Administration Office of the Regional Clerk Niagara 2201 St. David's Road W, PO Box 1042, ,Sub-item ON L2V 4T7 12 Telephone: 905-685-4225 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca

July 24, 2015 CL 13-2014, July 23, 2015 PDC 10-2015, July 15, 201 5 Report PDS 31-2015

LOCAL AREA MUNICIPALITIES

SENT ELECTRON/CALLY

Province of Coordinated Policy Review Mapping Submission PDS 31-2015

Regional Council, at its meeting of July 23, 2015, approved the following recommendation of its Public Works Committee:

That Report PDS 31-20151 dated July 15, 2015, respecting Province of Ontario Coordinated Policy Review Mapping Submission, BE RECEIVED and the following recommendations BE APPROVED:

1. That Regional Council ENDORSE the maps attached to Report PDS 31-2015 (Appendices I - VII), which form the second component of the Region's submission to the 2015 Coordinated Policy Review process; and,

2. That a copy of this report BE FORWARDED to the local area municipalities, the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and the local MPPs.

A copy of Report PDS 31-2015 is enclosed for your information. The report in its entirety (including appendices), may be found at the following link: http://www. n iagararegion.ca/council/Council%20Documents/2015/pdc-agenda-ju ly-15­ 2015.pdf

.../2 Yours truly, QL)W__ Ralph Walton Regional Clerk :amn cc: C. D'Angelo, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority E. Acs, Planner J. Docker, Planner T . Donia, Project Manager K. Martel, Planner M. L. Tanner, Director, Community and Long Range Planning/Chief Planner N. Smagata, Administrative Assistant N. Oakes, Executive Assistant to the Commissioner, Planning & Development Services PDS 31-2015 July 15, 2015 Page 1

REPORT TO: Planning and Development Committee

MEETING DATE: Wednesday, July 15, 2015

SUBJECT: Province of Ontario Coordinated Policy Review Mapping Submission

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That Regional Council ENDORSE the maps attached to this report (Appendices I – VII), which form the second component of the Region’s submission to the 2015 Coordinated Policy Review process; and,

2. That a copy of this report BE FORWARDED to the local area municipalities, the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and the local MPP’s.

KEY FACTS

• The Province has initiated the Coordinated Policy Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater , the Greenbelt Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

• Influencing Provincial Plans was identified as one of Council’s Strategic Priorities under the theme of “Investment, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship”.

• The Region provided Council endorsed comments on May 28, 2015 as the first of two components of the Regional submission to the Coordinated Policy Review. This report is the second component of the Region’s submission, and provides detailed mapping and supplemental commentary related to the Provincial Plans in Niagara.

CONSIDERATIONS

Financial

The Regional Official Plan is required to conform to the three Provincial Plans that apply in Niagara. Any cost associated with achieving conformity to Provincial Plans is accounted for in the Planning and Development Services operating budget.

PDS 31-2015 July 15, 2015 Page 2

Corporate

The project team, as outlined in report PDS 22-2015, has continued to consult with representatives across the organization in order to ensure comments on the plans align with other corporate initiatives.

The project team also participated in a second Regional Town Hall meeting with Provincial representatives held in Beamsville on May 21. As endorsed by Planning and Development Committee on May 13, 2015, planning staff delivered the same messaging at that meeting.

Governmental Partners

Throughout the review process, the project team has worked collaboratively with local municipal planning staff to develop a coordinated response.

The maps attached with this report are the result of a collaborative effort, illustrating issues that impact the local municipalities and Region as a whole. Staff have received copies of the submissions made to the Province by the local municipalities, and have further consulted with local planning staff to identify and refine the areas shown in the attached mapping.

The Region has also been trying to work better with the Province to ensure greater understanding and consideration of Niagara's specific issues that will ideally lead to positive change. The Province has been very receptive to learning about the issues in Niagara, as evidenced by having a second Regional Town Hall session in Niagara on May 21. Regional and many local staff have also had an opportunity to meet informally with Provincial staff to further discuss the Region’s submission and the specific issues in Niagara. The better working relationship demonstrates the efforts towards the Regional Priority of Influencing Provincial Plans. Through continued dialogue throughout this process and many of the related projects Council and staff are working together to bring positive changes to Niagara.

