilities and other cabled services, a public transit or transportation system, licensed broadcasting receiving and transmitting facilities, or any other similar works or systems necessary to the public interest, but does not include a new sanitary landfill site, incineration facilities or large-scale packer and/or recycling plants or similar uses." (Emphasis mine) 51. On the basis of the above, Section 143(11) of the ROP is indicating, as a first principle, that uses that only require "minimal noise, vibration, odour and air pollution abatement measures" be located near utility uses such as the MHWWTP, the HRC and the WOC. It is my opinion that the overall intent of the Region in this regard is to minimize impacts both at the outset of development and over the long term. The Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 9

10 intent is to also to protect its current function but its function in the future, after potentially being expanded. 52. Section 143(12) sets out the process to be followed when sensitive land uses are proposed: "143(12) Require the proponent of sensitive land uses in proximity to industrial, transportation and utility sources of noise, vibration, odour and air pollutants to complete appropriate studies and undertake necessary mitigating actions, in accordance with the Region s Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, Air Quality Impact Assessment Guidelines, and any applicable Ministry of the Environment guidelines. Specifically, an air quality study based on guidelines under Section 143(2.1) is required for such development proposals within 30m of a Major Arterial or Provincial Highway, or 150m of a Provincial Freeway, as defined by Map 3 of this Plan." 53. Section of the ROP defines 'sensitive land uses': "SENSITIVE LAND USES means buildings, amenity areas or outdoor spaces where routine or normal activities occurring at reasonably expected times would experience one or more adverse effects from contaminant discharges, fumes, sound waves or radiation generated by a nearby major facility. Sensitive land uses may be part of the natural or built environment and include examples such as: residences, day care centres, hospitals, and schools." (Emphasis mine) 54. The term 'adverse effects' is used in the definition above and it is defined in Section 212(4) of the ROP: "ADVERSE EFFECT means, as defined in the Environmental Protection Act, one or more of 212.4(1) impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it, 212.4(2) injury or damage to property or plant or animal life, 212.4(3) harm or material discomfort to any person 212.4(4) an adverse effect on the health of any person, 212.4(5) impairment of the safety of any person, 212.4(6) rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for human use, 212.4(7) loss of enjoyment of normal use of property, and 212.4(8) interference with normal conduct of business." 55. As a consequence of the above, Section 143(12) requires a proponent (which in this case is Bronte Green Corporation) to "complete appropriate studies and undertake necessary mitigating actions, in accordance with the Region s Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, Air Quality Impact Assessment Guidelines, and any applicable Ministry of the Environment guidelines." I understand that some of these studies have been submitted and have been reviewed by the appropriate disciplines on behalf of the Region. Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 10

11 56. Region s Land Use Compatibility Guidelines 57. As per Section 143(12) of the ROP, the Region released Land Use Compatibility Guidelines on June 18, These Guidelines, (along with 17 other ROP Guidelines), were approved by Regional Council on July 9, The purpose of the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines is to provide guidance and identify a process for assessing land use compatibility. Section 1.1 of the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines states: "The Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ( the Guidelines ) identify how land use compatibility issues may be addressed by municipalities during a development proposal, namely Official Plan or Zoning By-law amendments. The goal of land use compatibility is to minimize adverse effects of industrial, transportation and utility uses that emit noise (vibration), odour or air pollution on sensitive uses (e.g. residential)." 58. The Land Use Compatibility Guidelines were prepared in accordance with Section 143(10) of the ROP. This section indicates that the purpose of the guidelines is to: "143(10) Develop, in consultation with the local municipalities, the Province, the Federal government and the railway agencies, Land Use Compatibility Guidelines to minimize the adverse effects of noise, vibration, odour and air pollution from industrial, transportation and utility sources on sensitive land uses, including the application of separation distance between these noncompatible uses. 59. Section 1.2 of the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines recognizes that Ministry of Environment legislation and applicable guidelines exist and have an impact on decision-making. Section 2.0 of the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines reviews Provincial legislation, regulations and guidelines. In this regard, the Environmental Protection Act and the related land use compatibility guidelines (D-Series) are reviewed. Section states: D-Series are only applicable when a new sensitive land use requires a land use amendment and is proposed to be located within the influence, or potential influence area of an impacted use, such as an existing industrial use; or when a new industrial use requires a land use amendment and is proposed to be located near an existing sensitive residential use. (Emphasis mine) 60. Section 3.0 of the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines then identifies the different policy and regulatory amendment processes under the Planning Act that are dealt with by the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. In this regard, Section 3.2 deals with an Official Plan/Zoning Bylaw amendment for a new sensitive land use proposed near existing industrial uses (which would also be considered utility uses ). 61. Section then identifies the steps to be followed in making a determination of how Land Use Compatibility concerns may be addressed. The steps are below. Step 1 Determine the nature of the development Step 2 Identify potential land use compatibility conflicts Step 3 Carry out studies to determine actual land use compatibility conflicts Step 4 Assess potential approaches to mitigation Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 11

