Town of Grimsby Council Agenda
Monday, August 17, 2020 5:30 p.m.
Town Hall Council Chambers 160 Livingston Avenue
Due to the COVID-19 and the closure of Town Hall, meetings are available through electronic participation: https://vimeo.com/grimsbycouncilchambers Page
1. Call to Order
2. Disclosure of Interest
3. Adoption of Previous Council Minutes
6 - 18 a) Council - July 20, 2020
4. Outstanding Items from the July 20 Council Meeting
5. Reports
19 - 25 a) Report CORP20-05: Joining the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities
26 - 39 b) Report FIN20-11: 2019 General Statement of Operations (revised)
40 - 44 c) Report FIN20-12: 2019 Environmental Services Statements of Operations
6. Correspondence
45 - 46 a) Niagara Region • Declaration of Public Health Issue
47 - 54 b) Area municipalities
Page 1 of 304 Council Agenda August 17, 2020 Page • Town of Lincoln re: Support the Joining of the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities • City of Thorold re: Support the Joining of the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities • Town of Pelham re: Support the Joining of the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities • City of St. Catharines re: Joint Statement and Call to Action from AMO, LUMCO and MARCO - Ontario Mayors and Chairs Issue Emergency Call for Financial Support
55 - 63 c) Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing • COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act • Bill 189 COVID-19 Support and Protection Act, 2020 - Planning Act • A Place to Grow-Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
7. Items for the August 17 Council Meeting
8. Integrity Commissioner Final Reports
64 - 67 a) Report IC-187-0320, IC-188-0320 and IC-189-320 (Deferred from the July 20, 2020 Council meeting)
68 - 72 b) Report IC-190-0320 (Deferred from the July 20, 2020 Council meeting)
73 - 75 c) Report IC-193-0320 (Deferred from the July 20, 2020 Council meeting)
76 d) Report IC-196-0320 (Deferred from the July 20, 2020 Council meeting)
77 - 81 e) Report IC-201-0320 (Deferred from the July 20, 2020 Council meeting)
9. Reports
82 - 85 a) Report DPW20-26: Request for Site Alteration Permit for 149 Kemp Road West
86 - 90 b) Report PLN20-16: Award of Contract PLNG20-16 Consulting Services to Complete a Land Use Planning Study of the Grimsby
Page 2 of 304 Council Agenda August 17, 2020 Page
Beach Area
91 - 98 c) Report TC20-03: A by-law to prohibit and regulate the discharge of firearms and bows in the Town of Grimsby
99 - 118 d) P.A. 20-17, Settlement Agreement - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application for 21 and 23 Main Street East and 6 Doran Avenue - Laneway Ownership
10. Closed Session
a) Closed Session under Section 239 (2)(f), advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose: • Confidential Report 20-17, Settlement Agreement – Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Applications for 21 and 23 Main Street East and 6 Doran Avenue – Laneway Ownership (revised)
11. Open Session
12. Resolutions
119 a) Requested by Councillor Sharpe (Notice of Motion provided at the July 20, 2020 Council meeting) • National Anthem
120 b) Requested by Councillor Vaine (Notice of Motion provided at the July 20, 2020 Council meeting) • GEI Board Information
121 c) Requested by Councillor Bothwell (Notice of Motion provided at the July 20, 2020 Council meeting) • Indigenous Statement
122 d) Requested by Councillor Vaine (Notice of Motion provided at the July 20, 2020 Council meeting) • Accessibility Mat for Grimsby Beach
13. Correspondence
123 - 282 a) Niagara Region
Page 3 of 304 Council Agenda August 17, 2020 Page • Combined Sewer Overflow Control and Wet Weather Management Program • Affordable Housing Strategy Update • Natural Environment Work Program - Phase 4: Identification and Evaluation of Options • Memorandum CAO 16-2020 - Supplemental Information - Options to Consider for Mandating Face Coverings • Signing of the AMO-Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres - Declaration of Mutual Commitment and Friendship with Niagara Region and Friendship Centre Support • Changes to Waste Collection
283 - 288 b) Area Municipalities • Town of Fort Erie re: Canada US Border Crossing • City of St. Catharines Anti-Racism Advisory Committee re: Body Cameras for Police Officers Motion • City of Welland re: AMO-Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres - Declaration of Mutual Commitment and Friendship with Niagara Region and Friendship Centre Support
289 - 290 c) Municipality of West Grey re: Anti Racism Resolution
291 - 296 d) Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing • Labour Deployment • Safe Restart Agreement Phase 1 Allocation
297 - 298 e) Grimsby and District Chamber of Commerce • Canada United Shop Local Campaign
14. New Business
15. Next Meeting
a) The next Council meeting is scheduled for September 21, 2020 which follows the Committee of the Whole meeting commencing at 6:30 p.m. at the Town Hall Council Chambers, 160 Livingston Avenue.
16. Closed Session (Outstanding Item from July 20, 2020)
a) Closed Session under Section 239(2)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001,
Page 4 of 304 Council Agenda August 17, 2020 Page personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees and Section 239(2)(a), the security of the property of the municipality: • Update on personal matters regarding an identifiable individual
b) Closed Session Minutes - June 15, 2020
c) Closed Session Minutes - July 6, 2020
d) Closed Session Minutes - July 13, 2020
17. By-laws
299 a) 20-61 Being a by-law to appoint a Screening Officer for the Town of Grimsby.
300 - 303 b) 20-62 Being a by-law to prohibit and regulate the discharge of firearms and bows in the Town of Grimsby.
304 c) 20-63 Being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby at its meeting held on August 17, 2020.
18. Adjournment
If you require any accommodations for a disability in order to attend or participate in meetings or events, please contact the Accessibility Advisory Administrator at 905 309-2015 or [email protected]
Page 5 of 304 Agenda item a)
The Corporation of the Town of Grimsby
Council Meeting Minutes
Town Hall Council Chambers 160 Livingston Avenue July 20, 2020 (Electronic Participation)
Present: Mayor J.A. Jordan Councillor D. Bothwell Councillor J. Dunstall Councillor R. Freake Councillor D. Kadwell Councillor K. Ritchie Councillor D. Sharpe Councillor R. Vaine Councillor L. Vardy Regional Councillor W. Fertich
Town Clerk, S. Kim CAO, H. Schlange Also Deputy Town Clerk, D. Kripp Attending: Chief Building Official, P. Nickerson Director of Information Services and Innovation, F. Janicas Acting Director of Public Works, B. Wartman Director of Recreation, Facilities and Culture, S. Sweeney Director of Corporate Services/Treasurer, S. Gruninger
1. Call to Order a) The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
2. Disclosure of Interest a) There is no disclosure of interest
3. Adoption of Previous Council Minutes
a) Council - June 15, 2020
b) Special Council - July 6, 2020
c) Special Council - July 13, 2020 C-20-282
Page 6 of 304 Page 2 of 13 Agenda item a)
Council July 20, 2020
Moved by Councillor Freake; Seconded by Councillor Vaine; Resolved that the minutes from the June 15 Council meeting and the July 6 and 13 Special Council meetings be approved. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
4. Delegations
a) Matt Johnson, UrbanSolutions Planning & Land Development Consultants Inc. re: Sign Variance Application - 270 Hunter Road
Matt Johnson speaks to the sign variance application, noting that the variance is to permit a sign face of 362 ft2 and that they have already received approval from Niagara Region and the Ministry of Transportation.
C-20-283 Moved by Councillor Vaine; Seconded by Councillor Vardy; Resolved that the delegation received from Matt Johnson, UrbanSolutions Planning and Land Development Consultants Inc., be received. CARRIED YES: Councillor Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
b) Sean Polden, re: Canalside Soda Company
Sean Polden is in attendance to speak to Canalside Soda Company, noting that the business is a farm business that serves flavourful, small batch craft soda beverages with locally sourced ingredients. Canalside Soda began at St. Catharines Farmers Market and proved to be a success, rapidly growing and participating in six (6) Farmers Markets in a week. Canalside Soda Company intends on using traditional agricultural preservation methods to extend the life of produce grown on homeland to create a “Made in Grimsby” product. Sean notes the company’s next steps are to bring production and bottling in-house, open a Soda Shop and move production to an additional building next to the farm property.
C-20-284 Moved by Councillor; Seconded by Councillor; Resolved that the delegation received from Canalside Soda Company be received. CARRIED
Page 7 of 304 Page 3 of 13 Agenda item a)
Council July 20, 2020
YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
c) Brian Drost, re: 442 Sobie Road
Brian Drost is in attendance to speak to the stop work order he received for fill that had been dumped onto his property, noting he was on the understanding the fill was clean and a permit was not required. Brian would like to work with the Town regarding his stop order and that he be permitted to leave the fill on the property.
C-20-285 Moved by Councillor Vardy; Seconded by Councillor Kadwell; Resolved that the delegation from Brian Drost, 442 Sobie Road, be received. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan NO: Councillor Kadwell
5. Integrity Commissioner Final Reports
a) Report IC-187-0320, IC-188-0320 and IC-189-0320
b) Report IC-190-0320
c) Report IC-193-0320
d) Report IC-196-0320
e) Report IC-201-0320 C-20-286 Moved by Councillor Dunstall; Seconded by Councillor Vaine; Resolved that consideration of all Integrity Commissioner Final Reports be deferred to the Monday, August 17, 2020 Council meeting. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
6. Memorandums
a) Corporate Logo C-20-287 Moved by Councillor Kadwell; Seconded by Councillor Vaine; Resolved that the memorandum with reference to the Corporate Logo be received for information.
Page 8 of 304 Page 4 of 13 Agenda item a)
Council July 20, 2020
CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
b) Grimsby Beach Study RFP Update C-20-288 Moved by Councillor ; Seconded by Councillor ; Resolved that the memorandum with reference to the Grimsby Beach Study RFP Update be received for information. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
7. Regional Councillor Update
a) Regional Councillor Fertich provides a brief update, noting that the Region has legally transferred North Service Road to Grimsby. Secondly, the Region is launching the Inter-Municipal Transit on August 17, 2020. Staff are diligently working to get the information to municipalities. Pelham, Lincoln and Grimsby are going to be connected to the Inter-Municipal Transit, which is a great transportation tool for residents across the Region. He confirms that the transit is inter- municipal and intra-municipal; therefore, residents can use the system to travel within municipal boundaries or to travel outside the municipal boundaries – as far as St. Catharines. Regional Councillor Fertich mentions that when he receives additional information on the Inter- Municipal Transit, he will e-mail members of Council.
Councillor Bothwell notes that North Service Road encompasses quite a span that was not legally transferred to Grimsby, all the way to the border with Stoney Creek and curves around to where Casablanca/Fifth Wheel is which was previously a questionable area. The legal maneuvers to finalize documents through the Land Registry Office may still take some time for this. Further, Councillor Bothwell notes the uploading of Livingston Avenue between Casablanca Boulevard to west of Emily Street to the Region. Regional Councillor Fertich confirms this and notes it is being uploaded to the Region, allowing for direct access to the GO Station and parking lot.
Councillor Kadwell sought updates regarding medical masks and South Service Road construction. Regional Councillor Fertich indicated that he thinks the contract for the South Service Road ends in September or October, but he will look into it and provide confirmation after he has done so. As far as the medical masks, Regional Council will be
Page 9 of 304 Page 5 of 13 Agenda item a)
Council July 20, 2020
considering the medical masks/face coverings report at their meeting on Thursday, July 23. It has been a controversial topic.
8. Reports
a) Report BLDG20-01: 270 Hunter Road – 34 West Avenue North (Hamilton) Inc. Sign By-Law Variance C-20-289 Moved by Councillor Kadwell; Seconded by Councillor Vaine; Resolved that Report BLDG20-01 dated July 20, 2020 be received; And that 34 West Avenue North (Hamilton) Inc. be granted a Sign By-Law variance in order to permit a 362 square foot pole sign. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
b) Report ITSI20-01: Fibre Services Contract Renewal C-20-290 Moved by Councillor Ritchie; Seconded by Councillor Sharpe; Resolved that Report ITSI20-01 Fibre Services Contract Renewal dated July 20, 2020 be received; And that the Mayor and Town Clerk be authorized to renew the agreement with Niagara Regional Broadband Network (NRBN) for fibre connectivity services for the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby for a period of five (5) years at an annual cost of $49,316.16, be approved. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
c) Report DPW20-17: Municipal Access Amending Agreement with Niagara Regional Broadband Network Limited C-20-291 Moved by Councillor; Seconded by Councillor; Resolved that Report DPW20-17 dated July 20, 2020 regarding the Municipal Access Amending Agreement with Niagara Regional Broadband Network Limited be received; And that the Town of Grimsby enter into an extension agreement with Niagara Regional Broadband Network Limited and that the Mayor and Town Clerk be authorized to execute the agreement. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
Page 10 of 304 Page 6 of 13 Agenda item a)
Council July 20, 2020
d) Report DPW20-18: Gibson Street Bridge, Engineering Design for Bridge Replacement C-20-292 Moved by Councillor Kadwell; Seconded by Councillor Vaine; Resolved that Report DPW20-18 dated July 20, 2020 regarding the Gibson Street Pedestrian Bridge, Engineering Design for Bridge Replacement be received; And that Council authorize the Director of Public Works to retain Ellis Engineering Inc. to provide design and contract administration for the replacement of the Gibson Street Pedestrian Bridge at a total estimated cost of $32,915, excluding HST. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
e) Report DPW20-19: Sunflower Subdivision Assumption of Municipal Services C-20-293 Moved by Councillor Kadwell; Seconded by Councillor Vaine; Resolved that Report DPW20-19 dated July 20, 2020 regarding the assumption of municipal services for Sunflower Subdivision be received; And that the Director of Public Works be authorized to release the Letter of Credit in the amount of $120,369.00; And that the Director of Public Works be authorized to issue the Final Certificate of Completion of Services; And that the Mayor and the Town Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary Roadway Assumption By-law. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Ritchie, Kadwell, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
f) Report DPW20-20: Award of Contract PWC20-03, Sanitary Sewer Flushing and CCTV Inspection C-20-294 Moved by Councillor Sharpe; Seconded by Councillor Vaine; Resolved that Report DPW20-20 dated July 20, 2020 regarding the Award of Contract PWC20-03, Sanitary Sewer Flushing & CCTV Inspection be received; And that the Acting Director of Public Works be authorized to award the contract to Dambro Environmental Inc. in the total tendered amount of $77,966.25, excluding HST; And further that the Mayor and Town Clerk be authorized to execute the contract documents. CARRIED
Page 11 of 304 Page 7 of 13 Agenda item a)
Council July 20, 2020
YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Ritchie, Kadwell, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
g) Report DPW20-21: Award of Contract PWC 20-04, Purchase of New Articulated Four-Wheel Drive Wheel Loader C-20-295 Moved by Councillor Dunstall; Seconded by Councillor Kadwell; Resolved that Report DPW20-21, dated July 20, 2020 regarding Award of Contract PWC20-04 Purchase of New Articulated Four-Wheel Drive Wheel Loader be received; And that the tender bid from Brandt Tractor in the amount of $202,500 plus applicable taxes for a 2020 John Deere 524L Loader be approved; And that the Acting Director of Public Works be authorized to enter into a purchase agreement with Brandt Tractor. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
h) Report DPW20-22: Request for Appeal of Decision to Deny Site Alteration Permit Request for 442 Sobie Road C-20-296 Moved by Councillor Vaine; Seconded by Councillor; Resolved that Report DPW20-22 dated July 20, 2020 and contents contained therein be deferred. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
i) Report DPW 20-23: Livingston Avenue Extension EA Part II Order Request Submission C-20-297 Moved by Councillor Freake; Seconded by Councillor Vaine; Resolved That Report DPW 20-23 regarding the Livingston Avenue Extension EA Part II Order Request Submission be received. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
j) Report DPW20-24: Amendment to By-law 16-82 Parking and Stopping Prohibitions along Kelson Avenue and North Service Road C-20-298 Moved by Councillor ; Seconded by Councillor; Resolved that Report DPW20-24 dated July 20, 2020 regarding Amendment to By-Law 16-82 Parking and Stopping Prohibitions along Kelson Avenue and North Service Road be received;
Page 12 of 304 Page 8 of 13 Agenda item a)
Council July 20, 2020
And that the proposed by-law amendment for prohibition along North Service Road be approved; And that the proposed by-law amendment for prohibition along Kelson Avenue be approved until October 1, 2020. CARRIED YEA: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan NO: Councillor Sharpe
9. Resolutions
a) C-20-299 Moved by Councillor Kadwell; Seconded by Bothwell; Resolved that Council waive the rules of procedure to go past the 11:00 p.m. curfew only to deal with agenda items 7 (n) (o), 11 (e) and 12 (a). CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
10. Reports
k) Report CORP20-05: Joining the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities
This item has been moved to the August 17, 2020 Council meeting.
l) Report FIN20-11: 2019 General Statement of Operations
This item has been moved to the August 17, 2020 Council meeting.
m) Report FIN20-12: 2019 Environmental Services Statements of Operations
This item has been moved to the August 17, 2020 Council meeting.
n) 2019 Trust Fund Statement of Operations C-20-300 Moved by Councillor Ritchie; Seconded by Councillor Kadwell; Resolved that the 2019 Trust Fund Statement of Operations be received. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
o) Report DPW20-25: Niagara Region Transit OnDemand Service Memorandum of Understanding C-20-301 Moved by Councillor Freake; Seconded by Councillor Vaine;
Page 13 of 304 Page 9 of 13 Agenda item a)
Council July 20, 2020
Resolved the Report DPW20-25 regarding Niagara Region Transit OnDemand Service Memorandum of Understanding dated July 20, 2020 be received; And that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the Memorandum of Understanding between the Region of Niagara and the Town of Grimsby to operate the new on-demand service within the Town of Grimsby upon final review by the Town legal counsel. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
11. Closed Session Closed Session under Section 239(2)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001, a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board: o Update on negotiations regarding the acquisition of land.
This item has been moved to the August 17, 2020 Council meeting.
12. Reports
a) Report PRO20-01: Revenue Generation Options: Land Surplus Review
This item has been moved to the August 17, 2020 Council meeting.
13. Correspondence
a) Niagara Region • Declaration of Public Health Issues
This item has been moved to the August 17, 2020 Council meeting.
b) Area municipalities • Town of Lincoln re: Support the Joining of the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities • City of Thorold re: Support the Joining of the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities • Town of Pelham re: Support the Joining of the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities • City of St. Catharines re: Joint Statement and Call to Action from AMO, LUMCO and MARCO - Ontario Mayors and Chairs Issue Emergency Call for Financial Support
These items have been moved to the August 17, 2020 Council meeting.
c) Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Page 14 of 304 Page 10 of 13 Agenda item a)
Council July 20, 2020
• COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act • Bill 189 COVID-19 Support and Protection Act, 2020 - Planning Act • A Place to Grow-Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
These items have been moved to the August 17, 2020 Council meeting.
d) Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries • Community Museum Operating Grant/Pay Equity 2020-21
This item has been moved to the August 17, 2020 Council meeting.
e) Downtown Improvement Area • Patios
C-20-302 Moved by Councillor Freake; Seconded by Councillor Vardy; Resolved that the correspondence received from the DIA with reference to patios be received. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
14. Resolutions
a) Patios
C-20-303 Moved by Ritchie; Seconded by Freake; Be it resolved that Council of the Town of Grimsby approve the following: 1. Closing of the street parking lane on the north side of Main Street West between Ontario Street and Mountain Road; and 2. Funding for concrete barrier; and 3. Exception be given to those businesses that cannot comply with the $5 million insurance coverage, and the Town to agree to a $2 million insurance coverage temporarily only for 2020. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
15. Notice of Motion
a) Requested by Councillor Ritchie • Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Applications for 21 and 23 Main Street East and 6 Doran Avenue - Laneway Ownership
Page 15 of 304 Page 11 of 13 Agenda item a)
Council July 20, 2020
Mayor Jordan acknowledges that the Notice of Motion will be given consideration at the next Council meeting.
b) Requested by Councillor Sharpe • National Anthem
Mayor Jordan acknowledges that the Notice of Motion will be given consideration at the next Council meeting.
c) Requested by Councillor Vaine • GEI Board Information
Mayor Jordan acknowledges that the Notice of Motion will be given consideration at the next Council meeting.
d) Requested by Councillor Bothwell • Indigenous Statement
Mayor Jordan acknowledges that the Notice of Motion will be given consideration at the next Council meeting.
e) Requested by Councillor Vaine • Accessibility Mat for Grimsby Beach
Mayor Jordan acknowledges that the Notice of Motion will be given consideration at the next Council meeting.
16. Next Meeting
The next Council meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 17, 2020 at 6:30 p.m. and is available through electronic participation: https://vimeo.com/grimsbycouncilchambers
17. Closed Session Closed Session under Section 239(2)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the security of the property of the municipality or local board and Section 239(2)(b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees: o Update on personal matters regarding an identifiable individual.
This item has been moved to the August 17, 2020 Council meeting.
18. By-laws
20-56
Page 16 of 304 Page 12 of 13 Agenda item a)
Council July 20, 2020
Being a by-law to authorize the assumption of certain highways and municipal services in the Sunflower Subdivision in the Town of Grimsby and to issue the Final Certificate of Completion of Services and Release the Letter of Credit.
20-57 Being a by-law to amend the Parking and Administrative By-law 16-82 of the Town of Grimsby.
20-58 Being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby at its meeting held on July 20, 2020.
C-20-304 Moved by Councillor Freake; Seconded by Councillor Ritchie; Resolved that leave be given to introduce By-law No. 20-56, 20-57 as amended and 20-58 inclusive and that same be read a first time. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
19. New Business
Councillor Bothwell asks staff to provide a status report on 262 Main Street West (Nixon Hall). There has been a lot of public inquires and requirements outlined in the consent to sever pre-consultation agreement (removal of trees and requirement to obtain a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)), so having an update would be helpful.
Secondly, Councillor Bothwell notes there have been some concerns regarding 352 Main Street West (immediately adjacent to Maple Hurst). An application was put through the Committee of Adjustment, but it looks like the building is being demolished and there are additional concerns that work is being done that was not included in the original application. Further, she notes that this property is close to some heritage homes. In addition, it appears that some work is being done at 353 Main Street West. Councillor Bothwell asks that staff report back on these properties as well. Councillor Sharpe indicates that some sports are starting to return, as he has signed his child up for baseball. He notes he will post some information on his social media account.
Councillor Vardy attended the Black Lives Matter rally in Centennial Park, noting MacNeil Lashly was a featured speaker who gave a talk about human dissertation and being good to one another. Councillor Vardy gives a shout-out to the local youth who initiated and organized the rally,
Page 17 of 304 Page 13 of 13 Agenda item a)
Council July 20, 2020
noting they may be good candidates for the youth group, if the group were to be reinstated.
Mayor Jordan acknowledges the work Council and staff have done with businesses downtown to get up and running before Phase 3 commences.
20. By-laws
C-20-305 Moved by Councillor Ritchie; Seconded by Councillor Kadwell; Resolved that leave be given to introduce By-law No. 20-56, 20-57 as amended and 20-58 inclusive read a first time be now read a second and third time and finally passed and that the Mayor and Town Clerk do sign and seal the same; and rule of Council to contrary notwithstanding. CARRIED YES: Councillors Bothwell, Dunstall, Freake, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
21. Adjournment The meeting adjourns at 11:39 p.m.
______J.A. Jordan, Mayor S. Kim, Town Clerk
If you require any accommodations for a disability in order to attend or participate in meetings or events, please contact the Accessibility Advisory Administrator at 905 309-2015 or [email protected]
Page 18 of 304 Agenda item a) CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GRIMSBY Report # CORP20-05 Joining the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities
Report To: Town Council
Meeting Date: July 20, 2020
Subject: Joining the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities
Recommendation(s)
1. That Report CORP20-05 regarding Joining the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities dated July 20, 2020 be received;
2. That Grimsby Council endorse the request from Niagara Region to join the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities and pass the motion proposed in Appendix ‘A’; and further,
3. That Mayor Jordan be directed to sign the joint regional declaration to join the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities attached in Appendix ‘B’ of this report.
Background
On September 19, 2019, Niagara Regional Council approved a motion for Niagara Region to join the Canadian Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities (CIM). When municipalities become members of CIM they commit to investing time and resources to create more welcoming and inclusive communities. This network of organizations seeks to improve policies against racism, discrimination, exclusion and intolerance.
To develop policies and programs in support of CIM principles and objectives the Region has approved $288,000, which inclusive of a dedicated staff member.
In correspondence dated February 28, 2020, the Region extended an invitation to all twelve (12) local area municipalities to join CIM through a motion of support by each of their respective Councils, and the signing of a collective joint declaration (Appendix B). The Region is proposing a formal announcement via media release and possible media event later in the year.
There are a number of commitments in the declaration including the development of a Plan of Action which is an integral part of the municipality’s vision, strategies and policies. There is also a commitment to report publicly on an annual basis on actions undertaken toward the realization of that Plan of Action. It is anticipated that all twelve (12) local area municipalities will support the Niagara Region in this initiative, with the City of Port Colborne, City of Thorold, Town of Lincoln and Township of West Lincoln already confirming their support.
Page 1 of 2 Page 19 of 304 Agenda item a) CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GRIMSBY Report # CORP20-05 Joining the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities
Financial Implications
Currently there are no financial implications or financial obligations of the Town of Grimsby. Depending on future initiatives that Grimsby chooses to participate in, there will need to be allocation of existing resources to implement the joint plan of action.
Conclusion
The Town is Grimsby is committed to tackle racism and discrimination and promote human rights and diversity. Commitments to accessibility, social inclusion, and cultural diversity appear in a number of the Town’s strategic documents including Council’s Strategic Priorities 2019—2022, and the Parks Recreation Culture Master Plan.
It is recommended that Grimsby Council endorse the request from Niagara Region to join the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities and pass the motion proposed in Appendix ‘A.’
Prepared by, Approved and Submitted by, Devanne Kripp Harry Schlange
Name: Devanne Kripp, Deputy Clerk Name: Harry Schlange, CAO
Page 2 of 2 Page 20 of 304 Agenda item a)
Appendix ‘A’
Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities
Whereas the Region of Niagara adopted a number of recommendations at its Regional Council on September 19, 2019 recommending that they join the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities (CIM); and
Whereas the Niagara Region motion and background information was forwarded to Grimsby Town Council on November 19, 2019 for information purposes; and
Whereas the Region of Niagara has invited all twelve (12) municipalities to join in the signing of the declaration to join the Coalition; and
Whereas in order for municipalities to participate, the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities has requested that each municipal Council pass a motion of support; and
Whereas diversity, equity and inclusion matter to all of Niagara, it is important to support initiatives to tackle racism discrimination and promote human rights and diversity.
Therefore be it resolved that Council of the Town of Grimsby endorse the Niagara Region’s application to join the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities.
Page 1 of 1 Page 21 of 304 Appendix 'B' Agenda item a)
Page 22 of 304 Appendix 'B' Agenda item a)
Page 23 of 304 Appendix 'B' Agenda item a)
Page 24 of 304 Appendix 'B' Agenda item a)
Page 25 of 304 Agenda item b) REPORT FIN 20-11 2019 General Statement of Operations
Report To: Mayor and Members of Town Council
Meeting Date: August 17, 2020
Subject: 2019 General Statement of Operations
Recommendation(s)
1. That, report FIN 20-11, regarding the 2019 General Statement of Operations be received; and
2. That, the 2019 budget surplus of $1,096,754 be allocated to reserves as outlined in this report
Background
The Town incurred a general operating surplus of $1,096,754 in 2019. This amount is net of the Building Department surplus of $247,861, which was transferred to the Building Reserve Fund as prescribed under the Building Code Act, the Library surplus of $7,740, the Museum surplus of $10,954, the Art Gallery surplus of $36,847, and the Public Works fleet surplus of $172,196.
An explanation of the more significant budget variances are detailed below along with a recommendation of the surplus transfer.
Analysis
TAXATION The Town earned additional tax revenue of $240,400 in the form of supplemental taxes from new development in 2019.
CORPORATE REVENUE Overall Corporate Revenue incurred a deficit of $243,379 in 2019. At first glance this appears unfavourable, however it was due to the fact that the Town budgeted $1 million in additional revenue from land sales to compensate for potential losses from the operations of Grimsby Energy Inc. In the end, the Town didn’t incur those losses as anticipated, therefore the Town didn’t proceed with any land sales. If the $1 million budget in land sales revenue is removed, then Corporate Revenue actually performed well, with revenues exceeding budget by the following amounts – investment income
Page 1 of 6 Page 26 of 304 Agenda item b) REPORT FIN 20-11 2019 General Statement of Operations
($355,000), penalties and interest on taxes ($48,000), Provincial Offences act fines ($32,000), and development application fee overhead ($84,700).
CORPORATE EXPENSES
Overall, Corporate Expenses showed a surplus of $824,095. Similar to the situation in Corporate Revenues, the large surplus is due to the fact that the Town budgeted for $1 million in expenses to offset potential losses from Grimsby Energy Inc. which did not occur. The surplus in Corporate Expenses was offset by higher than budgeted expenses in the following areas – legal costs ($222,000), staffing costs ($35,000), WSIB costs ($12,000), and unbudgeted expenses ($35,000).
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Information Systems showed a surplus of $103,836. The bulk of the surplus was a result of unexpended funds in program maintenance fees ($28,000) and contracted services ($53,000).
FINANCE
The Finance department showed a surplus of $33,054 during the year due to two main factors. First, tax certificate and user fee revenues were higher than budgeted. Second, there was a savings in printing and stationary supplies (tax and water bill stock inventory).
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
The Administration Building budget showed a surplus of $40,609. The main reasons for the surplus was higher than budgeted development application overhead revenue and less than budgeted expenses on the decommissioning of the turbine cogen ($16,000).
FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
The Grimsby Fire Service generated a surplus of $159,078. Although fire department revenues were lower than budgeted mainly due to lower recoverable costs from MTO for QEW response calls, these revenue losses were more than offset by the following cost savings:
• Chief Prevention Officer position (shared service with Town of Lincoln) did not go forward as planned
• Volunteer firefighting wages (compliment was not increased to 53 personnel until 2020)
Page 2 of 6 Page 27 of 304 Agenda item b) REPORT FIN 20-11 2019 General Statement of Operations
• Savings in fleet maintenance
BUILDING AND BY-LAW SERVICES
The Building department reported a surplus of $247,861 in 2019 mainly due to increased building permit revenue. The surplus is required to be transferred to the Building Department reserve fund as prescribed under the Building Code Act in order to fund the department’s operations during cyclical periods of development inactivity.
The By-law department reported a surplus of $5,501 in 2019. Administration and parking fee revenues were higher than budgeted by $16,700, however this was offset by higher wage costs due to enhanced parking enforcement.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
The Transportation Department reported a deficit of $262,439. There were two main reasons for the deficit, all pertaining to winter control.
First, overtime wages were over budget by $90,000, the majority of it was in winter control ($70,000). Second, internal equipment rent charges were over budget by $190,000. This is mainly due to the extra equipment time used to maintain winter control operations. The annual winter control budget has been incurring deficits for the last few years as the trend in weather conditions has become increasingly unpredictable, all the while the Town is still required to satisfy minimum maintenance standards. Council provided additional tax supported funding to winter control in the 2020 budget in the amount of $130,000 which will help to mitigate potential future losses.
CEMETERIES
The combined operations of the Queen’s Lawn and Mountain cemeteries incurred a loss of $26,769 in 2019. The loss is attributable to lower than anticipated burial charge revenues and greater than expected plot buy-back charges.
Page 3 of 6 Page 28 of 304 Agenda item b) REPORT FIN 20-11 2019 General Statement of Operations
PARKS AND RECREATION
Parks and Recreation earned a combined surplus of $370,944 in 2019. The main contributor to the surplus was savings across the board in park and facility maintenance.
PLANNING
The Planning department suffered a deficit of $279,410 during 2019. There were two main factors for this loss. One, planning application fee revenues were under budget by $122,000 as the number of applications submitted did not meet expectations. Two, professional fees were over budget by approximately $212,000 primarily due to on- going legal support and legal actions. These two factors were partially offset by savings in salaries due to the postponement of the hiring of the new Planning Director.
RESERVE TRANSFERS
Staff are recommending that the departmental surpluses be transferred to their respective reserves along with the creation of a COVID-19 contingency to assist the Town in averting potential COVID impacts in 2020 and 2021. The reserve transfers are outlined in the table below:
Reserve Transfer Amount
Budget Contingency $ 300,000
P&R Capital Projects 161,268
Fire Equipment 147,078
Peach Kings Centre 105,725
IT 93,836
Southward Park 45,823
Administration Building 40,609
Finance 33,054
Page 4 of 6 Page 29 of 304 Agenda item b) REPORT FIN 20-11 2019 General Statement of Operations
Tax Contingency 28,550
P&W Capital Projects 34,826
Heritage 17,151
Planning 14,246
Emergency Measures 13,345
Carnegie 12,800
Economic Development 11,899
Pump House 7,939
Admin Equipment Replacement 8,802
East Grimsby Community Centre 6,088
By-Law Equipment 5,501
Parks Shop 5,276
Election 1,530
Grimsby Pool 1,408
Total Surplus $ 1,096,755
All amounts and transfers are subject to financial audit.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 5 of 6 Page 30 of 304 Agenda item b) REPORT FIN 20-11 2019 General Statement of Operations
S. Gruninger, CPA, CGA Director, Corporate Services/Treasurer
Appendices
Schedule A – 2019 General Statement of Operations
Page 6 of 6 Page 31 of 304 FIN 20-11 SCHEDULE A
2019 GENERAL STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
REVENUES EXPENDITURES VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS OVER % (OVER) % SURPLUS/ BUDGET ACTUAL (UNDER) EARNED BUDGET ACTUAL UNDER SPENT (DEFICIT) REVENUES EXPENSES Other Taxation $ 478,880 $ 507,430 $ 28,550 106.0% $ - $ - $ - $ 28,550 Supplemental tax revenues due to high growth during the year.
Corporate 2,292,320 2,048,941 (243,379) 89.4% 1,605,050 780,955 824,095 48.7% 580,715 Budgeted $1 million for the sale of land in 2019, which did not occur. However Budgeted $1 million for potential Biodigester losses which did not occur. However there was this was offset in higher revenues in investment income, provincial offences fines higher then expected legal costs ($182,000), staffing costs ($35,000), WSIB ($12,000) and surplus, penalties and interest on taxes. donations (Pathstone $20,000). Council 2,330 46,460 44,130 100.0% 314,560 370,610 (56,050) 117.8% (11,920) Council community engagement was to be funded from reserves, however none Conferences and workshops. in the year. Election - 22 22 - 27,000 25,491 1,509 94.4% 1,530 No election in 2019.
Admin 46,690 33,411 (13,279) 71.6% 647,080 637,797 9,283 98.6% (3,996) The commissioner fees, marriage licences & lottery permit revenues came under Office supplies and conferences came under budget. budget.
ITSI 1,034,510 1,034,510 0 100.0% 1,034,510 930,674 103,836 90.0% 103,836 Program maintenance fees ($28,000) and contracted services ($53,000) are underbudget.
Finance 87,850 97,975 10,125 111.5% 883,630 860,701 22,929 97.4% 33,054 Tax certificate and user fee revenue higher than budgeted. Savings in printing and stationary expenses (tax and water bill stock, cheques)
Photocopy 30,000 30,080 80 100.3% 30,000 27,874 2,126 92.9% 2,206 Overall savings on expenses.
Records Mgmt - - 0 0.0% 57,050 50,454 6,596 88.4% 6,596 Salaries lower than budget.
Admin Building 60,350 62,600 2,250 100.0% 272,140 233,781 38,359 85.9% 40,609 Development application fees greater than expected. Overall savings on expenses on the decomissioning of the turbine.
Health & Safety - - - 0.0% 26,000 19,375 6,625 74.5% 6,625 Studies costs are lower than expected.
Fire 243,090 146,848 (96,242) 60.4% 2,563,450 2,330,300 233,150 90.9% 136,909 Revenues are lower than budget as the Chief Prevention Officer was not hired. Overall savings on expenses. Volunteer firefighter compliment was not increased to 53 until This was to be recoverable from Lincoln (shared service). Also, fire costs to be 2020 ($119,000) .As well, as lower wages as the Chief Prevention Officer was not hired recovered from MTO were lower than budget. ($100,000). Equipment repairs underbudget ($20,000). Fire Station 2 148,970 147,140 (1,830) 98.8% 695,650 671,650 24,000 96.6% 22,170 Lower utility costs ($13,000).
Animal Control 40,000 34,563 (5,437) 86.4% 95,850 95,650 200 99.8% (5,238) Fewer dog licences issued.
Crossing Guards - - 0 - 107,230 79,029 28,201 73.7% 28,201 Decrease in crossing guard compliment.
Building 665,000 895,961 230,961 134.7% 665,000 895,961 (230,961) 134.7% (0) Building permits ($150,000), plumbing permits ($50,000) and occupancy permits Building surplus of $222,000 was transferred to the Building reserve fund. ($5,000) all higher than anticipated.
Emergency Measures 1,990 49,708 47,718 0.0% 13,000 47,373 (34,373) 364.4% 13,345 Registration revenue for first emergency measures training conference was not Emergency measure conference expenses not budgeted. budgeted By-Law 66,280 95,858 29,578 144.6% 242,780 266,857 (24,077) 109.9% 5,501 Parking fines were higher than anticipated Wages are greater than budget because of additional parking enforcement.
Public Works 497,520 682,133 184,613 137.1% 3,525,120 3,972,173 (447,053) 112.7% (262,439) Developer portion of cost sharing transferred back to reserves through The following activities were over budget; Wages and benefits $90,000 (OT -$70,000, Retro expenses. Salary Review - $20,000 ); Equipment Rentals $190,000.
Public Works - Vehicles & Equip 993,600 1,172,843 179,243 118.0% 993,600 910,405 83,195 91.6% 262,439
88,520 90,774 2,254 102.5% 171,740 182,622 (10,882) 106.3% (8,628) Sale of plots increased Plot buyback costs greater than budget. Page 32 of 304 Q.L. Cemetery
Mnt. Cemetery 152,150 138,380 (13,770) 91.0% 113,340 117,712 (4,372) 103.9% (18,141) Burial revenue lower than expected Equipment repairs higher than expected
LAC 142,970 151,313 8,343 105.8% 286,460 294,803 (8,343) 102.9% (0) An additional $10,000 equipment grant Building maintenance contracted services are higher than expected.
Recreation Programs 337,410 354,691 17,281 105.1% 2,051,590 1,891,603 159,987 92.2% 177,268 Program fees were higher than expected ($6,000) and an unexpected grant from Cost savings in planting and beautification ($20,000), baseball diamond maintenance ($30,000), Canada Parks and Recreation Association for green initiatives ($5,000). soccer field maintenance ($40,000), lawn bowling ($20,000), skateboard park ($13,000), outdoor ice rink ($15,000). 68.4% 68.4% Equipment revenue less than budget, less repairs then anticipated. Equipment repairs and maintenance lower than budget. RFC - Vehicles & Equip 346,130 236,755 (109,375) 346,130 236,755 109,375 0 Agenda item b)
East Grimsby Community Centre 7,500 5,625 (1,875) - 23,900 15,937 7,963 66.7% 6,088 Facility rental slightly lower than budget. Wages, materials and general maintenance under budget.