Public and/or Service Users

The project team has continued to meet with stakeholders from across Niagara as previously outlined in report PDS 22-2015.

The project team was contacted by and assisted several residents by providing them with information and mapping which was used to create individual submissions to the Province. The project team has received copies of submissions made by private citizens as well as consulting firms representing clients in Niagara. All of this information has been reviewed in conjunction with local municipal partners, and has informed the mapping attached with this report. PDS 31-2015 July 15, 2015 Page 3

ANALYSIS

The first component of the Region’s submission to the Coordinated Policy Review consisted of a textual submission outlining challenges and opportunities associated with the Greenbelt Plan, Growth Plan, and Niagara Escarpment Plan. The submission included detailed requests and recommendations and also indicated the Niagara Region would be following up with a second submission consisting of mapping that helps further explain some of the issues and requests and additional comments.

The maps attached with this report (Appendix I - VII) form the second submission to the Province. The attached maps include:

Appendix I

This map illustrates four important changes the Region requested to the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) Area. Three additional maps are provided as Appendix I a, I b, and I c to help clarify the proposed additions to the Plan.

Removing Urban Land from the Plan Area

The first pivotal change is the removal of urban designated land from the NEP area. This would allow Niagara municipalities to have greater power over how lands within the urban areas are developed or redeveloped without the limitations of outside development control measures.

The Provincial Growth Plan requires density targets to be reached. As development pressures grow in urban areas, there may be opportunities for redevelopment in these areas that would benefit the municipalities to be better able to plan for this growth, while still respecting the key Escarpment features. This would also ensure that the urban design considerations the community has in place are respected, and reflects the needs and local character.

Despite being within the Escarpment Area, two areas in Niagara on the Lake, St. David’s and Queenston, both have a majority of their urban lands not subject to NEP development control. Illustrating that this request makes sense, better allowing Niagara municipalities to plan for their future. Therefore, the Region requests that lands within urban areas in Niagara be removed from the Niagara Escarpment Plan area to allow for better urban development, while respecting the preservation of key environmental features that define the Escarpment.

Recognizing the Fonthill Kame

In 2013 Regional Council requested that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) acknowledge the work of Dr. Menzies to define the boundaries of the Fonthill PDS 31-2015 July 15, 2015 Page 4

Kame Delta, and properly consider the extent of this area as an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI). The MNRF has defined a smaller area.

Through this review process, the Region again reiterates its request for the lands outlined by Dr. Menzies as being part of the Kame to be recognized, and added to the Niagara Escarpment Plan area. The lands are identified in green on the map.

Not Supporting Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) Proposed Plan Additions

Three areas were proposed for addition to the NEP Area: a piece of land beside the General Motors Glendale Avenue plant in St. Catharines, three small pieces of land surrounding the Lathrop Nature Reserve in Pelham, and Calaguiro Estates, an established residential neighbourhood in Niagara Falls.

After analysis of the three proposed areas, and discussions with local planning staff, it was determined that the proposed areas were selected based on inaccurate data and would create undue restrictions on already established residential and industrial properties. The Region requests that these proposed additions not be included in the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area.

Appendix Ia. shows the lands proposed for addition in what NEC staff refer to as the General Motors Woods. The subject land is owned by Transport Canada, and Seaway Haulage Road is located within this area; a vehicle and equipment access point for the . Considering that federally owned land is exempt from the policies of the NEP, the addition of this land to the NEP area does not add protection or value. Furthermore, in the unlikely event this land was declared surplus by the Federal Government, given the proximity of the active General Motors plant, it would not be desirable to have heavily restricted land in the area of General Motors.