12 62. With respect to separation distances and other mitigation measures, Section 4.0 of the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines states: The mitigation approaches used to limit adverse effects due to land use compatibility are determined through zoning bylaw regulations and provincial legislation. The examples below are included for illustrative purposes only and may not be appropriate or adequate to satisfactorily reduce effects in all cases. 63. The following is then noted in Section 4.1 with respect to separation distances: Separation distances are the most common approach to mitigation between diverse land uses. Section 4.2 then indicates that increased zoning bylaw setbacks could be applied on a site to minimize adverse effects. Section 4.3 then discusses the use of site plan control to further mitigate adverse effects. Lastly, building design is identified in Section 4.4 as a further option to consider. 64. The Provincial Policy Statement and Land Use Compatibility a) Section Section of the 2014 PPS applies to this matter and states: "Major facilities and sensitive land uses should be planned to ensure they are appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from each other to prevent or mitigate adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants, minimize risk to public health and safety, and to ensure the long-term viability of major facilities. 66. In my opinion, Section is made up of three components as set out below: Major facilities and sensitive land uses should be planned to ensure they are appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from each other to: Prevent or mitigate adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants; Minimize risk to public health and safety; and Ensure the long-term viability of major facilities. 67. 'Major facilities' are defined under the 2014 PPS and would in my opinion include utility uses under the ROP, since a 'major facility' is any facility 'which may require separation from sensitive land uses': "Major facilities: means facilities which may require separation from sensitive land uses, including but not limited to airports, transportation infrastructure and corridors, rail facilities, marine facilities, sewage treatment facilities, waste management systems, oil and gas pipelines, industries, energy generation facilities and transmission systems, and resource extraction activities." 68. 'Sensitive land uses' are defined by the 2014 PPS as per below: "Sensitive land uses: means buildings, amenity areas, or outdoor spaces where routine or normal activities occurring at reasonably expected times would experience one or more adverse effects from contaminant discharges generated by a nearby major facility. Sensitive land uses may be a part of the natural or built environment. Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 12

13 Examples may include, but are not limited to: residences, day care centres, and educational and health facilities." 69. The definition of 'sensitive land uses' in the 2014 PPS is similar to the definition of 'sensitive land uses' in the ROP, except that the ROP specifically identifies fumes, sound waves or radiation as potential adverse effects. The definition of 'adverse effects' in the 2014 PPS is the same as in the ROP. 70. In my opinion, the range of uses that would be considered sensitive based on the definitions in the 2014 PPS and the ROP is extensive since any building, amenity area or outdoor space is sensitive if routine or normal activities occurring at reasonably expected times would experience adverse effects. 71. Based on the definition of sensitive land uses in the PPS, the uses proposed on the Bronte Green Lands would be considered sensitive since the applicant proposes to construct 760 residential units. The MHWWTP, the HRC and the WOC would clearly be considered major facilities under the 2014 PPS, since these uses may need to be separated from sensitive land uses to: Prevent or mitigate adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants; Minimize risk to public health and safety; and Ensure the long-term viability of major facilities. 72. It is noted that Section was significantly revised in the 2014 PPS. Previously, much of the wording that is now in Section was in Section 1.7 e) of the 2005 PPS and stated: Long term economic prosperity should be supported by planning so that major facilities (such as airports, transportation/transit/rail infrastructure and corridors, intermodal facilities, sewage treatment facilities, waste management systems, oil and gas pipelines, industries and resource extraction activities) and sensitive land uses are appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from each other to prevent or mitigate adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants and to minimize risk to public health and safety. 73. Most of what was in Section 1.7 e) in the 2005 PPS has been moved to Section of the 2014 PPS, however, the following words in underline have been added: Major facilities and sensitive land uses should be planned to ensure they are appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from each other to prevent or mitigate adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants, minimize risk to public health and safety, and to ensure the long-term viability of major facilities. 74. In my opinion, this means that the consideration of the nature of the adverse effects on the sensitive land use is not the only consideration in assessing whether a certain proposed land use is compatible. The revisions to Section of the 2014 PPS now indicate that the separation of uses may be required to ensure the long-term viability of major facilities, and in this case, includes the MHWWTP and the WOC. In other words, Section of the 2014 PPS means that it is not only the use of the land that needs to be considered, but the user as well. 75. I recognize that the Ministry of Environment (MOE) came out with guidelines ( the D- Series Guidelines ) in the early 1990 s to assist decision makers when dealing with Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 13

14 sensitive uses. These guidelines were designed to inform the preparation of Official Plan policy and the making of Planning Act decisions in cases where a proposed use is potentially incompatible with an existing use or where an existing use is potentially incompatible with a proposed use. 76. However, these guidelines focus on the assessment of impacts that can be measured, such as fugitive emissions (odour, dust, noise, etc.) and not on intangibles such the impacts of the siting of a sensitive land use on the 'long-term viability of major facilities'. The D-Series Guidelines are discussed later in this Witness Statement. b) Section In carrying out its responsibilities as a public authority, it is my opinion that the Region is required and expected to manage its assets in a manner that is cost effective, sustainable and efficient. In this regard, Section of the 2014 PPS states in part the following: "Planning for infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities shall be coordinated and integrated with land use planning so that they are: a) Financially viable over their life cycle, which may be demonstrated through asset management planning; and b) Available to meet current and projected needs. 78. It is my opinion that in order for the Region to coordinate planning for major facilities to be 'available to meet current and projected needs', the Region must protect these major facilities from the encroachment of sensitive land uses to minimize nuisance complaints from residents and to allow them to continue operating and expand, as required, to meet projected needs. In the case of the MHWWTP, this is a significant factor to consider due to the amount of area available on the MHWWTP lands for expansion and the projected growth for the Region. c) Section Section of the 2014 PPS states the following about the use of existing infrastructure: Before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities: a) The use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized; and, b) Opportunities for adaptive re-use should be considered, wherever possible." 80. In my opinion, this means that maximizing the use of existing infrastructure, wherever possible, feasible and appropriate is preferred, rather than establishing new locations for such infrastructure. This also has an impact on the consideration of the siting of sensitive uses near utility uses. The potential to expand and optimize existing utility uses is also increased if sensitive land uses are not situated nearby. Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 14