Pump House 23,500 23,794 294 101.3% 44,080 36,436 7,644 82.7% 7,939 Overall savings on expenses.
Carnegie 16,570 15,234 (1,336) 91.9% 30,050 15,914 14,136 53.0% 12,800 Facility rental slightly lower than budget. Overall savings on expenses.
Parks Shop - - 0 - 26,710 21,434 5,276 80.2% 5,276 Salaries and wages lower than budget. FIN 20-11 SCHEDULE A
2019 GENERAL STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
REVENUES EXPENDITURES VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS OVER % (OVER) % SURPLUS/ BUDGET ACTUAL (UNDER) EARNED BUDGET ACTUAL UNDER SPENT (DEFICIT) REVENUES EXPENSES Peach Kings Centre 886,700 805,083 (81,617) 90.8% 1,472,400 1,276,440 195,960 86.7% 114,343 Facility rentals were $81,000 less than budgeted General building facility maintenance is lower than budget ($165,000), and fitness wages ($30,000) Southward 57,500 58,086 586 101.0% 292,820 247,583 45,237 84.6% 45,823 Southward general park maintenance ($36,000) and building maintenance expenses ($10,000) are lower than budget. Grimsby Lions Pool 77,260 76,162 (1,098) 98.6% 204,950 202,444 2,506 98.8% 1,408 Swimming pool program costs are lower than budget.
Library 135,950 138,485 2,535 101.9% 1,128,340 1,130,875 (2,535) 100.2% 0 Increase in desk photocopier and adopt a book revenue Overall cost savings on library general administrative expenses. Surplus transferred to Library reserve Art Gallery 137,900 166,696 28,796 120.9% 395,900 424,697 (28,797) 107.3% (0) Art Gallery class and gift shop revenue greater than budget. An decrease in building maintenance costs.
Museum 84,770 95,300 10,530 112.4% 312,270 322,800 (10,530) 103.4% (0) Fundraising, sponsorships and donation revenue higher than budget.
Planning 498,170 321,107 (177,063) 64.5% 819,350 921,697 (102,347) 112.5% (279,410) Application fee revenue lower than budget. Professional fees overbudget ($212,000). Salaries savings from the postponement of the hire of the Planning Director.
Committee of Adjustment 55,000 65,504 10,504 119.1% 55,000 51,257 3,743 93.2% 14,246 Minor variance applications more than anticipated ($10,000). Committee lay member fees less than budget.
Heritage Committee 30 9,839 9,809 0.0% 30,360 23,018 7,342 75.8% 17,151 Overall savings on expenses
Economic Development 19,430 19,129 (301) 98.4% 38,270 26,070 12,200 68.1% 11,899 Expenses are lower than budget due to the hire of staff to mind the Welcome Centre.
Total $ 9,756,840 $ 9,858,439 $ 101,599 101.0% $ 21,642,360 $ 20,647,205 $ 995,155 95.4% $ 1,096,754 Page 33 of 304 Agenda item b) 2019
Page 34 of 304 GENERAL STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS Report No. FIN 20-11 Agenda item b) TOWN’S RESPONSIBILITY
Town staff is committed to ensuring the Town’s financial affairs are handled responsibly.
IN 2019:
⁞ New Council
⁞ New CAO Page 35 of 304 ⁞ Council Strategic Priorities 2019-2022
⁞ Staff were mindful of spending in a transition year Agenda item b) 2019 GENERAL STATEMENT Building OF OPERATIONS $248,000
Overall budget surplus Public Works $1,096,754 $172,196
Net of: Art Gallery $36,845 Page 36 of 304
Museum $10,954 Agenda item b)
Library $7,740 The majority of the Town’s departments had surpluses.
Page 37 of 304 SURPLUSES DEFICITS
⁞ Corporate Revenue ⁞ Planning ⁞ Information Technology ⁞ Transportation Services ⁞ Fire ⁞ Cemeteries Agenda item b) ⁞ Parks & Recreation ⁞ Finance SURPLUS RESERVE TRANSFERS
Reserve Transfer Amount Budget Contingency $ 300,000 P&R Capital Projects 161,268 2019 SURPLUS Fire Equipment 147,078 Peach Kings Centre 105,725 ⁞ Total Surplus $ 1,686,526 IT 93,836 ⁞ Total Deficits (589,773) Southward 45,823 ⁞ Net Surplus $ 1,096,754 Admin Building 40,609 Finance 33,054 Tax Contingency 28,550 P&W Capital Projects 34,826 Heritage 17,151 Planning 14,246 ⁞ The total amount of department surpluses of Emergency Measures 13,345 $1,096,754 be transferred to the applicable departmental reserves to assist with future
Page 38 of 304 Carnegie 12,800 expenses. Economic Development 11,899 Pump House 7,939 ⁞ Set aside $300,000 in reserves as part of a Admin Equipment Replacement 8,802 COVID-19 contingency fund to avert potential East Grimsby Community Centre 6,088 2020/2021 impacts. By-Law Equipment 5,501 Agenda item b) Parks Shop 5,276 Election 1,530 Grimsby Pool 1,407 Total Surplus $ 1,096,754 Agenda item b)
Page 39 of 304 Agenda item c) The Corporation of the Report No. FIN 20-12 TOWN OF GRIMSBY
REPORT TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: JULY 20, 2020
SUBJECT: 2019 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES STATEMENTS OF OPERATION
RECOMMENDATION
1. That report FIN 20-12, regarding the 2019 Environmental Services Statements of Operations be received, and 2. That, the 2019 Sanitary sewer surplus of $374,444 be transferred to the Sanitary Sewer Reserve, and 3. That, the 2019 Water system surplus of $491,095 be transferred to the Water Reserve.
ANALYSIS
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM The Sanitary sewer system Statement of Operations is attached as Schedule “A”. The Sanitary sewer system recorded a surplus of $374,444 in 2019. A summary of the significant items which contributed to the surplus are detailed below.
Revenues Sanitary sewer system revenues were $112,095 higher than budged in 2019 due to higher than expected leachate treatment revenues of $44,000 and supplemental tax revenues of $65,928 due to the higher growth in 2019.
Expenses Sanitary sewer system expenses were $262,326 less than budgeted in 2019 mainly due to lower than anticipated Regional sewer flow charges of $159,840. In addition, there were savings in sewer main inspections of $34,380 and maintenance materials of $41,291.
Reserves It is recommended that the sanitary sewer system surplus be transferred to the Sanitary Sewer Reserve to fund future capital replacement.
WATER SYSTEM The Water System Statement of Operations is attached as Schedule “A”. The Water System recorded a surplus of $491,095 in 2019. A summary of the significant items which contributed to the surplus are detailed below.
Revenues Total water revenues were $46,972 less than budgeted due mainly to lower than expected water meter sales.
Expenses
1 Page 40 of 304 Agenda item c) The Corporation of the Report No. FIN 20-12 TOWN OF GRIMSBY
Water expenses were $538,066 less than budget mainly due to a savings in bulk water purchases from the Niagara Region of $357,756. Additional savings were realized in water salaries and benefits $166,646.
Reserves It is recommended that the water system surplus be transferred to the Water Reserve to fund future capital replacement.
Please note that all amounts and transfers are subject to financial audit.
Prepared by, Respectfully submitted,
S. Bovan, CPA, CA S. Gruninger, CPA, CGA Assistant Director of Finance & Deputy Treasurer Director, Corporate Services/Treasurer
2 Page 41 of 304 SCHEDULE "A" FIN 20-12 at June 6, 2017 2019 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
REVENUES EXPENDITURES
OVER OVER SURPLUS / BUDGET BALANCE (UNDER) BUDGET BALANCE (UNDER) (DEFICIT)
Sanitary Sewer System $ 6,061,100 $ 6,173,195 $ 112,095 $ 6,061,100 $ 5,798,751 $ (262,349) $ 374,444 Water System 6,868,000 6,821,028 (46,972) 6,868,000 6,329,934 (538,066) 491,095 Total $ 12,929,100 $ 12,994,224 $ 65,124 $ 12,929,100 $ 12,128,685 $ (800,415) $ 865,539 Page 42 of 304 Agenda item c) Agenda item c)
Town of Grimsby - 2019 Sanitary Sewer System
Variance Percentage Budget YTD Actual Cost Over/Under Variance
Revenue: OTHER REVENUES 56,000 91,022 35,022 62.54% PROPERTY TAXATION 6,005,100 6,071,028 65,928 1.10% USER FEES 0 11,146 11,146 100.00% Total Revenue 6,061,100 6,173,195 112,095 1.85%
Expense: CONTRACTED SERVICES 3,391,500 3,213,530 (177,970) -5.25% INTERFUNCTIONAL EXPENSES 376,970 361,975 (14,995) -3.98% MATERIALS 65,860 24,569 (41,291) -62.70% RENTS AND FINANCIAL EXPENSES 64,920 57,846 (7,074) -10.90% SALARIES AND BENEFITS 682,190 661,161 21,029 -3.08% TRANSFERS TO OWN FUNDS 1,479,660 1,479,670 10 0.00% Total Expense 6,061,100 5,798,751 (262,349) -4.33% Net Total 0 374,444 374,444 100.00%
Page 43 of 304 Agenda item c)
Town of Grimsby - 2019 Water System
Variance Percentage Budget YTD Actual Cost Over/Under Variance
Revenue: GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS 135,000 170,462 35,462 26.27% OTHER REVENUES 85,000 54,794 (30,206) -35.54% USER FEES 6,648,000 6,595,773 (52,227) -0.79% Total Revenue 6,868,000 6,821,028 (46,972) -0.68%
Expense: CONTRACTED SERVICES 2,761,500 2,424,759 (336,741) -12.19% INTERFUNCTIONAL EXPENSES 526,790 544,307 17,517 3.33% MATERIALS 166,100 113,064 (53,036) -31.93% RENTS AND FINANCIAL EXPENSES 40,920 41,759 839 2.05% SALARIES AND BENEFITS 1,472,690 1,306,044 (166,646) -11.32% TRANSFERS TO OWN FUNDS 1,900,000 1,900,000 0 0.00% Total Expense 6,868,000 6,329,934 (538,066) -7.83% Net Total 0 491,095 491,095 100.00%
Page 44 of 304 Agenda item a) Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-685-4225 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca
July 2, 2020 Council Session CL 9-2020, June 25, 2020
LOCAL AREA MUNICIPALITIES
SENT ELECTRONICALLY
RE: Declaration of Public Health Issues Minute Item 11.1 CL 9-2020, June 25, 2020
Regional Council, at its meeting held on June 25, 2020, passed the following resolution:
WHEREAS racism, homophobia, transphobia, discrimination, and stigma are associated with poorer physical, mental, and emotional health and greater mortality, making racism an important public health issue; and
WHEREAS Public Health has a role in promoting the health of the entire population by working with others to ensure fair opportunities for health and well-being; and
WHEREAS Niagara Region and its Board of Health is guided by Objective 2 in Niagara Region’s Strategic Plan to foster a high quality of life through safe, healthy, and inclusive neighbourhoods and delivery of quality, affordable, and accessible human services; and
WHEREAS members of the Black, Indigenous, 2SLGBTQQIA, and many other communities experience physical, social, mental, and emotional harms due to racism, homophobia, transphobia, and other discrimination and stigma present across sectors, including health, education, employment, housing, child care and child welfare, policing and law enforcement, and the criminal justice system; and
WHEREAS the Region of Niagara has become a member of the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities and committed to appropriately resourcing the work of the Coalition;
Page 45 of 304 Agenda item a)
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That Regional Council ACKNOWLEDGE that racism, homophobia, transphobia, and all forms of discrimination or oppression are public health issues;
2. That Niagara Region COMMIT to using an equity, diversity, and inclusion lens in all future decision-making;
3. That Niagara Region COMMIT to considering social determinants of health, including income, education, employment, early childhood development, food insecurity, housing, social exclusion and social safety network, health services, aboriginal status, gender, race, and disability, in all future program and budget decisions including revising the Region Budget By-Law Principles to include healthy communities;
4. That Niagara Region RECONFIRM its efforts through the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities to promote social inclusion, human rights, and diversity, as well as eradicating all forms of racism and discrimination that continue to persist in Niagara; and
5. That this motion BE CIRCULATED to the local area municipalities.
Yours truly,
Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk CLK-C 2020-163
Page 46 of 304 Agenda item b)
Town L1nca oln
48OO SOUTH SERVICE RD BEAMSVILLE, ON LOR 1B1
905-563-8205
July 3, 2020 SENT VIA EMAIL
Ron Tripp, Acting Chief Administrative Officer Region of Niagara 1815 Sir lsaac Brock Way P.O. Box 1042 Thorold, ON L2V 4T7
Dear Mr. Tripp,
RE: TOWN OF LINGOLN SUPPORT THE JOINING OF THE COALITION OF INCLUSIVE MUNICIPALITIES
This is to confirm that at the June 29, 2020 Special Council Meeting the following resolution was adopted with respect to the above noted matter:
Moved by: Councillor Tony Brunet Seconded by: Councillor J.D. Pachereva
1. That, the correspondence received from Ron Tripp, Acting Chief Administrative Officer for the Regional Municipality of Niagara, dated February 28,2020 including Regional report titled "CAO 14-2019 Action and Resources to Join the Coalition of lnclusive Municipalities" which outlines the staff recommendations and resourcing to support this initiative as well as a draft declaration, requesting that the Corporation of the Town of Lincoln support the joining of the Coalition of lnclusive Municipalities and signing of the declaration and participate in a media release and possible media event (as coordinated by Niagara Region with the municipalities); be received and,
lincoln.ca flV@TownofuincolnON A place to grow. a place to prosper, a place to belong Page 47 of 304 Agenda item b)
2. That, the following Declaration to Join the Coalition of lnclusive Municipalities be adopted and forwarded to Niagara Region:
GIVEN THAT
1. The Canadian Commission for UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) is calling on municipalities to join a Coalition of lnclusive Municipalities and to be part of UNESCO's international Coalition launched in 2004: and
2. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) endorses the Callfor a Coalition of lnclusive Municipalities and encourages its members to join; and WHEREAS:
3. Municipal governments in Canada, along with other levels of government, have responsibilities under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as federal, provincial and territorial human rights codes, and therefore have an important role to play in combating racism and discrimination and fostering equality and respect for all citizens;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT
4. The Regional Municipality of Niagara, The Corporation of the Town of Fort Erie, The Corporation of the Town of Grimsby, The Corporation of the Town of Lincoln, The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, The Corporation of The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, The Corporation of the Town of Pelham, The Corporation of the City of Port Colborne, The Corporation of the City of St. Catharines, The Corporation of the City of Thorold, The Corporation of The Township of Wainfleet, The Corporation of the City of Welland, and The Corporation of the Township of West Lincoln agree to join the Coalition of lnclusive Municipalities and, in joining the Coalition, endorses the Common Commitments (see Appendix A) and agree to develop or adapt a joint Plan of Action led by the Regional Municipality of Niagara accordingly.
5. These Common Commitments and the Municipalities' joint Plan of Action will be an integral part of the Municipalities'vision, strategies, and policies.
6. ln developing or adapting and implementing the joint Plan of Action toward progressive realization of the Common Commitments, the Municipalities will cooperate with other organizations and jurisdictions, including other levels of government, lndigenous peoples, public and private sector institutions, and civil society organizations, all of whom have responsibilities in the area of human rights.
7. The Municipalities will set their priorities, actions and timelines and allocate resources according to their unique circumstances, and within their means and jurisdiction. The Municipalities will exchange their expertise and share best
lincoln.ca fl9@TownofuincolnON A place to grow, a place to prosper, a place to belong Page 48 of 304 Agenda item b)
practices with other municipalities involved in the Coalition and will report publicly on an annual basis on actions undertaken toward the realization of these Common Commitments. CARRIED
Regards,
lie Kirkelos own Clerk ikirkel incoln.ca
cc: Local Area Municipalities
lincoln.ca EY@TownoflincolnON A place to grow, a place to prosper. a place to belong. Page 49 of 304 Agenda item b) ?i?e WhereShipsClimb‘TlieMoilrtruim.
July 9, 2020
Of?ce of the Regional Clerk Niagara Region 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO. Box 1044 Thorold, ON L2V4Y6
Ann—Marie,Norio(3)niaqarareqion.ca
Attention:Ann—MarieNorio, Regional Clerk
Dear Ms. Norio:
Re: Joining Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities
Please be advised Thorold City Council, at its July 7, 2020 meeting, adopted the following resolution:
Whereas the Region of Niagara adopted a number of recommendations at its Regional Council on September 19, 2019 recommending that they join the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities (CIM);and
Whereas the Niagara Region motion and background informationwas fon/varded to Thorold City Council on November 19, 2019 for information purposes; and
Whereas the Region of Niagara has invited all twelve municipalities to join in the signing of the declaration to join the Coalition; and '
Whereas in order for municipalities to participate, the Coalition of inclusive Municipalities has requested that each municipal Council pass a motion of support; and
Whereas diversity,equity and inclusion matter to all of Niagara, it is important to support initiatives to tackle racism discrimination and promote human rights and diversity.
Now Therefore Be it Resolved:
1. That Mayor Ugulini be directed to sign the Declaration to Join the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities.
?iily0?‘tlmmld Rt}. Elmmm,3543 $c:hmtm Pavtiway,ihmlnlil,t}l’i!?i‘iDILZV4:17 t/W/l/E/i/..i’lIl7['l1I£7i1.m tel: t3iJ5~2Z7=itBt3 Page 50 of 304 Agenda item b)
Page 2 Joining Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities
Yours truly,
Donna Delvecchio City Clerk
DD:cd
ec: M. Dilwaria, Chief Administrative Officer
Niagara Area Municipalities
Page 51 of 304 Agenda item b) Office of the Clerk Nancy J. Bozzato, Dipl.M.M [email protected] 905-892-2607 x315
July 16, 2020
Niagara Region 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way Thorold, Ontario L2V 4T7 [email protected]
Attention: Ron Tripp, Acting Chief Administrative Officer
Dear Mr. Tripp,
Regional Request for Support on Diversity Initiative
At their regular meeting of July 13, 2020, Council of the Town of Pelham received Report No. 2020-0098 from our Chief Administrative Officer and endorsed the following:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council receive Report #2020-0098; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT Pelham Town Council endorse the Niagara Region’s application to join the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities in pursuit of the ultimate goal of making all of Niagara a community that is inclusive and supportive for all residents and guests.
On behalf of Council, we look forward to working with the Region.
Yours very truly,
(Mrs.) Nancy J. Bozzato, Dipl.M.M., AMCT Town Clerk cc. Niagara Area Municipalities Ann-Marie Norio, Regional Clerk, Niagara Region, [email protected] Jim Bradley, Regional Chair, [email protected]
/sl
20 Pelham Town Square | PO Box 400 |Fonthill, ON | L0S 1E0| www.pelham.ca Page 52 of 304 Agenda item b)
July 17, 2020
Mayor Cam Guthrie Chair Karen Redman City of Guelph Region of Waterloo Chair of LUMCO Chair of MARCO 1 Carden Street 150 Frederick Street Guelph, ON N1H 3A1 Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3
Sent via email: [email protected] Sent via email: [email protected]
Mayor John Tory City of Toronto Chair of GTHA Mayors and Chairs 100 Queen Street W. Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Sent via email: [email protected]
Re: Joint Statement and Call to Action from AMO, LUMCO and MARCO - Ontario Mayors and Chairs Issue Emergency Call for Financial Support Our File 10.4.19
Dear Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Tory, and Chair Redman,
At its meeting held on July 13, 2020, St. Catharines City Council approved the following motion:
WHEREAS the City of St. Catharines has remained committed to keeping its community safe and healthy during the COVID-19 pandemic and to delivering essential services when residents need them most;
WHEREAS the City has implemented financial relief measures to help residents and businesses overcome the economic effects of COVID-19;
WHEREAS municipalities have an important role to play in supporting residents, not-for-profit organizations, and businesses in their communities during the pandemic and are committed to a successful re-start and recovery of the economy;
WHEREAS the City of St. Catharines is forecasting a shortfall to its budgets of $10.8 million due to unprecedented revenue losses and incurring increased costs associated with essential service provision and will continue to experience pressures and costs through the recovery period;
Page 53 of 304 Agenda item b)
WHEREAS municipalities have limited access to revenue tools to manage through these impacts and will require emergency operations funding to avoid unforeseen property tax increases, reliance on reserve and reserve funds for a long-term period of uncertainty and cuts to municipal services;
WHEREAS the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), the Large Urban Mayors Caucus of Ontario (LUMCO), the Mayors and Regional Chairs of Ontario (MARCO), and the City and Niagara Region have consistently advocated to the Federal and Provincial governments for financial relief since April 2020;
Whereas municipalities are the direct responsibility of the provincial government and since they have not provided adequate funding to municipalities we encourage the federal government to continue to make financial transfers with provisions attached to ensure that the money gets to the municipal level of government.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that St. Catharines City Council support the joint statement and call to action from Ontario municipalities represented by AMO, LUMCO, and MARCO dated July 6, 2020; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor be directed to send a letter to local MPs and MPPs requesting that they champion the City’s cause by advocating to the Prime Minister of Canada and Premier of Ontario, respectively, on the urgent need to conclude discussions on a funding formula and implement a program of emergency financial assistance as soon as possible; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be directed to circulate a copy of this motion to the 12 local area municipalities.
If you have any questions, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at extension 1524.
Bonnie Nistico-Dunk, City Clerk Legal and Clerks Services, Office of the City Clerk :em
Cc. Niagara Area Municipalities Regional Municipality of Niagara Scott Rosts, Chief of Staff, Office of Mayor Walter Sendzik
Page 54 of 304 Agenda item c)
From: Sarah Kim To: Devanne Kripp Subject: FW: Letter from the Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Date: July 14, 2020 10:52:11 AM Attachments: paperHeader.png separator.png image001.png
From: Walter Basic
From: Minister Steve Clark
CAUTION: Email external to Grimsby!
La version française suit.
Ministry of Ministère des Municipal Affairs Affaires municipales and Housing et du Logement
Office of the Minister Bureau du minister
777 Bay Street, 17th Floor 777, rue Bay, 17e étage Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Tel.: 416 585-7000 Tél. : 416 585-7000
234-2020-1287 June 16, 2020
Mayor Jeff A. Jordan Town of Grimsby
Mayor Jordan:
In 2019, our government introduced A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (‘the Plan’, ‘A Place to Grow’) as part of the More Homes, More Choice: Ontario’s Housing Supply Action Plan. Today, I am writing to notify you of proposed changes to the Plan including updates and policy changes to the population and
Page 55 of 304 Agenda item c) employment forecasts, a change to the Plan horizon year, a new Land Needs Assessment methodology, adjustments to the aggregates policy framework, new policies to address Major Transit Station Areas within Provincially Significant Employment Zones (PSEZs), and other policy revisions that support our government’s objectives to increase housing supply, create more jobs, attract business investments and better align infrastructure. We are asking for your input on these proposed amendments to the Plan.
I realize the proposed changes come at a time of uncertainty when many municipalities are managing urgent matters related to our shared work to protect the health and well-being of our residents across Ontario. The Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) will be critical to economic recovery from the impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak. The GGH is a key economic driver of both the province and the nation, with more than 85 per cent of the province’s population growth expected in this region by 2051. In fact, we are anticipating that by 2051 this region will grow to nearly 15 million people and accommodate seven million jobs. In order to support municipalities in preparing for this anticipated growth so that you can complete your municipal comprehensive review and official plan revisions, my ministry is proposing these targeted revisions to A Place to Grow to make it faster and easier for municipalities in the region to plan for growth.
Details of the proposed changes are as follows:
Proposed Amendment 1 to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe: 019-1680 Proposed Land Needs Assessment Methodology for A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe: 019-1679 Proposed Amendment 1 to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe on Ontario’s Regulatory Registry: 20-MMAH006 The proposed changes would work together to provide more flexibility and foresight to municipalities into demographic, employment, market demand, and housing affordability trends in the GGH. The consultation period will close on July 31, 2020. We look forward to receiving any comments you may have.
The next phase of work on PSEZs, which will begin shortly, will examine how they can support post-COVID economic recovery to support the retention and expansion of existing industrial and manufacturing operations and attract investment. The government continues to view PSEZs as an important tool and looks forward to engaging with businesses, municipalities, Indigenous communities and organizations, and the development industry to maximize opportunities within a PSEZ.
Should you or your staff have any questions about A Place to Grow or the proposed changes, please contact the Ontario Growth Secretariat at [email protected].
Thank you for your ongoing commitment to strengthening the quality of life and the economic growth of your community and the province of Ontario.
Sincerely,
Page 56 of 304 Agenda item c)
Steve Clark Minister
c: Walter Basic Director of Planning Town of Grimsby
Derik Brandt Town Manager Town of Grimsby
Le 16 juin 2020
Mayor Jeff A. Jordan :
En 2019, notre gouvernement a publié En plein essor : Plan de croissance de la région élargie du Golden Horseshoe (« le Plan », « En plein essor ») dans le cadre de l’initiative Plus d’habitations, plus de choix : Plan d’action pour l’offre de logements de l’Ontario. Aujourd’hui, je vous écris pour vous informer des changements que nous proposons d’apporter au Plan, qui incluent des modifications aux politiques et une mise à jour des prévisions sur le plan démographique et de l’emploi, une modification à l’horizon du Plan, une nouvelle méthode d’évaluation des besoins en terrains, des ajustements au cadre stratégique sur les agrégats, l’adoption de nouvelles politiques concernant les zones de grande station de transport en commun dans les zones d’emploi d’importance provinciale, ainsi que des révisions à d’autres politiques pour appuyer les objectifs de notre gouvernement, qui sont d’accroître l’offre de logements, de créer plus d’emplois, d’attirer les investissements des entreprises et de mieux aligner l’infrastructure. Nous souhaitons avoir votre opinion sur les changements proposés au Plan.
Je suis conscient que ces changements sont proposés alors que nous vivons une période d’incertitude et que bien des municipalités doivent gérer des questions urgentes dans le cadre de nos efforts collectifs pour protéger la santé et le bien-être de nos citoyens partout en Ontario. La région élargie du Golden Horseshoe (REGH) sera déterminante pour la relance économique à la suite de l’épidémie de COVID-19. La REGH est un important moteur économique, tant à l’échelle provinciale que nationale, puisque qu’elle devrait être le berceau de plus de 85 % de la croissance démographique de la province d’ici 2051. En fait, on s’attend à ce que d’ici 2051, la région compte près de 15 millions de personnes et sept millions d’emplois. Afin d’aider les municipalités à se préparer à cette croissance et à procéder à un examen détaillé et à une révision de leurs plans officiels, mon ministère propose des révisions ciblées au plan En plein essor pour faciliter et accélérer la planification de la croissance dans la région.
Les changements proposés sont les suivants :
Proposition de modification no 1 à En plein essor : Plan de croissance de la région élargie du Golden Horseshoe : 019-1680 Méthode d’évaluation des besoins en terrains proposée pour En plein essor : Plan de
Page 57 of 304 Agenda item c)
croissance de la région élargie du Golden Horseshoe : 019-1679 Proposition de modification no 1 à En plein essor : Plan de croissance de la région élargie du Golden Horseshoe sur le Registre ontarien de la réglementation : 20- MMAH006 Les changements proposés agiraient en synergie afin de fournir aux municipalités une plus grande souplesse et une capacité de prévoyance accrue en ce qui a trait aux tendances sur le plan démographique, de l’emploi, de la demande du marché et de l’abordabilité du logement dans la REGH. La période de consultation se termine le 31 juillet 2020. Nous sommes impatients de prendre connaissance de vos observations.
La prochaine étape des travaux concernant les zones d’emploi d’importance provinciale, qui devrait être entreprise sous peu, se penchera sur la façon dont ces zones pourraient soutenir la reprise postpandémique en favorisant le maintien et l’expansion des activités industrielles et manufacturières et en attirant des investissements. Le gouvernement considère toujours les zones d’emploi d’importance provinciale comme un outil stratégique et se réjouit à l’idée de faire appel aux entreprises, aux municipalités, aux communautés et organismes autochtones et aux promoteurs pour maximiser les occasions d’affaires dans ces zones.
Si vous ou des membres de votre personnel avez des questions sur le plan En plein essor ou sur les changements proposés, veuillez communiquer avec le Secrétariat des initiatives de croissance de l’Ontario à [email protected].
Je vous remercie de votre engagement continu à améliorer la qualité de vie et à consolider la croissance économique dans votre collectivité et dans la province.
Veuillez agréer mes sincères salutations.
Le ministre,
Steve Clark
c. c. Walter Basic Director of Planning Town of Grimsby
Derik Brandt Town Manager Town of Grimsby
Page 58 of 304 Agenda item c)
Ministry of Ministère des Municipal Affairs Affaires municipales and Housing et du Logement
Office of the Minister Bureau du ministre
777 Bay Street, 17th Floor 777, rue Bay, 17e étage Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Tel.: 416 585-7000 Tél.: 416 585-7000
234-2020-2382
June 12, 2020 Dear Heads of Council / Clerks and CAOs: Nothing is more important than protecting the health and well-being of Ontarians. Since first learning of COVID-19, Ontario has taken decisive action to stop the spread of this deadly virus, and we thank you for your support in our efforts.
We appreciate that the current situation for municipalities is not “business as usual”, and that all municipalities have had to make adjustments to adapt to new priorities and shifting ways of doing business.
When municipalities requested our help, we listened and acted quickly to legislate changes to the Planning Act and make the necessary regulation to suspend decision- making timelines. These changes balanced the need to suspend the timelines that would allow a municipality to refocus time and resources on the COVID-19 outbreak, while allowing councils to continue to make decisions on planning matters as municipal capacity evolved.
As we move forward with our gradual approach that will allow Ontario to emerge from the COVID-19 outbreak, we know that getting shovels in the ground is key to moving forward on the path to economic recovery together. Many municipalities may be well on their way to a more normalized planning review process, and we want to ensure that the land use planning system is in step with a municipality’s expanding capacity during this time. As a result, we intend to end the temporary suspension of the Planning Act timelines as of June 22nd, 2020.
We understand that the safety of your constituents must remain a priority, and that there are certain provincial restrictions in place regarding public gatherings. Therefore, we encourage you to continue to use electronic and virtual channels, as appropriate, to engage and provide the public with an opportunity to make representations on planning matters, while following the advice of Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health.
…/2
Page 59 of 304 Agenda item c)
-2-
It is vital for our economic recovery from this outbreak that we work together to help move the planning approvals process forward. We need to continue the important job of creating housing and keeping infrastructure projects moving while also ensuring we maintain public health. Development has always played a key role in supporting growth in our communities, and it will play an especially important role on our road to economic recovery from COVID-19.
Let me assure you that our government is working to support you, our municipal partners, and will continue to work collaboratively to keep all Ontarians safe.
Sincerely,
Steve Clark Minister c. Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Page 60 of 304 Agenda item c)
Ministry of Municipal Affairs Ministère des Affaires municipales and Housing et du Logement Office of the Minister Bureau du ministre
777 Bay Street, 17th Floor 777, rue Bay, 17e étage Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Tel.: 416 585-7000 Tél.: 416 585-7000
234-2020-2680 July 8, 2020
Dear Head of Council:
The COVID-19 outbreak has touched everyone in the province, creating personal and financial hardship, and resulting in losses far greater than anyone could have imagined. We are making steady progress in the safe reopening of the province, and we acknowledge and celebrate those who went above and beyond through this crisis.
I am writing to inform you that on July 8, 2020, our government introduced the COVID- 19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020, to help get Ontario back on track. Our proposed bill will address three critical needs Ontario faces: restarting jobs and development; strengthening communities; and creating opportunity for people.
Our government recognizes the key role that municipalities play in restarting the economy, and that their efficient functioning and economic sustainability is critical to Ontario’s future success. We are also continuing to negotiate with our federal partners to ensure communities across Ontario receive the urgent financial support they need. We know that municipalities require fair and flexible investment to protect front line services and help restart the economy.
This bill includes proposals that will enable municipal councils and local boards to meet electronically on a permanent basis and allow municipal councils to decide if they wish to have proxy voting for their members. Our government also proposes to finalize the community benefits charges framework; enhance the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s existing zoning order authority to provide more certainty when fast tracking the development of transit oriented communities; make it faster to update and harmonize the Building Code so that we can break down interprovincial trade barriers, and permanently establish the office of the Provincial Land and Development Facilitator to help solve complex land use issues. We are also working on optimizing provincial lands and other key provincial strategic development projects that will help facilitate economic recovery efforts.
My ministry will be hosting a technical information briefing on the proposed community benefits charges framework, including proposed changes to development charges and parkland dedication, so that municipal staff can gain a better understanding of the proposal. The technical briefing will take place in the near future and invitations from the Assistant Deputy Minister of Local Government and Planning Policy Division to municipal Chief Administrative Officers, Treasurers and Chief Planners will be forthcoming. .../2
Page 61 of 304 Agenda item c)
Head of Council Page 2
In addition to initiatives that I have outlined above from my ministry, there are several other proposals included in our proposed legislation that will support your communities. Changes proposed will modernize our outdated environmental assessment framework, provide more local say on future landfill sites, and ensure strong environmental oversight, while supporting faster build-out of vital transport and transit infrastructure projects to support our economy. Municipally-run courts will be able to use technology to deliver services remotely and we are also moving to fill justice of the peace vacancies faster and more transparently.
We will be extending the validity period of unused marriage licences and protecting the province’s most vulnerable consumers who rely on payday loans, by proposing limits on related interest rates and fees.
Also proposed is the reduction of regulatory burdens on farming while preserving the environmental rules that will support this vital part of our economy. Businesses will be able to count on clear, focused and effective rules that do not compromise people’s health, safety or the environment through our changes that continue to focus on cutting red tape. At the same time, our changes will allow health and safety standards to be updated more quickly to ensure worker safety in a changing economy.
As the province continues to reopen and the economy recovers, it’s more critical than ever to position Ontario as a top-tier destination for investment, domestic growth, and job creation. A key measure to support this objective is the creation of a new investment attraction agency, Invest Ontario, that will promote the province as a key investment destination and work closely with regional partners to coordinate business development activities.
Our proposed changes will also help our communities respond in part to the challenges that this outbreak has brought to our education system. Changes proposed would allow school boards to select the best candidates for director of education for their respective communities. We will also reduce red tape that is preventing access to school for some First Nation students and by limiting unproductive suspensions for our very youngest students. Students with severe learning disabilities will have an opportunity to complete their studies in the upcoming school year and by broadening the mandates of TVO and TFO, our broadcasters will be able to support students’ learning needs better during these challenging times.
Through this proposed legislation, we will take the first step towards a strong restart and recovery. More information on our proposals can be found on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario’s website.
Our greatest challenges lie ahead of us, and we know we cannot overcome them alone. It’s time for everyone to play a role in rebuilding Ontario together. We will ensure no community or region is left behind. Every community must recover if all of Ontario is to grow and prosper again.
.../3
Page 62 of 304 Agenda item c)
Head of Council Page 3
Municipalities are encouraged to continue to review our Government’s Emergency Information webpage at: Ontario.ca/alert. I thank you for your continued support and collaboration in these challenging times.
Sincerely,
Steve Clark Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing c: Chief Administrative Officers Municipal Clerks Kate Manson-Smith, Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Brian Rosborough, Executive Director, Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Page 63 of 304 Agenda item a)
July 20, 2020
Sent by email to: Councillor Lianne Vardy [email protected]
Councillor Randy Vaine [email protected]
Councillor Dave Kadwell [email protected]
Councillor Dave Sharpe [email protected]
Dear Councillors,
Introduction
Councillor Vardy has brought complaints of breach of the Code of Conduct against Councillors Vaine, Kadwell and Sharpe. Councillor Vardy alleges that through the comments and behaviour of these other councillors, she has been subjected to a sexist attitude towards her and to behaviour that is colluding and mobbing.
In order to advance her claim, Councillor Vardy provides examples of such behavior as it pertains to each of the Councillors who are the subject of this complaint. I choose to deal with the actions of each Councillor separately. I see each complaint as independent and unrelated in terms of timing and the individuals involved.
Code of Conduct Complaint (Councillor Vardy against Councillor Vaine) Complaint Reference Number: IC-187-0320
At a closed session council meeting on January 21, 2020, a motion was brought to remove Councillor Freake from the Town of Grimsby Hydro Board. The motion was contentious and sparked heated debate. During the course of this debate, Councillor Vaine, in response to comments made by Councillor Vardy, yelled across the room, “You’re a bully – you’re the biggest bully on Council.”
I have had the opportunity to speak at length with both councillors to clarify various issues related to the complaint.
Page 64 of 304 Agenda item a) 2
Councillor Vaine agreed that he made the comment as alleged by Councillor Vardy. He advised that the Mayor did not ask him to withdraw his remarks. Quite possibly, if he has been asked to withdraw immediately, he may have done so and this complaint may not have been made.
Shortly after the comment was made, the Mayor did call for a recess to calm the situation. Following the recess, Councillor Vaine apologized to Councillor Vardy and apologized to the whole of Council for his remarks. He further apologized to Councillor Vardy by email following the meeting, even offering to meet her for coffee. Councillor Vardy acknowledges that the apologies were made by Councillor Vaine.
In Councillor Vardy’s complaint, she points to other incidents regarding Councillor Vaine’s behavior, one even predating both Councillors election to Council. Councillor Vardy acknowledged to me that these other incidents were not examples of contraventions of the Code and were not directed towards her; they were cited only as examples of other times where Councillor Vaine has lost his temper. I accordingly elect to make no comment regarding these other unrelated incidents.
Under the heading of “Conduct” in the members Code of Conduct:
“every member of Council has a duty to treat one another without abuse, bullying or intimidation. A member shall not use indecent, abusive or insulting words or expressions toward any other member.”
Accordingly, I find that Councillor Vaine breached the members’ Code of Conduct, given the comment he made at the January 21, 2020 closed Council meeting. The fact this occurred in closed session is not a justification for this behavior. The Code of Conduct applies equally to closed session meetings as it does to meetings in open Council. I further find that such breach occurred as a result of an error in judgment made in the heat of the moment with a timely apology having been made. Accordingly, I recommend that no penalty be imposed for the infraction.
Code of Conduct Complaint (Councillor Vardy against Councillor Kadwell) Complaint Reference Number: IC-188-0320
Councillor Vardy was attending a meeting of the Public Works Committee chaired by Councillor Kadwell. At the conclusion of a constituent’s presentation to the committee, Councillor Vardy left the committee room with the constituent to speak privately outside the committee room.
This left the committee without a quorum. Chair Kadwell went out to ask Councillor Vardy to return to the meeting. Councillor Vardy alleges that Councillor Kadwell, in front of the constituent, demanded she come back in – “now!” because there was no quorum. She believes she was deliberately embarrassed in front of a constituent and treated like a disobedient child.