Appendix Ib. shows the lands proposed for addition in what the NEC refers to as Lathrop Nature Preserve. The reality of this proposal is that with the exception of the 3 small parcels representing a combined total of 8.6 hectares, the Lathrop Nature Preserve is already within the NEP area. The parcels identified as 1 and 2 in Appendix Ib. are already under the ownership of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and are part of a larger 25+ hectare parcel of land which represents a major piece of the Lathrop Preserve. Based on ownership and parcel size, it is highly unlikely that parcels 1 and 2 would benefit from inclusion in the NEP area as they are already protected through ownership and the Town’s Official Plan. Parcel 3 is owned by the Town of Pelham and contains Marlene Stewart Street Park. The Town would like to reserve the opportunity to create additional recreational opportunities at this park. Restrictions through the NEP would limit what the Town is able to do with this land.

PDS 31-2015 July 15, 2015 Page 5

Appendix I c. Shows the lands proposed for addition in the Calaguiro Estates area of Niagara Falls. NEC staff are suggesting this inclusion based on computer modeling which predicts the escarpment brow is located in the area. In reality, an incorrectly identified wall of a closed sand quarry is what has been identified as the Escarpment brow, not a natural feature. Calaguiro Estates is also an established residential area. Eagle Valley Golf Course has an approved site plan in place for multi-story residential unit. The addition of this area to the NEP area would place further restrictions on existing established lands and would not be protecting natural features.

Removing Agricultural Land from the Plan Area

The review of the Greenbelt that Niagara Region undertook in 2013 expressed a number of issues that the agricultural community had with the Greenbelt Plan. Much of the frustration surrounded a lack of consideration for agricultural viability, and limiting the opportunities of farming businesses to diversify and expand. A complicating factor is that there are two sets of rules for agricultural land: one for the NEP, and one for the Greenbelt within this area. Having two sets of rules only complicates the issues, and disadvantages some farm operators.

The challenge is further compounded by the fact that the NEP does not consider value added agricultural uses which restricts farm viability. For example, the Commission has the ability to limit the amount of menu items agricultural businesses may have in a value added restaurant. These additional restrictions limit the growth and opportunities for these businesses to grow and thrive.

The map identifies all of the parcels that are assessed as farm lands within the NEP area. Evidence of farming has not been further ground-truthed; however, the amount of land that is assessed as farmland within the overall NEP area represents approximately 50% of the overall area. For this reason the Region seeks only the Greenbelt policies apply with regard to farmlands so that there is one set of policies for farming in the Specialty Crop Area.

Appendix II

This map illustrates the original, current and proposed designations within the NEP area, and the agriculturally assessed parcels overlayed on the proposed designations.

Maintaining the Existing Niagara Escarpment Plan Area Designations

Since its inception, the designations within the NEP area have changed toward further protection of the landscape, as is evidenced by the growth of the Escarpment Natural Area designation. This area has grown from 23% of the lands in 1985 to 32% currently, with a goal to increase this area again to 36% in the proposed boundaries that appear in the discussion papers on their website. PDS 31-2015 July 15, 2015 Page 6

According to the text in the discussion papers, these changes were proposed based on conceptual Regional Official Plan environmental mapping.

The Environmental section of the Regional Official Plan is in need of updating, as it is not based on current information, and there are existing policies that need to be clarified. Basing new mapping with strict policies and implementation on old data that is to be updated is not a justifiable reason to change the current designations in the NEP.

The proposed designations in the NEC discussion papers are mapped with all of the lands that are assessed as agriculture. As is evidenced by this overlay, agriculture is a predominant land use that covers many of the designations in the NEP area. Mitigation measures and the use of environmental farm plans are common in farming to ensure the land remains productive, and natural features are protected in a way that protects the resource and is not detrimental to the operation. Additional restrictions that are not ground-truthed and only serve to limit the ability of agricultural businesses to grow is not in keeping with the Premier’s challenge to grow agriculture in Ontario.

The Region does not support the changes to the designation boundaries proposed by the NEC, as they will limit potential reasonable development opportunities and are not based on current information, or ground-truthed research.