15 d) Section Section of the 2014 PPS states: "Infrastructure and public service facilities should be strategically located to support the effective and efficient delivery of emergency management services." 82. Given that the WOC serves as the Region's land ambulance headquarters, ambulance station and service station for ambulance and police vehicles, among other public service uses, consideration must also be given to this Section, particularly given the ready access the WOC has to major transportation facilities. e) Section Section of the 2014 PPS states: Public service facilities should be co-located in community hubs, where appropriate, to promote cost-effectiveness and facilitate service integration, access to transit and active transportation. 84. In my opinion, given that Bronte Road is identified as a Regional Road and a Higher Order Transit Corridor in the ROP and given the types of services and functions provided by the WOC and HRC, consideration must also be given to this Section. f) Section Section 4.9 clearly states that the 2014 PPS represent minimum standards. This section goes on to state: "This Provincial Policy Statement does not prevent planning authorities and decision-makers from going beyond the minimum standards established in specific policies, unless doing so would conflict with any policy of this Provincial Policy Statement. 86. In my opinion, Section 4.9 permits planning authorities to go beyond these minimum standards if there is a clear public interest to do so. In my opinion, Section of the 2014 PPS establishes that minimum standard by indicating that Major facilities and sensitive land uses should be planned to ensure they are appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from each other to prevent or mitigate adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants, minimize risk to public health and safety, and to ensure the long-term viability of major facilities. 87. The Provincial Policy Statement and Infrastructure Corridors 88. Section of the 2014 PPS states: "Planning authorities shall plan for and protect corridors and rights-of-way for infrastructure, including transportation, transit and electricity generation facilities and transmission systems to meet current and projected needs." 89. In my opinion, the Trunk Sewer would be an infrastructure corridor. The key words in the above section are 'shall plan for and protect' to meet current and projected needs. In my opinion, this means that there is need to protect the function of this corridor for the long term, given the role it plays in the collection of sewage at the present time and in the future. Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 15

16 90. Ministry of Environment Guidelines (D-Series) 91. In the early 1990's, the MOE released the D-Series Guidelines that were intended to inform the preparation of Official Plan policy on land use compatibility and to assist decision makers with making Planning Act decisions involving potentially incompatible uses and determining adverse effects. a) Guideline D Guideline D-1 (and the supporting Procedures D1-1, D1-2 and D1-3 contained within Guideline D-1) is the key guideline that specifically applies to the applications affecting the Bronte Green Lands. The following is indicated in the 'synopsis' section of Guideline D-1: "This guideline identifies the direct interest of the Ministry in recommending separation distances and other control measures for land use planning proposals to prevent or minimize adverse effects from the encroachment of incompatible land uses where a facility either exists or is proposed. This guideline sets the context for all existing and new guidelines relating to land use compatibility." 93. Section 2.1 of Guideline D-1 recognizes the dual nature of the Guideline. Specifically, the Guideline is applicable when a new sensitive land use is proposed within the influence area or potential influence area of an existing facility; and/or a new facility is proposed where an existing sensitive land use would be within the facility s influence area or potential influence area. 94. A 'facility' is defined in Procedure D1-3 as: "a transportation, commercial, industrial, agricultural, intensive recreational or utilities/services building or structure and/o associated lands (e.g. abattoir, airport, railway, sewage treatment plant, landfill, manufacturing plant, generation stations, sports/concerts stadium, etc.) which produce(s) one or more 'adverse effect(s)' on a neighbouring property or properties. For specific details on some of these facilities, see Procedure D-1-2." 95. The above means that Guideline D-1 is to be considered with respect to the MHWWTP, the HRC and the WOC (Guideline D-2 also deals with the MHWWTP). 96. Section 2.2 of Guideline D-1 indicates that the Guideline applies when a change of land use places or is likely to place sensitive land use within the influence area or potential influence area of a facility. It then goes on to indicate that the Guideline should be considered when policies, guidelines and programs are being formulated, when general land use plans are being prepared and in response to site specific requests for development approvals. It is clear that Guideline D-1 applies to the proposed development on the Bronte Green Lands, unless exempted under this Guideline. 97. Section of Guideline D-1 then indicates that the Guideline does not apply in situations where incompatible land uses already exist and there is no new land use proposal for which approval is being sought. This exception does not apply in this case because a land use approval is being sought for a new land use proposal on the Bronte Green Lands. 98. Section of Guideline D-1 then goes on to indicate the following: This Guideline does not normally affect a change in land use, an expansion, or new development, for Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 16