Page 65 of 304 Agenda item a) 3
Councillor Kadwell agrees that he asked her to return “now.” He alleges that Councillor Vardy slid the door between them shut. Councillor Kadwell then opened the door and said “I need you back in here for quorum.” Councillor Kadwell provided an email from Walter Basic, who was Interim Director of Planning, delivered through Bob LeRoux, which letter states: “Walter was at the meeting and he remembers you being non- aggressive with her. Thomas, Richard and Brandon don’t remember anything special about it.”
I conclude that the incident occurred and that Councillor Vardy correctly perceived that she was not treated respectfully in the circumstances. However, I also conclude that Councillor Kadwell’s motivation was to complete the agenda and he needed a quorum to do so.
I do not believe that Councillor Kadwell has breached the Code of Conduct section of the Code of Conduct for members (under the heading “Conduct”) as he was not bullying, intimidating or abusive, nor did he use indecent, abusive or insulting words (as would be required to sustain an allegation of a breach of the section of the Code of Conduct. I agree that he should have been more respectful in his approach to Councillor Vardy given that she was speaking with a constituent. I place little weight on the email referred to.
Therefore I conclude that there was no breach of the Code of Conduct in relation to this incident.
Code of Conduct Complaint (Councillor Vardy against Councillor Sharpe) Complaint Reference Number: IC-189-0320
While attending the Association of Municipalities of Ontario Conference in Ottawa in August 2019, Councillor Vardy says that she was invited to Councillor Sharpe’s hotel room for a private discussion. Councillor Vardy stopped by Councillor Sharpe’s room while on her way to another commitment. In the course of a private conversation in the hotel room, Councillor Vardy states that Councillor Sharpe told Councillor Vardy that she was a bully. Councillor Vardy says that she replied by saying that Councillor Sharpe was not used to dealing with a strong woman with an opinion. Councillor Vardy confirmed that this conversation was not a heated exchange. Councillor Sharpe chose not to respond to Councillor Vardy’s complaint, so I must accept the facts, as alleged by Councillor Vardy.
I find Councillor Sharpe’s comment to Councillor Vardy troubling in that such comment was likely premeditated and bordered on bullying or intimidation, contrary to the Code of Conduct for members which states “every member of Council has a duty to treat one another without abuse, bullying or intimidation. A member should not use indecent, abusive or insulting words or expressions toward any other member.” However, Councillor Vardy confirmed to me that, at the time the comment was made, she took no offence.
Page 66 of 304 Agenda item a) 4
It was 6 months later that Councillor Vardy reclassified this comment as being offensive, following a heated, closed session Council meeting at which Councillor Vardy was called a bully by Councillor Vaine. This complaint was initiated shortly following that incident.
I cannot ignore the fact that Councillor Vardy was not offended by the comment when made and only became offended after an unrelated occurrence involving a different Councillor.
Therefore, I conclude that there was no breach of the Code of Conduct in relation to this incident.
Conclusion
Councillor Vardy has brought allegations of breaching the Members Code of Conduct against Councillors Vaine, Kadwell and Sharpe. She has brought this forward as a single complaint. She alleges that when the incidents are seen together, they demonstrate a pattern of colluding/mobbing and sexist behavior.
While I have been critical of the behavior of Councillors Vaine, Kadwell and Sharpe as noted, I am not prepared to conclude that their behavior has been colluding/mobbing or sexist. I see each allegation as a distinct and separate event with no element of planned collusion by the councillors in combination with one another. Nor do I see the behaviour as sexist, given what I have determined has occurred.
This Council appears to be split on a five to four basis on all contentious issues it has faced; therefore, I can see how a Councillor in the minority may conclude that collusion is occurring, even if that conclusion relates only to a single episode of behaviour. I am not prepared to come to this conclusion upon my review of the incidents referred to in the complaint.
Dated this 20th day of July, 2020
Charles A. Harnick Integrity Commissioner, Town of Grimsby
Page 67 of 304 Agenda item b)
July 20, 2020
Sent by email to: Councillor Randy Vaine [email protected] and to: Councillor Dorothy Bothwell [email protected]
Dear Councillor Vaine and Councillor Bothwell,
Re: Code of Conduct Complaint (Councillor Vaine against Councillor Bothwell) Complaint Reference Number: IC-190-0320
Introduction
Councillor Vaine has brought a complaint against Councillor Bothwell alleging that Councillor Bothwell is abusive and demeaning to staff and is therefore acting contrary to provisions in the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.
Councillor Vaine does not indicate which provisions of the Code of Conduct that he relies on, nor does he make reference to By-Law 19-18 (a by-law to establish a council- staff partnership and relationship policy).
The Code of Conduct states, under the heading of “Conduct”, that “every member of Council has the duty to treat…staff appropriately and without abuse, bullying or intimidation…” By-Law 19-18 stipulates in S.6.1 under the heading of “Guiding Principles” that “members of Council understand that they have no individual capacity to direct staff in their duties…”.
Specific Allegations by Vaine
Councillor Vaine alleges that Councillor Bothwell made derogatory remarks towards an employee; that Councillor Bothwell sent 190 emails to the said employee as a form of harassment; that Councillor Bothwell, in a closed Council meeting, asked that the said employee be fired; that Councillor Bothwell was rude and disrespectful of staff in her involvement around an issue before the Heritage Committee of Council; and, that Councillor Bothwell commented in open council session that Councillor Vaine had missed attending various committee meetings and that Councillor Bothwell rolled her eyes.
Page 68 of 304 Agenda item b) 2
I will deal with the facts pertaining to each of these allegations sequentially.
Derogatory Remarks
Councillor Vaine has recently provided me with an email dated August 30, 2019 from the aforesaid employee to Councillor Bothwell. I choose not to reproduce this email in order to protect the identity of the employee but of necessity, I must recount it in part. The most salient aspect of the email relates that a personal meeting between the employee and Councillor Bothwell took place in mid June of 2019. Although the employee and Councillor Bothwell had been corresponding for many months they had never met one another in person. At that meeting the employee, in the email, states that Councillor Bothwell inappropriately asked the employee if he was Italian; then she gave a negative sigh; and then she stated that she got rid of two Italians during the last election.
By way of explanation from Councillor Bothwell, she states that she had never met the employee before. In order to “break the ice” she introduced herself to the employee at a meeting which in fact took place on July 11, 2019, and told him that she was of Dutch background, then asking him if he was Italian. She does not recall sighing. She further states that she told the employee that she defeated Councillor Deflavio in the most recent municipal election. She states that she does not know what is meant by “getting rid of Italians” and has no idea of what he is implying. She denies making any such comment.
Councillor Bothwell further advises that the subject email was sent to her on August 30, 2019, shortly after the employee received a discipline letter from the Town and almost two months after the meeting of July 11.
190 emails
In the aforesaid email from the employee to Councillor Bothwell, he alleges that Councillor Bothwell sent him over 190 emails over the past 5 months, up to the date of the email (Aug. 30, 2019). The email states that “she take her requests to our new CAO and or through Council and provide me with clear direction through Council as a whole.” The employee also states that it is clear to him that Councillor Bothwell has issues with him administratively and personally (see allegations under Derogatory Remarks).
Councillor Bothwell has advised me that the allegation regarding emails is not accurate with respect to numbers in her estimation. She also states that number would include emails send and received. What Councillor Bothwell believes was significant is that all emails dealt with a serious constituent matter in her Ward 4, the largest Ward in Grimsby. The subject matter involved site alteration and the majority of the emails related to residential concerns over site alteration and the drafting of a site alteration by-law. It is also important to note that for most of this time the Tower of Grimsby was operating without a CAO.
Page 69 of 304 Agenda item b) 3
Councillor Bothwell stated in Council, that the employee be fired
Councillor Vaine alleges that Councillor Bothwell demanded that the aforesaid employee be fired, during a Council meeting.
Councillor Bothwell does not dispute that she said in Council that the employee should be fired. She stated to me that she made these remarks during a closed Council meeting.
The employee was ultimately dismissed from his employment with the Town.
Rude and Disrespectful to staff at the Heritage Committee
Councillor Vaine alleges that Councillor Bothwell was rude and disrespectful to staff and placed unreasonable demands on their time.
Unfortunately, Councillor Vaine provides little in the way of particulars to support this allegation.
Councillor Bothwell advises that Councillor Vaine was likely referring to her activity and involvement on behalf of constituents regarding a Heritage Railway property and her diligence in determining that staff did not follow proper process in the progress of this matter.
Missed Meetings
Councillor Vaine alleges that Councillor Bothwell tried to embarrass him during an open Council meeting where committee assignments for various Councillors were being discussed. He advises that Councillor Bothwell stated that he was absent for a number of committee meetings.
Councillor Bothwell stated to me that she had no intention of embarrassing Councillor Vaine but was merely stating it would be unwise to expand Councillor Vaine’s committee assignments if he was already too busy to manage pre-existing assignments.
Analysis
I am troubled by the nature of the alleged derogatory remarks; however, I am also troubled by the manner in which this complaint has been advanced.
The email of August 30, 2019 was cc’d to a number of senior Town of Grimsby staff. It was also forwarded separately to Councillor Vaine who acknowledged receiving the email on August 30 or shortly thereafter. Despite the alleged inflammatory remarks contained in the email, no conduct complaints were made by the employee or anyone else. The complaint ultimately came from Councillor Vaine, but not until early February of 2020. It is no excuse to say that the CAO had not yet started and I thought he would
Page 70 of 304 Agenda item b) 4 deal with this. The issue came to Councillor Vaine’s attention on August 30 and Councillor Vaine does acknowledge that the new CAO began shortly thereafter or may have already started with the Town. Councillor Vaine brought this complaint only after a series of nasty Council meetings that seriously split the Town Council into two factions, beginning a cascade of conduct complaints to the Integrity Commissioner from both factions. I seriously question the sincerity of this Code of Conduct complaint.
That being said, the allegations of the derogatory remarks are concerning. While I am prepared to accept Councillor Bothwell’s “ice breaking” explanation for her remarks, in this day and age where elected officials are expected to be leaders in diversity and equity, to have such a conversation frankly surprises me. Councillor Bothwell should not, however, be surprised that just having this conversation could easily be intimidating for a staff person, particularly when it is initiated by an elected official in a position of some power, authority and stature. Councillor Bothwell should remember that public officials have a responsibility to treat everyone with dignity and respect and to act with humility. You are not entitled to take liberties with staff just because you have been elected. Her comments come very close to crossing the line but I accept her explanation in spite of it being awkward and inappropriate at best.
With respect to the 190 emails, that does on its face seem excessive and could very easily lead to a conclusion of attempting to harass or bully an employee contrary to the Code of Conduct under the heading “Conduct” and contrary to the spirit of By-Law 19- 18. Given that Councillor Bothwell was advocating directly on behalf of constituents on a very important community matter, I am not prepared to conclude that her intent was to harass or bully or intimidate an employee or to direct staff in their duties. As I stated earlier there is often a perceived power imbalance between elected officials and staff. This Town council passed By-Law 19-18 on March 4, 2019. This By-Law outlines in detail the relationship between elected officials and staff, their respective roles and their working relationship. It should be incumbent on Councillor Bothwell and all members of council to read, understand and have respect for this document, in particular, S.2.9 which states “Achieve and maintain an environment of mutual respect and trust, mindful at all times of each other’s roles in achieving the objectives of Council.”
Insofar as the dismissal of the employee is concerned, Councillor Vaine acknowledged to me that Councillor Bothwell’s remarks about firing the employee occurred in a closed Council meeting. He further acknowledged that Human Resource matters that come before Council are reserved for closed Council meetings. Accordingly, I see nothing inappropriate in Councillor Bothwell’s conduct insofar as this allegation is concerned. Further, Councillor Vaine has advised that the employee’s termination occurred through the actions of the CAO and proper process was followed without influence from Councillor Bothwell.
Next is the allegation regarding rude and disrespectful behavior towards staff at the Heritage Committee. Again, Councillor Vaine has provided little in the way of particulars. I am accordingly left with the conclusion that Councillor Bothwell was acting vigorously on behalf of her constituents to ensure that any changes to a railway property by the Heritage Committee were as a result of a full and proper process being
Page 71 of 304 Agenda item b) 5 followed. I do not believe that Councillor Bothwell intended any untoward behavior in this endeavor.
I further find that it was appropriate for Councillor Bothwell to comment in an open session of Council that Councillor Vaine had missed a number of committee meetings. She made this comment in the context of Councillor Vaine seeking additional committee work. Her comments were not intended to embarrass or discredit Councillor Vaine and I accept them as such.
Councillor Vaine also alleges that Councillor Bothwell “rolled her eyes and made various signs of ignorance and contempt for staff.” These allegations are vague and I reject them as they are provided with no contextual background.
Conclusion
I would accordingly conclude that there was no breach of the Code of Conduct and I therefore recommend that no sanction be imposed on Councillor Bothwell, notwithstanding the reservations I have expressed. I urge that Councillors have regard for their own By-Law 19-18 as they interact with Town staff.
Dated this 20th day of July 2020
Charles A. Harnick Integrity Commissioner, Town of Grimsby
Page 72 of 304 Agenda item c)
July 20, 2020
Sent by email to: Councillor Reginald Freake [email protected] and to: Councillor Kevin Ritchie [email protected]
Dear Sirs,
Re: Code of Conduct Complaint (Councillor Freake against Councillor Ritchie) Complaint Reference Number: IC-193-0320
Councillor Freake brings this complaint against Councillor Ritchie primarily as a result of the introduction of a motion on January 21, 2020 in a closed session of Council. The motion purported to be part of a review of appointments of various individuals to Board of Director positions as made routinely by Grimsby Town Council. In reality it was a motion to remove Councillor Freake from his position on the Grimsby Energy Board. I see no evidence that any other Board positions were changed.
The preamble to Councillor Ritchie’s motion seems to be the focal point for this complaint. The preamble reads as follows:
“One of the most important characteristics when looking to appoint individuals to any board as a director is trust. Trust to do the right thing and trust that the information is being provided to the right individuals. In my opinion over several occasions this trust has been broken. Weather [sic] it is comments about getting 10cents on the dollar or opening up pandoras box in relation to compensation, Council made a decision for compensation for the sale of biodigestor, yet Councillor Freake’s actions have been disturbing and untrustworthy in this regard. His decision making has created a trust issue and it is for these reasons that I am requesting this council to replace Councillor Freake with Councillor Sharpe.”
Councillor Freake points specifically to the fact that he was described as being untrustworthy and that the actions he took while a member of the Energy Board were disturbing and untrustworthy.
I reviewed these facts with Councillor Freake and he agreed that the comments by Ritchie were based generally on positions Councillor Freake had taken while a member of the Board and more specifically regarding issues with respect to the biodigestor.
Page 73 of 304 Agenda item c) 2
Councillor Ritchie stated that he did not agree with the positions that Councillor Freake had been taking with regards to Grimsby Energy and that his remarks about trust were specifically confined to that issue and should not be defined more broadly, ie. that Councillor Ritchie had lost trust in Councillor Freake in regards to his dealing with the Grimsby Energy Board.
Councillor Freake states further in his complaint that he was discredited with allegations of Councillor Freake withholding information, lack of transparency and personal gain through his actions. Councillor Freake advised me that this was his interpretation of the motion and debate that followed and does not reflect necessarily, what was said by Councillor Ritchie.
It is regrettable that the Chairperson of the meeting allowed the motion to proceed, given the perceived inflammatory preamble that accompanied the motion. Because the motion was allowed to proceed, and given that Councillor Ritchie stated that his remarks were confined to issues relating only to Councillor Freake’s positions regarding Grimsby Energy, is this enough to dismiss the allegations of misconduct? I do not believe so.
The Code of Conduct states that “A member shall not use indecent, abusive, or insulting words or expressions toward any other member…”. To allege that a member’s actions are “disturbing and untrustworthy” is an insult. The preamble to the motion was not an angry outburst during the course of heated debate, followed by an immediate apology and withdrawal of remarks; this was a premeditated action, drafted by Councillor Ritchie in advance of the meeting, designed to malign and insult Councillor Freake.
This motion could easily have been presented without the inflammatory language of the preamble, in order to accomplish what those who supported the motion wanted to achieve. I conclude that Councillor Ritchie has breached the Code of Conduct for the Council of the Town of Grimsby.
I have shared a draft of my reasons in advance with both Councillor Freake and Councillor Ritchie. Councillor Ritchie has thanked me for sharing the draft and has noted that “all of these comments were made in Closed Session. I do not know if this is even a consideration.”
The fact that this occurred in closed session is not a justification for the comments that were made. The Code of Conduct applies equally to closed session meetings as it does for open council sessions. Closed session does not suspend the operation of the Code of Conduct.
Page 74 of 304 Agenda item c) 3
Penalty
I would recommend that Councillor Ritchie receive the most minimal penalty, which is to be reprimanded by Council. I believe such penalty will have a rehabilitative effect on Councillor Ritchie and will send a message of deterrence of such conduct to the other members on Council.
Dated this 20th day of July 2020
Charles A. Harnick Integrity Commissioner, Town of Grimsby
Page 75 of 304 Agenda item d)
July 20, 2020
Sent by email to: Councillor John Dunstall [email protected] and to: Councillor Reginald Freake [email protected]
Dear Sirs,
Re: Code of Conduct Complaint (Councillor Dunstall against Councillor Freake) Complaint Reference Number: IC-196-0320
Councillor Dunstall alleges that Councillor Freake released confidential information from a closed meeting of Council on February 10, 2020. Councillor Dunstall relies on a newspaper article from News Now dated February 13, 2020, as the basis for the facts he alleges.
I have reviewed the complaint of Councillor Dunstall together with the newspaper article and I make the decision not to proceed further with this investigation. In the article, Councillor Dunstall refers to two public statutes. The mere reference to the public statutes does not constitute the release of confidential information that was the subject matter of the closed council meeting.
Councillor Dunstall conceded that the motion at the closed session, said more about what transpired in closed session than any comments made by any councilors in the media. The motion itself was made public in an open Council meeting.
Accordingly, I am dismissing this complaint.
Yours very truly,
Charles A. Harnick Integrity Commissioner, Town of Grimsby
Page 76 of 304 Agenda item e)
July 20, 2020
Sent by email to: Councillor Reginald Freake [email protected] and to: Councillor John Dunstall [email protected]
Dear Sirs,
Re: Code of Conduct Complaint (Councillor Freake against Councillor Dunstall) Complaint Reference Number: IC-210-0320
I. THE COMPLAINT
In his complaint dated March 26, 2020, Councillor Freake makes a number of allegations against Councillor Dunstall, as follows:
1. Councillor Dunstall, in 2017, supported a bio-digester project through a company known as Grimsby Energy Inc. ("GEI"). This has turned out to be an unprofitable venture for the Town of Grimsby ("Town"). Civil law suits have been initiated by the Town. Councillor Dunstall is alleged to have fraternized with the former Mayor of the Town of Grimsby and some former directors of GEI.
2. Councillor Dunstall missed or avoided attending a Town council meeting on February 5, 2020 called to confirm the Mayor’s placing of the Town CAO on administrative leave.
3. Councillor Dunstall did not attend an informal pre-inauguration meeting with the Mayor elect and other councillors where committee assignments for the newly elected Council were determined. Councillor Dunstall subsequently refused the committee assignments given to him on December 3, 2018 when Council was inaugurated.
4. Councillor Dunstall "negligently" voted in favour of a pre-written resolution on February 10, 2020, to re-instate the CAO from administrative leave and in so doing he disregarded advice provided by Town legal counsel.
5. At the Heritage Committee, the position of Chair became open. Councillor Dunstall supported Councillor Bothwell at the Committee to fill the position. When up for ratification before full Council, Councillor Dunstall "unethically" put forward his own name to be Chair and voted for himself. With the support of
Page 77 of 304 Agenda item e) 2
other councillors, he was elected Chair of the Heritage Committee. It is alleged that his reasons for wanting to be Chair were disruptive and unprofessional.
6. Councillor Dunstall supported a motion to remove Councillor Freake as a director of the Grimsby Power Board on January 21, 2020. It is also alleged that Councillor Freake was presented with a Code of Conduct complaint against him that was malicious and erroneous and that such complaint is on file with the Integrity Commissioner.
7. Councillor Freake alleges that Councillor Dunstall breached the Code of Conduct by bringing forth a resolution regarding the conduct of the public gallery at open Council meetings.
II. THE RESPONSE
Councillor Dunstall responded to Councillor Freake's allegations, as follows:
1. Councillor Dunstall does not deny supporting the Bio-Digester project in 2017 nor his association with the former Mayor or directors of GEI. He acknowledges that he is aware civil actions have been commenced but he is not involved.
2. Councillor Dunstall acknowledges that he missed a hastily called, unscheduled meeting of Council on February 5, 2020. He further acknowledges that the meeting was re-scheduled for February 10, 2020 because no quorum was available for the meeting on February 5.
Councillor Dunstall explains his absence on February 5, due to an alarm activated on business premises which he owns and manages. He has provided documentary evidence of this occurrence which he advises required his personal attendance, causing his absence from the meeting. I have attached the document to these reasons. Several other Councillors were also apparently unavailable to attend.
3. Councillor Dunstall acknowledges that he did not attend the informal meeting prior to the inaugural meeting of Council on December 3, 2018, and that he did not know the pre-inauguration meeting was the forum for determining Committee assignments which traditionally are done at the inaugural meeting of Council. Accordingly, he agrees that he did not accept the committee assignments given to him.
4. Councillor Dunstall agrees that he voted to re-instate the CAO at the meeting of February 10, 2020 and that he listened to, but did not accept legal advice that was provided. This motion to re-instate was carried by a 5-4 vote.
5. Councillor Dunstall agrees he did not put his name forward to be Chair of the Heritage Committee at the committee meeting. He agrees that he brought his name forward at Council, having reconsidered the matter in the interim. He
Page 78 of 304 Agenda item e) 3
acknowledges that he supported his own candidacy for the position and that a majority of Council members supported him. He denies that he sought the position to be disruptive and unprofessional, stating that he was qualified for the position given his personal re-development of the firehall building in Grimsby.
6. Councillor Dunstall acknowledges that he supported a motion to remove Councillor Freake from the Grimsby Power Board.
7. Councillor Dunstall acknowledges that he brought a motion forward to deal with the conduct of public attendees at Town of Grimsby Council meetings.
III. ANALYSIS
I have had the opportunity to review the complaint submitted, the response and to have interviewed Councillors Freake and Dunstall.
Councillor Freake relies on the General Principles section of the Code of Conduct to support his allegations against Councillor Dunstall. This section states:
“All members of Council shall observe the highest standard of ethical conduct. They are expected to act honestly, independently, impartially, with discretion and without regard to self-interest and to avoid any situation liable to give rise to a conflict of interest. They are expected to be mindful of the importance of their duties and responsibilities, to take into account the public character of their function and to conduct themselves in a way that maintains and promotes the public’s trust in the Town of Grimsby. All members shall serve their constituents in a conscientious and diligent manner. No member shall use the influence of office for any purpose other than the exercise of his or her official duties.”
With respect to allegations 1, 4, and 6, each involves a complaint with the way Councillor Dunstall voted on contentious issues. The first complaint involves his support of the bio-digester project during a previous council, in 2017. His support of this project was part of the public record going into the election in 2018. Councillor Dunstall was re-elected at that time for a second term.
Councillor Dunstall is aware of a civil action that has been commenced in which he is not involved. He does acknowledge former associations with a previous mayor and board directors. However, no evidence was presented of any breach of trust or confidential information by Councillor Dunstall.
Allegation 4 states that on February 10, 2020 Councillor Dunstall "negligently" voted to re-instate the CAO who had been placed on administrative leave. There is no evidence supporting the allegation of negligence except perhaps not following legal advice that may have been provided. Councillors, however, are expected to act independently and it should be left to the voters to decide whether Councillor Dunstall voted appropriately.
Page 79 of 304 Agenda item e) 4
Allegation 6 again involves a complaint about how Councillor Dunstall voted. While there may have been issues with respect to the form and content of the motion to remove Councillor Freake from the Hydro Board, this difference of opinion between Councillors Freake and Dunstall does not involve a situation of dishonesty, self-interest, conflict of interest etc., as set out in the Code section above, and I find no evidence of impropriety in how Councillor Dunstall cast his vote. He voted with the majority to remove Councillor Freake from the Hydro Board.
No formal Code of Conduct complaint has been filed with the office of the Integrity Commissioner against Councillor Freake as alleged in allegation 6. I do not dispute that such a complaint was delivered to Councillor Freake by someone, but such complaint was never advanced.
Accordingly, I would dismiss the Code of Conduct complaints enumerated as numbers 1, 4 and 6. It is not for the Integrity Commissioner to question how and why a Councillor casts a vote on motions deemed to have been brought properly before Council. The Code of Conduct section cited above is general in its nature and the events described by Councillor Freake, most of which are agreed to by Councillor Dunstall, do not support allegations of dishonesty, self-interest, conflict of interest etc. as described in the Code section.
Allegation 2 involves missing the meeting of February 5, 2020. I am dismissing this complaint, given that several others missed the meeting that was hastily called with 24 hours of notice. I also rely on Councillor Dunstall’s explanation for his absence which is supported by the alarm report.
In terms of the substantive decision ultimately made at the meeting on February 10, 2020, there is again no evidence of dishonesty, self-interest or conflict of interest on Councillor Dunstall’s part in contravention of the Code.
Allegation 5 involves Councillor Dunstall’s election as Chair of the Heritage Committee. He became Chair by putting his name forward directly to Council rather than raising his name at committee, as is the usual course, prior to Council's subsequent ratification of the committee decision. This may be political maneuvering. However, I do not find that the Code section cited above was breached nor is there any evidence that he sought the position to be disruptive and unprofessional.
With respect to allegation 3, I accept Councillor Dunstall’s explanation regarding the procedure to appoint members to committee at the inaugural meeting. I do not believe he breached the Code. There is no evidence of dishonesty, self-interest or conflict of interest, contrary to the Code as cited. I also note that this allegation dates back to 2018 and no explanation was provided for the delay in advancing it.
Finally, there is allegation 7, relative to bringing a motion before Council regarding the conduct of those attending in person to watch Council meetings. Councillor Dunstall was entitled to bring such a motion forward however unnecessary or inappropriate it may have seemed to Councillor Freake. He did not breach the Code of Conduct by so doing and it was up to Council to decide whether to vote for or against this motion.
Page 80 of 304 Agenda item e) 5
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I would dismiss each of the complaints advanced by Councillor Freake. I do not believe these complaints were frivolous or vexatious but I do believe they are a reflection of Councillor Freake’s frustration as a result of the significant divide between factions on this Council. It will be left for the citizens of Grimsby to judge how their elected representatives voted on the important issues that came before this council, divided as it is.
It is not for the Integrity Commissioner to intervene and comment on how elected members vote on various issues in the absence of dishonesty, self-interest or conflict of interest. This would be an affront to our democracy.. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, where councillors vote in coalition on contentious issues. Nevertheless, this approach has caused friction and division between Grimsby Councillors and has led to a multiplicity of Code of Conduct complaints demonstrative of the frustration experienced by those Councillors who feel their voices are not being heard. However, it will ultimately be up to the citizens of the Town of Grimsby to decide on the record and fate of the current Council.
Dated this 20th day of July, 2020
Charles A. Harnick Integrity Commissioner, Town of Grimsby
Page 81 of 304 Agenda item a) CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GRIMSBY REPORT # DPW20-26 REEQUEST FOR SITE ALTERATION PERMIT FOR 149 KEMP ROAD WEST C06-PWC-PWR Report To: Town Council
Meeting Date: August 17, 2020
Subject: Request for Site Alteration Permit for 149 Kemp Road West
Recommendation(s)
1. That Report DPW20-26 dated August 17, 2020 regarding the Request for Site Alteration Permit for 149 Kemp Road West be received; and
2. That the owner’s request to apply for a site alteration permit be granted; and
3. That the owner be required to submit a formal application in accordance with Part VII of the By-law, including submitting the appropriate information, application fees and securities to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works; and
4. That subject to the owner’s permit application being accepted by the Director of Public Works, that the conditions outlined in Section 25 - 31 of Part IX of the By- law be waived and that the following conditions be substituted:
a) That the owner be required to enter into a Site Alteration Agreement in the form set out in Schedule C of the By-law; and b) That the Director be required to provide notice to all registered owners of land within 120 metres of the boundaries of the site, informing them of the approval of the owner’s permit. Background
Summary of Timelines
1. Site Alteration By-Law: • Council put a moratorium on site alterations in Fall of 2019. • The moratorium was in effect until May 30, 2020. • Council approved the new Site Alteration By-law 2020-44 on May 19, 2020. • The provisions of By-law 2020-44 came into effect June 1, 2020.
2. Site Alterations at 149 Kemp Rd West: • January 9, 2018 – Owner received clearance from the NPCA to carry out the proposed work as it lies outside of their regulated areas.
Page 1 of 3 Page 82 of 304 Agenda item a) CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GRIMSBY REPORT # DPW20-26 REEQUEST FOR SITE ALTERATION PERMIT FOR 149 KEMP ROAD WEST C06-PWC-PWR • April 23, 2018 – Site alteration permit was issued to the applicant. The purpose of the alteration is to raise low-lying areas that are susceptible to regular flooding. His intent is to make the land more viable and accessible for farming. The owner has two restaurants (Son of a Peach Pizzeria, and The Sunshine Doughnut Company) and he wants to grow produce to supply his restaurants with locally grown ingredients. The permit is valid for one year and a $10,000.00 letter of credit was provided, in addition to the applicable permit fees. • April 23, 2019 – three-month permit extension granted to the applicant as they were unable to finish the work within the one-year timeline. • July 31, 2020 – Staff received a complaint about material being imported to the site. Met the owner on site and informed him that work was taking place without a permit and must stop until a permit is obtained. The owner complied, and cut off the flow of material to the site. • August 4, 2020 – We received the completed notice of fill form, and the owner wishes to import topsoil to top dress the property for planting. Approximately 800m3 will be required to place 8” of topsoil over the entire fill area.
Application of the By-Law
Consideration for Exemption
Part VI of the Site Alteration By-law does allow certain works to be exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit. Staff reviewed these exemptions in relation to the information provided in the owner’s Notice of Fill submission and determined that the proposed work did not meet any of the exemptions, and was therefore subject to a permit review.
Consideration for Issuance of a Permit
Section VIII, 21 of the By-law provides the specific conditions to which the Director can issue a permit, being the alteration: 1. Will result in maintaining or improving the overall agricultural capacity of the land; or 2. Is incidental to a normal farm practice; or 3. Is appropriate for the development an use of the Site and the general intent and purpose of the following will be maintained: a. The Zoning By-law, b. The Office Plan, and c. The Site Alteration By-law.
Staff reviewed these exemptions in relation to the information provided in the owner’s Notice of Fill submission and determined that the proposed work did meet the conditions to which the Director can issue a permit.
Page 2 of 3 Page 83 of 304 #eb Agenda item a) CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GRIMSBY REPORT # DPW2O.26 n REEQUEST FOR SITE ALTERATION PERMIT FOR I49 KEMP ROAD WEST v c06-Pwc-PwR Considerat¡ons
The owner's current application is essentially a continuation of a previous site alteration permit which was issued by the Town. The owner was able to complete the majority of the work which was approved under the previous permit but the owner was unable to extend the permit further due to the moratorium. The owner is now requesting permission to bring in topsoil to top-dress the site to allow the property to be used for agricultural purposes. Staff feel that this request is consistent with the íntent of the By-law and therefore should be approved, subject to permit being obtained.
Given that the bulk of the work has already been completed under the previous permit and that the importation of topsoil is appropriate to complete the previously unfinished work, staff would recommend that Council waive the requirement for the applicant to complete the public meeting requirements outlined in the new By-law. However, we are still recommending that adjacent land owner's are made aware of the remaining site alteration works through hand-delivered notices.
Respectfu lly subm itted,
Brandon Wartman Title: Acting Director Public Works
Attachments
a Appendix A: Site Location Map
Page 3 of 3 Page 84 of 304 149 Kemp Road. Site Alteration Permit
v 149 kemp road x q
Shorv search resulæ for 149 ke. Page 85 of 304 Agenda item a) Agenda item b) REPORT #PLN20-16 Award of Contract 2020-PLN0, Consulting Services to Complete A Land Use Planning Study of the Grimsby Beach Area
Report To: Town Council
Meeting Date: August 12, 2020
Subject: Award of Contract 2020- PLN0, Consulting Services to Complete a Land Use Planning Study of the Grimsby Beach Area
Recommendation(s)
1. That Report PLN20-16 dated August 12, 2020 regarding the Award of Contract 2020- PLN0, Consulting Services to Complete a Land Use Planning Study of the Grimsby Beach Area be received;
2. And that the Director of Planning, Building & By-law be authorized to award the contract to MHBC Planning Limited in the total tendered amount of $161,395.14, excluding HST.
Background
On April 21, 2020, the Town issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Consulting Services to Complete a Land Use Planning Study of the Grimsby Beach Area. The closing date for the RFP was May 22, 2020.
The final outcome of the Grimsby Beach Study will be the implementation of a comprehensive land use planning framework designed to appropriately plan for and manage potential redevelopment in this unique and historic neighbourhood.
As identified in the RFP, the primary objectives of the Grimsby Beach Study include:
. Examining the planning structure of the Grimsby Beach area, including the existing subdivision pattern, its existing land use arrangement, and its mix and intensity; . Reviewing the existing policy framework that directs land use within the study area; . Assessing the transportation pattern, including the function of the road network and inventory the associated parking supply; . Assessing the municipal infrastructure capacity, including water, sanitary and stormwater management; . Assessing the contributing role and function of Township Plans 45, 45A, 64, and part of Plan 187 to potential redevelopment in the Grimsby Beach area;
Page 1 of 4 Page 86 of 304 Agenda item b) REPORT #PLN20-16 Award of Contract 2020-PLN0, Consulting Services to Complete A Land Use Planning Study of the Grimsby Beach Area
. Updating, as necessary, the existing inventory of built heritage resources in the Grimsby Beach area; . Assessing natural heritage features and other related natural heritage elements, including shoreline policies, that are valued together for their interrelationship and association with the Grimsby Beach area; . Conducting as necessary public consultation to address potential impacts to the Grimsby Beach area; . Considering architectural design, natural features and cultural heritage guidelines for the Grimsby Beach area; . Updating as necessary the Town of Grimsby Official Plan with any new planning policies emerging from the study; . Updating as necessary the Grimsby Zoning By-law (By-law 14-45, as amended) and any other municipal bylaws, to give effect to any new planning policies emerging from the study. The RFP closed with a total of nine proposals received from interested bidders.
At the July 20, 2020 Council meeting staff provided an update on the status of the RFP. The memo identified that staff had undergone an initial review of the proposals and selected four bidders for interviews. As well, Council was made aware of the proposed costs associated with the RFP, and the impact on the 2020 and 2021 budget. The memo can be found in Appendix A.
Analysis
RFP EVALUATION PROCESS
Bids Review and Scoring All nine (9) bids received were scored by a review panel. The panel consisted of members from the Town of Grimsby (Planning and the Administration department) as well as a Niagara Region staff member.
The review panel assessed each proposal using ten (10) criteria set out in the RFP including;
. Consultant profile and expertise: firm experience, personnel experience; . Methodology, work plan and schedule: understanding of requirements, methodology of approach, work plan, ability to meet project milestones; . Financial proposal: cost effectiveness of proposal; . Interview
Page 2 of 4 Page 87 of 304 Agenda item b) REPORT #PLN20-16 Award of Contract 2020-PLN0, Consulting Services to Complete A Land Use Planning Study of the Grimsby Beach Area
Each firm was scored against each criteria with values assigned respective to meeting RFP requirements as outlined in the evaluation section. The review panel met and agreed on the individual scoring.
Interviews Four (4) leading firms were invited to provide a presentation and answer questions from the evaluation committee. In addition, reference checks were completed for each of the leading proponents.
Financial Impact
The total price proposed by MHBC Planning Limited for the Grimsby Beach Study is $161,395.14, excluding HST.
Council allocated $100,000 for this study in the 2020 budget. The $100,000 that was budgeted in 2020 will be placed into the Planning Reserve. The additional $100,000 that is needed for the study is now included in the base budget, therefore there will be no further levy impact in the 2021 budget.
In order to find opportunities to reduce the impact of the increase in the cost of this study staff reviewed the planned worked with Niagara Region to assess if it qualified under the Smarter Niagara Incentive Program.
Smarter Niagara Incentive Program (SNIP)
SNIP is a planning grant program at the Region. The Region provides matching funding up to $100,000 for eligible planning grants in area municipalities.
Planning staff are currently pursuing funding for the work in the Grimsby Beach Study that qualifies under the program requirements.
Requests for Regional matching funding for a SNIP planning grant are made by way of an application form. The Town submitted its application on August 7, 2020 and hope to hear back in the near future.
Conclusion MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC) has assembled a highly qualified team who welcome the opportunity to work on the Grimsby Beach Area. Their goal for the Land Use Study is to achieve a vision and a plan that will not only
Page 3 of 4 Page 88 of 304 Agenda item b) REPORT #PLN20-16 Award of Contract 2020-PLN0, Consulting Services to Complete A Land Use Planning Study of the Grimsby Beach Area
guide appropriate change, but inspire it while preserving what is most valued. They will ensure the study is grounded in evidence-based research and technical information. Their process will directly connect with the community and build community understanding of land use planning and urban design so that residents understand how policies and design can shape growth and change. They will then use that community capacity to build consensus for a “made in Grimsby” plan that meets provincial, regional and local needs and is a reflection of the community’s vision and input.
In addition to MHBCs significant experience, staff’s detailed review of the RFP proposals which included scoring of proposals, presentations, interviews and reference checks has lead to the recommendation that: “the Director of Planning, Building & By-law be authorized to award the contract to MHBC Planning in the total tendered amount of $161,395.14, excluding HST.”
Prepared by,
Suzanne Madder Manager, Purchasing and Business Strategy
Submitted by,
Antonietta Minichillo Director Planning, Building & By-law
Appendices
Appendix A – July 20, 2020 Memo to Council: Grimsby Beach Study RFP Update
Page 4 of 4 Page 89 of 304 Appendix A Agenda item b) ** PLANNING DEPARTMENT vn MEMORANDUM TO Mayor Jeff Jordan and Members of Council
FROM: W. Basic, Acting Director of Planning, Building and By-law
RE Grimsby Beach Study RFP Update
DATE: July 20,2020
On April 21,2020, the Town issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Consulting Services to Complete a Land Use Planning Study of the Grimsby Beach Area. The closing date for the RFP was May 22,2020. A total of nine proposals were received from interested bidders.