Appendix III

This map illustrates many requests that have arisen through consultation with local municipalities.

Recognition of Special Policy Areas within the Greenbelt Plan

There are a number of areas within Niagara that have concentrations of existing development that would not quite qualify as a settlement area, but are in keeping with the agricultural and rural context within the Greenbelt. The policies within the current Greenbelt limit the ability for these institutions, businesses, and housing developments from expanding, altering lot lines, or changing their uses to fit the current needs of the facility or area. Due to location, many of these areas already benefit from municipal servicing.

Five such areas are illustrated in Niagara on the Appendix, with subsequent mapping of the areas to show the development that exists. Niagara Region has requested that policies be put in the Greenbelt Plan to allow for Special Policy Areas. We envision these Special Policy Areas to be further defined though local discussions to determine the Vision for the area, the boundaries, and the types of redevelopment that would be beneficial to the area and what would be directed to the existing settlement areas. PDS 31-2015 July 15, 2015 Page 7

This would provide Niagara and other municipalities with added flexibility to offer businesses, housing developments, and current and former institutional properties an opportunity to further benefit the overall community, while reflecting the principles of the Greenbelt.

Possible Greenbelt Expansion Areas

Two areas in Niagara were identified through discussions with local municipalities for possible expansion of the Greenbelt.

The first is presented as a land swap, removing land from the Greenbelt where existing development is located to the northwest of Grimsby in return for the designation of more rural and agricultural lands at the south of the municipal boundary. The size of the proposed area to be added is 923 hectares and is bound by Mud Street West, Kemp Road West and Thirty Road.

The second area indicated for possible expansion is in Thorold and includes lands surrounding Lake Gibson. This area has been studied for approximately ten years, has some environmentally sensitive features, and recognizes that Lake Gibson is an important water source in Niagara. The size of this parcel is 487 hectares.

The Region requests that these two areas be considered as possible expansion areas for the Greenbelt.

Possible Urban Area Expansion – Grimsby – Changes Needed in Policy

While Niagara Region undertakes a Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) growth study to determine housing and employment land needs until 2041, there have been some requests for urban area expansions coming from municipalities and individuals.

From the perspectives of prosperity and competitiveness, the extension of the urban area of Grimsby to meet the urban area of Stoney Creek in Hamilton makes a logical proposal that would recognize many of the existing uses in the area, and offer opportunities for growth and better use of existing infrastructure.

The possible urban area expansion brings up a very important consideration with respect to the Greenbelt Plan. The current policies of the Greenbelt and Growth Plan prohibit expansion of urban areas into Specialty Crop land. The Growth Plan, however, outlines that settlement areas can only be expanded through an MCR process. Unlike many municipalities in the GTAH, Niagara urban areas in the Greenbelt do not have a potential white belt area that they can easily expand into.

The MCR will determine the need for all potential expansions of urban areas, whether they be in the Greenbelt or not. PDS 31-2015 July 15, 2015 Page 8

The Region requests that a policy change be added to the new Greenbelt that allows for municipalities to alter the boundaries of settlement areas in the Greenbelt Plan onto Special Crop Lands, if it is determined through a formal MCR process that that expansion is needed to meet growth objectives, the best long­ term use of the land is for urban purposes subject to defined criteria and best use of infrastructure.

Recognizing Ridgeville as a Hamlet

The hamlet of Ridgeville was founded in 1865. The hamlet has developed over time and has a defined centre point with a mix of uses and full municipal services. Largely, the hamlet has not faced development pressures that would have necessitated its earlier recognition in the Regional Official Plan. In 2005, Ridgeville was designated Tender fruit and Grape Lands under the Greenbelt Plan. As a result, the Town of Pelham is not able to consider any development requests in the area.

The Region requests that Ridgeville be recognized as a hamlet in the Greenbelt Plan to enable the Region and the Town to properly recognize it as a settlement area in our Plans, and allow for limited development to take place.

Appendix IV

This map illustrates the impacts of the Greenbelt Natural Heritage system policies, particularly key hydrologic features.