17 either a facility or a sensitive land use which is in compliance with existing zoning and the Official Plan designation. In this case, the proposed change in land use on the Bronte Green Lands requires an amendment to the Town s Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The proposed use is not currently permitted on the Bronte Green Lands, and therefore the proposed development is not exempt under Section Lastly, Section 2.4 of Guideline D-1 provides examples of adverse effects in the context of this Guideline and notes that they "may be related to, but not limited to one or more of the following: a) Noise and vibration; b) Visual impact (only for landfills) c) Odours and other air emissions; d) Litter, dust and other particulates; and. e) Other contaminants." 100. In my opinion, the above list of adverse effects is intended to assist decision makers with identifying what could constitute an adverse effect under the MOE standards. It is noted that the list is not all-inclusive and does not identify the same adverse effects as those listed in the 2014 PPS. The definition of 'adverse effects' in the 2014 PPS still applies in terms of determining the impact of the adverse effect Section 3.1 of Guideline D-1 sets out the preferred approach with respect to siting of incompatible land uses: "Incompatible land uses are to be protected from each other, in land use plans, proposals, policies and programs to achieve the Ministry's environmental objectives. Various buffers on either of the incompatible land uses or on intervening lands, as discussed in Section 4 of Procedure D-1-1, "Land Use Compatibility: Implementation", may be used to prevent or minimize 'adverse effects'. Distance is often the only effective buffer, however, and therefore adequate separation distance, based on a facility's influence area, is the preferred method of mitigating 'adverse effects'." 102. Section 3.2 of Guideline D-1 provides further direction with respect to separation distances and states: "The separation distance should be sufficient to permit the functioning of the two incompatible land uses without an 'adverse effect' occurring. Separation of incompatible land uses should not result in freezing or denying usage of the intervening land. The distance shall be based on a facility's potential influence area or actual influence area if it is known." 103. With respect to the use of land within a required 'separation distance', Section 3.3 of Guideline D-1 states the following: "When the separation distance is the method of buffering, and the buffer area extends beyond a facility or sensitive land use site boundary, this Ministry encourages intervening land uses or activities that are compatible with both the facility and the sensitive land use(s)." 104. Section 3.4 of Guideline D-1 then indicates the following: When impacts from discharges and other compatible problems cannot be reasonably mitigated or prevented to the level of trivial impact, new development, whether it be a facility or a sensitive land use shall not be permitted. In my opinion, this Section supports the Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 17

18 principle that separation is the only effective way to prevent adverse effects in accordance with Section of the 2014 PPS Section 1.3 of Procedure D-1-1 establishes the process that proponents should follow when a sensitive land use is proposed near a facility that may create adverse effects on the sensitive land use. It is within this section that it is indicated that the proponent is responsible for evaluating the severity of impacts, both before and after mitigation, within the facility or facility's influence area or potential influence area. Hours of operation are also to be considered in addition to the distances between the proposed uses. The proponent is then responsible for proposing, designing and implementing mitigation in accordance with Section b) Section of Procedure D-1-1 clearly indicates that it is up to the proponent to determine the influence area from an existing or committed land use. Once such an analysis has been completed, Section 3.4 of Guideline D-1 states the following: "When impacts from discharges and other compatibility problems cannot be reasonably mitigated or prevented to the level of a trivial impact (defined in Procedure D-1-3, "Land Use Compatibility" Definitions") new development, whether it be a facility or a sensitive land use, shall not be permitted." 107. The above Sections mean that the nature and extent of the influence area or potential influence area is dependent on a number of context-specific factors. The above Sections also confirm that the onus rests on the proponent, and not the user of the existing land use, to determine the influence area from an existing land use and appropriate mitigation measures Notwithstanding all of the above, it is noted that the D-1 Guideline and associated Procedures do not provide any basis for determining how the long-term viability of major facilities is to be considered as per Section of the PPS. In this regard, the viability of major facilities is a new addition to the PPS and is not dealt with by the D-Series Guidelines In my opinion, this means that the consideration of the nature of the adverse effects is not the only consideration in order for a proposed development to be consistent with Section of the PPS. In addition to the prevention or mitigation of adverse effects, the separation of uses may be required to ensure the long-term viability of major facilities such as the MHWWTP and the WOC. Again, this means that it is not only the use of the land that needs to be considered, but the user as well It is my opinion that protecting the viability of existing major facilities is a key factor to consider in determining whether to approve a nearby use that has the potential to affect this viability. The reason for this precautionary approach is that once a use is established, that use has certain expectations with respect to being able to continue its use. The situation may be different where the existing use was to be phased out of an area, if the existing use was a legal non-conforming use, or if the existing use was part of a rural area that was subsequently urbanized and surrounded by urban uses. However, these circumstances do not apply to the MHWWTP or the WOC, where the expectation is that these facilities will remain (and likely expand) in the long term and the area is already urbanized. It should be recognized that at the time the MHWWTP Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 18