Staff have completed their initial review of the proposals, and as per the terms of the RFP, have selected four bidders for interviews as they have met the benchmark score of 70 through the initial stage of review. The table below summarizes the average costs that were indicated in these four bids:
Phase #l: Phase #2: Phase #3: Phase #4: Plan Phase #5: Plan Total Project Development of Detailed Development* lmplementation* (Excluding lnitiation and Visions and Planning HST) Information Principles Study Gathering $70,000 $14,000 $64,000 $47,000 $33,000 $230,000** *Bidders were required to provide a cosf based on all potential study outcomes during phase 4 and 5 fo assrsf the Town is preparing budget estimates. The final cost for these phases may therefore end up being smaller than what is provided in this column. ** Total may not equal sum due to rounding.
Council allocated $100,000 for this study in the 2020 budget. As can be seen from the table above, the average cost of the bids is approximately $230,000. The $100,000 that was budgeted in2020 will be placed into the Planning Reserve. The additional $100,000 that is needed forthe study is now included in the base budget, therefore there will be no further levy impact in the 2021 budget.
As per the terms of the RFP, proponent success is not solely based on cost. Statf will report back to Council with a recommendation once interviews have been completed and the results are finalized.
Prepared by, Respectfully su bm itted,
A. Shanks S. Gruninger, cPA, cGA Senior Planner Director, Corporate Services/Treasurer
Related: Report P.4.20-02 Report P.A. 20-10 Report P.4.20-12
Page 90 of 304 Agenda item c) Report #TC20-03 A By-law to Prohibit and Regulate the Discharge of Firearms and Bows in the Town of Grimsby
Report To: Town Council
Meeting Date: August 17, 2020
Subject: A By-law to Prohibit and Regulate the Discharge of Firearms and Bows in the Town of Grimsby
Recommendation(s)
1. That Report TC20-03 dated August 17, 2020 be received; and,
2. That By-law 20-62 being a by-law to prohibit and regulate the discharge of firearms and bows in the Town of Grimsby by approved and enacted.
Purpose
To introduce a new by-law to prohibit and regulate the discharge or firearms and bows in the Town of Grimsby and to repeal by-law 76-36 being a by-law to prohibit the discharge of guns or other firearms, air guns and spring guns or any class or type thereof.
Background
In response to community feedback, a review of the current by-law (By-law 76-38) was undertaken to address gaps in the provisions to prohibit the discharge of weapons within the Town of Grimsby boundaries.
The current by-law has not been updated since 1976 and requires a substantial refresh to make it contemporary. A new by-law is proposed for Council’s consideration and approval.
Analysis
Section 119 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, enables a municipality to pass a by-law for the purpose of public safety, to prohibit or regulate the discharge of guns or other firearms, including air guns, spring guns, cross-bows, long-bows or any other weapon. The scope of prohibitions for the Town’s current firearms discharge by-law is limited to guns, air guns, spring guns or other firearms with the term “firearms” undefined. The proposed by-law attached to this report includes the full scope offered by the Municipal Act, 2001 including prohibitions for slingshots, cross-bows and long- bows. The new by-law also includes a list of definitions ensuring clarity on what is meant by a “firearm” and “bow” among other things.
Page 1 of 3 Page 91 of 304 Agenda item c) Report #TC20-03 A By-law to Prohibit and Regulate the Discharge of Firearms and Bows in the Town of Grimsby
The proposed by-law advances the original intent of the current by-law. Understanding that the discharge of firearms and bows could create a safety hazard for the public, exceptions for discharging a weapon within the Town of Grimsby boundaries are limited and tightly regulated.
Strategic Alignment
3 - Accountability and Transparency
Goal #3 - Build trust and confidence in the Town's operations and services and establish a strong reputation for the corporation.
1D - Set neighbourhood specific policies that are sensitive and respond to the concerns and desires of residents.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact resulting from the recommendations in this report.
Conclusion
By-law 76-38 (a by law to prohibit the discharge of guns or other firearms, air guns and spring guns or any class or type thereof) has not been revised since 1976. It has been determined that this by-law has a number of gaps and requires a significant refresh. It is recommended that By-law 76-38 be repealed and replaced by proposed By-law 20-62 (attached), a by-law to prohibit and regulate the discharge of firearms and bows in the Town of Grimsby.
Reviewed by:
Paul Nickerson, Chief Building Official
Antonietta Minichillo, Director of Planning, Building and By-law
Respectfully submitted by:
Sarah Kim Town Clerk
Page 2 of 3 Page 92 of 304 Agenda item c) Report #TC20-03 A By-law to Prohibit and Regulate the Discharge of Firearms and Bows in the Town of Grimsby
Attachments
By-law 76-38 - A By-law to Prohibit the Discharge of Guns or Other Firearms, Air Guns and Spring Guns or Any Class or Type Thereof
Proposed By-law 20-62 - A By-law to Prohibit and Regulate the Discharge of Firearms and Bows in the Town of Grimsby
Page 3 of 3 Page 93 of 304 Agenda item c)
THE CORPORATIONOF THE TOWN OF GRIMSBY
_hBYrLAW,N0. 76-38 _ ;n..,..
A BY-LAWTO PROHIBIT THE DISCHARGEOF GUNS OR OTHER FIREARMS,AIR-GUNS AND SPRING GUNS OR ANY CLASS OR TYPE THEREOF.
WHEREASSection 354 (1) (30) of The Municipal Act, R.S.0. 1970 empowers the Councils of local municipalities to pass by-laws for prohibiting r1-39:-1-may-on -(3.!-..-..-...... us. .u.c5u.-.u.u..:.u.5 n.:..v.:.: u.;.a\..ucu.5c*u.|. 35u.u.o, u.I. uI..u.c.L J..I..Lua.J.'ul.b', <':I.J..L"'gu1l.b' U1‘ any class or type thereof in the Municipality;
ANDWHEREASthe Council of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby deems it desirable to prohibit the discharge of such guns and firearms within the Town of Grimsby.
NOWTHEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATIONOF THE TOWNOF GRIMSBY ENACTSAS FOLLOWS:
1. That no person other than a Police Officer in the lawful discharge of his duties, shall discharge a gun, or other firearm, an air-gun or spring gun, or any class or type thereof, within the Town of Grimsby.
2. That this By-law shall not apply:
(a) to the destruction of a farm or domestic animal for humane reasons, or to the destruction, by the owner, his agent or servant on the owner's property, (b) to the discharge of firearms for the purpose of target or skeet and trap shooting, carried on under the supervision of organized gun and revolver clubs, on ranges properly equipped for such purposes. (c) for the purpose of this By-law, pheasants, geese, ducks and other game birds shall not be considered pestiferous birds. (<1) owner for the purpose of this By-law shall include any person who is the owner of an interest in the land entitling him to possession of it and shall include a tenant farmer. Every person who contravenes any of the provisions of this By-law shall upon conviction thereof, forfeit and pay at the discretion of the convicting Magistrate a penalty not exceeding (exclusive of costs) the sum of $300.00 for each offence. 4. By-law No. 70-42 is hereby repealed. 5. That this By-law shall come into force on the day it is passed by Council of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby. READ A FIRST TIME THIS 3rd day of May, 1976. READA SECOND ANDTHIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 3rd day of May, 1976 Page 94 of 304 Agenda item c) The Corporation of the Town of Grimsby By-law No. 20-62 A By-law to Prohibit and Regulate the Discharge of Firearms and Bows in the Town of Grimsby Whereas Paragraph 11(2) 6 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, enables a municipality to pass a by-law to protect the health, safety and well-being of its residents; And whereas Section 119 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, enables a municipality to pass a by-law for the purpose of public safety, to prohibit or regulate the discharge of guns or other firearms, including air guns, spring guns, cross-bows, long-bows or any other weapon; And whereas the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Grimsby determines that the discharge of firearms and bows could create a safety hazard for the public; Now therefore the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby enacts as follows: 1. Short Title 1.1. This By-law shall be known as the Discharge of Firearms and Bows By-law. 2. Definitions For the purpose of this By-Law: 2.1. “Agricultural purposes” means the growing of crops, including nursery and horticultural crops; raising of livestock; raising of other animals for food, fur or fibre, including poultry and fish; aquaculture; horse boarding; apiaries; agro-forestry; maple syrup production; and associated on-farm buildings and structures.” 2.2. “Bow” means a long bow, compound bow, re-curve bow, cross bow, or any class thereof, from which any arrow or any other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing bodily injury or death to any Person; 2.3. “Firearm” means any weapon from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged and that is capable of causing bodily injury or death to any Person and includes, but is not limited to, a sling shot, air gun, paint ball gun, and spring gun; 2.4. “Highway” means a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct, or trestle, any part of which is intended for, or used by, the general public for the passage of vehicles; 2.5. “Livestock” as defined in Livestock and Livestock Products Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.L.20, as amended, or any successor legislation thereto; 2.6. “Peace Officer” includes a municipal law enforcement officer, Page 1 of 4 Page 95 of 304 Agenda item c) police officer, animal control officer or a provincial conservation officer; 2.7. “Person” includes a corporation and its directors and officers, and the heirs, executors, assignees and administrators or the other legal representatives of an individual and their respective successors and assignees; 2.8. “Problem Wildlife” means any bird or animal that is defined as wildlife in the Wildlife Act, RSA 2000, c. W-10, as revised from time to time, and which is destroying or harming or is likely to destroy or harm any land, livestock or property. For clarity, pestiferous birds does not include pheasants, geese, ducks, and other game birds; 2.9. “Public Land” includes parks, conservation areas, forestry lands, school property, and recreational areas; 2.10. “Public Centre” means land on a registered plan of subdivision, any place of worship, public hall or school property; 2.11. “Town” means the Corporation of The Town of Grimsby; 3. Prohibitions 3.1. No Person shall discharge, cause to be discharged, or permit to be discharged a Firearm or a Bow in the Town except in accordance with this By-law; 3.2. No owner or occupier of a property shall permit the discharge of a Firearm or Bow on the property that they own or occupy except as provided for in this By-law; and, 3.3. Every Person that discharges a Firearm on any parcel of land on which a Person may lawfully discharge a Firearm in accordance with this By-law shall ensure that no shot, bullet, bolt, arrow or projectile passes over: (a) any Highway, Public Land or Public Centre. 4. Exceptions This By-law shall not apply to: 4.1. Any Peace Officer acting in the course of their duty under the authority of their employment; 4.2. Any Person or organization that for ceremonial or other purposes has obtained advance permission from Council to perform any act otherwise prohibited under this By-law. This may include: (a) A person firing blank ammunition for or in connection with lawful use in a motion picture, television, stage productions and historical displays or educational programs of a public museum; (b) A person firing blank ammunition for the purpose of starting or controlling a sporting event of a similar nature to foot racing, sailing or golf. Page 2 of 4 Page 96 of 304 Agenda item c) 4.3. Any Person in the course of an organized shooting competition, practice or training event provided that: (a) Such event has received the prior written approval of Council; (b) A copy of the approval is maintained on the site of the event and is available at all times for inspection by any Peace Officer who requests to inspect same; and (c) The approval is in fact produced for inspection by such Peace Officer immediately after the request is made. 4.4. Any Person who is a member of an incorporated gun, shooting or archery club in the course of club activities, provided that: (a) The discharge of the Firearm takes place on a range, the location of which has been approved by Council prior to the discharge of the firearm in question: (b) Where necessary by law, the location has been approved by the Solicitor General for Ontario prior to the discharge of the Firearm in question; (c) Evidence of Council's approval and evidence of the Solicitor General's approval is maintained on the range and available for inspection at all times by any Peace Officer; and, (d) Evidence of approval is in fact produced for inspection by a Peace Officer immediately after a request is made. 4.5. The discharge of a Firearm by a Person on lands actively being used for Agricultural Purposes if the purpose of the discharge of the Firearm is for the protection or preservation of livestock or crops from Problem Wildlife, provided: (a) the type of gun used is a shot gun using shot no larger than 2 gauge; and, (b) the discharge of the Firearm is not within one hundred and fifty (150) metres of a dwelling, public park or private park, a public open space or the premises of an educational institution, day nursery, or a religious institution, including but not limited to any building, structures or grounds (occupied or not) related thereto. 5. Enforcement 5.1. The provisions of this By-law may be enforced by a Peace Officer or any Person appointed to enforce the by-laws of the Town; and, 5.2. No person shall hinder or obstruct, or attempt to hinder or obstruct a Peace Officer or other person so authorized who is performing a duty or exercising a power under this By-law pursuant to Section 426 of the Municipal Act, 2001. 6. Severability 6.1. Notwithstanding that any clause or any part or parts of this By-law may be found by any court of law to be invalid or beyond the Page 3 of 4 Page 97 of 304 Agenda item c) power of the Council to enact, such clause, part or parts shall be deemed to be severable, separate and independent and enacted as such. 7. Penalty 7.1. Every person who contravenes any provision of this By-law is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine, and such other penalties, as provided for in the Provincial Offences Act and the Municipal Act, 2001, as each may be amended from time to time. 8. Repeal 8.1. By-law 76-38 be hereby repealed in its entirety. 9. Effective Date 9.1. This By-law comes into force and takes effect on August 17, 2020. Read a first time this 17 day of August, 2020. Read a second and third time and finally passed this 17 day of August, 2020. ______J.A. Jordan, Mayor ______S. Kim, Town Clerk Page 4 of 4 Page 98 of 304 A Fresh Perspective: 6 Doran Avenue & 21-23 Main Street East 1. Main Streets – Historic Main Streets Across Ontario 2. Planning, Process and Refinements 3. Economic Impacts 4. The Future of the Past Page 99 of 304 5. Elevating this Application 6. Our Strategic Priorities Agenda item d) 7. Moving Forward 2020-08-14 1 The Planning Process • We are currently in the Zoning By-Law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment Phase • The next step will be the Site Plan Application • Checks and Balances • Review site design features and coordinate the following: • High quality building design • Overall site design Page 100 of 304 • Landscaping • Pedestrian movement and barrier-free design • Grading, drainage and storm water management • Parking, loading layout, vehicular access, etc Agenda item d) 2020-08-14 2 Technical Matters 1. Parking 2. Density 3. Larger Block Creation 4. Reference Plan Page 101 of 304 Agenda item d) 2020-08-14 3 Laneway & Pedestrian Safety • Laneway currently has no exit • Improving safety of laneway for pedestrians and vehicles original laneway portion of original • Laneway services heritage buildings at the retained northeast corner of Ontario and Doran. portion redirected We are further improving it by obtaining a safe exit for the laneway onto Doran from new access to Doran the developer’s property on developer’s property Page 102 of 304 • Laneway is not lost. Redirected to a location with a safe exit • By giving the laneway an exit we can contribute to the long-term protection of heritage building and improved public Agenda item d) safety 2020-08-14 4 Refinements to the Application • 92 90 units (units don’t matter as much as you think). Form matters more, especially in a heritage area • 8 4 stories • 1/3 2 bedroom, 1/3 1 bedroom + 1 den, 1/3 1 bedroom • 463 to 603 square meters of commercial space Page 103 of 304 Agenda item d) 2020-08-14 5 Responsible Planning • Alignment with policy (Major Intensification Area) • Application Peer reviewer x 2 Paul Lowes & Allan Ramsay • Heritage Peer review – Marcus Letourneau • Thorough due diligence • Indicative of development appropriate for a heritage downtown • Mixed-Use Page 104 of 304 • Adds to the housing typology of Grimsby • Allows for Aging in Place • People + Business Proximity • Promotes walkability Agenda item d) • Contributes to positive climate action 2020-08-14 6 Economic Impact Page 105 of 304 Agenda item d) Heritage to Build a Strong, Vibrant Downtown • Heritage is a magnet for new investment • Investment in downtown helps us conserve our heritage long-term • De-investment or stagnation can lead to demolition by neglect • Best chance at long-term survival of heritage resources • Demand the best of new development The best way to preserve our historical buildings Page 106 of 304 is to encourage investment and development, and not by outlawing them. [This way] we prevent them from falling into disrepair and becoming obsolete.” Strong Towns, Agenda item d) Andrew Price 2020-08-14 8 Main Streets Page 107 of 304 Agenda item d) 2020-08-14 9 Demanding the BEST of this Application • High quality materials • Lighting Plan • Rooftop Garden/Community Garden • Public Realm Enhancements • Safety for our children – road treatment • Improve sustainability Page 108 of 304 • Urban Design Review – Alex Taranu (Founder of the Council for Canadian Urbanism (CanU) and founding member of Ontario Professional Planner’s Institute Urban Design Working Group) • Create an Animated Walkway Agenda item d) • Public Art with school children 2020-08-14 10 Our Town’s Strategic Priorities • Stronger local businesses and employment growth in retail and service sectors, through identification of opportunities for growth and expansion based on existing and potential markets • New investments (e.g. renewed facades, new tenants/owners or new design features) that contribute to a sense of investment security and stability in the downtown • Aesthetic improvements in both public and private spaces downtown that support broader quality of place improvements to attract and retain employees in the community • New residential development at a variety of densities and tenures in the downtown Page 109 of 304 • Increased community fiscal sustainability, including increased tax assessment from previously underutilized spaces and efficient use of existing infrastructure through infill development • Protect and preserve Grimsby’s distinct natural setting and become a municipal Agenda item d) leader in sustainability 2020-08-14 11 Learning Together • Lunch and Learns • Workshops • Guest Speakers • Bus Tours/Walking Tours • Educational Videos • Resources Page 110 of 304 • Q&A with Teams involved in Development Agenda item d) 2020-08-14 12 Thank you! Questions? Page 111 of 304 Agenda item d) 2020-08-14 13 Agenda item d) GRIMSBY& DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE “PARTNERS IN PROGRESS” [email protected] 33 Main St W www.grimsbychamber.cum Grimsby, ON 905-945-8319 L3M IR3 August 6, 2020 TO: Town ofGrimsby ATTN: Town Clerk CC: Town Councillors GrimsbyTown Hall 160 Livingston Ave Grimsby, ON L3M4X1 RE: Of?cial Plan 8-Zoning Amendment applications for 21 and 23 Main St E and 6 Doran Ave This letter is to reaffirm the GrimsbyChamber's previous position supporting the Homes ByDeSantis Century Condos build,as noted above. As you willrecall,we attended the Town of Grimsby’s Planning& Development meeting in November of 2018, and expressed our support ofthe proposed project. The development addresses the foundational reason the GrimsbyChamber exists: to promote the economic, civic, and socialwell-being of our community. In addition to the expanded tax base that both residentialand commercial units willbring to the Town, the increased density in the downtown core willnot only add to the diversityof retail and dining options availableto residents and visitors alike, but provide important additionalfoot traffic for existing localbusinesses. Particularly, as Grimsbyenters a period of recovery from COVID-19 lockdowns,the boost the development willbring to local businesses, the Town's tax base,and interimjob creation is critical. In short, we believethe Century Condos build addresses both the short-term benefits of newjobs and new consumers during this critical post-lockdownphase, as well as bringingthe |ong—term benefits of tax revenue, retail diversity, and increased foot traffic to support the localeconomy, Vibrant,thriving, and successful downtowns require a robust mix of retail,residents,and services, and your Century Condos project provides an excellent balance of honouring the heritage ofa Grimsby & District Chamber of Commerce Page 112 of 304 Agenda item d) walkable,shoppable downtown core with the infusionof consumers needed to support a growing community. We lookfonNard to seeing the development move forward, and to celebrating its completion and success inthe future. Ifyou would liketo discuss our support of the build,please do not hesitate to contact us. Si erel l Rebecca Shelley Executive Director On behalf of The Grimsby& District Chamber of Commerce Grimsby & District Chamber of Commerce Page 113 of 304 Agenda item d) 160 Livingston Avenue, Grimsby, ON, L3M 4G3 August 10, 2020 Mayor Jeff Jordan & Grimsby Council Members Re: 21-23 Main Street East (Century Condos) Greetings all, The Grimsby Downtown Improvement Area board of directors was contacted by Homes By DeSantis president Gabriel DeSantis seeking a letter of support for their Century Condo project. Please let this letter serve as such a letter in that the board of directors is excited and looking forward to seeing the downtown project move ahead based on good planning principles - and in accordance with the agreement of council - in the best interests of the Town of Grimsby. In 2005, the provincial government enacted the Places to Grow Act, followed closely in 2006 by the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Growth Plan laid out many policies including but not limited to: • managing anticipated population and employment growth; • dictating density and intensification throughout the area, and; • density would be directed toward designated “urban growth centres”, major transit station areas, and intensification corridors. The Board recognizes there are many benefits to higher density development in all downtown cores.These benefits can have great spin-off effects in many ways when applied appropriately. Among the benefits the board sees in the Main Street site being developed: • hundreds of jobs in the community over the span of construction; • the establishment of additional residential and commercial (more jobs) units in the core; • development charges and cash-in-lieu of parkland can both play a massive part in a potential transformation of downtown Grimsby in the next several years; These core benefits also lead to other peripheral benefits all of which has the DIA board of directors looking forward to seeing this project completed. Over decades, many projects have been proposed by several previous owners of this site. As one of the very few remaining open pieces of land in the downtown core, 21-23 Main Street East can and will have a lasting, powerful impact on the Town of Grimsby. Thanks for your time and attention, Mike Williscraft, President DIA Board of Management Page 114 of 304 Agenda item d) August 10, 2020 The Town of Grimsby 160 Livingston Avenue, Grimsby, ON, L3M 4G3 Re: Century condos, 21-23 Main St. East Dear Mayor Jordon and members of Council, As the voice for the residential home building industry in the Niagara Region, we at the Niagara Home Builders Association completely endorse this above mentioned project as it clearly would not only create jobs but much needed diversity in the housing mix in Downtown Grimsby. These new condominium units would be affordable for our seniors and first-time buyers and offer choice for those looking to downsize and live in a walkable community. This project would not only create 175 jobs through the life of construction and subsequent employment in the newly created commercial, it will add 2.5 Million dollars through DC charges and parkland dedication to the towns DC fund. Consequently, enabling the town move forward with much needed infrastructure projects and allow the Town to enhance services to the citizens of Grimsby. Not to mention the financial spinoffs to local restaurants and retailers, it will add over $500,000.00 to the towns tax levy to once again provide the town the ability to invest in enhancements for the citizens. I would like to thank you for taking time to read this correspondence and would hope that when making the decision on this project you would let common sense override NIMBYISM and approve this project that would enhance the town of Grimsby, provide housing affordability and create much needed commerce in the Town. Once again thank and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely; Chuck McShane Executive Officer The Niagara Home Builders Assoc. 905-353-6920 [email protected] Cc: MPP Sam Oosterhof 34 Scott Street West, St. Catharines, ON L2R 1C9 P: 905-646-6281 E: [email protected] W: niagarahomebuildersassociation.ca Page 115 of 304 Agenda item d) August 12, 2020 Attention: Mayor Jeff Jordon & Grimsby Town Council Members Re: 21-23 Main St. East – Homes By DeSantis Century Condos build This letter is an endorsement for the Homes By DeSantis Century Condos build, on 21-23 Main St. East. The GBF Board of Directors, and Executive Director, welcome the prospect of a more diverse, prosperous downtown environment in Grimsby. The economic arguments for this build are strong, but we feel there is another crucial factor that supports this build and warrants serious consideration. GBF has a long history of caring for the wellbeing of the Town of Grimsby. Our current location geographically positions us to provide our services in the “Heart of Grimsby”. As a social enterprise we see ourselves as a business that promotes wellness in our town. With the support of donations from generous residents and thriving businesses, GBF can continue to grow and provide an important social service that is essential to our community. This has been overwhelmingly demonstrated during the COVID-19 epidemic. We have shown that we are there when people need us most, but going forward, we can’t do this without the continued support of a thriving town. Our downtown area has an important and unique role in both economic and social development. It has the opportunity to create a critical mass of commercial, residential, cultural, and civic activities all concentrated in our downtown location. We believe this concentration facilitates business, cultural exchange, and a pathway to both prosperity and wellbeing. Our downtown needs to belong, and be shared, by everyone. We welcome the opportunity to discuss our endorsement further – we have a passion for supporting a community that enables everyone to be well. The DeSantis build would be a positive contribution to this impact. Yours Sincerely, Irene Podolak, President Stacy Elia, Executive Director Page 116 of 304 HANDLING<®’ Agenda item d) SPECIALTYwww.handling.com AWhiting Company i Mayor Jeff Jordan August 12"‘,2020 Grimsby Council Members 160 Livingston Avenue, Grimsby, Ontario L3M 4G3 &a:21-23 Main S1rec|1':ast(_C_emuryCondos) Mayor Jordan et al; This letter is to serve as an expression of my support ofthe Century Condos project, and the work of Homes by DeSantis. Handling Specialty has called Grimsby its home (Head Office) for 42 of its 67 years. Over these years we have been a customer of many ofour downtown merchants and we are keen to see them thrive/survive. I would also note that in the 80’s, the founder of Handling Specialty owned and operated the Alpen Weiss Restaurant, which is now currently the home ofthe Judge n’ Jester. Suffice to say that we have a business and emotional tie to the well being of our down town core and a shared interest in the caring for our Heritage. Our downtown needs your support. I cannot think ofa better way to get a signi?cant and expedient infusion of people and their after-tax dollars unless you go vertical. We don’t appear to have an abundance ofland or parking downtown so the Century Project represents a new cash flow that the DIA so desperately needs. As a Director at GBF, I can assure you that GBF is keen to see this project engaged because we view the tenants as volunteers, retail customers and donors; the critical equation to our success. In closing, I personally have had the pleasure of speaking with the DeSantis group on a number of occasions. Mr. Desantis has made it very clear that he is committed to being a long-standing partner of GBF and this community The merchants of our downtown core have consistently demonstrated to be strong GBF supporters and have been responsible for many contributions that have enabled GBF to continue to deliver great results in our pursuit of wellness in our community. I trust that you see this economic schematic and how it stands to deliver what the Downtown core needs; revitalization and a positive vibe to sustain economic certainty. With a robust and conscientious effort from your team, I am sure you can orchestrate a successful project that has economics and Heritage working in harmony. I wish you well with the project Smcere Iy E. Beach ident P.O. Box 98, 219 South Service Road West, Grimsby, Ontario L3M 4G1 Canada: (905) 945-9661 F: (905) 945-0155 US: (716) 694-6333 F: (716) 694-6903 Toll Free: (800) 559-8366 info@hand|ing.com www.handling.com Page 117 of 304 Agenda item d) Members of Council First, I would like to thank Ms. Kim, Clerk of the Town of Grimsby, for the opportunity to address you this evening by means of an addition to Report P.A. 20-14. In this term, our Council has placed an additional emphasis on financial and fiduciary accountability. The developer of the propertis at 21 and 23 Main StreetEast and 6 Doran Avenue –Laneway Ownership (revised) has appealed to the LPAT without clear ownership of the laneway in hand. As you know, any defence of an LPAT Appeal is an expensive proposition. There are immediate fees for review from our Town Solicitors; let alone additional Planning staff time reapportioned to this appeal; in addition to the cost of legal representation at LPAT meetings and telephone conferences. As of the last decision of the LPAT Tribunal, ownership of the property is still in dispute and subject to a decision of the Superior Court. How is it possible to reach a settlement when ownership of the property is still clearly in dispute? While there are many contentions made in the LPAT appeal, which may be considered pure puffery, I will not endeavour to discuss them now. Any settlement of this matter, at minimum, must seek to recover our legal and additional Planning staff costs. Moreover, any decision made without clear title, is impossible. The essential point Council must consider, in Closed Session, is whether it can reach a Settlement Agreement with the developer, at this point. I say no. And you as a Council, acting in the best interests of the Town of Grimsby, should emphatically say no to this particular agreement. A rushed and flawed decision is no substitute for doing the right thing. Sincerely, Stacy McNeill Page 118 of 304 Agenda item a) TOWN OF GRIMSBY NOTICE OF MOTION INTRODUCTION DATE: July 20, 2020 SUBJECT: National Anthem REQUESTED BY: Councillor Sharpe Resolved that Council play the National Anthem at the beginning of each Regular Council Meeting. Page 119 of 304 Agenda item b) TOWN OF GRIMSBY NOTICE OF MOTION INTRODUCTION DATE: July 20, 2020 SUBJECT: GEI Board Information REQUESTED BY: Councillor Vaine Whereas Council is highly committed to transparency and accountability; Be it resolved that Council direct staff to provide a report in regards to all sales, dealings, costs and compensation associated with the GEI Board without disclosure of sensitive confidential contents including but not limited to, verbal and written communications to and from staff, Board member and members of Town Council including any meeting discussions also. And be it further resolved that Council direct staff to provide a status of completion of the Biodigester sale and when it will be fully completed. Page 120 of 304 Agenda item c) TOWN OF GRIMSBY NOTICE OF MOTION INTRODUCTION DATE: July 20, 2020 SUBJECT: Indigenous Statement REQUESTED BY: Councillor Bothwell Whereas, the spirit and intent of a Land Acknowledgement statement is to recognize the First Nations Peoples on whose traditional territories we live and work, showing respect and acknowledging their presence and contributions to our nation and our communities; and, Whereas, several Ontario municipalities have adopted the practice of territorial Land Acknowledgement statements, reading statements at the start of Council and/or Committee meetings, as well as municipal events and public meetings; and, Whereas, the Region of Niagara as well as a number of Niagara municipalities have implemented the use of Land Acknowledgement statements through their Procedural By-laws; Therefore, be it resolved that Council direct staff to explore the matter of Indigenous Territorial Land Acknowledgement statements and their use within the municipality, by engaging with the Region of Niagara and local Indigenous cultural organizations, with the intent to amend the Procedural By-law as appropriate, to include a Land Acknowledgement statement; and, that staff report back to Council with recommendations. Page 121 of 304 Agenda item d) TOWN OF GRIMSBY NOTICE OF MOTION INTRODUCTION DATE: July 20, 2020 SUBJECT: Accessibility Mat for Grimsby Beach REQUESTED BY: Councillor Vaine Whereas, accessibility to our waterfronts is important for all residents including our vulnerable population in the community; Therefore be it resolved that Council direct staff to prepare a report on the viability of accessibility mats for Grimsby Beach, including safety concerns and potential liability issues; And furthermore report on what other municipalities are doing to address safety and liability issues. Page 122 of 304 Agenda item a) PDS 12-2020 July 15, 2020 Page 1 Subject: Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control and Wet Weather Management (WWM) Program – 2020 Funding Recommendations Report to: Planning and Economic Development Committee Report date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 Recommendations 1. That the twenty-six (26) Local Area Municipal projects under the 2020 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control / Wet Weather Management (WWM) Cost Sharing Program, as identified in Appendix 1 of Report PDS 12-2020, BE APPROVED in the amount of $4,000,000; 2. That the respective partnership funding agreements with the Local Area Municipalities BE PREPARED AND EXECUTED in compliance with the terms and conditions, as outlined in Appendix 3 and Appendix 4 of Report PDS 12-2020; and 3. That the respective Local Area Municipalities BE ADVISED of the results of Regional funding support, as outlined in Appendix 1 of PDS 12-2020. Key Facts • The purpose of this report is to provide background information to support the approval of the 2020 Local Area Municipal projects (LAM) under the CSO Control / WWM Program; • The Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Cost Share Program has been in place since 2007 and is intended to facilitate shared funding with the local Municipal partners to help mitigate the impacts of wet weather events on the Region-wide sanitary system and the environment. As a result, the Region benefits from this program by gaining capacity at regionally owned trunks, sewage pump stations and wastewater treatment plants, which in return, could be used for growth without oversizing Regional infrastructure; • Representatives of the CSO/WWM Working Group developed administrative procedures and criteria to support this Program and to rank project submissions by local Municipalities in accordance with the guiding principles. The group periodically reviews established criteria for improvements and needed adjustments in the funding priorities; Page 123 of 304 Agenda item a) PDS 12-2020 July 15, 2020 Page 2 ______ • The Region supports this approach and has included funding annually in its budget. For 2020, an amount of $4,000,000 was budgeted in the Region’s Wastewater Operating Budget; • The total of eligible projects submitted by local Municipal partners for 2020 was $5,177,397; • The total requested amount exceeded the approved program budget of $4,000,000 by $1,177,397 for 2020; Financial Considerations A gross budget of $4,000,000 has been approved as part of the 2020 Wastewater Operating Budget for the CSO Control Cost Share program. Funding for this program is partially provided through the Development Charges (50%). The thirty-five (35) eligible projects considered for funding under the 2020 CSO Control Program totaled $5,177,397. The total requested amount exceeded the approved program budget of $4,000,000 by $1,177,397 for 2020. As a result, Appendix 1 presents twenty-six (26) municipal projects being recommended for funding of which, one (1) is recommended to receive a partial funding. The other nine (9) eligible municipal projects, presented in Appendix 2, have not been recommended for funding in 2020 due to the budget limitations. Included in the recommended projects list is a $15,000 support contribution to Municipal I/I Collective Research Project for the reduction of I/I. This project is directly aligned with the WWM strategic approach benefiting both, the Region and the LAM. In support of it, each municipality signed a written consent in 2019 agreeing that the contribution be taken from the CSO Control Funding Program. This agreement was confirmed again for 2020 by the Working Group. Early in 2020, Regional staff in collaboration with the local Municipal partners, will review the local budget forecast for the CSO related projects. This will ensure the ability to consider a potential increase of the CSO Control Program through 2021 rate budget process should the increased demand continue. In addition to the $4,000,000 approved in the 2020 Wastewater Operating Budget, there are currently $22,548,871 of previously approved and active CSO projects at December 31, 2019. Of that amount, $6,469,553 has been paid to Local Area Municipalities at December 31, 2019. Page 124 of 304 Agenda item a) PDS 12-2020 July 15, 2020 Page 3 ______ The Region currently has $16 million in commitments to 10 municipalities for approved but unspent CSO projects as per 2019 Year-End in Appendix 5. Analysis The CSO Control Work Group adjusted the funding options structure for the eligible CSO cost share projects during 2018 and 2019. This adjustment incorporated a weighted approach of a growth component into the evaluation matrix and a change of funding priorities for different types of work. Appendix 3 shows the Funding Options. Thirty-six (36) applications were received from eight (8) local Municipalities. One (1) application from Fort Erie, after an initial review, was not supported by the CSO Control Program Policy and therefore, not included in the final evaluation process. Regional staff reviewed and evaluated thirty-five (35) compliant projects and incorporated twenty-six (26) of them into the final recommendation list presented in Appendix 1. The requested funding for all eligible projects totaled $5,177,397 including a $15,000 support contribution to Municipal I/I Collective research project, which was endorsed by all local Municipal partners. The total requested fund of $5,177,397 is $1,177,397 greater than the 2020 approved budget of $4,000,000. Nine (9) projects not recommended for funding are presented in Appendix 2. Alternatives Reviewed No alternatives were reviewed at this time. Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities This report was brought forward by Regional Staff, supported by the CSO/WWM Working Group and by the Public Works Officials. This aligns with Council’s Strategic Priorities for Responsible Growth and Infrastructure Planning and the objectives of Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship and Maintenance of Existing Infrastructure. Page 125 of 304 Agenda item a) PDS 12-2020 July 15, 2020 Page 4 ______ Other Pertinent Reports • PW4.S06.0, September 2, 2014 – Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control & Wet Weather Management Policy • PDS 14-2019, April 17, 2019 – Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control and Wet Weather Management Program – 2019 Funding Recommendations • PW 18-2020, May 12, 2020 - Council Motion Re 2020 Water and Wastewater Budget Increase Deferral ______Prepared by: Recommended by: Ilija Stetic, B.Sc., PMP Rino Mostacci, MCIP, RPP Project Manager Commissioner Planning and Economic Development Planning and Economic Development ______Submitted by: Ron Tripp, P.Eng. Acting Chief Administrative Officer This report was prepared in consultation with Phill Lambert, P. Eng., Director, Infrastructure Planning & Engineering, Lyndsey Ferrell, Program Financial Specialist, and reviewed by Dan Ane, Manager Program Financial Support. In addition to, the final consultation was done with Ron Tripp, P.Eng., Acting Chief Administrative Officer Appendices Appendix 1 Recommended 2020 CSO Control Program Funding Requests Appendix 2 Projects Not Recommended for Funding Appendix 3 Funding Options Appendix 4 CSO Control / WWM Policy Funding Conditions Appendix 5 Summary of CSO Project Remaining Budget Encumbrance by Municipality by 2019 Year-End Page 126 of 304 PDS 12-2020 Appendix 1: Recommended 2020 CSO Control Program Funding Requests Regional Requested Recommended Municipality Project Title Share Funding Funding % $ $ 2020 Sanitary Sewer CCTV Inspection 50 102,500 102,500 Fort Erie Flow Monitoring Program, Pre/Post 60 36,000 36,000 Grimsby 2020 Baker Rd WWTP PPCP-Flow Monitoring 60 288,000 288,000 Armoury Street Sewer Separation 40 10,497 10,497 Bukator Drive & Rapids View Drive Sewer Separation 40 485,000 485,000 Elm Street Sewer Separation 40 8,360 8,360 Homewood Avenue Sewer Separation 40 8,120 8,120 Huggins Street Area - Implementation Study 50 25,000 25,000 Kitchener St Sewer Separation 40 1,017,720 1,017,720 Niagara Falls Maple Street Sewer Separation 40 14,800 14,800 Portage Road & Prospect Street Sewer Separation 30 36,200 36,200 Silvertown Area Functional Servicing Assessment 40 20,000 20,000 South Niagara Falls (Chippawa) I&I Remedial Action Project 40 150,000 150,000 1 Tactical I&I Reduction South NF 50 600,000 238,303 Valley Way EA - Implementation Plan 50 50,000 50,000 CSO Flow Monitoring Post Repair - Dorchester South 60 30,000 30,000 Niagara-on-the-Lake CSO Flow Monitoring Post Repair - Front and Ricardo 60 30,000 30,000 Dorchester North I/I Study 50 75,000 75,000 CSO Model Verification Project 60 120,000 120,000 St. Catharines Cummings Street / Kent Street Sewer Separation 50/60 2 244,500 244,500 Glenwood Avenue / South Drive Sewer Separation 50/60 2 347,000 347,000 Edgar Elgin Sewer Separation 40 40,000 40,000 Page 127 of 304 2 138,000 138,000 Welland ICIP Broadway Area Infrastructure Improvements 50/30/50 Monitoring Project 60 90,000 90,000 Private Side Disconnection 60 180,000 180,000 West Lincoln Inflow and Infiltration Study 50 200,000 200,000 Municipal I/I Collective Research Project for the Reduction of I/I 100 15,000 15,000 Total 4,361,697 4,000,000 Note 1: Partial funding recommended based on approved budget of $ 4 M. Note 2: Funding % share is dependent on specific project component and related work. Projects combined different works resulting in different Agenda item a) Regional share. See Appendix 3 for % of cost share for projects. Page 5 PDS 12-2020 Appendix 2: Projects not recommended for funding Regional Requested Municipality Project Title Share Funding % $ Trenchless Repairs 30 120,000 Dead End Watermain Replacement 1 30 135,000 Bowen Road Watermain Replacement 1 30 8,100 Fort Erie Idylewylde St Sanitary Sewer 30 32,100 Thunder Bay Trenchless Sewer Rehabilitation 30 75,000 High St Watermain Replacement 1 30 40,500 Lincoln Ave - Phase 1 30 96,000 Lincoln Rittenhouse Road Reconstruction 30 201,000 Welland Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Project 30/50 2 108,000 Total 815,700 Note 1: Projects included works on the sanitary sewer system. Note 2: Funding % share is dependent on specific project component and related work. Projects combined different works resulting in different Regional share. See Appendix 3 for % of cost share for projects. Page 128 of 304 Agenda item a) Page 6 AgendaPDS 12 item-2020 a) Appendix 3: Funding Options Project Project Types include design and/or construction. All projects must be 100% Funding Region LAM Category recommended from a Study. All projects exclude internal costs incurred on Amount % % No. projects. Priority 1. Sewer Separation 40% Disconnection of road drainage 40 60 Work Disconnection of road and private 60 40 Examples Disconnection of road, previous disconnection of private or oposite 50 50 2. Studies 15% PPCP as per the PPCP Guide 50 50 I&I and extraneous flow investigation including CCTV/smoke testing 1 50 50 Work Mandatory Flow Monitoring - Pre and Post 60 40 Examples Investigative work on Municipal/Private side 50 50 Public Education/Water conservation and efficiency measures 50 50 Sewer Use By-Law developoment/update and Municipal Policies 50 50 3. Source Control - Private Side 20% Disconnection of roof leaders - prerequisite for other works on the private side. Disconnection of roof leaders 60 40 Work Disconnection of weeping tiles from sanitary including applicable works 60 40 Examples Private property disconnection of sump pumps 60 40 Backflow preventor installation on sanitary 40 60 4. Conveyance and Flow control/storage 15% Real time control for detention 60 40 Work In-line flow controlers design & construction (e.g. weirs) 60 40 Examples Off-line conveyance and pumping design and construction 60 40 In-line / Off-line Storage 40 60 Repair/ Rehabilitation/ Replacement of Sewers 5. 10% (estimated ≥50% flow reduction during WW events) Repair of sanitary/ manholes - gel sealing, spot repairs 30 70 Work Spot repair lining 30 70 Examples Full length liner 30 70 Note 1: CCTV inspection - only site/project specific. Regular city wide inspections should be part of municipal Asset Management or O&M programs. Page 129 of 304 Page 7 Agenda item a) PDS 12-2020 Appendix 4: CSO Control / WWM Policy Funding Conditions The terms and conditions under which funding will be offered to the successful applications include the following: 1. Amount of Funding, Studies - The Region shall contribute 50% of total study costs for the PPCP and I&I studies, and 60% for the Pre and Post Flow monitoring projects provided the Region participates on a committee overseeing the study and the study covers the entire area tributary to the Wastewater Treatment Plant(s) and includes both local and Regional infrastructure. 2. Amount of Funding, Design & Construction projects – The Region shall contribute defined percentage of the cost based on the Funding Options matrix, provided that; the facility or measure is supported by a recommendation from a current CSO study, life cycle cost comparisons of alternative solutions were undertaken and the Region agrees with the cost comparisons, the Region agrees with the ‘best overall solution’, and the Region participates on a committee overseeing the design. For multi-year projects, annual project applications are required for each new planning, design, construction or program phase, related to that funding request. 3. Third Party Funding – The Region’s funding shall be net of any third party funding approved for the project. If third party funding is obtained after Regional funding approval, the amount of Regional funding will be adjusted to be net of any third party funding. Payment of the funding to the Area Municipality shall be based on actual expenditures incurred up to the maximum amount approved by Regional Council based on the budget submitted with the application. 4. Project Lead Studies – Lead by either the Area Municipality or the Region based on a mutual agreement prior to initiation of study. 5. Project Lead Design & Construction – A project located in the Area Municipal wastewater system shall be managed by the Area Municipality while a project in the Regional wastewater system shall be managed by the Region. On a case-by-case basis, the Region may consider managing a project in the local system, if requested by the Area Municipality. 6. Ownership and Operation of Assets – The ownership and operation of all new and existing assets shall remain the responsibility of the current owner. The Area Municipality, on a case-by- case basis, may request the Region to operate and maintain an existing or new CSO control facility on behalf of the Area Municipality on a direct charge back basis. 7. Follow up Flow Monitoring – On a case-by-case basis, the Region may include a condition or approval of funding that requires follow up flow monitoring to assess project’s effectiveness. If the flow monitoring is not a suitable option, effectiveness can be shown by modeling. 