Use of Ground-truthed Hydrological Mapping and Flexible Setbacks Needed

The policies in the Greenbelt Plan seek to protect key natural heritage and key hydrologic features from development or site alteration. According to the policy both a natural heritage evaluation and hydrological evaluation are required within 120 metres of such features, and a minimum 30 metre wide vegetation protection zone must be maintained proximate to the feature. There are two issues of significance related to these policies, and the associated mapping that accompanies them that identifies the features.

The mapping to identify the key hydrologic features was provided by the MNRF. Upon implementation of the policies, many problems were encountered with the setbacks and the mapping provided, as the mapping recognized more features as significant than was actually the case. The Region and Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) have collaborated to review the mapping and ground-truth the information.

Using Niagara-on-the-Lake as an example, when the MNRF data applied and the 120 metre buffer mapped, approximately 2975 parcels affected (roughly 80% of the total land in Niagara-on-the-Lake). PDS 31-2015 July 15, 2015 Page 9

When undertaking the same process using the updated NPCA / Regional mapping, there are only 2375 properties affected. This map’s purpose is to illustrate the problems with the MNRF mapping. The Region requests that the Province adopt updated mapping from the NPCA/Niagara Region when it has been completed.

The second significant issue relates to the setbacks and buffer sizes identified, and how they limit the use of agricultural land in Niagara. Unlike other areas of the Province, active and successful farms in the Specialty Crop Area can range between 10 to 25 acres, depending on the commodity group. The Greenbelt Plan policies indicate farms created through severance can be no smaller than 40 acres. This is important when considering the use of the setbacks that trigger further evaluation and the minimum size of a vegetation protection zone is 30 metres.

Illustrated in the Appendix are two examples of farm parcels in Niagara-on-the-Lake that are located near key hydrologic features. The mapping demonstrates the expansive nature of these setbacks on small farm parcels, and the difficulty a farmer has in practically adding a value-added on farm use, building or renovating a barn, or undertaking site alteration without significant financial burden or the creation of a vegetation zone that might seriously limit the productivity of their lands. The Region requests flexible setbacks be established to consider the parcel, the proposed use or change, and the functional use of the farm property. Flexible boundaries are often used in urban areas and allow for more intensive development patterns, often with respect to similar hydrologic features, and should also be offered to the rural and agricultural community. Further, consideration should be given to the vegetated protection zone making sure it doesn’t conflict with farm crops.

Appendix V

This map identifies the proposed transit hubs and stations, as well as those urban areas that may experience growth in the near term through intensification and to potentially modify their boundaries. Only urban area boundaries as currently approved are shown, as the MCR growth study will ultimately determine the need and location of any boundary modifications.

Recognizing the Transit Hub and Transit Stations

The realization of GO Rail to Niagara is a significant priority for the Region as they are recognized as a catalyst for development. To support this work, the Region is undertaking a Transit Hub and Stations study to properly plan for the future hub and station locations, and the surrounding areas to ensure that they have appropriate densities, connections with local transit and mix of uses that will support the active use of GO Rail. The three initial areas of focus for this study are in Grimsby, St. Catharines, and Niagara Falls, with a phased plan for a Beamsville station.

PDS 31-2015 July 15, 2015 Page 10

The Growth Plan recognizes Niagara as needing Improved Inter-Regional Transit to 2031, and has located an Urban Growth Centre in St. Catharines downtown. As part of Metrolinx’s Legislated Review, they are required to follow the updated Growth Plan that is developed. Therefore, Niagara Region requests that under the Metrolinx Act, 2006 the Minister make a regulation under Section 42(1) (a) and (b) to prescribe the Regional Municipality of Niagara be part of the GO Transit Service Area, and as part of the Regional Transportation Area. Further, the Region requests that the definition of Regional Transportation Area be amended in the Act to include the Regional Municipality of Niagara. This recognition will help implement St. Catharines as an Urban Growth Centre under the Growth Plan, and help fulfill Niagara’s goals of economic growth and prosperity.