19 and HRC were constructed, the adjacent lands were protected from development through public ownership or through the Parkway Belt West Plan. b) Guideline D MOE Guideline D-2 applies specifically to land use compatibility issues relating to sewage treatment facilities. Guidelines D-2 is intended to build upon Guideline D-1. The following is indicated in Section 1.0 of Guideline D-2: The ministry has identified its interest in recommending separation distances and other control measures for land use planning proposals in Guideline D-1 (land use compatibility). This document, which is a specific application of the concepts contained in Guideline D-1, related specifically to waste stabilization plants and sewage treatment plants Section 2.4 of Guideline D-2 indicates that the Guideline applies to all applications for Certificate of Approval under the Ontario Water Resources Act and under the Environmental Protection Act for new and expanding municipal and private sewage treatment facilities. The following is also indicated: Guideline D-2 also applies to the advice that the Ministry provides to the Ministry Municipal Board of Housing and delegated approval authorities under the Planning Act Notwithstanding the stated purpose of the Guideline as per the above, it is my opinion that Guideline D-2 should be considered when sensitive land uses such as those proposed on the Bronte Green Lands are to be located near the MHWWTP Section 3.1 of Guideline D-2 states the following: Where practical, sensitive land uses should not be placed adjacent to treatment facilities. Section establishes how separation distances should be measured. Section 3.2 states the following regarding buffer areas: When new facilities (or enlargements to existing facilities) are proposed, an adequate buffer area should be required as part of the project. Where acquisition of a buffer is not possible and further to item 3.3 below, future sensitive uses on adjacent lands should be discouraged through appropriate Official Plan and zoning constraints, or ownership by a responsible public authority In the case of a MHWWTP, it was constructed in 1991 in an area that was subject to the Parkway Belt West Plan adjacent to lands owned by the Province of Ontario. It was reasonable at the time of construction to expect that the adjacent lands will be reserved for transportation and utility corridors Section indicates that for sewage treatment plants that have a capacity greater than 25,000 cubic metres per day, a separation distance of greater than 150 meters may be required. Based on the evidence of other Regional witnesses, the MHWWTP has a total potential capacity of 400,000 cubic metres per day Section 4.0 states the following: In commenting on sensitive land use applications, the Ministry will examine compliance with the guidelines described herein, as well as any noise and/or odour complaints attributed to the facility. It is my understanding that there have been complaints with respect to noise and odour at the MHWWTP. This section further states the following: Where a facility has been known to generate objectionable noise and/or odours, a larger separation distance and/or increased buffering may be required - at least until further abatement work has remedied the problem. Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 19

20 118. The following is lastly indicated within Section 4: Should either of the above conditions not be satisfied, the ministry may advise against any proposal (i.e.. new Official Plan, Official Plan Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, etc.), which would/could establish a sensitive use adjacent to a sewage treatment facility. c) Guideline D Guideline D-6 is intended to be a "direct application of Ministry Guideline D-1" as set out in the 'synopsis section' and provides further information to decision makers on how to assess land use compatibility issues as it relates to 'industrial land uses'. In this regard, it is my opinion that Guideline D-6 should also be considered as it relates particularly to the WOC, which could be considered an 'industrial facility', because of the nature of the outputs, scale and operation/intensity related to the use of the WOC lands as set out in Appendix A to Guideline D6. On this basis, it is my opinion that the approaches identified in Guideline D-6 should be considered It is recognized that Section of Guideline D-6 indicates that the Guideline does not apply to a range of Provincial, Municipal or private facilities, land uses or related activities and to any on-site industrial type facilities associated with them. Included in this list are sewage treatment facilities, landfills or dumps, transfer stations and other waste management facilities and waste processing facilities that require a waste Certificate of Approval. In my opinion, this means that the Guideline is not to be applied in a circumstance where a new facility of this type is proposed adjacent to a sensitive land use, since specific approvals for that type of use are required under the Environmental Protection Act. In this case, it is a sensitive land use that is proposed near an existing facility Section 1.1 of Guideline D-6 indicates that the attached Appendix A categorizes industrial facilities into three classes according to the objectionable nature of their emissions, their physical size/scale, production volumes and/or the intensity and scheduling of operations Section of Guideline D-6 deals with a circumstance where a sensitive land use is proposed near an industrial use. This section identifies what sensitive land uses may include and in the context of this section they include recreational uses which are deemed by the Municipality or Provincial agency to be sensitive and/or any building or associated amenity area (i.e. may be indoor or outdoor space which is not directly associated with the industrial use, where humans or the natural environment may be adversely affected by emissions generated by the operation of a nearby industrial facility. For example, the building or amenity area may be associated with residences, senior citizen homes, schools, day care facilities, hospitals, churches and other similar institutional uses or campgrounds Section 1.4 of Guideline D-6 indicates that the general approach in Section 3 of Guideline D-1 applies to circumstances where a sensitive land use is proposed. Section 3.1 of Guideline D-1 establishes the preferred approach and it indicates that various buffers may be used to prevent or minimize adverse effects. However, it is indicated distance is often the only effective buffer, however, and therefore adequate separation distance, based on a facility's influence area, is the preferred method of mitigating adverse effects. Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 20

21 124. Guideline D-6 also establishes potential influence areas in Section 4.1. The influence area for a Class 1 facility is 70 metres, for a Class 2 facility it is 300 metres and for a Class 3 facility it is 1,000 metres. Section 2.0 of Guideline D-6 then defines what a Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 facility is. Section 4.3 then establishes minimum separation distances based on the classification of the use and in this regard, it is 20 metres, 70 metres and 300 metres respectively Section 4.10 of Guideline D-6 recognizes that the recommended minimum separation distances may not be achievable in all circumstances: "The Ministry or delegated authority shall only consider redevelopment, infill and mixed use proposals which put industrial and sensitive land uses together within less than the recommended minimum separation distances (see Section 4.3), if the zoning is use specific (i.e. only the existing or proposed industrial or sensitive use is permitted by the municipality or other approving authority), or if planning considerations are based on the "worst case scenario" based on permitted uses in the industrial zoning by-law." 126. However, in the circumstances where Section 4.10 would apply, the Guideline is very clear that the worst case scenario must be considered. In the case of the WOC, the worst case scenario would consider both existing and future use of the WOC lands. The applicant has not undertaken this level of analysis in this case It is recognized that Guideline D-6 is only a guideline and is not Provincial legislation, an Ontario Regulation or a statement of government policy. However, Guideline D-6 is relevant and should be considered since it establishes a process for considering how impacts are to be measured and how incompatible uses are to be separated from each other to prevent adverse effects Mid-Halton Wastewater Treatment Plant 129. I have reviewed and rely on the factual evidence provided by Ms. Brooks and the factual and opinion evidence provided by Mr. Taylor in their respective Witness Statements in respect to the MHWWTP With respect to the MHWWTP, the primary concern of the Region is that the development of the Bronte Green Lands has the potential to locate new residences within a distance where they may experience adverse effects from the normal operation of the WWTP There are already noise and odour complaints associated with the WWTP from the existing residences that are within 300 metres of the WWTP However, and perhaps more importantly, the addition of sensitive uses in the vicinity of a facility such as the MHWWTP may also have an impact on the potential for securing approvals in the future to expand the plant to accommodate forecasted growth, with the decision on how much forecasted growth is to occur being made by the Province through the Growth Plan. The Region of Halton is expected to grow to 780,000 (updated to 820,000) persons and 390,000 jobs by 2031, and to 1,000,000 persons and 470,000 jobs by I rely on Mr. Taylor s evidence that the odour impacts from the MHWWTP have not been appropriately assessed for a 400,000 MLD build out. Given that the likelihood of Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 21