8. Expiry of Funding – Funding of a project by the Region may expire if the project is not initiated within one year of approval. Projects must be completed within three years of approval by Regional Council. Where a project is not completed within the three years, written notice must be provided to the Region, in advance of the deadline, and extensions for continued funding may be granted on a case-by-case basis. 9. Indemnity – The Region, or its directors, officers, employees, agents or consultants will not be held liable as a result of providing funding for any project. 10. Regional Recognition – The Area Municipality is to ensure that the Region is to be acknowledged in all advertising and publicity related to the project for which funding was provided. 11. Project Deliverables – The Region shall receive copies of all project deliverables, including, but not limited to, reports, flow monitoring data, hydraulic modelling files, GIS layers/data, and technical memorandums. 12. Funding Agreement - A letter formalizing the funding in accordance with the Region’s CSO Funding Policy will be issued to the Area Municipality for signature and used as the agreement to the terms and conditions of the funding. Page 130 of 304 Page 8 PDS 12-2020 Appendix 5: Summary of CSO Project Remaining Budget Encumberance by Municipality by 2019 Year-End Year Municipality 2008 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Grand Total Fort Erie 8,729 242,342 9,844 414,581 786,000 1,461,497 Grimsby 1,503,293 136,308 1,639,601 Lincoln 379 2,100 312,182 391,165 705,826 Niagara Falls 4,566 229,644 547,174 320,759 538,935 401,663 615,879 2,658,620 Niagara-on-the-Lake 150,000 150,000 300,000 Pelham 5,173 50,000 15,000 70,173 Port Colborne 186,460 98,684 285,144 St. Catharines 371,751 464,097 479,376 1,375,676 528,374 1,102,654 1,243,200 5,565,128 Thorold 213,663 248,255 10,569 299,465 10,590 782,543 Welland 385,000 265,898 264,067 970,901 719,200 2,605,066 Grand Total 1,503,293 376,317 693,741 1,639,116 2,776,077 1,452,574 3,701,446 3,931,034 16,073,598 Page 131 of 304 Agenda item a) Page 9 Agenda item a) Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-685-4225 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca July 24, 2020 CL 12-2020, July 23, 2020 PHSSC 6-2020, July 14, 2020 COM 15-2020, July 14, 2020 Local Area Municipalities SENT ELECTRONICALLY RE: Affordable Housing Strategy Update Regional Council, at its meeting of July 23, 2020, approved the following recommendation of its Public Health and Social Services Committee: That Report COM 15-2020, dated July 14, 2020, respecting Affordable Housing Strategy Update, BE RECEIVED and BE CIRCULATED to the Local Area Municipalities. A copy of Report COM 15-2020 is enclosed for your information. Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk :kl CLK-C 2020-169 Distribution List: C. Cousins, Director of Homelessness Services & Community Engagement S. Dean, Executive Assistant to the Commissioner, Community Services D. Giles, Director of Community and Long Range Planning A. Jugley, Commissioner, Community Services A. Tikky, Planner, Planning & Development Services Page 132 of 304 Agenda item a) COM 15-2020 July 14, 2020 Page 1 Subject: Affordable Housing Strategy Update Report to: Public Health and Social Services Committee Report date: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 Recommendations 1. That Report COM 15-2020 BE RECEIVED for information; and 2. That a copy of Report COM 15-2020 BE CIRCULATED to Local Area Municipalities. Key Facts • The purpose of this report is to outline approaches staff are taking in the short-term to address Niagara’s affordable housing needs as we continue to assess the changing demographic and economic trends resulting from COVID-19. • Regional Council identified the retention, protection, and supply of affordable ownership and rental housing as a key objective of the 2019-2022 Council Strategic Plan. • The Affordable Housing Strategy Steering Committee is an inter-departmental working group whose purpose is to develop a long-term Affordable Housing Strategy that coordinates the various studies, programs, and initiatives being undertaken across the Corporation to address housing affordability in Niagara. • The development of the Affordable Housing Strategy and its related initiatives has been impacted by the emergency measures put in place to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. • Short-term approaches include coordination with Local Area Municipalities, updates to the Regional Housing Database, and support for the affordable housing commitments made prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. • Consideration should also be given to an MOU with Local Municipalities aimed at streamlining the approval and development of affordable housing projects and the identification of vacant/underutilized municipal lands that can be made available for affordable housing. Page 133 of 304 Agenda item a) COM 15-2020 July 14, 2020 Page 2 ______ Financial Considerations There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. It is expected that any costs associated with the recommended approaches will be brought forward in detail as part of future reports to Committee and Council. Analysis The Affordable Housing Strategy Steering Committee (AHSSC) is an inter-departmental working group made up of staff from Niagara Regional Housing (NRH) and Niagara Region’s Planning and Development Services, Community Services, and Finance departments. The AHSSC was formed in 2018 in order to co-ordinate the various projects and initiatives being undertaken across the Corporation to address issues of housing affordability in Niagara. The AHSSC is currently overseeing the development of an Affordable Housing Strategy that outlines the long-term approaches, land use tools, and financial incentives that can be used to support the protection and supply of affordable ownership and rental housing in Niagara. The Affordable Housing Strategy is informed by the plans, projects, and other initiatives listed in the following section, each of which has been impacted by the implementation of emergency measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Status of Affordable Housing Studies and Initiatives Housing and Homelessness Action Plan (HHAP) Update The HHAP includes a complete vision for addressing homelessness and access to affordable housing in response to identified local needs. The updated plan was approved by Regional Council in October 2019, and acknowledged by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in March 2020. Preventing and ending homelessness requires access to safe and affordable permanent housing. This includes options in both the private market (home ownership and purpose-built rentals) and community housing (NRH owned, non-profit, co-operative housing, and supportive housing). The goals related to affordable housing in the HHAP include the following: Page 134 of 304 Agenda item a) COM 15-2020 July 14, 2020 Page 3 ______ • Increase the supply of higher-density housing forms, including townhouse and apartments. • Increase the number of new community housing units developed, and the proportion of new community housing units that are bachelor/1-bedroom units or four or more bedroom units. • Prevent the loss of current community housing stock. During the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the HHAP working groups, including the Community Housing Provider Advisory, the Housing Affordability Innovation Working Group, and the Lived Experience Advisory have been unable to meet. Staff continue to communicate with stakeholders as needed to support the alignment of local affordable housing initiatives to the HHAP. Niagara Regional Housing Projects • NRH is continuing with the renewal and repair of owned units to maintain and increase the current supply. Project planning for new and infill developments on owned land has continued, with construction scheduled to begin on the Hawkins Street redevelopment in the City of Niagara Falls in June 2020. • Formal project management services continue to be provided in a consulting capacity by NRH to assist housing providers across the region during all phases of new development. NRH has become a primary contact and resource for private developers interested in creating affordable housing across Niagara. • NRH is preparing an RFP for the development of an Affordable Housing Master Plan to strategically plan for affordable housing units to the year 2041. Once complete, the Master Plan will form an overarching strategy for affordable housing that considers the HHAP, the Regional Housing Database, and the affordable housing grant and incentive programs. After a pause during the initial stages of COVID-19, the Master Plan Steering Committee is to resume meeting in the summer of 2020. New Niagara Official Plan The Planning and Development Services Department is continuing its development of the new Official Plan for Niagara Region. An Official Plan is a long-range policy document that shapes a municipality’s physical, economic and social development. The new Niagara Official Plan will include objectives, Page 135 of 304 Agenda item a) COM 15-2020 July 14, 2020 Page 4 ______ policies and mapping to properly plan for forecasted population and employment growth, municipal infrastructure and services including public service facilities, and agricultural and natural heritage resources to ensure that the needs of Niagara’s current and future residents are met. In 2019, Niagara Region engaged the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis (CANCEA) to prepare a Regional Housing Database to inform the HHAP update and the comprehensive review of the Official Plan. The database aggregates existing sources of housing-related data to determine the current and future demand for affordable housing in Niagara. The results of the analysis of the Regional Housing Database, as well as the associated growth scenario analysis, were endorsed by the Planning and Economic Development Committee in April and November 2019, respectively. The background work already completed by CANCEA will enable policy drafting to begin for the housing component for the new Official Plan, which will include affordable housing targets and policies to achieve those targets. The Province has recently released new draft population and employment forecasts for Niagara Region to the year 2051 as part of “Amendment 1” to the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Once the Province finalizes Amendment 1, Regional forecasts will be updated and reflected in the new Niagara Official Plan. Niagara Region Grants and Incentives Review In 2018, the Niagara Region Grants and Incentives Review was initiated to promote greater transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the administration of the financial incentives offered by Niagara Region, and to ensure they continued to align with Council priorities, economic trends, and growth management strategies. In September 2019 through PDS 34-2019, Council endorsed the following four target areas for Regional incentives: affordable/rental housing; brownfield remediation; employment growth in key sectors; and public realm. The Regional Incentive Review Team continues its work to focus and coordinate incentives in these four areas in light of the significant changes caused by COVID-19. Specifically, the Team is monitoring the impact of the pandemic on the construction sector and the housing market and how these changes will affect affordable/rental housing. More information on potential incentive programs related to affordable/rental Page 136 of 304 Agenda item a) COM 15-2020 July 14, 2020 Page 5 ______housing will come forward when there is a better understanding of these impacts and how affordable housing incentives may best be adapted to address them. Short-Term Approaches to Housing Affordability Municipalities across Canada continue to address the impacts of COVID-19. Given the sudden shifts in the ways government services and private businesses have been run since the declaration of the pandemic, significant changes are expected to previously established demographic and economic trends. Because of these changes, a better understanding of the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19 on Niagara’s economy and housing market is needed prior to pursuing long- term investments and actions to support the development and availability of affordable housing in Niagara. While the opportunities and risks associated with long-term housing strategies are reassessed, however, staff will continue to pursue the following short-term approaches to support affordable housing choices in the region as coordinated by the AHSSC. Coordination of Affordable Housing with Local Area Municipalities Like all development proposals, affordable housing projects must be consistent with Provincial, Regional and local land use policies, and must adhere to the processes outlined in the Planning Act, 1990, the Building Code Act, 1992, and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017. Due to the nature of affordable housing developments, there are a number of obstacles associated with these applications which can delay the approvals process, including discriminatory opposition from members of the public (NIMBYism) and associated appeals. This is further complicated by the varying fees, timelines, and study requirements implemented by each of Niagara’s twelve local municipalities to process these applications. Development delays can be particularly detrimental for affordable housing projects. For the private market, delays can lead to increases in the final housing sales price, which in turn can reduce or negate the affordability of planned housing units. For non-profit organizations, Niagara Region, or Niagara Regional Housing, project delays can run the risk of exceeding funding deadlines associated with government grants and subsidies on which these developments are often dependent. Page 137 of 304 Agenda item a) COM 15-2020 July 14, 2020 Page 6 ______ Niagara Region is part of a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with Local Area Municipalities to outline the respective responsibilities and timelines associated with the delivery of planning functions and services. The AHSSC has discussed the use of a similar MOU or equivalent agreement with Local Area Municipalities specifically aimed at the review, administration, and approval of affordable housing projects and development applications. The intent of this agreement would be to facilitate a consistent approach to processing development applications and building permits for affordable housing projects across all twelve municipalities, as well as to ensure a common understanding of the process and timing restrictions associated with Provincially- or Federally-funded developments. Additionally, a component of the MOU and associated discussions with Local Area Municipalities can include the identification and assessment of vacant or underutilized municipal lands that can be made available for future affordable housing developments. The parcels identified will be assessed for their suitability for affordable housing based on a number of criteria, including: • the proximity and availability of transit service; • the proximity of public service facilities, such as social services, recreation, and health and educational programs; and • the location of adjacent or surrounding incompatible land uses, such as heavy manufacturing or industrial, or other uses with adverse impacts on sound and air quality. Community Services and NRH staff collaboratively have already been working with Local Area Municipalities to review municipal properties that may be available and appropriate to support affordable or supportive housing projects and to create readiness to respond to Provincial or Federal funding opportunities. Often these funding opportunities have tight turnarounds and require shovel-ready projects to access. Further coordination and consultation with Local Area Municipalities can lead to innovative programs and initiatives that can more effectively address housing and homelessness. In addition to the initiatives above, the Region will continue to seek partnerships with municipalities to support the development of new affordable housing options. Page 138 of 304 Agenda item a) COM 15-2020 July 14, 2020 Page 7 ______ Funded Housing Projects Regional staff will continue to process and support previously funded housing projects, including the Partnership Housing Program and the Park Street development in the City of Niagara Falls. Partnership Housing Program The 2018 Capital Budget approved a budget of $1.75 million for the Partnership Housing Program (CSD 14-2018, CSD 34-2019), with $1.575 million funded from Development Charges, and the balance from reserves. The purpose of the project is to partner with the private sector for the purposes of developing new, affordable purpose- built rental housing. In return for the Region’s investment, a number of units in the development would be allocated to Niagara Region to prioritize candidates on the centralized waiting list. Additionally the tax revenue on the property would be utilized to fund the required rent subsidy on the units allowing the Region to subsidize more households without an incremental budget increase. A negotiated request for proposal requiring a two part submission was issued in July of 2019 and closed in October 2019. Part A submissions were evaluated by a team of representatives from Finance, NRH, Community Services and Planning and Development Services. A Part B submission was requested from one proponent on February 18, 2020 and the response was received on March 18, 2020. An initial review of Part B took place in March of 2020, however, some additional information was required of the proponent. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic the continued evaluation of the proponent has been delayed. Staff are following up with the proponent at this time to understand the impact of the pandemic on the submission. City of Niagara Falls Park Street Development The Park Street property, owned by the City of Niagara Falls, has been offered by the City to form part of an affordable housing project in the downtown area (CSD 33-2019). This development has been approached as a partnership opportunity between the City, Region, NRH and not-for-profit agencies to develop approximately 200 units on this property, with NRH committed to provide Rent Geared to Income for up to 50 units. Page 139 of 304 Agenda item a) COM 15-2020 July 14, 2020 Page 8 ______ To date the City, with the support of the Region, has completed Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Assessments for the site, and has budgeted $500,000 this year to commence the remediation of the property, with additional monies budgeted for this purpose in 2021, as well as to demolish the existing structure on the property. Official Plan Amendments for the development have already been approved, and Zoning By-law Amendments for the site are currently underway to allow for a 10 storey structure to be developed on the property. The project’s next steps will be to coordinate a joint RFP process during the fall of 2020, with a project award targeted for spring of 2021. Alternatives Reviewed Not applicable. This report provides an update on the short term activity related to the affordable housing strategy that is continuing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evolving available information limits deliberation of long term alternatives at this time. As new information becomes available, additional long term options will be presented in future reports. Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities The retention, protection, and increase in the supply of affordable housing stock to provide a broad range of housing to meet the needs of the community is contemplated as part of Objective 2.3 of the 2019-2022 Council Strategic Plan and supports the Council Priority of a Healthy and Vibrant Community. Other Pertinent Reports • CSD 14-2018 Alternative Service Delivery Social Housing • CSD 33-2019 Affordable Housing Development • CSD 34-2019 Partnership Housing Program • COM 40-2019 Five-Year Review of Niagara’s 10-Year Housing and Homelessness Action Plan • PDS 17-2019 Niagara Housing Statement: Affordable Housing Data • PDS 34-2019 Grants and Incentives Review • PDS 37-2019 Growth Scenario Analysis Related to the Housing Strategy • CWCD 421-2019 New Niagara Official Plan Updates • PDS 9-2020 Niagara Official Plan - Consultation Details & Revised Framework Page 140 of 304 Agenda item a) COM 15-2020 July 14, 2020 Page 9 ______ ______Prepared by: Recommended by: Alexandria Tikky Adrienne Jugley, MSW, RSW, CHE Planner Commissioner Planning & Development Services Community Services ______Submitted by: Ron Tripp, P.Eng. Acting Chief Administrative Officer This report was prepared in consultation with Donna Woiceshyn, CEO Niagara Regional Housing, Marian Bannerman, Grant and Incentive Program Manager, and Jeffrey Sinclair, Homelessness Action Plan Advisor, and reviewed by Cathy Cousins, Director of Homelessness Services & Community Engagement, and Doug Giles, Director of Community & Long Range Planning. Page 141 of 304 Agenda item a) Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-685-4225 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca July 24, 2020 CL 12-2020, July 23, 2020 PEDC 6-2020, July 15, 2020 PDS 26-2020, July 15, 2020 Local Area Municipalities Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority SENT ELECTRONICALLY RE: Natural Environment Work Program – Phase 4: Identification and Evaluation of Options PDS 26-2020 Regional Council, at its meeting of July 23, 2020, approved the following recommendation of its Planning & Economic Development Committee: That Report PDS 26-2020, dated July 15, 2020, respecting Natural Environment Work Program - Phase 4: Identification and Evaluation of Options, BE RECEIVED and the following recommendations BE APPROVED: 1. That staff BE DIRECTED to initiate the 2nd point of engagement with the public, stakeholders, and Indigenous groups; 2. That staff BE DIRECTED to report back on the 2nd point of engagement, and that based on the incorporation of input received, staff BE DIRECTED to make a recommendation for the final preferred options for endorsement by Council; and 3. That Report PDS 26-2020 BE CIRCULATED to the Area Municipalities and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA). A copy of Report PDS 26-2020 is enclosed for your information. Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk :kl CLK-C 2020-173 Distribution List: S. Norman, Senior Planner R. Mostacci, Commissioner, Planning & Development Services N. Oakes, Executive Assistant to the Commissioner, Planning & Development Services Page 142 of 304 Agenda item a) PDS 26-2020 July 15, 2020 Page 1 Subject: Natural Environment Work Program – Phase 4: Identification and Evaluation of Options Report to: Planning and Economic Development Committee Report date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 Recommendations 1. That Report PDS 26-2020 BE RECEIVED for information; 2. That staff BE DIRECTED to initiate the 2nd point of engagement with the public, stakeholders, and Indigenous groups; 3. That staff BE DIRECTED to report back on the 2nd point of engagement, and that based on the incorporation of input received, staff BE DIRECTED to make a recommendation for the final preferred options for endorsement by Council; and 4. That Report PDS 26-2020 BE CIRCULATED to the Area Municipalities and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA). Key Facts • The purpose of this report is to present a summary of the options, evaluation process, and preliminary preferred options for the natural heritage system (NHS) and water resource system (WRS) to be implemented as part of the new Niagara Official Plan. • The preliminary preferred options are the recommendations of the Consultant team and are supported by the professional opinion of Regional Planning Staff. The preliminary preferred options still require the input of the public, stakeholders, and Indigenous groups. Following the incorporation of input received through the 2nd point of engagement, the preliminary preferred options will be finalized, and then recommended by Planning Staff for the endorsement of Council. • The direction for the Natural Environment Work Program through PDS 18-2018 was to take an incremental approach to developing the policies and mapping for the new Niagara Official Plan, including a number of decision points of Council and opportunities for consultation and engagement. This report presents the results of Page 143 of 304 Agenda item a) PDS 26-2020 July 15, 2020 Page 2 ______ Phase 4, which was the identification and evaluation of options for the NHS and WRS. • Phase 4 is the incremental step in the work program between the background reports and the mapping and policy development phases to follow. Phase 4 is based on concepts for the natural systems only. Mapping, criteria, and policies were only developed to a level of detail that will be required to support the evaluation and engagement process. Once a direction has been established, detailed and region-wide mapping will be completed in conjunction with policy development during the next phase of the work program. • There has been a strong desire expressed from the public, Councils, and other stakeholders to see the Region implement systems and policies beyond minimum provincial requirements. • The full report entitled “Technical Report #2: Identification and Evaluation of Options for Regional Natural Environment System(s)” completed by the Consultant team is attached to this report. Financial Considerations The ongoing costs associated with the Natural Environment Work Program will be accommodated within the Council approved Regional Official Plan project budget. Analysis Background The background reports for the Natural Environment Work Program are complete and were presented to Regional Council through PDS 32-2019: • Mapping Discussion Paper • Watershed Planning Discussion Paper • Natural Environment Background Study • Consultation Summary Report – 1st Point of Engagement The reports are available for review on the website for the new Niagara Official Plan: https://www.niagararegion.ca/projects/rural-and-natural-systems/default.aspx Page 144 of 304 Agenda item a) PDS 26-2020 July 15, 2020 Page 3 ______ The background reports are extensive and reviewed a wide range of topics related to both the mapping and policy development process. Several of the key findings which are essential to understanding the identification and evaluation of options are: • There is a Provincial requirement for the Region to have both a natural heritage system (NHS) and water resource system (WRS). The requirement for a comprehensive WRS is new, includes surface and groundwater, and will be developed and implemented in the Region for the first time. Together the NHS and WRS will form the Region’s natural environment system. • The Province – through the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, and Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) has created a complicated framework for the protection of natural features, areas, and systems. There are different frameworks and policies that need to be considered in each geographic area of the Region (i.e. settlement areas, Growth Plan, Growth Plan NHS, Greenbelt Plan, Greenbelt Plan NHS, PPS, and NEP). This makes designing a system that meets the environmental protection objectives of the Region as well as being simple and flexible very difficult. For a system to be balanced and designed in consideration of the unique attributes of each geographic area of the Region, it will require detailed and well thought-out policies and other implementation tools. • There is now a requirement for a ‘systems-based’ approach to natural environmental planning. The current framework in the Region is more reflective of a ‘features-based’ approach which was common in the late ’90 and early 2000s. A ‘system-based’ approach requires the protection of areas adjacent to and connecting natural features in addition to the features themselves. • Through the 1st point of engagement there was a strong desire expressed from the public, Councils, and other stakeholders to see the Region implement systems and policies beyond minimum provincial requirements. Development of Options The background studies identified a range of considerations that were reflected in the development of options. These considerations are documented in detail as part of the attached “Technical Report #2: Identification and Evaluation of Options for Regional Natural Environment System(s)”. As there is a requirement for both a NHS and WRS, a separate process was undertaken to develop options for each. Page 145 of 304 Agenda item a) PDS 26-2020 July 15, 2020 Page 4 ______ It is important to note that given the ongoing changes in Provincial requirements, even the most basic options will result in changes in natural environment planning in the Region, in terms of both features and areas identified for protection, and restrictions to development. A brief overview of the options identified in Technical Report #2 is as follows: Overview of NHS Options: A range of options for the development of an NHS were designed – starting with those which would meet provincial standards to those which would exceed provincial standards as permitted by the PPS. All of the options identified would meet the test of conformity with respect to provincial requirements. • NHS Option 1 – Minimum Standards – Overlay: o This option would simply implement the minimum standards of the PPS, Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, and NEP. o This option relies on the Growth Plan NHS and Greenbelt Plan NHS to fulfil the requirements for a ‘system-based’ approach. Other geographic areas of the Region, including settlement areas, would continue to be reflective of a ‘features-based’ system. o Key features required to be mapped would be shown, other features would rely only on the policies of the Official Plan for protection. o Restrictive development and site alteration polices would rely on the provincial policies of the PPS, Growth Plan, and Greenbelt Plan. o All features, areas, and systems would be shown as an overlay in the Official Plan schedules. • NHS Option 2 – Minimum Standards – Designation: o This option would be the same as Option 1 except that features would be a designation in the Official Plan as opposed to an overlay. o There are no policy differences between Option 1 and Option 2. • NHS Option 3 – Going Beyond Minimum Standards: This option builds upon NHS Option 1 and 2 by providing three scenarios that exceed minimum provincial standards, and include an increasing range of additional components, linkages, and buffers/vegetation protection zones. There is specific consideration Page 146 of 304 Agenda item a) PDS 26-2020 July 15, 2020 Page 5 ______ given to the design of the system in settlement areas. Table 1 on page 24 of Technical Report #2 provides a more detailed overview of the options which are summarized as follows. Building on Option 2: o Option 3A - . identifies additional features outside of settlement areas (e.g. key features that are required to be included in the Greenbelt Plan NHS but could be identified Region-wide, etc.); . includes large linkages outside of settlement areas ; and, . suggests policy minimum for buffers outside of provincial NHSs and outside of settlement areas. o Option 3B - . identifies additional features in and outside settlement areas; . identifies supporting features outside of settlement areas (e.g. enhancement areas, etc.); . includes large and medium linkages outside of settlement areas; and, . suggests policy minimums for buffers outside of provincial NHSs, and both inside and outside of settlement areas. o Option 3C - . identifies additional features in and outside settlement areas; . identifies supporting features in and outside of settlement areas; . includes large, medium, and small linkages outside of settlement areas; . includes small linkages inside of settlement areas where the potential area is in a natural state; and, . prescribes mandatory buffer minimums outside of settlement areas with suggested policy minimums inside of settlement areas. Overview of WRS Options: The identification of a WRS is relatively new in provincial planning. As such, there is limited guidance or existing examples from other jurisdictions to rely on for best Page 147 of 304 Agenda item a) PDS 26-2020 July 15, 2020 Page 6 ______ practices. Two primary options for the WRS have been identified, both of which would meet the test of conformity with respect to provincial requirements. Both options rely on watershed planning or equivalent to support the identification of features and areas as well as the policy development process. [Note: a watershed planning project is underway] • WRS Option 1 – Minimum Standards: This option would implement the standards of the PPS, Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, and NEP. The WRS would be identified as an overlay in the new Niagara Official Plan. • WRS Option 2 – Going Beyond Minimum Standards: This option includes all of the policy direction and components identified in WRS Option 1 as well as additional features and areas (such as headwater drainage features or ecologically significant groundwater recharge areas) which would be considered Regionally important, and are identified thorough watershed planning or equivalent. WRS Option 2 is divided into two sub-options: o 2A: would identify additional features and areas outside of settlement areas only. o 2B: would identify additional features and areas Region wide, including within settlement areas. Evaluation of Options Evaluation Criteria: Preliminary criteria were identified through the Natural Environment Background Study, refined through discussion with the TAG and other stakeholders through the 1st point of engagement, and finalized in the attached Technical Report #2. A comprehensive set of criteria were developed that included a range of considerations including: ecology, land- use planning, stakeholder needs, and public input. As the Natural Environment Work Program is ultimately a land-use planning exercise, the evaluation criteria went beyond ecological considerations to ensure that an additional land-use planning exercise would not be required. Evaluation Process: A separate evaluation process was undertaken for the NHS and WRS options. The evaluation of options was a qualitative comparison of how each option achieves the criteria. The evaluation process was not a scoring, weighting, or quantitative analysis of each option, instead, it was largely a value-based exercise. Page 148 of 304 Agenda item a) PDS 26-2020 July 15, 2020 Page 7 ______ Preliminary Preferred Options Following the evaluation of the options, preliminary preferred options were identified for the NHS and WRS. The preliminary preferred options are the recommendations of the Consultant team and are supported by the professional opinion of Regional Planning Staff. The preliminary preferred options still require the input of the public, stakeholders, and Indigenous groups. Following input received through the 2nd point of engagement the final preferred option will be recommended by Planning Staff for the endorsement of Council. The detailed design process for the NHS and WRS will then begin including detailed region-wide mapping and policy development. NHS: Option 3B was identified as the preliminary preferred NHS option. Technical Report #2 provides details of the rationale which is summarized as follows. Option 3B: • Goes beyond minimum provincial standards for the identification of features and systems which in the long-term will support a more resilient and biodiverse NHS. This option has the added benefit of supporting a range of additional objectives such as helping to mitigate the impacts of climate change. • Provides a balanced approach for the protection of the NHS by increasing the number of components and features outside of settlement areas and limiting additional constraints to development in settlement areas, thereby helping to support the desire to direct growth to settlement areas. This option is considered defensible from both an ecological and land-use planning perspective. • Can be designed, mapped, and implemented within the constraints and timelines of the new NOP. • Effectively considers input received through the 1st point of engagement. WRS: Option 2A was identified as the preliminary preferred WRS option. Technical Report #2 provides details of the rationale which is summarized as follows. Option 2A: • Goes beyond minimum provincial standards for the identification of features and systems which in the long-term will support a more robust and resilient WRS. This option has the added benefit of support a range of additional objectives such as helping to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Page 149 of 304 Agenda item a) PDS 26-2020 July 15, 2020 Page 8 ______ • Provides a balanced approach for the protection of the WRS by identifying additional regionally-important areas and features outside of settlement areas and limiting additional constraints to development in settlement areas, thereby helping to support the desire to direct growth to settlement areas. This option is considered defensible from both an ecological and land-use planning perspective. • Can be designed, mapped, and implemented within the constraints and timelines of the new NOP. • Effectively considers input received through the 1st point of engagement. Additional Considerations In addition to recommending the preliminary preferred options, Technical Report #2 provides some additional direction towards moving the work program forward including: • Further direction on which natural features are appropriate to be mapped for the new NOP, and which features are more appropriately protected through policy. • Further direction on what the appropriate source of information and methods are for many of the features and areas that are recommended to be mapped. • Recommendations on several of the key issues that have been important to the public and other stakeholders. For example, the report recommends: o that offsetting not be considered as part of the policy framework for the new NOP and, o that fish habitat is not recommended to be mapped as part of the new NOP (although it would be fully protected by polices in the Official Plan as required by provincial policy). This is the approach taken by many of our comparator municipalities. Next Steps The next steps in the Natural Environment Work Program are to: 1. Undertake the 2nd point of engagement with the public, stakeholders, and Indigenous group (i.e Phase 5). 2. Incorporate input received through the consultation process and identify the final preferred option for the NHS and WRS. Page 150 of 304 Agenda item a) PDS 26-2020 July 15, 2020 Page 9 ______ 3. Present the final preferred option for the NHS and WRS to Regional Council for endorsement. 4. Initiate Phase 6 of the work program which is the detailed design of the systems based on the final preferred options. Alternatives Reviewed Council could choose not to direct staff to initiate the 2nd point of engagement with the public, stakeholders, and Indigenous groups. This is not recommended. Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities This report is being brought forward as part of the ongoing reporting on the new Niagara Official Plan. The Natural Environment Work Program aligns with Objective 3.2 Environmental Sustainability and Stewardship: “A holistic and flexible approach to environmental stewardship and consideration of the natural environment, such as in infrastructure, planning and development, aligned with a renewed Official Plan.” Other Pertinent Reports • PDS 40-2016 – Regional Official Plan Update • PDS 41-2017 – New Official Plan Structure and Framework • PDS 3-2018 – New Official Plan Update • PDS 6-2018 – Natural Environment Project Initiation Report • PDS 18-2018 – Natural Environment – Project Framework • PDS 9-2019 – New Official Plan Consultation Timeline Framework • PDS 10-2019 – Update on Natural Environment Work Program – New Regional Official Plan • CWCD 122-2019 – Agricultural and Environmental Groups – Draft Stakeholder Lists • CWCD 150-2019 – Update on Official Plan Consultations – Spring 2019 • CWCD 179-2019 – Notice of Public Information Centres – Natural Environment Work Program, New Regional Official Plan • CWCD 271-2019 – Update on Consultation for New Official Plan • PDS 32-2019 – Natural Environment Work Program – Phases 2 & 3: Mapping and Watershed Planning Discussion Papers and Comprehensive Background Study • PDS 1-2020 – New Niagara Official Plan – Public Consultation Summary Page 151 of 304 Agenda item a) PDS 26-2020 July 15, 2020 Page 10 ______ • PDS 3-2020 – Ecological Land Classification Mapping Update • PDS 9-2020 – Niagara Official Plan – Consultation Details and Revised Framework • CWCD 153-2020 – Natural Environment Work Program Update – New Niagara Official Plan ______Prepared by: Recommended by: Sean Norman, PMP, MCIP, RPP Rino Mostacci, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Commissioner Planning and Development Services Planning and Development Services ______Submitted by: Ron Tripp, P.Eng. Acting Chief Administrative Officer This report was prepared in consultation with Karen Costantini, Planning Analyst – Regional Official Plan, and reviewed by Erik Acs, MCIP, RPP, Manager, Community Planning, Dave Heyworth, MCIP, RPP, Official Plan-Policy Consultant, and Doug Giles, Director, Community and Long Range Planning. Appendices Appendix 1 Natural Environment Work Program: Technical Report #2: Identification and Evaluation of Options for Regional Natural Environment System(s) – 107 pages Page 152 of 304 Agenda item a) PDS 26-2020 Natural Environment Work Program – Phase 4: Identification and Evaluation of Options Appendix 1 Natural Environment Work Program: Technical Report #2: Identification and Evaluation of Options for Regional Natural Environment System(s) June 12, 2020 107 Pages Page 153 of 304 Agenda item a) NEW NIAGARA OFFICIAL PLAN Natural Environment Work Program: Technical Report #2: Identification and Evaluation of Options for Regional Natural Environment System(s) Niagara Region June 12, 2020 Page 154 of 304 Agenda item a) This page is intentionally left blank. Page 155 of 304 Agenda item a) Project Study Team Team Member Firm Role Sal Spitale North-South Environmental Inc. Project Manager, Primary Author Nick McDonald Meridian Planning Consultants Inc. Secondary Author Mirek Sharp North-South Environmental Inc. Project Advisor, Report Reviewer Kristen Harrison North-South Environmental Inc. Contributing Author Mariëtte Pushkar Ecosystem Recovery Inc. Water Resource Engineer Chris Moon Ecosystem Recovery Inc. Water Resource Engineer Glenn Pothier Glenn Pothier Consulting Facilitator Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 Page 156 of 304 Agenda item a) This page is intentionally left blank. Page 157 of 304 Agenda item a) Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of this Report ...... 1 2.0 Overview of Discussion Papers, the Natural Environment Background Study and the 1st Point of Engagement ...... 2 2.1 Overview of Mapping Discussion Paper ...... 2 2.2 Overview of the Watershed Planning Discussion Paper ...... 2 2.3 Overview of Natural Environment Background Study ...... 3 2.4 Key Considerations from 1st Point of Engagement...... 4 3.0 Options for the Natural Environment Systems ...... 5 3.1 Policy Direction for the new Niagara Official Plan ...... 6 3.2 Policy Framework Options for the Natural Heritage System ...... 17 3.3 Policy Framework Options for the Water Resource System ...... 35 4.0 Approach to Evaluate Natural Environment System Options ...... 43 4.1 Evaluation of Options for the Natural Environment Systems ...... 43 5.0 Preliminary Preferred Option for the Region’s Natural Environment System ...... 53 5.1 Natural Heritage System Preliminary Preferred Option ...... 53 5.2 Water Resource System Preliminary Preferred Option ...... 54 5.3 Implications for Natural Environment System Planning ...... 55 6.0 Mapping the Natural Environment System ...... 56 6.1 Components Recommended for Mapping the Natural Environment System .. 56 6.2 Components of the Natural Environment System Not Recommended for Mapping ...... 58 6.3 Sources of Mapping Data and Recommendations for Mapping ...... 59 7.0 Next Steps ...... 65 8.0 References ...... 66 List of Tables Table 1. Overview of Natural Heritage System Options: 3A, 3B and 3C...... 24 Table 2. Components of the Natural Heritage System...... 33 Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page i Page 158 of 304 Agenda item a) Table 3. Components of the Water Resource System...... 42 Table 4. Evaluation of options for the Natural Heritage System...... 47 Table 5. Evaluation of options for the Water Resource System...... 50 Table 6. Datasets and recommendations for improving or creating datasets for the components considered for mapping in the Region’s Natural Environment Systems...... 61 List of Figures Figure 1. Conceptual illustration of N.H.S. Option 1 and 2 ...... 28 Figure 2a. Conceptual illustration of N.H.S. Option 3A...... 29 Figure 2b. Conceptual illustration of N.H.S. Option 3B...... 30 Figure 2c. Conceptual illustration of N.H.S. Option 3C ...... 31 Figure 3. Conceptual illustration of Water Resource System Option 1 ...... 40 List of Appendices Appendix 1: Description and Criteria for Select Components of the Natural Heritage System Components ...... 70 Provincially Significant Wetlands and Provincially Significant Coastal Wetlands ...... 70 Significant Woodlands ...... 71 Significant Valleylands ...... 78 Significant Wildlife Habitat (S.W.H.) ...... 78 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (A.N.S.I.) ...... 79 Fish Habitat ...... 79 Habitat for Endangered and Threatened Species ...... 80 Linkages ...... 80 Key Hydrologic Features ...... 84 Other Natural Heritage Features and Areas ...... 84 Areas That Support Hydrologic Functions ...... 90 Buffers and Vegetation Protection Zones ...... 90 Appendix 2: Description and Criteria for Select Components of the Water Resource System ...... 94 Key Hydrologic Features ...... 94 Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page ii Page 159 of 304 Agenda item a) Key Hydrologic Areas ...... 95 Ground Water Features ...... 96 Surface Water Features ...... 97 Hydrologic Functions ...... 98 Shoreline Areas ...... 98 List of Figures in Appendices Figure 1. Significant Woodland mapping using recommended criteria ...... 76 Figure 2. Preliminary conceptual linkage options ...... 82 Figure 3a. Conceptual enhancement areas for Option 1 ...... 86 Figure 3b. Conceptual enhancement areas for Option 2 ...... 87 Figure 3c. Conceptual enhancement areas for Option 3 ...... 88 Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page iii Page 160 of 304 Agenda item a) This page is intentionally left blank Page 161 of 304 Agenda item a) 1.0 Introduction An important component of the new Niagara Official Plan (N.O.P.) is the development of new policies and mapping for the Region’s natural environment system(s). This work is essential for the preservation of the Region’s natural heritage and water resources, and to bring the Region in conformance the recent provincial plans and mapping. These systems include both the natural heritage system (N.H.S.) and the water resource system (W.R.S.). While the N.H.S. and the W.R.S. are discussed in Provincial documents as two distinct systems with specific policies related to each, they include some of the same features (e.g., wetlands, etc.), are ecologically interconnected, and thus are collectively considered the natural environment system. In order to inform the development of options for the policies and mapping of the natural environment system, two discussion papers and one technical report were completed in Phase 2 of the Natural Environment Work Program: • Mapping Discussion Paper – September 2019 • Watershed Planning Discussion Paper– September 2019 • Technical Report #1: Natural Environment Background Study – September 2019 The two discussion papers and Technical Report #1 include information related to the identification of the natural environment system and options for mapping and policy. A brief overview of these documents is provided in Section 2.0 below. The topics reviewed in these documents were discussed through consultation with stakeholders and members of the public as part of the 1st Point of Engagement completed in Phase 3 of the Natural Environment Work Program. The feedback and comments received through consultation informed the development of the discussion papers and technical report and documented in the Consultation Summary Report. A summary of the key takeaways from the 1st Point of Engagement is also provided in Section 2.0. 1.1 Purpose of this Report The purpose of this technical report is to develop and evaluate options for Niagara Region’s natural environment system, including policies and mapping and to identify preliminary preferred options for the N.H.S. and W.R.S. A key element of developing options will be incorporating Provincial requirements for natural environment planning as reviewed in the discussion papers and Natural Environment Background Study. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 1 Page 162 of 304 Agenda item a) 2.0 Overview of Discussion Papers, the Natural Environment Background Study and the 1st Point of Engagement The following provides a brief overview of the Mapping Discussion Paper, Watershed Planning Discussion Paper, Natural Environment Background Study and key takeaways from the 1st Point of Engagement. These reports inform the various options for the design and implementation of a regional natural environment system that meets Provincial requirements and the Region’s vision for the natural environment. 