Recognizing the Results of Niagara’s Study of Growth Needs (MCR)

Niagara Region has begun the process of assessing our growth needs to 2041, in accordance with Provincial policy through our Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR). This study will determine the future growth needs of Niagara’s municipalities through an examination of the population and employment lands, and consideration of needs and the best places for where growth should go. This may involve intensification efforts, urban boundary expansions and potentially retractions. Two parallel studies, the Transportation Master Plan and Waste Water Servicing Master Plan, are also being conducted and will provide input to the MCR to ensure that areas identified for growth will have appropriate infrastructure.

An expectation of this study is that areas suggested for expansion may be within the Greenbelt Specialty Crop Areas. While every effort will be taken to ensure the preservation of functional specialty crop lands, there may be instances where expansions into these lands are required. These would need to be rationalized from a land use, infrastructure and financial picture and work toward supporting the Province’s goals of creating complete communities. The MCR process is expected to be completed by late 2016 / early 2017, after the Coordinated Provincial Review is complete. Therefore, the Region requests that the Province recognize through policy that an updated MCR may alter the boundaries of urban / settlement areas, even onto specialty crop lands.

Recognizing and Supporting Niagara’s Economic Prosperity Goals

Included within the Growth Plan are a number of targets for growth that Niagara is required to meet. For example, in built-up areas the Region is required to meet a target of 40% intensification (S. 2.2.3.1), the urban growth centre of downtown St. Catharines has to be planned to achieve a minimum gross density target of 150 residents and jobs per hectare (S. 2.2.4.5(c)), and designated greenfield areas need to be planned to achieve a density target of not less than 50 residents and jobs combined per hectare (S. 2.2.7.2). PDS 31-2015 July 15, 2015 Page 11

Overall the Region has had some success meeting these targets; however without greater consideration for Niagara’s economic situation, these numbers are not sustainable over time.

The background research being done to support Niagara’s MCR, indicates that over the last number of years the growth Niagara is experiencing is from retirees relocating to Niagara from elsewhere, or commuters who work outside the Region seeking lower priced housing. One of the guiding principles of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is to ‘Plan and manage growth to support a strong and competitive economy’ (S. 1.2.2). Niagara is not experiencing the growth pressures of other communities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

In fact, Niagara would be better served with policies, strategies and initiatives to support growth and to re-establish the Regional Economy. To help Niagara support growth the Growth Plan should also consider how to foster greater economic prosperity and growth opportunities to address the anomaly being experienced in Niagara. This is the strategy that was taken in the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario, 2011. The Guiding Principles of that document focus on:

- ‘Creating a highly productive region, with a diverse, globally competitive economy that offers a range of career opportunities for all residents. - Developing a highly educated and skilled workforce to support an evolving knowledge-based economy and excellence in the trades.’ … (S. 1.4.1 and 1.4.2)

The Region requests that greater emphasis be placed in the revised Growth Plan on not only managing growth, but also creating growth opportunities that will enhance Niagara’s prosperity.

Appendix VI

This map illustrates a number of mapping errors that need to be corrected, as well as challenges that some properties face when multiple Provincial designations are placed on a single property. The solutions proposed involve a mapping and policy change.

Mapping Corrections

The urban area boundaries created as part of the Regional Official Plan were largely decided upon by an OMB decision using a paper map. As the technology of geographic information systems has progressed, so too has the recognition that maps created previously need to be reviewed to ensure the boundaries correlate with each other. In conducting an analysis of the boundaries of the Provincial Plan designations, two areas in need of correction were found.

PDS 31-2015 July 15, 2015 Page 12

Mapping corrections largely relate to the boundaries of the Greenbelt, NEP, or Urban Areas not conforming to the base layer mapping. For example, there are areas of yellow identified on the map along Lake Ontario; these identify parcels where the boundary of the Lake and the Greenbelt differ by a matter of meters, potentially due to shoreline erosion, or other changes to the water’s edge. A challenge exists for property owners and municipalities when looking at these mapping errors in how to interpret the corresponding policies.