22 the re-location of the MHWWTP is very remote, it is very appropriate in my opinion to consider the implications of the build-out of the MHWWTP before the principle of development is established on the Bronte Green Lands This means that Sections and of the 2014 PPS cannot be satisfied by the proposed development at this time Region s Trunk Sewer 136. I have reviewed and rely on the factual evidence provided by Ms. Brooks and the factual and opinion evidence provided by Mr. Najak in their respective Witness Statements in respect to the Trunk Sewer The Easement Lands located on the Bronte Green Lands are the site of a significant trunk sewer (2400 mm in diameter) that drains directly into the North Pumping Station of the MHWWTP. The Easement Lands extend from the south in a diagonal manner to the northwest and to Bronte Road where the Trunk Sewer is then incorporated within the Bronte Road allowance The Trunk Sewer is dealt with in a number of ways in the proposed Plan of Subdivision application. Starting from the southeast, the Trunk Sewer is incorporated within Block 572, which is identified on the Plan of Subdivision drawing as a storm water management facility. Based on communication with Mr. Paul Lowes (planner representing Bronte Green), it is my understanding that the applicant is supportive of including this portion of the Easement Lands in a separate block with one block on either side of the Easement Lands set aside for storm water management purposes. This change to the Plan of Subdivision is supported, although it is recognized that the interface of the Trunk Sewer with the proposed storm water management ponds remains an issue that needs to be resolved The Trunk Sewer is then incorporated within a portion of Street 'A', which has a proposed right of way of 22 metres. To the north of Street 'T,' the trunk sewer then is proposed to be incorporated in portions of proposed Lots 436 and 521, within the Street 'U' cul-de-sac and then within portions of Lot The trunk sewer is then incorporated within Blocks 590 (NHS), 591 and 592 (Enhancement Area) with the southern boundary of the easement in this area being the proposed rear lot lines of Lots 290 to 296, Lots 156 to 161, Lots 415 to Lots 417 and Lot 420. The trunk sewer is then incorporated within Street 'B' and then within Block 579 (NHS) The easement is subject to two separate PINs for the Bronte Green Lands H refers to the easement registered on March 30, This easement includes the portion of the Trunk Sewer located generally east of the hydro corridor, although a small part of the easement extends west of the corridor. This easement also includes a strip of land located along the eastern border of Vegetation Unit 12 (best shown in Plan 20R-19973, identified as Part 4 Part 12 of Plan 20R ). The width of the easement is approximately 10 metres. Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 22

23 143. HR70019 refers to the easement registered on August 30, This easement includes the Trunk Sewer located generally west of the hydro corridor, although a small part of the easement extends east of the corridor. The width of the easement is approximately 10 metres In both easement documents, the following restrictive provisions are included: The Transferor (in this the owners of the Bronte Green Lands) must keep the easement free and clear of any fences, buildings, structures or obstructions unless agreed to by the Transferee (the Region); The Transferor must use the easement in a manner consistent with the rights conferred to the Transferee, which limits the Transferor s uses to those such as a lawn, golf course, farm operation, garden flowerbed, roadway, driveway, parking area or walkway, none of which shall be paved with a hard concrete surface; The Transferor must not do anything that may injure or damage the Transferee s works on the easement, which includes the Trunk Sewer At the present time, the easement restricts the types of uses on the Bronte Green Lands for the purpose of protecting the Region s Trunk Sewer. As noted by the other Regional witnesses, the Trunk Sewer services a number of areas within Halton Region, including growth areas in the Towns of Oakville, Milton and Halton Hills. While the existing golf course use is consistent with the terms of the easement, some of the uses proposed by the applicant would require consent from the Region On the basis of advice given by Regional staff, it is my understanding that answers to the following questions have not been provided to adequately protect the Region s interest in the Trunk Sewer: a) Is it appropriate and desirable to locate public roads on any part of the easement? If so, how wide should the right of way be, how much area should the hard infrastructure (e.g. sidewalks) of the road occupy, and should the road be a Regional road or a Town of Oakville road? Should part or all of the road allowance be used to promote active transportation? b) Now that the applicant is proposing adjoining development that is inconsistent with the easement, should the Region s legal interest be the full title interest in the lands (e.g. fee simple interest instead of easement)? c) Is it appropriate to locate parts of private lots of the easement? If so, should there be any development restrictions on the portion of a private lot that is subject to an easement? If private lots should not be located on the easement, what impact will restriction on the location of private lots have on a layout of the plan? d) It is appropriate to locate components of a storm water management facility in or immediately adjacent to the easement? If so, are there any particular design considerations that should be assessed? If is not appropriate to locate a storm water management facility in or immediately adjacent to the easement, what impact will that have on the layout of the plan? Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 23