The Region will send the Province the digital boundary files we are using, and requests that the Province update their mapping layers to allow the designations and bounds to snap to a corresponding line.

Policy Need for Parcels with Multiple Provincial Designations

Parcels identified in red have multiple Provincial Plan designations upon them. At times, multiple designations can make sense, such as a residential use of a larger farm property is in the urban area, whereas the farm use is located in the Greenbelt. The challenge comes when the property owner wants to undertake some redevelopment on the urban portion of the property but the lands available do not accommodate this change, and the policies of the Greenbelt would not permit this type of development. When multiple designations exist on a single parcel of land, it is also difficult to determine where one policy area ends and the next begins. In some cases, the boundaries pass through buildings.

The Region requests a policy be included in each of the Plans that allow for minor boundary adjustments to the Provincial Plan boundaries that allow for redevelopment opportunities that meet the intent of the Plan.

Appendix VII

This map illustrates requests that were made by private property owners, which were shared by the applicant with the Region or local municipality. In reality, there are likely many more submissions that were made across the Niagara; this map only shows what was shared. These requests have not been analyzed by staff at the Region or local municipalities. They are merely shown to illustrate the diverse range of interests in the Provinces Coordinated Policy Review. Endorsing this map for submission to the Province does not indicate support or lack of support for individual private requests.

Next Steps

This submission represents the final component of the Region’s formal submission to the Province for this phase of the Coordinated Policy Review. However, there is still much work to be done. PDS 31-2015 July 15, 2015 Page 13

The Region’s MCR complements the work already undertaken for this review, and will have a significant impact of policy changes in the Region. It is expected that staff and Councilors will continue to advocate Niagara’s requests.

Discussions with the Province have indicated that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is planning to hold further public consultations in January 2016, which would seek feedback on potential plan and mapping changes. Staff anticipate that an additional commenting opportunity will be created through the next phase.

ALTERNATIVES REVIEWED

Council endorsed the first submission on the Co-ordinated Plan Review on May 21st, 2015. This submission was provided to the Province on May 28, 2015, and indicated subsequent mapping would be provided in July of 2015.

Failure to submit this mapping would weaken the Region’s submission for the Coordinated Policy Review, and fail to highlight some of the real challenges and opportunities that could be realized with this visual conveyance of the information.

ORIGIN OF REPORT

This report builds on PDS 22-2015 which indicated that additional consultation with the local municipalities and stakeholders would be undertaken to create a series of maps that provide further detail with respect to Niagara’s submission to the Province for the Coordinated Policy Review.

OTHER PERTINENT REPORTS

• PDS 22-2015 - Province of Ontario Coordinated Policy Review Submission, May 21, 2015 • PDS-C 4-2015 2015 - Coordinated Provincial Plan Review, April 9, 2015 • ICP 84-2013 Niagara Perspectives – Greenbelt Plan Review, September 19, 2013 • ICP 62-2013 - Fonthill Kame-Delta ANSI Proposed Boundary, June 20, 2013

SUBMITTED & SIGNED BY: APPROVED & SIGNED BY: Rino Mostacci, MCIP, RPP Harry Schlange Commissioner Chief Administrative Officer Planning and Development Services

PDS 31-2015 July 15, 2015 Page 14

This report was prepared by, Erik Acs MCIP, RPP, Planner, Terri Donia, MCIP, RPP, Project Manager, Kelly Martel, Planner, John Docker, Planner, and reviewed by Mary Lou Tanner, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner and Director of Planning Services, in consultation with the area municipalities.

APPENDICES

Appendix I Niagara Escarpment Area Plan Changes Page 15

Appendix II NEP Area Over Time and Impacts on Agriculture Page 19

Appendix III Significant Greenbelt Changes Page 23

Appendix IV Key Hydrological Features Page 30

Appendix V Focus Areas for Growth Page 31

Appendix VI Mapping Corrections Page 32

Appendix VII Private Property Owner Requests Page 33