24 147. It is also my understanding, based on advice provided by Mr. Taylor that there are a total of seven manholes that are being used to release foul odours that may accumulate in the Trunk Sewer. Three of the seven manholes are located on the Bronte Green Lands. It is my understanding that separation from these venting features have not been considered by the applicant It is possible that some of the above questions may be addressed through conditions of subdivision approval. However, other questions have an impact on determining the threshold issue of whether it is even appropriate to develop on and/or adjacent to the easement at this time The questions above need to be answered to satisfy Section of the 2014 PPS, which states the following: "Planning authorities shall plan for and protect corridors and rights-of-way for infrastructure, including transportation, transit and electricity generation facilities and transmission systems to meet current and projected needs." 150. At present, the applicant assumes that development is appropriate in the Region s easement without addressing the above questions and any impacts the proposed development may have on the Region s ability to adequately protect the Trunk Sewer. The potential exists for there to be significant changes required to the plan and layout in order to protect the Region s interest Based on advice received from the Region, it is my opinion that the following options exist with respect to the protection of the Trunk Sewer: a) The Easement Lands can be used in accordance with the terms set out in the easement and for right of way purposes, but cannot be paved. b) The Easement Lands can only be crossed by public roads at appropriate locations with the remainder of the easement being used for passive recreational purposes. c) In combination with item b) above, the entirety of the Easement Lands could be designed for active transportation purposes only. d) Portions of private lots can be located on the Easement Lands, provided no buildings or structures are permitted within the easement itself. e) No portion of a private lot is contained within the Easement Lands Some of the above options may have a significant impact on the layout of the proposed Plan of Subdivision. On this basis, it is my opinion that it would be premature to consider the applications until these issues have been addressed to the Region's satisfaction Woodland Operations Centre 154. I have reviewed and rely on the factual evidence provided by Ms. Brooks and the factual and opinion evidence provided by Mr. Taylor, Mr. Penton and Ms. Jakaitis in their respective Witness Statements in respect to the WOC. Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 24

25 155. Based on the advice provided by Mr. Penton, it is my understanding that the implications of the WOC on the proposed sensitive land uses have not been appropriately studied. This means that Sections and of the 2014 PPS cannot be satisfied at this time In addition to the above, the Region is reviewing current and future plans for WOC. However, notwithstanding that Council has not finalized the future expansion plans for the WOC, in my opinion it would be premature to plan for the construction of a road from the Bronte Green Lands to Bronte Road extending through the WOC lands, as is currently shown on the Plan of Subdivision drawing. In this regard, the Region does not support such a road being shown on the Plan of Subdivision or the potential extension of Street 'C' through to Bronte Road at this time It is recognized that a significant opportunity exists to fully integrate the HRC and the WOC within the urban area through the Bronte Green Application process. It is my opinion that since this area will be the civic heart of the Region, simply surrounding the WOC on two of three sides with townhouses is not appropriate from a land use compatibility perspective. This is particularly the case where sources of noise and odour from the WOC have not been adequately assessed by the applicant. I note that Section 26.6 of the Livable Oakville Plan requires that the Bronte Green Lands be comprehensively studied to determine future land uses and policies On this basis, it is my opinion that it would be premature to consider the applications until these issues have been addressed to the Region's satisfaction Vegetation Unit I have reviewed and rely on the factual evidence provided by Ms. Brooks and the factual and opinion evidence provided by Mr. Sharp/Spitale in their respective Witness Statements in respect of the issue concerning Vegetation Unit Vegetation Unit 12 is pocket of land approximately 4 acres in size surrounded by significant woodlands. This area was formerly used for farming purposes. A small opening connects Vegetation Unit 12 to the rest of the subdivision Vegetation Unit 12 is designated as Regional Natural Heritage System ( RNHS ) in the ROP. The RNHS designation on the Bronte Green Lands was approved by the Board on November 28, 2014 through ROPA The applicant proposes to remove RNHS designation from Vegetation Unit 12 and replace it with Urban Area to permit the development of 11 lots (Lots ). The only connection between these lots and the rest of the subdivision is through a narrow road (Road BB ) Bronte Green Corporation has not submitted a Regional Official Plan Amendment to re-designate Vegetation Unit 12 from RNHS to Urban Area. Instead, based on the EIS submitted by the applicant, it proposes to rely on Section of the ROP. Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 25

26 165. Section of the ROP states: The boundaries of the Regional Natural Heritage System may be refined, with additions, deletions and/or boundary adjustments, through: a) A Sub-watershed Study accepted by the Region and undertaken in the context of an Area-Specific Plan; b) An individual Environmental Impact Assessment accepted by the Region, as required by this Plan; or c) Similar studies based on terms of reference accepted by the Region. Once approved through an approval process under the Planning Act, these refinements are in effect on the date of such approval. The Region will maintain mapping showing such refinements and incorporate them as part of the Region s statutory review of its Official Plan The refinement process permitted in Section cannot be read in isolation. It is an appropriate process in the context of the ROP because of the Region s systems based approach to protecting the natural heritage system. Accordingly, the other parts of the ROP that address the Natural Heritage System must also be read together with Section In particular, Section states: The Regional Natural Heritage System is a systems approach to protecting and enhancing natural features and functions and is scientifically structured on the basis of the following components: 115.3(1) Key Features, which include: a) significant habitat of endangered and threatened species, b) significant wetlands, c) significant coastal wetlands, d) significant woodlands, e) significant valleylands, f) significant wildlife habitat, g) significant areas of natural and scientific interest, h) fish habitat, Key Features that have been identified are shown on Map 1G (2) enhancements to the Key Features including Centres for Biodiversity, Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 26

27 115.3(3) linkages, 115.3(4) buffers, 115.3(5) watercourses that are within a Conservation Authority Regulation Limit or that provide a linkage to a wetland or a significant woodland, and 115.3(6) wetlands other than those considered significant under Section 115.3(1)b) Enhancements to the Key Features are defined as: ENHANCEMENTS TO THE KEY FEATURES means ecologically supporting areas adjacent to Key Features and/or measures internal to the Key Features that increase the ecological resilience and function of individual Key Features or groups of Key Features Finally, the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment is set out in Section 118(3) of the ROP: Require the proponent of any development or site alteration that meets the criteria set out in Section 118(3.1) to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), unless: a) the proponent can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Region that the proposal is minor in scale and/or nature and does not warrant an EIA, b) it is a use conforming to the Local Official Plan and permitted by Local Zoning By-laws; c) it is a use requiring only an amendment to the Local Zoning By-law and is exempt from this requirement by the Local Official Plan; or d) exempt or modified by specific policies of this Plan. The purpose of an EIA is to demonstrate that the proposed development or site alteration will result in no negative impacts to that portion of the Regional Natural Heritage System or unmapped Key Features affected by the development or site alteration by identifying components of the Regional Natural Heritage System as listed in Section and their associated ecological functions and assessing the potential environmental impacts, requirements for impact avoidance and mitigation measures, and opportunities for enhancement. The EIA, shall, as a first step, identify Key Features on or near the subject site that are not mapped on Map 1G I rely on Mr. Sharp/Spitale s evidence that Vegetation Unit 12 functions as an enhancement to the Key Features and is an integral component of the RNHS and it is Mr. Sharp/Spitale s opinion that Vegetation Unit 12 should remain in the RNHS On this basis, it is my opinion that Section of the ROP cannot be relied upon to refine the RNHS since it has not been demonstrated 'that the proposed development or site alteration will result in no negative impacts to that portion of the Regional Natural Heritage System'. In addition, Section of the 2014 PPS dealing with Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 27

28 'adjacent lands' applies, and the tests set out in that section of the PPS are relevant and based on advice provided by Mr. Sharp/Spitale, development within Vegetation Unit 12 would have a negative impact as set and defined by the 2014 PPS Finally, my opinion that the removal of Vegetation Unit 12 from the RNHS would not be consistent with the 2014 PPS The introductory paragraph in Section 2.0 (Wise Use and Management of Resources) of the 2014 PPS states the following: Ontario's long-term prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being depend on conserving biodiversity, protecting the health of the Great Lakes, and protecting natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral and cultural heritage and archaeological resources for their economic, environmental and social benefits. Accordingly: It is noted that this paragraph sets the stage for the remaining policies in Section 2.0 of the 2014 PPS as a result of the use of the word accordingly at the end It is noted that that Section of the 2014 PPS states the following: natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term The requirement to establish a natural heritage system is a requirement of the 2014 PPS as per Section 2.1.3, which indicates that natural heritage systems shall be identified. recognizing that natural heritage systems will vary in size and form in settlement areas, rural areas and prime agricultural areas The definition of natural heritage system in the PPS was also significantly expanded in the 2014 version of the PPS. Below are the additions to the definition in bold: Natural heritage system: means a system made up of natural heritage features and areas, and linkages intended to provide connectivity (at the regional or site level) and support natural processes which are necessary to maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions, viable populations of indigenous species, and ecosystems. These systems can include natural heritage features and areas, federal and provincial parks and conservation reserves, other natural heritage features, lands that have been restored and areas with or have the potential to be restored to a natural state, areas that support hydrologic functions, and working landscapes that enable ecological functions to continue. The Province has a recommended approach for identifying natural heritage systems, but municipal approaches that achieve or exceed the same objective may also be used The expanded definition of natural heritage system in the 2014 PPS expands upon the nature of the features and functions that need to be considered in developing such a system and it recognizes that municipal approaches that achieve or exceed the same objective may also be used It is my understanding that Mr. Sharp/Spitale have evaluated the function of enhancement area not only from a local, site-specific perspective but also from a Regional perspective. In my opinion, the Province s direction for municipalities to Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 28

29 identify a natural heritage system and the expanded definition of natural heritage system in the PPS support the approach taken by Mr. Sharp/Spitale in concluding that Vegetation Unit 12 should remain in the RNHS as an enhancement area Pond It is my understanding that there is evidence of a Snapping Turtle nest being present near Pond 7. Snapping Turtles are identified as a species of special concern under the Endangered Species Act. On this basis, an appropriate area in the vicinity of the nest would be considered significant wildlife habitat as per the 2014 PPS and therefore should be included as part of the RNHS based on the policies approved in ROPA 38. Nick McDonald, RPP Witness Statement of Nick McDonald BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION (August 27, 2015) 29