2.1 Overview of Mapping Discussion Paper As a first step in the overall work program a Mapping Discussion Paper was prepared. The purpose of the Mapping Discussion Paper was to review relevant provincial guidance for natural environment mapping, review the Region’s existing mapping data, and provide preliminary input towards the development of mapping options. The Mapping Discussion Paper included: • An evaluation of current regional natural environment mapping to assess the age, quality, accuracy, and sources of information • Considerations for mapping the natural environment system at a Regional scale • A review of comparator municipalities • Consideration of how the natural environment system should be reflected and refined in local Official Plans. • Recommendations related to what features to map, what datasets required updating and further study (e.g., field verification), what features should be addressed through policy rather than be mapped, and estimated costs for updating datasets of components recommended for mapping as part of the natural environment system(s) The findings and recommendations from the Mapping Discussion Paper which inform the identification and evaluation of options have been carried forward into this report. 2.2 Overview of the Watershed Planning Discussion Paper The purpose of the Watershed Planning Discussion Paper was to provide the Region with further understanding of the Provincial watershed planning requirements to inform development of the new N.O.P. This discussion paper reviewed the following topics: • History and background to watershed planning and its relevance to development of the new N.O.P. • Summary of provincial draft watershed planning requirements/guidance • Review of provincial policies, guidelines, and direction with respect to watershed planning that need to be considered and addressed through the new N.O.P. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 2 Page 163 of 304 Agenda item a) • Equivalency of Watershed Planning Documents - the equivalency of existing watershed planning documents to the 2018 Draft Watershed Planning guidance document. Gaps and data deficiencies were identified and reviewed with respect to incorporating into the natural systems work program or additional work • Considerations for policies to reflect watershed planning requirements The Watershed Planning Discussion Paper also provided recommendations for a watershed planning framework for Niagara Region; an approach was proposed that considered geographical scale, hierarchy of stakeholders and respective responsibilities within the Region, triggers and timelines for study initiation, and inter-relationships for completion of cross-jurisdictional studies. The findings and recommendations from the Watershed Planning Discussion Paper which inform the identification and evaluation of options for the W.R.S. have been carried forward into this report. 2.3 Overview of Natural Environment Background Study The Natural Environment Background Study provides an unbiased, fact-based discussion and analysis, and where appropriate provides recommendations related to a list of specific topics that were either of interest to the public and stakeholders, and/or necessary to inform decisions related to the options for the Region’s natural environment system. The background study includes: • A review of relevant Provincial legislation, policies, guidelines and technical criteria related to natural environment planning • Definitions of key terms and concepts of relevance to natural environment planning • A review and discussion of Provincial Plans, (i.e. Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, and Niagara Escarpment Plan) including a discussion on key changes that inform Niagara’s natural environment system. Specific discussion was provided on the implications of the new Growth Plan N.H.S. and Growth Plan Agricultural System on the development of the Region’s natural environment systems • A review and discussion of the range of natural environment work completed by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (N.P.C.A.) that could inform the Region’s natural environment systems • A review of industry guidance and best management practices related to the identification of the natural environment systems • A detailed review of the natural environment planning, mapping, and policies of three comparator municipalities • A review of the connection between climate change and natural environment planning • A review and discussion of invasive species and natural environment planning • A review and discussion of shorelines and the role of the Region in shoreline planning and management Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 3 Page 164 of 304 Agenda item a) • A discussion on natural hazards with direction on if and how natural hazards should be addressed as part of the Region’s natural environment systems • A review of current Provincial direction and best-practices related to offsetting/natural area enhancements in natural environment planning • A detailed discussion on definitions and criteria for woodlands as they relate to natural environment planning. In addition, this discussion reviewed issues associated with impacts from emerald ash borer, best practices for mapping and refinements, relationship with municipal tree by-laws, illegal cutting, and consideration of silviculture and other planted woodlands • A review and discussion of fish habitat, including requirements at a Provincial and Federal level • A review and discussion of linkages, riparian vegetation, and vegetation protection zones • A review and discussion of the work completed by the Region on watercourse identification and mapping • A review of the current Regional system and natural environment policies including a gap analysis related to current Provincial requirements • Identification of trends, issues, and key policy directions for natural environment planning • A discussion of a suggested framework for new Regional Official Plan policies • Recommendations for consideration in the design of the Regional natural environment systems, mapping, and policy development • Preliminary recommendations for criteria that could be used to evaluate various options for Regional natural environment systems The findings and recommendations from the Natural Environment Background Study which inform the identification and evaluation of options have been carried forward into this report. 2.4 Key Considerations from 1st Point of Engagement The purpose of the 1st Point of Engagement was to inform the public and stakeholders on the discussion papers and background study and to seek input for the development of options for evaluation in the next phase of the Natural Environment Work Program. In total, nine key themes emerged through the 1st Point of Engagement. The following six themes are considered directly relevant to informing the development of the options for mapping and policies for the natural environment systems: • Develop Consistent and Clear Policies - Developing policies that are consistent with Provincial and Federal legislation and Provincial policies; are clear and defensible; provide the appropriate level of flexibility, and include definitions for key terms to ensure objectives for the natural environment are met and policies are implemented as intended. • Take a Systems Approach to Natural Environment Planning - Watershed planning should form the basis for land use planning. The natural environment Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 4 Page 165 of 304 Agenda item a) component of the new N.O.P. should take a holistic approach with consideration of the inter-relationships between multiple issues and their cumulative impacts. • Recognize the Uniqueness of Niagara’s Geography, Natural Environment and Agriculture - Niagara Region is rich in natural beauty and has a thriving agricultural community that both relies on and supports the natural environment. The approach to natural environment planning needs to recognize this and other important industries and find a balance that achieves the goals and objectives for the natural environment system. • Accurately Map the Natural Environment - The mapping of the natural environment system should ensure a level of accuracy that supports land use planning and includes the best available data; this includes working with agency partners and the community to ensure data is accurate and recent. Available natural environment mapping data should also be accessible in a user-friendly on-line mapping tool. • Protect the Natural Environment - Future natural environment planning in Niagara needs to reflect multiple focuses: protecting existing important natural environment features and restoring/enhancing others. Tools and guidelines will need to be developed to ensure policies are interpreted and implemented as intended. • Develop Forward Thinking Natural Environment Policies - The new N.O.P. should recognize trends and issues in environment planning and provide clear policies to achieve the vision, goals, and objectives for the Region’s natural environment. The themes identified through the 1st Point of Engagement can be summarized into the following statement: The Region’s natural environment system planning framework should be forward thinking, following a systems approach that accurately identifies and protects the natural environment, recognizes the uniqueness of Niagara’s geography, and important agricultural system, and is implemented through a clear and consistent set of policies, with roles and responsibilities clearly identified. This statement will be considered when evaluating the options to determine if they meet the intent of this statement. 3.0 Options for the Natural Environment Systems The Region’s natural environment system will include a N.H.S. and a W.R.S. The minimum policy requirements for each system are set out in Provincial policy documents including the Provincial Policy Statement (P.P.S), the Greenbelt Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the Growth Plan. These documents have been reviewed Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 5 Page 166 of 304 Agenda item a) in the Mapping Discussion Paper and set the direction for developing policies for the new N.O.P. The Province has given municipalities the discretion to develop natural environment systems that exceed minimum Provincial policy requirements so long as they do not conflict with the P.P.S. and other Provincial plans. Therefore, developing the Regional natural environment system should consider a range of options that meet minimum policy requirements/standards, and provide alternatives that include the protection of additional features and areas that are important at the Regional scale and/or provide a system with enhanced ecological integrity and biological diversity. The options also need to address preliminary policy directions relating to the protection of the components of the natural environment system, as informed from the recommendations put forward in the discussion papers, Natural Environment Background Study and from feedback received during the 1st Point of Engagement. 3.1 Policy Direction for the new Niagara Official Plan The existing Regional Official Plan (R.O.P) policy framework on the natural environment was initially developed in the 1970s and then refined and updated as required. The establishment of a Core N.H.S. on Schedule C in the R.O.P (which is divided into Environmental Protection and Environmental Conservation) was very commonplace in Ontario between the 1970's and the 2000's. It is recognized that in the case of Niagara, there was also an effort made to identify potential natural heritage corridors. Significant changes have been made to Provincial policy, notably in 2017 with a new Growth Plan and updated Greenbelt and Niagara Escarpment Plans. There is now a need for a very different approach in the new N.O.P. with that approach being based on the establishment of a N.H.S. and a W.R.S. In this regard, Section 18 of the Natural Environment Background Study reviewed a number of considerations, the primary of which are the requirements of the Province with respect to the contents of an upper-tier Official Plan as it relates to N.H.S. and W.R.S. mapping and policies. In this regard, the P.P.S. (2020) indicates the following in part with respect to Official Plans in general in the Preamble: “Official plans should also coordinate cross-boundary matters to complement the actions of other planning authorities and promote mutually beneficial solutions. Official plans shall provide clear, reasonable and attainable policies to protect provincial interests and direct development to suitable areas.” There is also reference in the above to cross boundary issues, which is dealt with as well by Section 1.2.4 of the P.P.S. (2020), which states the following: “Where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with the lower-tier municipalities shall: Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 6 Page 167 of 304 Agenda item a) e) identify and provide policy direction for the lower-tier municipalities on matters that cross municipal boundaries.” Section 1.2.1 of the P.P.S. (2020) provides some insight into what those matters that cross municipal boundaries may be and they include items c), e), and f) below: "c) Managing natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral, and cultural heritage and archaeological resources; e) Ecosystem, shoreline, watershed, and Great Lakes related issues; f) Natural and human-made hazards;" As per the above, there is an expectation in the P.P.S. that upper-tier Official Plans 'identify and provide policy direction for the lower-tier municipalities on' managing natural heritage and water resources and ecosystem, shoreline, watershed, and Great Lakes related issues. It is noted that Section 2.1.3 of the P.P.S. (2020) requires that N.H.S.s be identified. While there is no specific requirement in the P.P.S. that such a system be identified in an upper-tier Official Plan, it is common practice for upper-tier municipalities to establish and map N.H.S.s in their Official Plans. In addition, there is also a requirement in the P.P.S. for 'planning authorities' to implement certain planning tools, with a 'planning authority' being either an upper tier, single tier or lower tier municipality. With respect to water resources in particular, Section 2.2.1 of the P.P.S. requires that planning authorities 'protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water' by doing certain things. In this regard, there is a specific requirement for a planning authority to: 1. Use the watershed as the ecologically meaningful scale for integrated and long- term planning. Given that watersheds typically extend beyond local municipal boundaries, this implies that there is a need for an upper-tier policy framework and oversight when it comes to watershed planning; 2. Identify water resource systems, which consist of ground water features, hydrologic functions, natural heritage features and areas, and surface water features including shoreline areas, which implies that these areas need to be mapped in an upper-tier Official Plan, if information is available; 3. Maintain linkages and related functions among ground water features, hydrologic functions, natural heritage features and areas, and surface water features including shoreline areas. This implies that there is a need for an upper-tier policy framework on linkages and possibly mapping showing linkages; and, 4. Implement necessary restrictions on development and site alteration to protect all municipal drinking water supplies and designated vulnerable areas and protect, improve or restore vulnerable surface and ground water, sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features, and their hydrologic functions. This implies that there is a need for an upper-tier Official Plan to map these features, Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 7 Page 168 of 304 Agenda item a) where known, and include policies that establish restrictions on development within and adjacent to these features. Similar to Section 1.2.4 e) of the P.P.S. (2014), Section 5.2.3.2 f) of the Growth Plan (2019) states the following: “Upper-tier municipalities, in consultation with lower-tier municipalities, will, through a municipal comprehensive review, provide policy direction to implement this Plan, including: f) addressing matters that cross municipal boundaries.” The difference between the P.P.S. policy and the Growth Plan policy is that the Growth Plan policy requires that matters that cross municipal boundaries be addressed through a municipal comprehensive review, which is defined as a new Official Plan, or an Official Plan Amendment (O.P.A.).This process would be initiated by an upper-or single- tier municipality under section 26 of the Planning Act to comprehensively apply the policies and schedules of Growth Plan. It is noted, as per the above that there is a requirement to 'comprehensively apply the policies' of the Growth Plan through such a process, which Niagara Region is currently engaged in. Section 2.2.1.3 of the Growth Plan (2019) provides additional direction to upper-tier municipalities and it indicates in sub-section d) the following: “Upper- and single-tier municipalities will undertake integrated planning to manage forecasted growth to the horizon of this Plan, which will: d) support the environmental and agricultural protection and conservation objectives of this Plan;" Sub-section d) above speaks to the requirement to support the environmental and agricultural protection and conservation objectives of this Plan, which implies that the objectives are to be implemented in some way. Section 4.2.10.1 of the Growth Plan (2019) provides further direction on what upper and single tier Official Plans shall contain, with sub-sections e) and f) being particularly relevant: "Upper- and single-tier municipalities will develop policies in their official plans to identify actions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change adaptation goals, aligned with other provincial plans and policies for environmental protection, that will include: e) Recognizing the importance of watershed planning for the protection of the quality and quantity of water and the identification and protection of hydrologic features and areas; f) Protecting the Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan and water resource systems;" With respect to the N.H.S., Section 4.2.2.2 of the Growth Plan (2019) states the following: Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 8 Page 169 of 304 Agenda item a) "Municipalities will incorporate the Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan as an overlay in official plans, and will apply appropriate policies to maintain, restore, or enhance the diversity and connectivity of the system and the long- term ecological or hydrologic functions of the features and areas as set out in the policies in this subsection and the policies in subsections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4." The above policy does not specify what type of municipality is required to identify the N.H.S. as an overlay in their Official Plan - however, incorporating the N.H.S. as an overlay in both upper-tier and lower-tier Official Plans allows for a consistent approach. At a minimum, section 4.2.10.1 f) of the Growth Plan requires that single- and upper-tier municipalities protect this system through the development of policies in their Official Plans. A similar policy requirement also applies to the agricultural system. Section 4.2.2.5 of the Growth Plan (2019) also references single- and upper tier municipalities: “Upper- and single-tier municipalities may refine provincial mapping of the Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan at the time of initial implementation of their official plans. For upper-tier municipalities, the initial implementation of provincial mapping may be done separately for each lower-tier municipality. After the Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan has been implemented in official plans, further refinements may only occur through a municipal comprehensive review.” The above means that only single- and upper-tier municipalities can modify the boundaries of the N.H.S. established by the Province. In addition, once the N.H.S has been incorporated in Official Plans, only an upper tier or single tier municipality can consider refinements through the municipal comprehensive review process. With respect to lands outside of the N.H.S. for the Growth Plan (2019), Section 4.2.2.6 states the following: “Beyond the Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan, including within settlement areas, the municipality: a) will continue to protect any other natural heritage features and areas in a manner that is consistent with the PPS; and b) may continue to protect any other natural heritage system or identify new systems in a manner that is consistent with the P.P.S." This implies that there is some discretion by the municipality for how, in what form and where the N.H.S. will be identified outside of the Growth Plan N.H.S. (and including within settlement areas), so long as it is consistent with the P.P.S. The above Growth Plan policy supports the consideration of different approaches outside of the provincial N.H.S.s including within settlement areas, provided such approaches are consistent with the P.P.S. It is also noted that the above policy requires that features and other natural heritage features and areas be protected, however, the identification and protection of any other natural heritage system is optional. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 9 Page 170 of 304 Agenda item a) In this regard, there is no requirement to establish a natural heritage system outside of provincial N.H.S.s including within settlement areas as long as features are protected in a manner that is consistent with the P.P.S. That said, the Growth Plan Regional N.H.S. Mapping – Technical Report notes the following: “…that the scale of the NHS is important. Given that NHS mapping for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is on a broad, regional scale, it is focused on identifying larger core areas and broad linkages. The mapping was not intended to identify all areas and connect features that may be important to consider at a local or smaller scale…” (O.M.N.R.F. 2018, p. 4). This statement acknowledges that there may be other features or connections (i.e., linkages) not identified in the Growth Plan N.H.S. that are important for Niagara Region that could be identified as part of Niagara’s N.H.S. With respect to the W.R.S., Section 4.2.1.1 of the Growth Plan (2019) states the following: "Upper- and single-tier municipalities, partnering with lower-tier municipalities and conservation authorities as appropriate, will ensure that watershed planning is undertaken to support a comprehensive, integrated, and long-term approach to the protection, enhancement, or restoration of the quality and quantity of water within a watershed.” The above section is similar to Section 2.2.1 of the P.P.S. and applies to all municipalities. Section 4.2.1.2 of the Growth Plan (2019) then states the following: "Water resource systems will be identified to provide for the long-term protection of key hydrologic features, key hydrologic areas, and their functions." The above implies that W.R.S.’s are to be identified in all Official Plans and that designations and policies will be required. This policy direction is also consistent with Section 2.2.1 of the P.P.S. The Greenbelt Plan contains extensive N.H.S. policies and identifies the spatial extent of the Greenbelt Plan N.H.S.; however, like the Growth Plan, it does not map a W.R.S. With respect to implementation, Section 5.3 of the Greenbelt Plan states the following with respect to the N.H.S.: “Official plans shall contain policies that reflect the requirements of this Plan together with a map(s) showing the boundaries of the Greenbelt Area, the Protected Countryside, the Natural Heritage System and the agricultural land base. Municipalities shall provide a map showing known key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features and any associated minimum vegetation protection zones identified in this Plan. The identification of the Natural Heritage System boundary will form the basis for applying the policies of section 3.2.” Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 10 Page 171 of 304 Agenda item a) The above clearly requires that all Official Plans show the boundary of the Greenbelt Area, the Protected Countryside, and the Greenbelt Plan N.H.S. The section goes further to require the preparation of a map showing 'known key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features and any associated minimum vegetation protection zones'. Section 5.3 of the Greenbelt Plan states the following with respect to components of the W.R.S. (with the second paragraph being directly applicable to Niagara Region): “Municipalities should also include a map of wellhead protection areas together with associated policies for these areas within their official plans as appropriate and in accordance with any provincial directives on source water protection. Building on watershed planning, key hydrologic areas shall be identified and the appropriate designations and policies will be applied in official plans to provide for their long-term protection.” Unlike the P.P.S., Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan, there are no specific policies in the N.E.P. requiring the mapping of the N.H.S. in an Official Plan, because the N.E.P. does not include nor map a N.H.S. Section 18.3.4 of the Natural Environment Background Study provides a summary of the Provincial requirements discussed above. 3.1.1 Issues and Trends in Natural Environment Planning The Natural Environment Background Study reviewed several topics of relevance to current issues and trends in natural environment planning. For example, there is more recognition through legislation and policy to mitigating impacts of climate change and managing invasive species. In addition, there has been significant discussion on the topic of biodiversity offsetting related to other files in the Region. These topics are further discussed below as they may or may not inform the development of the options for the Region’s natural environment systems. Climate Change It is widely acknowledged that a more robust natural environment system is more resilient to impacts from climate change, and larger areas of natural cover and impervious surfaces can help to mitigate the impacts of climate change. The Natural Environment Background Study provided recommendations on the types of policies that should be considered for the new N.O.P. It was also recommended that the options ensure connectivity (linkages) between features to be maintained or enhanced. These approaches to addressing the challenges associated with climate change have been carried forward in developing the options for the natural environment systems (see Section 3.3 and 3.4) and are further discussed in the evaluation of the options (see Section 4). Invasive Species Invasive species pose a major threat to the natural environment, where the impacts of invasive species result in changes to vegetation community composition, classification Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 11 Page 172 of 304 Agenda item a) of a feature and ultimately the protection of the feature and natural environment system as a whole. An example of this is the combined impact to the canopy and understory of woodlands where the canopy trees are dying from invasive insects leaving an understory dominated by invasive shrubs. Under the current woodland definitions and policies, these woodlands may lose their status as significant, therefore the policies that protect significant woodlands may no longer apply to them, resulting in a loss of woodland cover – this is thoroughly discussed in Section 12.3 of the Natural Environment Background Study. In order to recognize the impacts of invasive species on natural features and their status, and ensure woodland (and natural area cover) in the Region does not decline, either the definition of woodland should account for this change in woodland cover, or policies should be developed that ensure protection of woodlands and natural cover regardless of change in status. For example, Niagara Region could include a policy similar to the Region of Peel, as follows: “In the event that portions of the significant woodland are damaged or destroyed, either through anthropogenic or natural causes, there shall be no adjustment to the boundary or re-designation of these areas in the area municipal official plans and the Region will require replacement or rehabilitation of the ecological features, functions and/or landforms” (Policy 2.3.2.7, Peel Official Plan). Another important consideration beyond the policies related to classification and protection of features is the development and implementation of a region-wide invasive species management program. Due to the wide-spread prevalence of invasive species in the Region and their ability to continue to spread and further reduce the natural environment, including ecosystem services, the Natural Environment Background Study recommended the Region develop a coordinated invasive species management plan in conjunction with the area municipalities and/or the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. Offsetting There is a recent and controversial history related to the concept of offsetting in Niagara. As a result of this, during early consultation on the Natural Environment Work Program, there were many questions on the topic. Stakeholders requested more information about the concept, and clarification on its application in land use planning in Ontario. The Natural Environment Background Study (Section 11) provided an objective review of the current knowledge, best practices and review of existing guidelines for offsetting. The development of options for the natural environment systems has carefully reviewed and considered requirements for natural environment planning as determined by the P.P.S. and provincial plans, which do not contemplate offsetting as an approach to support natural environment planning. Furthermore, based on the review of best practices and current knowledge of the challenges associated with offsetting as described in the Natural Environment Background Study, and feedback received through the 1st Point of Engagement, it is recommended that offsetting not be an approach the Region consider as part of the natural environment planning framework. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 12 Page 173 of 304 Agenda item a) As such, offsetting is not being proposed as part of the policy framework or implementation tools recommended for the Region’s natural environment systems. 3.1.2 Impact of Provincial Requirement to Map the Agricultural System In recognition of the overlap between the Provincial Agricultural System and N.H.S. mapping, the Province has identified four options with respect to mapping in a document entitled 'Implementation Procedures for the Agricultural System in the Greater Golden Horseshoe' dated March 2020. In this regard, the following is stated: "For clarity and consistency across the GGH, it is recommended that as a best practice, one of four options be used by municipalities for official plan mapping where prime agricultural areas overlap with key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features. In all four options, the Natural Heritage System in the Growth Plan / Greenbelt Plan would be an overlay. As well, permissions for new agricultural uses, agriculture- related uses and on-farm diversified uses where features and prime agricultural areas overlap would be restricted by protective policies (i.e., no development or site alteration)." It is noted as per the above that the N.H.S. would be an overlay in each of the four identified options. However, key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features within the N.H.S. could be designated within a mutually exclusive land use designation in an Official Plan. Variations of options identified by the Province could be considered as long as prime agricultural areas are clearly delineated, this is further discussed in Section 3.1.6. 3.1.3 Implementing the Niagara Escarpment Plan in the New N.O.P. At the present time, Schedule C of the R.O.P. includes certain lands within the N.E.P. within the Environmental Protection Area and Environmental Conservation Area and also identifies fish habitat, Earth Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest and Potential Natural Heritage Corridors. The N.E.P. is implemented to varying degrees in upper- and lower-tier Official Plans, but not through the application of zoning by-laws pursuant to the Planning Act. Instead of zoning, the Niagara Escarpment Commission (N.E.C.) oversees the issuance of development permits for all development within the N.E.P. area. In addition, the N.E.C. also is responsible for processing applications to amend the N.E.P. and for commenting on applications to amend the Regional and Local Official Plans as required. In addition, the development permit process administered by the N.E.C. also allows for conditions to be included and attached to development permits. To a very large extent, the development permit system relied upon by the N.E.C. is very similar to the development permit process established by the Province through amendments to the Planning Act (now known as the Community Planning Permit System). It is noted that since N.E.C. implements the N.E.P., some municipalities simply indicate that the N.E.P. applies and direct the reader to the N.E.P. to determine what is permitted and under what conditions. Others repeat the policy framework word-for-word, Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 13 Page 174 of 304 Agenda item a) or translate the policy framework into the language of the Official Plan. Both of these options would conform to the N.E.P. 3.1.4 Natural Heritage Systems within Settlement Areas Section 2.1.3 of the P.P.S. states the following: "Natural heritage systems shall be identified in Ecoregions 6E & 7E1, recognizing that natural heritage systems will vary in size and form in settlement areas, rural areas, and prime agricultural areas." The above section implies that the 'size and form' of N.H.S.s can vary based on land use considerations. Given the use of the words 'size and form', this also implies that the criteria relied upon to determine whether a feature is significant could be different if the feature is in a settlement area with the selected criteria recognizing that there are a number of other Provincial policies supporting more compact development forms. Furthermore, in recognition of the desire for more efficient development patterns in settlement areas, the Region could establish different criteria for determining when a feature is significant in settlement areas and determining whether the identification of enhancements and linkages in settlement areas is appropriate. The approach to minimum vegetation protection zone (V.P.Z.) width could also be different in settlement areas. These options are presented in the Section 3.2. 3.1.5 Mapping Options for the Identification of Features in the New N.O.P. Section 5.2.1 of the Mapping Discussion Paper reviewed five basic approaches to identifying known key natural heritage features, key hydrologic features and natural heritage features and areas (referred to as key features and areas below) in an Official Plan as set out below: Mapping Option 1 - Designate key features and areas in a separate mutually exclusive land use designation that is shown on an operative Official Plan schedule. Allow for refinements to boundaries and the addition of new key features and areas and the deletion of key features and areas without requiring an Official Plan Amendment; Mapping Option 2 - Designate key features and areas in a separate mutually exclusive land use designation that is shown on an operative Official Plan schedule. Allow for only 'minor' refinements to boundaries without an Official Plan Amendment and require an Official Plan Amendment for the addition of new key features and areas and the deletion of key features and areas; Mapping Option 3 - Identify key features and areas as a potential 'constraint to development' on an operative Official Plan schedule and allow for refinements without requiring an Official Plan Amendment (meaning that the features would be an overlay designation that 'sits on top' of other designations); Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 14 Page 175 of 304 Agenda item a) Mapping Option 4 - Identify key features and areas as a potential 'constraint to development' in an appendix to the Official Plan and allow for refinements without requiring an Official Plan Amendment; Mapping Option 5 - Identify key features and areas in a companion document that is not part of the Official Plan. In all options, an Environmental Impact Study or other study approved by the Region would be needed to support refinements and the addition or deletion of key features. Within the Mapping Discussion Paper, it was determined that mapping option 5 would not conform to Provincial policy since the key features and areas are not mapped in a statutory document. In considering the specific restrictions on development and site alteration within and adjacent to key natural heritage features, key hydrologic features and natural heritage features and areas in Provincial policy, it is concluded within this paper that mapping option 4 would also not conform to Provincial policy. Option 4 will not conform as these key features and areas are not mapped in an operative component of an Official Plan. This leaves mapping options 1 to 3, with option 3 involving the mapping of key features and areas in an overlay designation. These options are presented in Section 3.2. Each of the above options were assessed in the Mapping Discussion Paper based on the following factors: • Accuracy of information - a high degree of confidence would be required for Options 1 and 2 and less so with each option after Option 2; • Ability to update information - new information comes into effect when known in all options except Option 2; • Fairness and transparency when new N.O.P is developed - there is more fairness and transparency with Options 1 to 3 since information can be challenged because features are being mapped in a statutory document; • Fairness and transparency after N.O.P is in effect - since changes can be made without an OPA in Options 1, 3, 4 and 5, there would be no public process required to consider those changes. However, the impact of the change lessens in Options 4 and 5 because features are not mapped in a statutory document; • Impacts on planning process - since major refinements to feature boundaries would require an OPA in Option 2, the planning process may be longer as a consequence; • Ease of access to information - Options 1 and 2 would provide for the greatest ease of access since information on features would be included on a schedule to the OP; and Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 15 Page 176 of 304 Agenda item a) • Defensibility of approach - Options 1 and 2 are the most defensible since features would be designated in a manner that prohibits development. Option 3 would also be defensible since the features are also mapped in a statutory document. Options 4 and 5 would not conform to Provincial policy since mapping of features is not included in statutory document. On the basis of the above, the minimum standard option would involve the mapping of key natural heritage features, key hydrologic features and natural heritage features and areas in an overlay designation. It is noted that this overlay designation would be different than the N.H.S. itself, which would also be in an overlay designation as well, meaning that there would be two overlay designations. Prime agricultural areas would be designated and with both the N.H.S and features included in overlay designations, this approach would be similar to the first option identified in the document entitled 'Implementation Procedures for the Agricultural System in the Greater Golden Horseshoe' dated March 2020. It is noted that while the N.E.P. also contains policies on key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features, they do not have to be identified in the new N.O.P. to meet minimum standard requirements since the N.E.C., not the Region, administers the N.E.P. This means that key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features do not need to be identified or mapped within the N.E.P. area in the new N.O.P. In addition to features, the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan N.H.S.s include linkages and V.P.Z.s. With respect to the linkages, these can be shown on the mapping as a different overlay that distinguishes the feature from the linkage (meaning that this would be the third overlay in the minimum standards approach). Policies on linkages should be consistent with policies related to the N.H.S. for the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan. Linkages in a minimum standard option would not be identified on the mapping or through policy outside of the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan N.H.S. With respect to the V.P.Z.s, there are three mapping approaches. The first is to incorporate the 30-metre V.P.Z. requirement as part of the mapping of the feature itself, with policy text explaining the approach (it is noted that the V.P.Z. is reduced to 15 metres by the Greenbelt Plan within the Niagara Peninsula Tender Fruit and Grape Area for new buildings or structures for agricultural, agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses from permanent and intermittent streams). The second is to establish a separate layer, in the form of another overlay, that goes around each of the features. The third is to not incorporate the mapping of the V.P.Z. at all and rely upon the policy document that indicates that a 30-metre wide (or 15 meters in the Niagara Peninsula Tender Fruit and Grape Area) V.P.Z. is required. V.P.Z.’s would not be identified on the mapping or through policy outside of the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan N.H.S.s, although there would be a policy requiring the establishment of a minimum V.P.Z. through a Planning Act process in accordance with the adjacent lands policies of the P.P.S. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 16 Page 177 of 304 Agenda item a) 3.2 Policy Framework Options for the Natural Heritage System Given the previous discussion, there are a number of options that can be considered respecting how features and other elements of the N.H.S. are mapped in the new N.O.P. (designation versus overlay). In addition, the establishment of a N.H.S. beyond the N.H.S. established by the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan is optional. Lastly, different criteria for determining the significance of features can be applied in different parts of the Region (most notably within settlement areas). Part III of the P.P.S. (2020), “How to Read the Provincial Policy Statement”, notes that the policies and direction provided in the P.P.S. “represent minimum standards” as described in the following statement: “The policies of the Provincial Policy Statement represent minimum standards. Within the framework of the provincial policy-led planning system, planning authorities and decision-makers may go beyond these minimum standards to address matters of importance to a specific community, unless doing so would conflict with any policy of the Provincial Policy Statement.” Based on direction from the P.P.S. and Provincial plans and previous discussions related to policy considerations and approaches provided in Section 3.1, three N.H.S. options have been developed for consideration and evaluation. The first option involves implementing Provincial policy in a manner that achieves what is required to meet minimum standards. In Option 1 this option would treat the two Provincial N.H.S.s (Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan) and key features and areas throughout the Region as an overlay, meaning that at least two overlays would be established. In this option, linkages would not extend beyond the two Provincial N.H.S.s, although significant features outside of the two Provincial N.H.S. systems would be included within an overlay. The second option includes the same as Option 1, but would designate the same key features and areas in a mutually exclusive land use designation, with the two Provincial N.H.S.s (Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan) continuing to be an overlay. Option 3 goes beyond the minimum standards (as permitted by the P.P.S.) by building upon Options 1 and 2, and includes sub-options with an increasing number of optional components, enhancements, and connections that would have the effect of establishing a spatially larger N.H.S that extends beyond the two Provincial N.H.S.s(Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan). In developing the options, the following were considered: • Desire to have: o A complex, flexible system; o A more simple, prescriptive system; or o Options for both. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 17 Page 178 of 304 Agenda item a) • Interest and support for meeting minimum provincial requirements or going beyond in developing the natural environment system. • Land-use specific policy considerations: o Consistent across similar geographies; or o One or more distinct policy-groups for urban, rural, and/or agricultural. • Treatment of the N.H.S. and W.R.S. (both the Provincial and local) as designated land-uses or as land-use overlays. • Treatment of Buffers, Enhancement Areas and Linkages as: o Part of the N.H.S. / W.R.S.; or o Supplementary/other components. 3.2.1 N.H.S. Option 1 - Minimum Standards - Overlay The Province has developed the N.H.S. for the Growth Plan and a N.H.S. for the Greenbelt Plan, which must be incorporated as an overlay in the new N.O.P. Although it addresses only part of the Region, it could be interpreted as providing the required N.H.S. for Niagara Region, thus fulfilling Section 2.1.3 of the P.P.S. that requires a N.H.S. be identified. This approach is also consistent with Section 4.2.2.6 of the Growth Plan which states that municipalities have the option of establishing a N.H.S. outside of the Growth Plan N.H.S. This is further supported by the statement in the document entitled 'Implementation Procedures for the Agricultural System in the Greater Golden Horseshoe' dated March 2020, that indicates that “if local natural heritage systems are identified outside of the Provincial natural heritage system for the Growth Plan / Greenbelt Plan natural heritage system ...”. The above implies that while features and areas beyond the N.H.S. for the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan must be protected according to policies of the P.P.S., there is discretion as to if and how the municipality will identify a local N.H.S. beyond the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan N.H.S.s. As a result, minimum standards in this case would mean that a local N.H.S. outside of the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan N.H.S.s would not be required. The N.H.S. for the Growth Plan does not apply to lands that are subject to the N.E.P. However, the N.E.P. does not include a N.H.S. and nor is there a requirement in the N.E.P. for a N.H.S. to be mapped in Official Plans. In addition to identifying the two Provincial N.H.S.s as overlays, Section 5.3 of the Greenbelt Plan specifically requires that key natural heritage features, key hydrologic features and any associated minimum vegetation protection zones be mapped. While there is no direction in this section on whether this mapping is to be in an Official Plan, it is our opinion that this option would identify key features and minimum vegetation protection zones in the Greenbelt Plan N.H.S. also as an overlay on an operative schedule to the Official Plan. There is no similar explicit requirement in the Growth Plan to map key features. As there are specific restrictions on development and site alteration within and adjacent to key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features in the Growth Plan N.H.S. and within and adjacent to key hydrologic features outside of settlement areas, it is our Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 18 Page 179 of 304 Agenda item a) opinion that they should also be identified as an overlay on an operative schedule to the Official Plan. With respect to vegetation protection zones and linkages within the Growth Plan, they have already been included as part of the N.H.S. mapping for the Growth Plan. That said, mapping of vegetation protection zones for those Key Natural Heritage Features and Key Hydrologic Features within the Growth Plan that require a vegetation protection zone should be illustrated as an overlay. Outside of the Growth Plan and Greenbelt N.H.S.'s, it is also our opinion that including significant natural heritage features in an overlay would be appropriate, because of the specific restrictions on development and site alteration in the P.P.S (2020) and to support implementation of these policies. On the basis of the above, N.H.S. Option 1 would include the following: • The N.H.S. for the Growth Plan and the N.H.S. for the Greenbelt Plan. • Key natural heritage features within the Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan N.H.S. • Key hydrologic features outside of settlement areas • Significant Natural Heritage Features outside of the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan N.H.S.s, as identified in the P.P.S. Figure 1 shows a conceptual representation of N.H.S. Option 1 of the N.H.S. within a representative area of Niagara Region. It should be recognized that the mapping represents a conceptual approach to mapping N.H.S. Option 1, and includes datasets that will be updated prior to the completion of the final mapping for the Region’s N.H.S. Details of N.H.S. Option 1 - Components Growth Plan On lands subject to the Growth Plan, the following would need to be incorporated in the new N.O.P.: • The N.H.S. for the Growth Plan is included as an overlay designation. This N.H.S. would not extend into lands within settlement areas. • The following features would be identified as key natural heritage features in the N.H.S. for the Growth Plan: o Habitat of endangered species and threatened species; o Fish habitat; o Wetlands (also considered to be a key hydrologic feature by the Growth Plan and the Greenbelt Plan); o Life science areas of natural and scientific interest (A.N.S.I.’s); o Significant valleylands; o Significant woodlands; o Significant wildlife habitat (including habitat of special concern species); o Sand barrens, savannahs, and tallgrass prairies; and o Alvars. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 19 Page 180 of 304 Agenda item a) (Note: these key features are the same in the Greenbelt Plan but differ from the features identified in the N.E.P. and the P.P.S.). • Of the above key natural heritage features, wetlands (including Provincially significant wetlands and non-Provincially significant wetlands), life science A.N.S.I.s, and significant woodlands, would be included in a separate overlay designation the new N.O.P. on the same schedule, or on a different schedule if required, since there is only so much that can be adequately shown on the same schedule. • For those features that are not included in the overlay, policies would be required to ensure that appropriate studies be completed to verify their presence and extent, as necessary. • The policies in Section 4.2.2.3 of the Growth Plan dealing with negative impacts, connectivity, the removal of features, the amount of disturbed area permitted, and agricultural uses within the N.H.S. for the Growth Plan would be incorporated within the new N.O.P. as is. • The restrictive development and site alteration policies that apply to key natural heritage features within the N.H.S. for the Growth Plan in Section 4.2.3 of the Growth Plan would be incorporated within the new N.O.P. as is. • The restrictive development and site alteration policies that apply to lands within 120 meters of key natural heritage features within the N.H.S. for the Growth Plan in Section 4.2.4 of the Growth Plan would be incorporated within the new N.O.P. as is. • For fish habitat, and significant woodlands, a V.P.Z. of no less than 30 metres, measured from the outside boundary of the key natural heritage feature is required. Other key natural heritage features and areas will require a V.P.Z. as determined through an approved study. The restrictions and exemptions related to development or site alteration in V.P.Z.’s, as noted in Section 4.2.4.3, would apply and these restrictions would also be included in the new N.O.P. as is. Greenbelt Plan On lands subject to the Greenbelt Plan, the following would need to be incorporated in the new N.O.P.: • The Greenbelt N.H.S. is included as an overlay designation. • The following features would be identified as key natural heritage features in the Greenbelt N.H.S.: o Habitat of endangered species and threatened species; o Fish habitat; o Wetlands; Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 20 Page 181 of 304 Agenda item a) o Life science A.N.S.I.s; o Significant valleylands; o Significant woodlands; o Significant wildlife habitat (including habitat of special concern species); o Sand barrens, savannahs, and tallgrass prairies; and o Alvars. • Of the above features, wetlands (including Provincially significant wetlands and non-Provincially significant wetlands), life science A.N.S.I.s, and significant woodlands and related minimum V.P.Z.s would be included in in a separate overlay designation the new N.O.P. on the same schedule, or on a different schedule if required, since there is only so much that can be shown adequately on the same schedule. • For those features that are not within the overlay, policies would be required that ensure that appropriate studies be completed to verify the presence and extent of these features, and to ensure that the policies are applied as necessary. • The restrictive development and site alteration policies that apply to lands within and adjacent to key natural heritage features within the Greenbelt Plan N.H.S. in Section 3.2.5 of the Greenbelt Plan would be incorporated within the new N.O.P. as is. The policies affecting key natural heritage features are similar, but not the same as the policies affecting key natural heritage features in the Growth Plan. • In the case of wetlands, fish habitat, and significant woodlands, a minimum 30 metre V.P.Z., measured from the outside boundary of the key natural heritage feature is required (the V.P.Z. is reduced to 15 metres for agricultural buildings in the Niagara Peninsula Tender Fruit and Grape Area). A V.P.Z. will be required for other key natural heritage features within the N.H.S. or key hydrologic features anywhere within the Protected Countryside as determined through a natural heritage evaluation or a hydrological evaluation, where development is proposed within 120 metres of a feature. The restrictions and exemptions related to development or site alteration in vegetation protection zones, as noted in Section 3.2.5.1, shall apply. Provincial Policy Statement On lands that are outside of the N.H.S. for the Growth Plan and the Greenbelt Plan N.H.S., outside of the N.E.P., and within settlement areas, the following would need to be incorporated in the new N.O.P.: • In this minimum standards option, linkages and enhancement areas would not be established on lands that are outside of the N.H.S for the Growth Plan and the Greenbelt N.H.S. • The following features would be identified as natural heritage features and areas and subject to the development and site alteration policies of the P.P.S.: Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 21 Page 182 of 304 Agenda item a) o Significant wetlands; o Significant coastal wetlands; o Habitat of endangered species and threatened species; o Fish habitat; o Significant areas of natural and scientific interest; o Significant valleylands; o Significant woodlands; and o Significant wildlife habitat. • Of the above features, significant wetlands, significant areas of natural and scientific interest and significant woodlands would be included in an overlay designation the new N.O.P. on the same schedule, or on a different schedule if required, since there is only so much that can be shown on the same schedule. Natural heritage features and areas that are present in settlement areas would also be included as an overlay. • For those features that are not within the overlay, policies would be required that ensure that appropriate studies be completed to verify the presence and extent of these features, and to ensure that the policies are applied as necessary. • The restrictive development and site alteration policies that apply to lands within and adjacent to features dealt with by the P.P.S. in Sections 2.1.4 to 2.1.8 would be incorporated within the new N.O.P. as is. • Mandatory buffers or V.P.Z.s of any kind adjacent to significant natural heritage features would not be identified through policy, since there are no mandatory buffer or V.P.Z. requirements in the P.P.S. (2020). Instead, the policies would require an environmental impact study to support the establishment of a buffer or V.P.Z. through a Planning Act process only. 3.2.2 N.H.S. Option 2 – Minimum Standards - Designation This option would be similar to N.H.S. Option 1 except that key features would be designated in a mutually exclusive land use designation instead of being in an overlay. There are no policy differences in N.H.S. Options 1 and 2 since policies would be included in the new N.O.P. that prohibit development and site alteration within and adjacent to features, regardless of whether they were included in an overlay or a designation. As a result, the only difference in the approach is how the features are mapped. This also means that the prime agricultural area and the key features would be in mutually exclusive designations, as opposed to key features being in an overlay on top of the prime agricultural area designation in Option 1. 3.2.3 N.H.S. Option 3 – Going Beyond Minimum Standards N.H.S. Option 3 builds on N.H.S. 1 and N.H.S. 2 by establishing a local N.H.S. that includes linkages and enhancement areas, extending beyond the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan N.H.S.'s. Option 3 also establishes three scenarios (as summarized in Table 1) that progressively exceed minimum standards (i.e. minimum provincial requirements). In this regard, all of the key natural heritage features, key hydrologic Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 22 Page 183 of 304 Agenda item a) features and significant natural heritage features that are designated in Option 2 would also be designated in each of N.H.S. Options 3A, 3B and 3C.The restrictive Provincial policies on development and site alteration would also be incorporated in the new N.O.P. as per Options 1 and 2. Additional linkages and component features and areas are added as per Options 3A, 3B and 3C, although linkages are not included in settlement areas in Options 3A and 3B. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 23 Page 184 of 304 Table 1. Overview of Natural Heritage System Options: 3A, 3B and 3C. N.H.S. 3A N.H.S. 3B N.H.S. 3C Component Features • Key Natural Heritage • Key Natural Heritage • Key Natural Heritage Features and Areas Features within the Features within the within the N.E.P. as per N.E.P. N.E.P. as per Option 3A Options 3A and 3B • Other Key Natural • Other Key Natural • Other Key Natural Features Features and Areas Features and Areas and Areas outside of provincial outside of provincial outside of provincial N.H.S.s both outside and in N.H.S.s, but only outside N.H.S.s both outside and settlement areas as per Option of settlement areas in settlement areas 3B • Supporting Features and • Supporting Features and Areas Areas outside of in all of the Region, including settlement areas both outside and within settlement areas Connecting the • Large Linkages only • Large and Medium • Large, Medium and Small System (linkages) between Key Natural Linkages between Key Linkages between Key Natural Features and Areas Natural Features and Features and Areas outside of outside of settlement Areas outside of settlement areas areas settlement areas • Small Linkages between Key Natural Features and Areas in settlement areas where the potential linkage area is in a natural state Page 185 of 304 Buffers/ Vegetation • Suggested policy • Suggested policy • Mandatory buffers outside of Protection Zones (to minimums outside of minimums outside of settlement areas (that can be Key Natural Features provincial N.H.S.s and provincial N.H.S.s, both reduced through study) with and Areas) outside of settlement inside and outside of suggested policy minimums areas settlement areas inside settlement areas Agenda item a) Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 24 Agenda item a) N.H.S. in the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area In addition to the above, the following key natural heritage features in the N.E.P. area would also be designated in each of Options 3A, 3B and 3C: o Wetlands; o Habitat of endangered species and threatened species; o Fish habitat; o Life science A.N.S.I.; o Earth science A.N.S.I.; o Significant valleylands; o Significant woodlands; o Significant wildlife habitat; and o Habitat of special concern species in escarpment natural and escarpment protection areas. • Of the above features, wetlands (including Provincially significant wetlands and non-Provincially significant wetlands), life and earth science areas of natural and scientific interest (A.N.S.I.s) and significant woodlands would be designated within the N.E.P. • For those features that are not designated, policies would be required that ensure that appropriate studies be completed to verify the presence and extent of these features, and to ensure that the policies are applied as necessary. • The restrictive development and site alteration policies that apply to lands within and adjacent to key natural heritage features within the N.E.P. area in Section 2.7 would be incorporated within the new N.O.P. as is. The policies affecting key natural heritage features are similar, but not the same as the policies affecting key natural heritage features in the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan. In this regard, a mandatory minimum V.P.Z. is not included in the N.E.P. Other Features and Supporting Features and Areas In addition to the above, items 1, 3 and 4 below could be included in each of Options 3A, 3B and 3C as individual overlays where mapping is available within the N.H.S.: 1. Key hydrologic features (note that these features are also considered to be part of the W.R.S. and two options - overlay versus designation are discussed in Section 3.3.1 of this report); 2. Federal and provincial parks and conservation reserves; 3. Other natural heritage features and areas (that are not defined as key natural heritage features); 4. Lands that have been restored or have the potential to be restored to a natural state; 5. Areas that support hydrologic functions; and 6. Working landscapes that enable ecological functions to continue. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 25 Page 186 of 304 Agenda item a) Of the above, areas that support hydrologic functions (item 5) would be dealt with in the W.R.S. policy framework. Provincial parks could be included for information purposes, however, it is not recommended that it be specifically included within the Region's N.H.S. because of the variety of uses that exist on these lands. There are no conservation reserves in Niagara Region but there are a number of conservation areas owned by the N.P.C.A. that could also be identified for information purposes. This leaves other natural heritage features (item 3), lands that have been restored or have the potential of being restored (item 4) and areas and working landscapes (item 6). With working landscapes, these would be difficult to define and map, therefore it is recommended that they not be included as components of the N.H.S. Furthermore, they are often addressed through stewardship rather than policy that may unnecessarily restrict activities associated with other complementary uses. Other natural heritage features and areas could be shown as an overlay on an operative schedule. For Options 3A and 3B, these other natural features could be identified outside of settlement areas, where information is available. For Option 3C, such features would also be identified as an overlay in settlement areas. Lands that have been restored or have the potential of being restored would be considered ‘supporting features and areas’ or ‘enhancement areas’. Similar to the above, these areas could be identified as an overlay outside of settlement areas in Options 3A and 3B, where information is available. For Option 3C, such areas could also be identified as an overlay in settlement areas as well. Enhancement areas should be illustrated as an overlay as they may not entirely be comprised of an area in a natural state (i.e., they may contain developed areas or active recreational areas). A fulsome discussion of options for enhancement areas is provided in Appendix 1, Section 1.10.1. For illustrative purposes, figures representing the options for the N.H.S. where enhancements are proposed would include what is referred to as “enhancement area option 2”. Buffers/Vegetation Protection Zones in the N.H.S. Lastly, while the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan prescribe minimum V.P.Z.s, there is no such prescribed width in the N.E.P. or P.P.S. On this basis, a flexible approach to V.P.Z.s outside of the Provincial N.H.S.s is suggested in Option 3A for features outside of settlement areas. In Option 3B, the flexible approach also applies to features in settlement areas as well. For Option 3C, mandatory V.P.Z.s are applied to features outside of settlement areas. Buffers and V.P.Z.s could be shown as an overlay on an operative schedule. For areas outside of Provincial Plan areas where a minimum V.P.Z. has been prescribed, recommended minimum and mandatory buffer widths have been proposed in Appendix 1, Section 1.12. Figures 2a, 2b and 2c provide a visual for comparison of N.H.S. Options 3A, 3B and 3C within a representative area of Niagara Region based on the direction for mapping discussed in Section 6.0 of this technical report. It should be recognized that the mapping represents a conceptual approach to mapping N.H.S. Option 3A, 3B and 3C, Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 26 Page 187 of 304 Agenda item a) and includes datasets that are anticipated to be updated prior to the completion of the final mapping for the Region’s N.H.S. Once a preferred option is selected, detailed mapping for the entire Region would occur through Phase 7 and 8 of the Natural Environment Work Program Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 27 Page 188 of 304 Page 189 of 304 Agenda item a) Figure 1. Conceptual illustration of N.H.S. Option 1 and 2. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 28 Page 190 of 304 Agenda item a) Figure 2a. Conceptual illustration of N.H.S. Option 3A. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 29 Page 191 of 304 Agenda item a) Figure 2b. Conceptual illustration of N.H.S. Option 3B. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 30 Page 192 of 304 Agenda item a) Figure 2c. Conceptual illustration of N.H.S. Option 3C. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 31 Agenda item a) 3.2.4 Components of the Natural Heritage System The above section described options for the N.H.S. that include various component features. The components of the N.H.S. have been grouped into the following categories: • Key Features and Areas; • Other Key Features (required in Greenbelt Plan N.H.S. and in W.R.S., but otherwise optional for N.H.S.); • Supporting Features and Areas (considered optional components of the N.H.S.); • Linkages (a required component of the N.H.S.); and • Buffers/V.P.Z.s. These categories are further expanded in Table 2. While there are some options and recommendations regarding criteria for component features (e.g., Significant Woodlands) as discussed in Appendix 1, the framework of options does not establish a final set of criteria for those components. Varying widths for linkages have been provided to enable evaluation of the options, but these are expected to be refined following consultation during the 2nd Point of Engagement and through the detailed design of the system in phase 7 and 8 of the Natural Environment Work Program. The review of definitions and potential criteria for other components have been discussed in Appendix 1 of this technical report and will be further defined in subsequent phases of this work program. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 32 Page 193 of 304 Table 2. Components of the Natural Heritage System. Category Provincial Components Document Key Natural heritage • Provincially Significant Wetlands • Significant Valleylands Features features and areas (P.S.W.s) and coastal wetlands • Significant Wildlife Habitat and Areas as per P.P.S. • Significant woodlands • Habitat of Threatened and Endangered • Significant Life Science A.N.S.I. Species • Significant Earth Science A.N.S.I. • Fish Habitat Key Natural • Wetlands (Provincial and non- • Significant Valleylands Heritage Features Provincially Significant) • Significant Wildlife Habitat as per Growth • Significant woodlands • Habitat of Threatened and Endangered Plan and • Life Science A.N.S.I. Species Greenbelt Plan • Fish Habitat • Sand barrens, savannahs, tallgrass prairies and alvars Key Natural • Wetlands (Provincially and non- • Significant Valleylands Heritage Features Provincially Significant) • Significant Wildlife Habitat as per the Niagara • Significant woodlands • Habitat of Threatened and Endangered Escarpment Plan • Life Science A.N.S.I. Species • Earth Science A.N.S.I • Habitat of special concern species in • Fish Habitat Escarpment Natural Area and Escarpment Protection Area designations Page 194 of 304 Key Hydrologic • Wetlands (Provincially and non-Provincially Significant) Features as per • Permanent and intermittent streams Greenbelt Plan • Inland lakes and their littoral zones • Seepage areas and springs Other Key Key Hydrologic • Permanent and intermittent streams Features Features as per • Inland lakes and their littoral zones Agenda item a) the Growth Plan • Seepage areas and springs Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 33 Category Provincial Components Document • Wetlands (all wetlands outside of settlement areas) Supporting As per the • Other natural heritage features and areas; this could include: Features definition of N.H.S. . Other woodlands (i.e., not meeting the criteria as Significant Woodland) and Areas in the P.P.S, . Grasslands/meadows not meeting the criteria as Significant Wildlife Habitat Growth Plan and that are continuous with Core Features and Areas Greenbelt Plan . Non- P.S.W.s in settlement areas . Other valleylands . Other wildlife habitat • Lands that have been restored or have the potential to be restored to a natural state . Enhancement areas Linkages Growth Plan, Types of Linkages (potential) Greenbelt Plan, • Large Linkages = Between large Core Areas (>50ha): 200-400m wide P.P.S. • Medium Linkages = Between medium Core Areas (>20 ha): 100-200 m wide • Small Linkages = Between small Core Areas (>10 ha): 50-100 m wide Buffers/ As defined in the • Vegetation protection zone widths would be applied as defined in the Provincial Vegetation Provincial Plans plans for those plan areas Protection and recommended • The following buffers widths for areas outside of the Provincial Plans have been Zone in Section 1.12 of recommended (as described in Appendix 1, Section 1.12): Appendix 1 If minimum buffers: Page 195 of 304 o . Outside of settlement areas • All features = 30 m . Inside of settlement areas • P.S.W.s = 30 m • All other key natural features = 15 m o If mandatory buffers: . Inside and outside of settlement areas Agenda item a) • All features = 30 m Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 34 Agenda item a) 3.3 Policy Framework Options for the Water Resource System 3.3.1 Introduction to Identification of the Water Resource System The identification of a W.R.S. is relatively new in Provincial planning. As such, there is limited guidance or existing examples in other jurisdictions that provide best practices. The direction for the identification of a W.R.S, as noted in policy 4.2.1.3 of the Growth Plan states: “Watershed planning or equivalent will inform: a) the identification of water resource systems.” It is acknowledged in the Watershed Planning Discussion Paper that much of the information exists to develop the equivalent of a region-wide watershed plan, and makes reference to municipal and provincial databases on N.H.S.s, subwatershed plans, monitoring data, etc. More recently, the Region, in partnership with the N.P.C.A. developed the Contemporary Mapping of Watercourses dataset that contains a comprehensive, up-to-date and accurate geospatial dataset of watercourses. Subwatershed studies and other reports (e.g., N.P.C.A. Groundwater Study) include datasets and assessments of W.R.S. features. In particular, subwatershed studies identify key hydrologic functions and key hydrologic areas and consider existing conditions and future conditions associated with urban development and other impacts (e.g., climate change). Subwatershed studies and other reports can also inform policy development, as they inherently apply current best practices in their characterization and management recommendations for W.R.S. features and areas. Through reviewing these existing studies, specific areas can be identified for mapping in the W.R.S. and policies can be developed based on the recommendations from these studies. It should be recognized that the data contained in subwatershed studies can be quite dated and the recommended methods and protocols may vary widely between subwatershed studies. These aspects need to be considered when assembling and vetting the data for use in mapping the W.R.S. That said, the existing studies, geospatial datasets and reports are considered equivalent to Regional watershed planning and sufficient to inform the identification of the W.R.S. Two primary options have been proposed for the W.R.S., including the following: • W.R.S. Option 1 –minimum standards related to Provincial planning requirements • W.R.S. Option 2 –going beyond minimum standards including an increasing number of components and potential connections. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 35 Page 196 of 304 Agenda item a) 3.3.2 W.R.S. Option 1 – Minimum Standards This option reiterates the policy direction for the W.R.S. established through policy in the P.P.S., Growth Plan and the Greenbelt Plan. There is no similar requirement in the N.E.P. to map a W.R.S. The basic elements of this policy framework are described below. Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan As mentioned above, there is an expectation that watershed planning will inform the identification of a W.R.S. and inform how the quality and quantity of water will be protected, enhanced or restored. At a minimum, for lands subject to the Growth Plan and the Greenbelt Plan, the following would need to be incorporated in the new N.O.P.: • The following features would be included as key hydrologic features in the W.R.S.: o Permanent streams and intermittent streams; o Inland lakes and their littoral zones; o Seepage areas and springs; and o Wetlands (which are also considered to be key natural heritage features by the Growth Plan and the Greenbelt Plan). • The following areas would be included as key hydrologic areas in the W.R.S.: o Significant groundwater recharge areas; o Highly vulnerable aquifers; and o Significant surface water contribution areas. • The inclusion of other components of the W.R.S. would be informed by watershed planning or equivalent. The following components would be included as part of the W.R.S., as informed by watershed planning or equivalent (Section 4.2.1.3), where they are considered “necessary to sustain healthy aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and human water consumption”: o Ground water features: . recharge/discharge areas; . water tables; and . aquifers and unsaturated zones. o Surface water features: . headwaters; . recharge/discharge areas; and . associated riparian lands that can be defined by their soil moisture, soil type, vegetation or topographic characteristics. o Hydrologic functions; and o Shoreline areas. • The W.R.S. would be shown as an overlay designation on an operative schedule of the Official Plan. This overlay would extend into settlement areas. Given the Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 36 Page 197 of 304 Agenda item a) absence of information on the location and in particular the boundaries of elements of the W.R.S., only certain elements of the W.R.S. can be mapped at this time. • Wetlands (which are both key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features) are also considered to be a component of the Growth Plan N.H.S. and the Greenbelt Plan N.H.S in this option; they would be identified as an overlay, as per N.H.S. Option 1. • The policies in Section 4.2.2.3 of the Growth Plan and Section 3.2.2 of the Greenbelt Plan relating to key hydrologic features that deal with negative impacts, connectivity, removal of features, and agricultural uses within the N.H.S. for the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan would be incorporated within the new N.O.P. as is. • The restrictive development and site alteration policies that apply to key hydrologic features anywhere in the Region except for settlement areas, the Greenbelt Plan area and the N.E.P. area, also in Section 4.2.3 of the Growth Plan and Section 3.2.4 of the Greenbelt Plan would be incorporated within the new N.O.P. as is. • The restrictive development and site alteration policies that apply to lands within 120 m of key hydrologic features anywhere in the Region except for settlement areas and the N.E.P. Area, also in Section 4.2.4 of the Growth Plan and Section 3.2.5 of the Greenbelt Plan, would be incorporated within the new N.O.P. as is. • For key hydrologic features, a V.P.Z. of no less than 30 metres, measured from the outside boundary of the key hydrologic feature, is required (the V.P.Z. is reduced to 15 metres for agricultural buildings in the Niagara Peninsula Tender Fruit and Grape Area. Evaluations will be required to identify any additional restrictions to be applied before, during, and after development to protect the hydrologic and ecological functions of the feature. The restrictions and exemptions related to development or site alteration in V.P.Z.s, as noted in both the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan would apply. Provincial Policy Statement Policy 2.2.1 of the P.P.S. notes the following: “Planning authorities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by: a) identifying water resource systems consisting of ground water features, hydrologic functions, natural heritage features and areas, and surface water features including shoreline areas, which are necessary for the ecological and hydrological integrity of the watershed.” • The P.P.S. does not include any other policies related to the W.R.S. The Region would therefore have the ability to implement policies specific to settlement areas Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 37 Page 198 of 304 Agenda item a) that ensure adequate protection of the components of the W.R.S., while still directing appropriate development and infill within settlement areas. • Similar to the direction provided in the Growth Plan, the identification of these components and the evaluation of their contribution to the ecological and hydrological integrity of the watershed is best determined through watershed planning or equivalent. Watershed Planning studies or the equivalent would also inform policy development. That said, it is expected the policies related to the W.R.S. in settlement areas would apply to the following, as informed through a review of existing watershed studies and geospatial datasets contained therein: o Ground water features; o Hydrologic functions; o Natural heritage features and areas; and o Surface water features, including shorelines. Figure 3 provides a visual of W.R.S. Option 1 within a representative area of Niagara Region based on the direction for mapping discussed in Section 6 of this technical report. It should be recognized that the mapping represents a conceptual approach to mapping the W.R.S. and includes datasets that are anticipated to be updated prior to the completion of the final mapping for the Region’s W.R.S. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 38 Page 199 of 304 Agenda item a) This page is left intentionally blank. Page 200 of 304 Page 201 of 304 Agenda item a) Figure 3. Conceptual illustration of Water Resource System Option 1. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 40 This page is left intentionally blank. Page 202 of 304 Agenda item a) Agenda item a) 3.3.3 W.R.S. Option 2 – Going Beyond Minimum Standards W.R.S. Option 2 includes all of the policy direction and components as identified in W.R.S. Option 1 as well as additional features and areas as informed through watershed planning or equivalent. The main difference between W.R.S. Option 1 and 2 would be the inclusion of additional components that goes beyond the required components of the W.R.S. Another difference would be that all key hydrologic features outside of settlement areas would be designated as per N.H.S. Option 2. Beyond this, the additional components may include: • Headwater Drainage Features; o classified as “Protection” o classified as “Conservation” • Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas; or • Hydrologic Functions; o Floodplain o Karst features. W.R.S. Option 2 has been further divided into Options 2A and 2B where the main difference would be including or excluding these additional components in settlement areas: • W.R.S. Option 2A – includes all of the components of W.R.S. plus the additional components listed above located outside of settlement areas only • W.R.S. Option 2B - includes all of the components of W.R.S. plus the additional components listed above located region-wide, including within settlement areas 3.3.4 Components of the Water Resource System The components of the W.R.S. (Table 3) have been grouped into required categories (Key Hydrologic Features and Key Hydrologic Areas) and those features or areas that are to be informed by watershed planning or equivalent. Definitions, and in some cases, preliminary criteria have been provided for the components of the W.R.S. described in Appendix 2. Table 3. Components of the Water Resource System. Category Components • Permanent streams and intermittent streams Key Hydrologic Features • Inland lakes and their littoral zones (required) • Seepage areas and springs • Wetlands • Significant groundwater recharge areas Key Hydrologic Areas • Highly vulnerable aquifers (required) • Significant surface water contribution areas Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 42 Page 203 of 304 Agenda item a) Category Components • Recharge/discharge areas Ground water features (to be • Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge informed by watershed Areas planning or equivalent) • Water tables • Aquifers and unsaturated zones • Headwaters Surface Water Features (to be • Recharge/discharge areas informed by watershed • Associated riparian lands that can be defined by planning or equivalent) their soil moisture, soil type, vegetation or topographic characteristics. Hydrologic functions (to be • Floodplain informed by watershed • planning or equivalent) Karst • Recommended to be defined as 30 m (98 ft) from Shoreline areas the limits of the shoreline flood hazard • For key hydrologic features, a vegetated protection zone of no less than 30 m, measured Vegetation Protection Zone from the outside boundary of the key hydrologic feature, is required outside of settlement areas. 4.0 Approach to Evaluate Natural Environment System Options Each of the options characterized in Section 3 will be assessed using a set of criteria that represent the full range of considerations identified through the Natural Environment Background Study to assess how they perform in each area. The options are also compared against each under each set of criteria to identify which option best fulfills the criteria. An evaluation of the options against a set of criteria and each other will not only assist the Region in identifying the preferred option for the natural environment system, including mapping and policies, but provides a defensible, transparent process that responds to input from the consultation process. 4.1 Evaluation of Options for the Natural Environment Systems Preliminary criteria were developed in the Natural Environment Background Study based on consultation with the Technical Advisory Group (T.A.G.), and with input from stakeholders and the public during the 1st Point of Engagement. The general themes of the preliminary criteria considered the following: Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 43 Page 204 of 304 Agenda item a) • Consistency; • Balance; • Defensibility; • Effectiveness; and • Effective use of resources. The feedback received from the 1st Point of Engagement has been used to build on these themes and develop the criteria to evaluate the options. Furthermore, following the 1st Point of Engagement, several key themes emerged that have been summarized in the following statement: “The Region’s natural environment system planning framework should be forward thinking, following a systems approach that accurately identifies and protects the natural environment, recognizes the uniqueness of Niagara’s geography, and important agricultural system, and is implemented through a clear and consistent set of policies, with roles and responsibilities clearly identified.” This statement is considered when evaluating the options to determine if the options meet the intent of this statement. It should be recognized that the evaluation of options is a relative qualitative comparison of how each option achieves the criteria. The evaluation is not a scoring, weighting or quantitative analysis of each option. The evaluation is largely a value-based exercise that is intended to identify the option(s) which best fulfill the criteria, and ultimately the desire of the Region, stakeholders, and the public to provide policies and mapping that will achieve the goals and objectives for the natural environment system. It should be noted that the criteria related to ensuring consistency with legislative requirements was not carried forward in the evaluation, as this criterion is redundant since it is Provincial policy, not laws and legislation that require that certain features be protected. Specifically, it is recognized that the Endangered Species Act (E.S.A.) does apply to endangered and threatened species and there is a process specific to those species that would apply regardless of which natural environment system option were selected by the Region. Likewise, the criterion related to ‘Conformity with Provincial Direction and Plans’ is not included in the evaluation because all of the options proposed have been developed to ensure they conform to the requirements of the policies of the P.P.S. and Provincial plans. However, it should be noted that N.H.S. Options 3A, 3B and 3C exceed minimum standards with respect to the number of components and areal extent of the system. The results of the evaluation of options for the N.H.S. and W.R.S. against the criteria and each other are provided in Table 4 and Table 5 respectively. A visual representation of the extent to which each option fulfills the criteria is provided along with a discussion of how the options meet each criterion. For some of the categories Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 44 Page 205 of 304 Agenda item a) several options fulfill the criteria; however, the option that best fulfills the criteria was indicated by a green circle for the N.H.S. and a blue circle for the W.R.S. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 45 Page 206 of 304 Agenda item a) This page is left intentionally blank Page 207 of 304 Table 4. Evaluation of options for the Natural Heritage System. Ability of Option to Meet Evaluation Criteria Criteria (full = , partial = Comparison of Options , minimal = ) 1 2 3A 3B 3C Consistent Achieves the Vision, The Region has not finalized a Vision, Goals and Objectives for the new N.O.P. However, through feedback received during the 1st Point of Goals and Objectives of Engagement, the options have been reviewed against this statement: the new N.O.P., with consideration of Regional “The Region’s natural environment system planning framework should be forward thinking, following a systems approach that accurately Council’s strategic identifies and protects the natural environment, recognizes the uniqueness of Niagara’s geography, and important agricultural system, and is priorities implemented through a clear and consistent set of policies, with roles and responsibilities clearly identified”. Nothing in any of the options imposes additional restrictions to normal farming practices as already identified in Provincial policy, as such, all of the options recognize the importance of the agricultural system. Both N.H.S. Options 3B and 3C meet the intent of the above noted statement. However, Option 3C best represents a forward thinking systems approach since it includes additional linkages and features. Balanced Agriculture - Generally speaking, Provincial policy recognizes and permits agricultural uses in and adjacent to key features within the two Provincial N.H.S.s and recognizes existing agricultural uses. As a result, while additional lands may be identified in Options 3A and 3B and 3C, the impacts of doing so would be negligible. As such, the agricultural communities’ needs have been recognized in all options. Development and Growth - Potential impacts on efficient development patterns in urban areas increase in Option 3C in particular as a result of the inclusion of additional key features, supporting features and linkages, which may have an impact on the location and amount of net developable areas. The constraints on other land uses resulting from identifying additional land in the form of larger features, other features and linkages in Option 3C is a consideration, particularly in settlement areas, where there is a desire to support efficient and compact Considers stakeholder development. Impacts may also be felt with rural development as a result of applying Options 3A, 3B and 3C on rural residential lot creation needs and interests and other forms of rural development. Environmental Protection – Moving from Options 3A through 3C, the system includes more features and supporting areas, and connectivity, thus N.H.S. Option 3C provides a relatively higher degree of confidence that the N.H.S. will provide a resilient, interconnected system that preserves and enhances natural features, ecological functions and native biodiversity. Option 3B would best provide a balanced option that considers stakeholder needs as it includes Supporting Features and Areas outside of Page 208 of 304 provincial N.H.S.s that would increase the resiliency of the system, but only outside of settlement areas as not to encumber growth and intensification within settlement areas. Agenda item a) Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 47 Ability of Option to Meet Evaluation Criteria Criteria (full = , partial = Comparison of Options , minimal = ) 1 2 3A 3B 3C Provides flexibility to achieve balanced land Option 1 provides the most flexibility when considering the development of land uses since only the features are identified in an overlay designation. In Option 2, these same lands would be designated, meaning that there may be less flexibility when considering alternative land use planning or provides clear direction with uses. It is noted however that the policy framework is the same in both options. respect to how balanced In Options 3A, 3B and 3C, other lands having environmental value would be identified along with an increasing requirement to identify buffers, land use planning will be thus having an impact on the location and form of development. achieved Defensible This criterion has more to do with the criteria relied upon to identify the components of the N.H.S. The ecological integrity of a system as a whole is more robust when linkages and enhancement areas are identified to support the resiliency of the system, particularly when they are Policies and identification identified region-wide. While the policy and mapping options have all been based on best practices, and follow a science-based approach to of systems are informed ensure defensible and rigorous policies and mapping, Option 3B applies the most balanced, defendable approach. The approach in Option 3B by best practices (i.e., incorporates both an ecological approach to identifying a complete system which includes linkages and enhancement areas outside of supported by science) settlement areas; this has the effect of limiting constraints on development in settlement areas. As such, N.H.S. Option 3B would be highly defensible at a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (L.P.A.T.) hearing from an ecological and land use planning perspective. While N.H.S. options 1 and 2 are representative of a systems approach, it does not apply across the Region. Policies follow a Options 3A, 3B apply across the Region (including lands within the NEP), except for identifying linkages in settlement areas, whereas Option systems-based approach 3C would include linkages in settlement areas. Option 3C incudes the largest areal extent including additional linkages and enhancements, including within settlement areas. Effective Moving from N.H.S. Option 3A through 3C, the system includes more features and supporting areas and connectivity, thus providing an Ensure protection of the increasing degree of confidence that the N.H.S. will provide a resilient, interconnected system that preserves and enhances natural features, natural environment ecological functions, and native biodiversity. Furthermore, a larger more robust natural environment system is more resilient to the impacts system from climate change, and larger areas of natural cover and impervious surfaces can help to mitigate impacts of climate change. Option 3C best ensures the protection of a region-wide N.H.S, including within settlement areas. Provincial policy outlines in considerable detail how features are to be protected and under what conditions development may be considered. This would apply across all of the options. Page 209 of 304 For the other supporting features, enhancement areas and linkages included in Options 3A, 3B and 3C, the Region has the ability and discretion to establish policies that are based on local context. However, moving beyond Provincial policy requires more consideration for how The policies can be policies could be interpreted and implemented. Implementation tools may need to be developed to support the interpretation and effectively implemented implementation of some policies (e.g., buffer guidelines). Given the relative ease of implementing Provincial policy requirements compared with a more complex policy framework that would result through Options 3A, 3B and 3C, N.H.S. Option 1 and 2 would result in a simpler policy framework. However, by designating features, Option 2 Agenda item a) ensures that policies protecting features can be more effectively implemented. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 48 Ability of Option to Meet Evaluation Criteria Criteria (full = , partial = Comparison of Options , minimal = ) 1 2 3A 3B 3C All of the options would support development in desired locations (e.g. infill / intensification, etc.) where appropriate, because each option Directing development to provides additional flexibility in settlement areas. However, Option 3C may have the most impact on growth and development in settlement desired locations that areas since linkages in the settlement areas are a component of Option 3C. This means that since Options 1, 2, and 3A do not identify other support the objectives of key features, enhancement or linkages in settlement areas, these options would impose the least amount of restrictions to development in the Province with respect settlement areas. Since Option 3A identifies a more complete system, including linkages and enhancement areas outside of settlement areas, to the location of growth development would also be more likely to occur in settlement areas, where growth is more desirable; as such, Option 3A best fulfills this and development criterion. Time and Resourcing Anticipated timeline for This criterion considers the timeline and resources required to implement both the policies of the natural environment system, as well as approval subsequent development applications that require implementation of the natural environment policies of the new N.O.P. Based on feedback received through the 1st Point of Engagement, there is a desire to protect the N.H.S., while ensuring development is directed to appropriate locations. Option 3B best fulfills this criterion related to approval of the new N.O.P. and limiting constraints to development in settlement areas, which would not include linkages, while providing flexibility to permit appropriate development in settlement areas. Anticipated timeline to Compared with Options 1 and 2, moving through Options 3A, 3B and 3C would require a greater need for implementation tools to provide clear develop implementation guidance and direction for implementing enhancement areas, linkages, identifying ecologically appropriate buffers, and applying criteria as tools (e.g., mapping, defined in the new N.O.P. or updated Environmental Impact Study Guidelines. Since Option 3A largely identifies features and areas outside of screening tools, E.I.S. settlement areas, implementation could rely more heavily on Provincial guidance such as the Greenbelt Plan Technical Definitions and Criteria guidelines, water for Key Natural Heritage Features in the N.H.S. of the Protected Countryside Area (O.M.N.R. 2012) and the Natural Heritage Reference resource study Manual (O.M.N.R. 2010). guidelines, etc.) There would be few implementation tools required to map the N.H.S. or implement policies for Options 1 and 2. With Option 1 identifying the N.H.S. as an overlay and across a smaller area of the Region, mapping the system would require less time, and fewer tools or guidance documents woud be required. Anticipated costs to develop implementation It is expected that for Options 1, 2 and 3A, the Region could rely more heavily on Provincial guidance such as the Greenbelt Plan Technical tools (e.g., mapping, Definitions and Criteria for Key Natural Heritage Features in the N.H.S. of the Protected Countryside Area (O.M.N.R. 2012) and the Natural screening tools, E.I.S. Heritage Reference Manual (O.M.N.R. 2010). When identifying additional key natural features, enhancements, linkages and buffers outside of guidelines, water the Provincial plan areas and within settlement areas, there will be additional resources and tools required to support the interpretation and resource study implementation of policies and mapping. guidelines, etc.) Page 210 of 304 Agenda item a) Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 49 Table 5. Evaluation of options for the Water Resource System. Ability of Option to Meet Evaluation Criteria Criteria (full = , partial = Comparison of Options , minimal = ) 1 2A 2B Consistent Achieves the Vision, The Region has not finalized a Vision, Goals and Objectives for the new N.O.P. However, through feedback received during the 1st Point of Goals and Objectives of Engagement, the options have been reviewed against this statement: the new N.O.P. with consideration of Regional “The Region’s natural environment system planning framework should be forward thinking, following a systems approach that accurately Council’s strategic identifies and protects the natural environment, recognizes the uniqueness of Niagara’s geography, and important agricultural system, and is priorities implemented through a clear and consistent set of policies, with roles and responsibilities clearly identified”. None of the options are intended to impose additional restrictions to normal farming practices as already identified in Provincial policy, as such, all options recognize the importance of the agricultural system. All three W.R.S. options meet the intent of the above noted statement. However, Option 2B best represents a forward thinking systems approach that would protect more of the components of the W.R.S. region-wide. In addition all wetlands would be designated in Options 2A and 2B. Balanced Agriculture - Generally speaking, Provincial policy recognizes and permits agricultural uses in and adjacent to key hydrologic features and hydrologic areas within the two Provincial N.H.S.s and recognizes existing agricultural uses. While additional lands may be identified in Option 2, the impacts of doing so would be negligible. As such, the agricultural communities’ needs have been recognized in all options. Development and Growth - The impacts of identifying additional land in Option 2A and 2B on other land uses is a consideration, particularly where rural development is proposed in the form of residential lot creation for both options and for development in settlement areas in option 2B. Option 1 would provide the lease amount of constraints to development, particularly in settlement areas where the W.R.S. would not Considers stakeholder identify additional components. needs and interests Environmental Protection – Option 2B includes more features and areas, thus Option 2B provides a relatively high degree of confidence that the W.R.S. will provide long-term protection of key hydrologic features, key hydrologic areas, and their functions. Option 2A would best provide a balanced option that considers stakeholder needs as it identifies more components of the W.R.S. that would increase the resiliency of the system, but only outside of settlement areas as not to encumber growth and intensification within settlement areas. Page 211 of 304 Agenda item a) Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 50 Ability of Option to Meet Evaluation Criteria Criteria (full = , partial = Comparison of Options , minimal = ) 1 2A 2B W.R.S. Option 1 provides some flexibility when considering the development of land uses since only the required features and areas and Provides flexibility to associated minimum prescribed V.P.Z.s are identified in an overlay designation outside of settlement areas. achieve balanced land use planning or provides While Options 2A and 2B identify additional features, Option 2A provides the most balanced approach to land use planning as the additional clear direction with features are identified outside of settlement areas, thus supporting directing development into settlement areas. Furthermore, the additional respect to how balanced features identified in W.R.S. Option 2B are most often located in rural areas (e.g., headwater drainage features), contained within other key land use planning will be natural features, or confined by surrounding development in settlement areas. Therefore, it is anticipated that Option 2A would capture most achieved of these features, and by not including them in settlement areas, growth and development can more appropriately be achieved in settlement areas. Defensible This criterion has more to do with the criteria relied upon to identify the components of the N.H.S. The ecological integrity of a system as a Policies and identification whole is more robust when linkages and contributing areas are identified to support the resiliency of the system, as well if the system applies of systems are informed region wide. While the policy and mapping options have all been based on best practices and follow a science-based approach to ensure by best practices (i.e., defensible and rigorous policies and mapping, Option 2A applies the most balanced, defendable approach. The approach in Option 2A supported by science) incorporates both an ecological approach to identifying a complete system, while limiting constraints on development in settlement areas. As such, W.R.S. Option 2A would be highly defensible at an L.P.A.T. hearing from an ecological and land use planning perspective. While W.R.S. Options 1 and 2A are representative of a systems approach, they do not apply across the entire Region. Policies follow a systems- While there would be different policies applying to features based on geography, Options 2B would apply region-wide, and include lands based approach within the N.E.P. Option 2B incudes the largest areal extent and includes contributing areas, therefore, allowing the policies to be applied to a more inclusive system. Effective Moving from W.R.S. Option 1 through 2B, the system includes more hydrologic features and areas, thus, providing an increasing degree of Ensure protection of the confidence that the W.R.S. will provide a resilient system that will provide long-term protection of key hydrologic features, key hydrologic natural environment areas, and their functions. Furthermore, a larger more robust W.R.S. is more resilient to impacts from climate change, and identification and system protection of larger areas of natural cover and impervious surfaces can help to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Option 2B best ensures the protection of the W.R.S. by identifying the system region-wide, including in settlement areas. Provincial policy outlines in considerable detail how components of the W.R.S. outside of settlement areas are to be protected and under what conditions development may be considered. This would apply across all of the options. Page 212 of 304 For the other hydrologic features and areas included in Option 2B, the Region has the ability and discretion to establish policies that are The policies can be based on local context. However, moving beyond Provincial policy requires more consideration for how policies could be interpreted and effectively implemented implemented. Implementation tools may need to be developed to support the interpretation and implementation of some policies (e.g., identification and treatment of floodplain zones in settlement areas; approach to protect and/or manage headwater drainage features). Option 1 provides relative ease of implementing Provincial policy requirements compared to the more complex policy framework that would result through Options 2A and 2B; therefore, Option 1 better fulfills this criterion. Agenda item a) Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 51 Ability of Option to Meet Evaluation Criteria Criteria (full = , partial = Comparison of Options , minimal = ) 1 2A 2B Directing development to All of the options would aim to support development in desired locations (e.g. infill / intensification, etc.) where appropriate. Even Option 2B desired locations that could include policies that encourage protection of the additional components identified, while permitting appropriate development to occur in support the objectives of settlement areas. However, with the identification of additional hydrologic features and areas in settlement areas, additional restrictions would the Province with respect be imposed. That said, Option 2A increases the potential for constraints outside of settlement areas, but not in settlement areas, as such to the location of growth would have the effect of directing development to settlement areas. and development Time and Resourcing Anticipated timeline for This criterion considers the timeline and resources required to implement both the policies of the natural environment system, as well as approval subsequent development applications that require implementation of the natural environment policies of the new N.O.P. Based on feedback received through the 1st Point of Engagement, there is a desire to protect the W.R.S., while ensuring development is directed to appropriate locations. Option 2A best fulfills this criterion related to approval of the new N.O.P. and limiting constraints to development in settlement areas, as it identifies a region-wide system, while providing flexibility to develop policies that support appropriate development in settlement areas. Anticipated timeline to develop implementation Moving through Options 1, 2A and 2B, there would be a greater need for implementation tools to provide clear guidance and direction for tools (e.g., mapping, identifying the components of the W.R.S. Since Option 1 mainly identifies hydrologic features and areas outside of settlement areas, screening tools, E.I.S. implementation could rely more heavily on Provincial guidance. guidelines, water resource study There would be fewer implementation tools required to map the W.R.S. or implement policies for Option 1. guidelines, etc.) Anticipated costs to develop implementation tools (e.g., mapping, It is expected that for Option 1 the Region can more readily obtain existing information and geospatial datasets from existing source (e.g., screening tools, E.I.S. Comtemporary Mapping of Watercourses dataset, watershed planning reports, etc.). When identifying additional hydrologic features and guidelines, water areas, there will be additional resources and tools required to support the interpretation and implementation of policies and mapping. resource study guidelines, etc.) Page 213 of 304 Agenda item a) Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 52 Agenda item a) 5.0 Preliminary Preferred Option for the Region’s Natural Environment System Following the evaluation of the options against the criteria, the following have been identified as the preliminary preferred options: • N.H.S. Option 3B • W.R.S. Option 2A The following sections provide an overview of the evaluation and explanation regarding the selection of the preferred options for the N.H.S. and the W.R.S. 5.1 Natural Heritage System Preliminary Preferred Option The following provides a summary of the framework for N.H.S. Option 3B: • The N.H.S. for the Growth Plan and the N.H.S. for the Greenbelt Plan are both identified as an overlay; • A N.H.S would also be established as an overlay on lands outside of the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan N.H.S., but outside of settlement areas; • Within the Greenbelt Plan N.H.S. and Growth Plan N.H.S., key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features would be designated. Vegetation protection zones and linkages within the Greenbelt Plan N.H.S. and Growth Plan N.H.S would also be identified separately and included in an overlay designation; • Beyond the Greenbelt N.H.S. and Growth Plan N.H.S. linkages would be identified as an overlay and policies would be included in the N.O.P. that provide guidance on the establishment of V.P.Z's in these areas; • Significant natural heritage features and areas outside of the Greenbelt Plan N.H.S. and Growth Plan N.H.S and the N.E.P. would be designated • Key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features within the N.E.P. would also be designated; • Other key natural features and areas and supporting features and areas outside of the Greenbelt N.H.S. and Growth Plan N.H.S and the N.E.P both outside and inside settlement areas would be identified through the use of an overlay; • The restrictive policies as provided in the P.P.S., and the Provincial plans would be incorporated into the new N.O.P; • Prime agricultural areas and key features and areas would be designated in mutually exclusive land use designations, which equally recognizes the importance of the natural heritage and agricultural systems; The following provides an overview as to why N.H.S. Option 3B was selected as the preliminary preferred option: 1. Option 3B most closely aligns with the feedback statement, summarizing the direction received from feedback through the 1st Point of Engagement. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 53 Page 214 of 304 Agenda item a) 2. Option 3B provides a more balanced approach to the identification and protection of the N.H.S., by increasing the number of components and connections outside of settlement areas, while also attempting to support development in settlement areas by limiting the number of components, linkages and requirements for buffers within settlement areas. 3. Option 3B applies the most balanced, defendable approach that incorporates best practices from an ecological approach to identifying a complete system, while limiting constraints on development in settlement areas. As such, N.H.S. Option 3B would be highly defensible at an L.P.A.T. hearing from an ecological and land use planning perspective. 4. Option 3B would be effective in ensuring protection of the N.H.S. The N.H.S. includes key features and areas both inside and outside of settlement areas. Additional linkages and enhancement areas are identified outside of settlement areas, thereby increasing the resiliency of those features and areas. 5. While Option 1 and 2 would be the most straight-forward, cost effective, requiring the least amount of time and resources, Option 3B can be mapped in the timeline set out for the new N.O.P. This would be achieved by updating select datasets (e.g., woodland dataset), acquiring other more recent datasets (e.g., wetlands from the NPCA), and by developing a clear set of definitions and criteria for the other components not being mapped. Furthermore, implementation could rely more heavily on Provincial guidance such as the Greenbelt Plan ‘Technical Definitions and Criteria for Key Natural Heritage Features in the N.H.S. of the Protected Countryside Area’ (O.M.N.R., 2012) and the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (O.M.N.R., 2010). Additional guidance documents and tools (e.g., updated Environmental Impact Study Guideline, Buffer Guidelines) can be prepared prior to final approval and adoption of the new N.O.P. 5.2 Water Resource System Preliminary Preferred Option The following provides a summary of the framework for W.R.S. Option 2A: • This option reiterates the policy direction for the W.R.S. established through policy in the P.P.S., Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, and N.E.P.; • The W.R.S. would be shown as an overlay designation on an operative schedule of the Official Plan. This overlay would extend into settlement areas; • Wetlands outside of settlement areas would be designated as per N.H.S. Option 3B; • Prime agricultural areas and wetlands would be designated in mutually exclusive land use designations, which equally recognizes the importance of the natural heritage and agricultural systems (with the W.R.S. identified as an overlay); and • The components of the W.R.S. would include: o Key Hydrologic Features; o Key Hydrologic Areas; o Ground water features; o Surface water features; Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 54 Page 215 of 304 Agenda item a) o Shoreline Areas; o Hydrologic functions outside of settlement areas; o Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas outside of settlement areas; and o Vegetation Protection Zones for Key Hydrologic Features outside of settlement areas. The following provides an overview as to why W.R.S. Option 2A was selected as the preliminary preferred option: 1. Option 2A most closely aligns with the feedback statement summarizing the direction received from feedback through the 1st Point of Engagement. 2. Option 2A provides a more balanced approach to the identification and protection of the W.R.S. by increasing the number of components and connections outside of settlement areas and minimizing the hydrologic features and areas identified within settlement areas, which has the effect of directing development to settlement areas. 3. Option 2A applies the most balanced, defendable approach that incorporates best practices from an ecological perspective that identifies a complete system, while limiting constraints on development in settlement areas. As such, W.R.S. Option 2A would be highly defensible at an L.P.A.T. hearing from an ecological and land use planning perspective. 4. When considering the effectiveness of the options to ensure protection of the W.R.S., Option 2A includes additional hydrologic features and areas outside of settlement areas that will provide long-term protection of key hydrologic features, key hydrologic areas, and their functions. The resulting W.R.S. mapping and policy framework would have the effect of appropriately directing development to settlement areas while identifying a more robust system with stronger policies outside of settlement areas. 5. While Option 1 would be the most straight-forward and cost effective, requiring the least amount of time and resources. Option 2A can be mapped in the timeline set out for the new N.O.P. This can be achieved by using existing geospatial datasets (e.g., Contemporary Mapping of Watercourses) and compiling available information from existing sources (e.g. subwatershed studies, groundwater studies, etc.) that would form the equivalent to a region- wide watershed plan. 5.3 Implications for Natural Environment System Planning The preliminary preferred options go beyond the minimum Provincial standards for the identification of the N.H.S. and W.R.S. The selection of these options was informed by the feedback and direction received during the 1st Point of Engagement as summarized in the key themes noted in Section 2.3. The feedback provided additional direction that should be considered when developing the natural environment system policies and framework. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 55 Page 216 of 304 Agenda item a) As a result of the preliminary preferred options going beyond the Provincial minimum standards, the following is recommended to ensure the objectives for the natural environment system are met and policies are implemented as intended: • Policies will need to include an appropriate level of flexibility given the inclusion of other features and supporting features and areas that go beyond the Provincial requirements, being mindful that a systems-based approach must be preserved; • Definitions for component features not currently defined will need to be more fully developed and vetted through the process; • Criteria will need to be well developed for the identification of component features, particularly those which are not currently well defined (e.g., ‘lands that have been restored or have the potential to be restored’); • Environmental Impact Study Guidelines will need to be updated to support the identification and/or refinement of component features, including how to appropriately identify buffers/V.P.Z.s (currently there is no minimum provided); and • W.R.S. Guidelines will need to be provided that support the appropriate identification and/or refinement of component features. 6.0 Mapping the Natural Environment System The direction from the Province as outlined in the P.P.S. and Provincial plans identify what features/components that could comprise the proposed natural environment system. Although Provincial direction specifies that N.H.S. and W.R.S. (which together comprise the natural environment system) must be identified by municipalities, the direction for mapping features/components within these systems varies among the Provincial plans. However, it is recognized that features are to be mapped where information exists and is deemed appropriate by the municipality to support implementation of the relevant official plan policies. 6.1 Components Recommended for Mapping the Natural Environment System The Mapping Discussion Paper provided a review of the P.P.S., Provincial plans and policies, and a review of comparable municipal approaches to mapping N.H.S.s. The review of mapping datasets recommended a subset of components that should be mapped based on a review of the age of data, accuracy, completeness (i.e., representation of the data across the entire Region) and the need to provide a visual representation of the feature to support policy implementation. The Mapping Discussion Paper provided a review of existing datasets in Table 9 of that report and provided a recommendation on the suitability of datasets and preliminary considerations for use of that dataset. Through applying a set of criteria related to the age, accuracy and areal (i.e., geographic) coverage of the dataset recommendations, as well as considerations of options to update existing datasets or develop new datasets, recommendations for mapping components were provided in Section 8.3.1 of the Mapping Discussion Paper. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 56 Page 217 of 304 Agenda item a) Through the development of natural environment system options provided in this report and in consideration of the data that will obtained through studies currently being completed (i.e., Ecological Land Classification Mapping for the Region and the Watershed Equivalency Study) the following components are recommended for mapping the N.H.S. and W.R.S.: Natural Heritage System: • P.S.W.s; • Significant woodlands; • Linkages; • Life Science A.N.S.I.s; • Earth Science A.N.S.I.s; • Other wetlands (required to be mapped in the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan N.H.S.); • Permanent and intermittent streams (required to be mapped in Greenbelt Plan N.H.S.); • Inland Lakes (required to be mapped in Greenbelt Plan N.H.S.)*; • Other woodlands*; • Grasslands/meadows not meeting the criteria as significant wildlife habitat that are continuous with key features*; • Sand barrens, savannahs, tallgrass prairies and alvars*; and • Enhancement areas*. Water Resource System: • P.S.W.s and non-P.S.W.s; • Inland lakes; • Permanent streams (including rivers) and intermittent streams; • Significant groundwater recharge areas; • Highly vulnerable aquifers; • Shoreline areas*; and • Floodplains, flooding hazards, floodways*. All components recommended for mapping in Section 6.2.1 of the Mapping Discussion Paper have been carried forward in this report. Those components denoted by an asterisk are components that were previously not identified for inclusion in the natural environment system, or were not recommended for mapping due to a lack of available data. In the case of Inland Lakes, the initial review of a potential dataset was based on the category ‘inland lakes and their littoral zones’. While mapping of littoral zones is currently not available nor is it anticipated to be produced through a current or anticipated study, there is datasets available to map Inland Lakes. Therefore, Inland Lakes are recommended for mapping. The Region has recently initiated a study to map vegetation communities, with a minimum mapping unit of 0.1 hectares, in the Region according to Ecological Land Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 57 Page 218 of 304 Agenda item a) Classification. This dataset will allow the mapping of other woodlands, grasslands/meadows that are continuous with key features, and sand barrens, savannahs, tallgrass prairies and alvars. Enhancement areas can also be mapped in part informed through the Ecological Land Classification dataset currently being produced, as well as applying GIS-based algorithms. Shoreline areas do not currently have a GIS dataset available for mapping this component. However, the N.P.C.A. currently regulates shorelines and the dynamic beach hazard, which is typically considered 30 meters from the limits of the shoreline flood hazard. A dataset representing this 30 m shoreline area can be easily produced using a GIS buffering tool. Furthermore, the mapping dataset produced through the Ecological Land Classification mapping project can be used to map natural/naturalized shoreline areas that are located within or overlap the shoreline area. Floodplain datasets were evaluated in the Mapping Discussion Paper as suitable for mapping, but would require an updated dataset from the N.P.C.A. prior to developing mapping for the new N.O.P. It should be acknowledged that additional datasets may be developed at a later time or sufficient data be available through other studies (e.g., subwatershed studies, environmental assessments, etc.) that could be used to map other components included as part of the Region’s natural environment system. If other datasets are determined suitable for mapping the Region may consider updating the mapping of the natural environment system through an Official Plan Amendment. 6.2 Components of the Natural Environment System Not Recommended for Mapping As mention previously in Section 6.1, the Mapping Discussion Paper provided a review of the datasets and made recommendations for those that should be mapped using current datasets, available datasets requiring minor updates/modifications, or in anticipation of datasets developed through anticipated studies. The components recommended for inclusion in the Natural Environment System, but which should not be mapped, include the following: Natural Heritage System • Fish habitat • Significant valleylands • Significant wildlife habitat • Habitat of threatened and endangered species • Habitat of special concern species in Escarpment Natural Area and Escarpment Protection Area designations • Seepage areas and springs • Other valleylands • Other wildlife habitat Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 58 Page 219 of 304 Agenda item a) Water Resource System • Significant surface water contribution areas • Ground water features; o recharge areas (not considered ‘significant groundwater recharge areas’) o discharge areas o water tables o aquifers (not considered ‘highly vulnerable aquifers’) o unsaturated zones • Surface water features; o headwaters (i.e., headwater drainage features) o recharge areas (not considered ‘significant groundwater recharge areas’) o discharge areas o associated riparian lands that can be defined by their soil moisture, soil type, vegetation or topographic characteristics • Hydrologic functions; o Karst features • Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas* Through the Mapping Discussion Paper it was determined that the above listed datasets were either not available, could not be easily produced, were insufficient in areal extent, inaccurate, contained sensitive data, and/or were not anticipated to be developed, and therefore should not be considered for mapping. Of the above listed components that are not recommended for mapping, Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas were not discussed in the Mapping Discussion Paper. Similar to other components of the W.R.S., Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas are best identified through subwatershed studies, or other site specific studies; the coverage of such mapping if currently available or produced in the future, would not be sufficient at the region-wide scale for mapping in the new N.O.P., therefore should not be mapped. Headwater drainage features have been mapped as part of the Contemporary Mapping of Watercourses dataset. While this information is available, it has been recommended in this report that only ‘protection’ and ‘conservation’ headwater drainage features be included as components of the Water Resource System (see description of headwater drainage features in Appendix 2) given their increased hydrological and ecological contribution to the downstream watercourse system. Classification of headwater drainage features has not been completed at the region-wide scale and it is not anticipated that such a study would be completed, therefore, mapping of ‘protection’ and ‘conservation’ headwater drainage features is not recommended. 6.3 Sources of Mapping Data and Recommendations for Mapping The Mapping Discussion Paper provided a review of available mapping as well as recommendations for how datasets could be improved, acquired, or created. Table 6 Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 59 Page 220 of 304 Agenda item a) provides a review of the above noted datasets and expands further on recommendations for datasets for use in mapping the natural environment system. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 60 Page 221 of 304 Table 6. Datasets and recommendations for improving or creating datasets for the components considered for mapping in the Region’s Natural Environment Systems. Component Features and Areas Existing Source of Recommendations Data Natural Heritage System Provincially Significant Wetland Ministry of Natural Updates are undertaken by the Province. Regularly Resources and scheduled data downloads from Land Information Ontario Forestry (M.N.R.F) (L.I.O.) for updated dataset is recommended to ensure current data are in use. Significant Woodland Region woodland 1. Use available woodland datasets as base data; and. dataset is 2. Apply criteria established for significant woodlands. anticipated to be updated and criteria for significant woodlands can be applied to woodland dataset Linkages Growth Plan N.H.S. 1. The Growth Plan N.H.S. includes linkages, which would be sufficient for mapping N.H.S. Option 1 and 2; or 2. In addition to the Growth Plan N.H.S. which includes linkages, develop a GIS-based algorithm to identify key features that should be linked. This can be informed by Page 222 of 304 reviewing the results of the Nature for Niagara’s Future study which recommends connections. Life Science A.N.S.I. M.N.R.F., 2018 None Earth Science A.N.S.I. M.N.R.F., 2018 None Other wetlands N.P.C.A. 1. Mapping of ‘Other’ (i.e. non P.S.W.) wetlands is available through N.P.C.A. (in place of M.N.R.F. ‘other evaluated Agenda item a) Ecological Land wetland’ and unevaluated wetland mapping). N.P.C.A. Classification Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 61 Component Features and Areas Existing Source of Recommendations Data (E.L.C.) mapping regularly updates their wetland mapping and provides where available mapping updates to M.N.R.F. 2. Where E.L.C. mapping is available, wetland datasets can be developed. Permanent and intermittent streams Contemporary 1. Use watercourse layers with attribute of ‘permanent’ or Mapping of ‘intermittent’ flow regime. Watercourses (Region, 2016) Inland lakes Contemporary Inland lakes can be identified by applying the Greenbelt Plan Mapping of definition: “any inland body of standing water, usually fresh Watercourses water, larger than a pool or pond or a body of water filling a (Region, 2016) depression in the earth’s surface.” However, it is recommended additional parameters or size criteria be determined as part of the detailed design process for the N.H.S. to be completed as part of the next technical report. Other woodlands Region woodland See recommendations #1-4 for Significant Woodlands noted dataset is in Appendix 1. anticipated to be updated Grasslands/meadows not meeting E.L.C. mapping It is anticipated that a region-wide E.L.C. dataset will be Page 223 of 304 the criteria as significant wildlife where available developed from which grasslands/meadows can be mapped. habitat that are continuous with key features Sand barrens, savannahs, tallgrass E.L.C. mapping It is anticipated that a region-wide E.L.C. dataset will be prairies and alvars where available developed from which sand barrens, savannahs, tallgrass prairies and alvars can be mapped. Agenda item a) Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 62 Component Features and Areas Existing Source of Recommendations Data Enhancement areas None Criteria and methods to identify enhancement areas will be established as part of the detailed design process for the N.H.S. to be completed as part of the next technical report. Water Resource System Provincially Significant Wetlands See above See above Other Wetlands See above See above Inland Lakes See above See above Permanent and Intermittent Streams See above See above Significant Groundwater Recharge N.P.C.A. Existing data can be obtained through the N.P.C.A. Areas Groundwater Study Groundwater Study Final Report, source protection planning Final Report documentation and mapping and data derived through (Waterloo subwatershed studies Hydrogeologic Inc. 2005); Source protection planning documentation and mapping; and Review of Page 224 of 304 subwatershed studies Highly Vulnerable Aquifers N.P.C.A. Existing data can be obtained through the N.P.C.A. Groundwater Study Groundwater Study Final Report, source protection planning Final Report documentation and mapping and data derived through (Waterloo subwatershed studies Hydrogeologic Inc. Agenda item a) 2005); Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 63 Component Features and Areas Existing Source of Recommendations Data Source protection planning documentation and mapping; and Review of subwatershed studies Shoreline Areas N.P.C.A. shoreline Combine hazard mapping (shoreline flood and erosion) from flood/erosion N.P.C.A. with natural heritage feature mapping (e.g., E.L.C.) inventory mapping to identify naturally vegetated shorelines. Floodplain, flooding hazard, floodway N.P.C.A The regulatory floodplain as determined according to N.P.C.A. policies. Page 225 of 304 Agenda item a) Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 64 Agenda item a) 7.0 Next Steps The preliminary preferred options identified in this technical report will be presented through the 2nd Point of Engagement. Initially, the preliminary preferred options will be presented to the Region’s Planning and Economic Development Committee (P.E.D.C.) to seek direction to consult with stakeholders and the public. Following consultation on the preliminary preferred options, a preferred option would be presented to P.E.D.C. and Council for final endorsement. Once a final option is selected, the detailed design of the N.H.S. and W.R.S. will be undertaken. This information will be provided in Technical Report #3 and include the following: • Expanding on the preferred options to fully develop definitions, criteria, system components, sources of information, direction for preparing mapping, including R.O.P. schedules; • Detailed recommendations for Official Plan policies to support implementation of the system, building on the recommendations that were provided in the Mapping Discussion Paper, Natural Environment System Background Study, and this technical report; • A framework for implementation based on previous work completed for this work program, including how local area municipalities would incorporate the Region’s natural environment system mapping and policies into their Official Plans and the roles and responsibilities of other public agencies and landowners; • Recommendations for implementation tools that will need to be recognized in the new N.O.P. (e.g. E.I.S. guidelines); and • A review of current Regional E.I.S. guidelines and preliminary recommendations for updating them. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 65 Page 226 of 304 Agenda item a) 8.0 References Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority [N.P.C.A.]. 2009. Groundwater Vulnerability Analysis Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area. Prepared for Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Authority. Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority [N.P.C.A.]. 2013. Updated Assessment Report: Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area. Prepared for Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Authority. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority [N.V.C.A.]. 2015b. Nottawasaga Valley Source Protection Area Approved Assessment Report. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry [M.N.R.F.]. 2018. The Regional Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe - technical report on criteria, rationale and methods. Natural Heritage Section, Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Peterborough, Ontario. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing [M.M.A.H.]. 2020. Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, Under the Planning Act. Ministry of Natural Resources [M.N.R.]. 2002. Technical Guide: River & Stream Systems Erosion Hazard Limit Toronto and Region Conservation Authority [T.R.C.A.] 2004. Belt Width Delineation Procedures. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Credit Valley Conservation. 2014. Evaluation, Classification and Management of Headwater Drainage Features Guideline. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 66 Page 227 of 304 Agenda item a) This page is left intentionally blank Page 228 of 304 Agenda item a) Appendix 1: Descriptions and Criteria for Select Components of the Natural Heritage System Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 68 Page 229 of 304 Agenda item a) This page is left intentionally blank. Page 230 of 304 Agenda item a) Description and Criteria for Select Components of the Natural Heritage System Components The Mapping Discussion Paper and Natural Environment Background Study provided a review of the components recommended for inclusion in the N.H.S. The follow builds on that review with further discussion of the components, providing definitions where they have been developed and indicating if criteria have been established or need to be established to aid in identifying the component. While this Technical Report is not intended to develop criteria and definitions for all of the potential components, several components (e.g., significant woodlands, linkages and enhancement areas) require identification of preliminary criteria in order to identify what they include, and thus provide clarity on the range of options to be considered. The criteria provided herein are subject to change through future consultation and refinement through the next phases of the Natural Environment Work Program. Provincially Significant Wetlands and Provincially Significant Coastal Wetlands P.S.W.s (coastal and inland) are determined using the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (O.W.E.S.). The Province is the administrator of these assessments, makes determinations in this regard and houses the analyses and dataset from wetland evaluations. As such, it is the Provincial dataset that will be used to identify and define this component. Non-Provincially Significant Wetlands Non-P.S.W.s (including evaluated wetlands determined to be non- Provincially significant, Locally Significant Wetlands, as well as unevaluated wetlands, etc.) can represent substantial natural heritage resources on the landscape and can provide valuable ecological function(s), especially in landscapes with few wetlands. It should be noted, that all wetlands are considered key hydrologic features according to the Growth Plan; as such, all wetlands outside of settlement areas are subject to policies of the Growth Plan that protect key hydrologic features (see Growth Plan Section 4.2.3). Notwithstanding the above, minimum size thresholds should be established to determine when a wetland becomes a key hydrologic feature. Although the Growth Plan specifically indicates that key hydrologic features outside of settlement areas are to be protected, there is no requirement to protect them in settlement areas. However, they can be identified as key hydrological features within settlement areas, if deemed appropriate by the Region and could also be subject to different criteria than non-P.S.W.s outside of settlement areas. Since wetlands in settlement areas may provide important ecosystem services in addition to important ecological functions, consideration should be given to including ‘other wetlands’ in settlement areas as a component of the N.H.S., or at the least, as features to be protected. Targets for wetland cover could be considered when determining the size/threshold for those wetlands that should be included as ‘other wetlands’. According Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 70 Page 231 of 304 Agenda item a) to guidance from How Much Habitat is Enough?, “at least 10% wetland habitat and 6% of each subwatershed, or 40% of the historic watershed wetland coverage should be protected and restored” (Environment Canada, 2013, p.13). Region-specific targets can be identified following a geospatial review of wetland cover in Niagara Region. Significant Woodlands The Natural Environment Background Study provided a comprehensive review of the definition of woodlands and considerations for criteria to identify significant woodlands. Several recommendations for consideration were provided that have been carried forward for further discussion when developing the options to identify significant woodlands. Following from those recommendations, the following decisions will inform the criteria for significant woodlands in the Region. Application of Guidelines and Technical Criteria The Greenbelt technical paper provides criteria for identifying significant woodlands within the Greenbelt Plan area. The Province has also suggested that the Greenbelt Plan Technical Criteria and the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (O.M.N.R., 2010) be used as guidance to identify significant woodlands within the Growth Plan area, outside of the Greenbelt Plan N.H.S. Targets to Inform Criteria Based on existing woodland data, the woodland cover in Niagara Region is approximately 17.5%. General guidance for woodland cover targets is provided in Environment Canada’s How Much Habitat is Enough? (Environment Canada, 2013): “30% forest cover at the watershed scale is the minimum forest cover threshold. This equates to a high-risk approach that may only support less than one half of the potential species richness, and marginally healthy aquatic systems; 40% forest cover at the watershed scale equates to a medium-risk approach that is likely to support more than one half of the potential species richness, and moderately healthy aquatic systems; 50% forest cover or more at the watershed scale equates to a low-risk approach that is likely to support most of the potential species, and healthy aquatic systems.” Setting targets for woodland cover will inform size-based components of woodland criteria. As Niagara Region’s woodland cover is approximately 17.5%,the Region could set a realistic target above 17% that is based on a geospatial review of potential areas for restoration or reforestation. Comparatively, York Region currently has 23% woodland cover and has set a target of 25% woodland cover by 2031. While this is below the 30% cover target that is considered a high-risk approach to support functions associated with woodlands, this would be a realistic cover target to achieve in the Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 71 Page 232 of 304 Agenda item a) timeframe established. The approach to achieve this increase in woodland cover can include protecting woodlands that meet a minimum size threshold and encouraging or requiring enhancement of woodlands through restoration of internal gaps, indents, or gaps between fragmented woodland patches. This would also have the effect of increasing the ecological function and resiliency of the existing woodlands. The woodland cover by geographic area (e.g., settlement vs. outside of settlement areas, above vs. below the escarpment) should also be assessed to assist in setting targets for woodland cover in Niagara Region. These targets should inform the development of criteria to identify Significant Woodlands in Niagara. Best Practices to Inform Criteria Based on a review of best practice documents, (e.g., Natural Heritage Reference Manual (O.M.N.R., 2010) and How Much Habitat is Enough? (Environment Canada, 2013) developing criteria for significant woodlands may include consideration of the following factors: • Land use (settlement area vs. outside settlement areas); • Total and relative cover of woodlands; • Ecological function and uncommon characteristics; • Economic and social functional values; • Proximity to other significant natural features (e.g., watercourses, wetlands, Great Lakes, etc.); • Geography (e.g., above or below the escarpment); and • Overlap with components of the W.R.S. (e.g., significant groundwater recharge area, vulnerable aquifer, etc.). As recommended in the Natural Environment Background Study, criteria should be developed to include Significant Woodlands that have been affected by natural and anthropogenic changes in woodland composition and structure, where these changes would result in the feature no longer meeting the definition of woodland. These features provide an important ecological function and can contribute to meeting woodland cover targets in the long term, as the potential to restore them to woodlands remains. As such, criteria should be developed to recognize these features as Significant Woodlands (assuming they meet other criteria for significance). Alternatively, the woodland/natural feature could be captured in the criteria of another component of the N.H.S. (e.g., restoration or enhancement area) that remains a part of the natural environment system and is afforded appropriate protection in policy. Criteria for Significant Woodlands Greenbelt Plan Criteria to identify Significant Woodlands within the Greenbelt Plan N.H.S. have been provided in the Technical Definitions and Criteria for Key Natural Heritage Features in the Natural Heritage System of the Protected Countryside – Technical Paper 1 (O.M.N.R., 2012). These criteria include: • Any woodland 4 ha or greater in size; or Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 72 Page 233 of 304 Agenda item a) • Any woodland 1 ha or greater in size containing: o Naturally occurring (i.e., not planted) trees (as defined in Appendix D of the Greenbelt Technical Paper); or o 10 or more trees per ha greater than 100 years old or 50 cm or more in diameter; or o Containing a basal area of at least 8 sqm per ha in native trees that are 40 cm or more in diameter; or o Any woodlands wholly or partially within 30 m of a significant wetland; habitat of an endangered or threatened species; significant woodland; or • Any woodland 0.5 ha or greater in size containing: o A provincially rare treed vegetation community with an S1, S2 or S3 in its ranking by the M.N.R.’s Natural Heritage Information Centre (N.H.I.C.); or o Habitat of a woodland plant species with an S1, S2 or S3 in its ranking or an 8, 9, or 10 in its Southern Ontario Coefficient of Conservatism by the N.H.I.C, consisting of 10 or more individual stems or 100 or more sqm of leaf coverage. In applying these criteria, a woodland must have an average minimum width of 40 m measured to crown edges to qualify as a ‘significant’ woodland. Also, the criteria noted above are specific to the Greenbelt Plan N.H.S. and may not be appropriate for use region-wide (e.g., applying criteria related to basal area or leaf coverage may be difficult to implement and are generally not used). Criteria have not yet been developed for identifying significant woodlands in the N.H.S. for the Growth Plan. The Province has suggested following best practices as provided in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (O.M.N.R., 2010) and the Greenbelt Plan Technical Paper (O.M.N.R., 2012). The Natural Heritage Reference Manual provides size criteria for Significant Woodlands based on woodland cover within a given jurisdiction (in this case Niagara Region). The Region’s woodland cover is 17.5%, within the range of 15-30% woodland cover for the 20 ha size threshold (O.M.N.R., 2010, p. 68). The Natural Heritage Reference Manual also notes that “the size threshold should be reduced in the absence of information for the other three criteria” (O.M.N.R., 2010, p. 68). These criteria are related to ecological functions (e.g., woodland diversity), uncommon characteristics (e.g., presence of rare species), and economic and social functional values (e.g., other ecosystem services). In the absence of this information, the size threshold for significant woodlands in Niagara Region would be reduced to 4 ha, as recommended in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (O.M.N.R., 2010, Table 7-2, p. 68). This is consistent with the Greenbelt Technical Paper criteria related to size for identifying Significant Woodlands. As such, it would be appropriate to apply the Greenbelt Plan Technical Criteria for size to identify Significant Woodlands within the N.H.S. for the Growth Plan. The definition for ‘significant’ in regard to woodlands in the P.P.S. also suggests the identification of Significant Woodlands be determined “using criteria established by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources” (M.M.A.H., 2020, p. 51). As such, it would be appropriate to apply the same size criteria established for Significant Woodlands in the Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 73 Page 234 of 304 Agenda item a) Greenbelt Plan as a minimum for the remainder of Niagara Region (including within the N.E.P. area). The current Regional Official Plan includes size criteria for identifying Significant Woodlands. With the preparation of a new N.O.P., criteria for significant woodlands will be proposed to ensure current best practices and science puts forward ecologically appropriate and defendable criteria. However, the current criteria for significant woodlands in Niagara provides a solid foundation on which to develop new criteria. Firstly, size requirements for identifying Significant Woodlands should consider the Greenbelt Plan Technical Paper criteria, as well as consideration of woodland cover in settlement areas compared with outside of settlement areas. For example, the current criteria indicate that woodlands 2 ha or larger in size “within or overlapping Urban Area Boundaries” (Niagara Region Official Plan, 2014, p. 7-18) would qualify as Significant Woodland. Following a review of current woodland cover in settlement areas (to be undertaken as part of the next Technical Paper), this may be determined to be an appropriate size threshold. To be consistent with the criterion in the Greenbelt Technical Paper, the size threshold for significant woodlands outside of settlement areas should be 4 hectares or larger. In addition to size criteria, proximity criteria could include any woodland of any size as significant where it overlaps with any key feature or significant feature. Therefore, based on the guidance from the Natural Heritage Resource Manual (N.H.R.M) and the Greenbelt Technical Paper, criteria to identify significant woodlands in Niagara Region should be as follows: • Any woodland 4 ha or greater in size; or • Any woodland 2 ha or greater in settlement areas; or • Any woodland 1 ha or greater in size meeting at least one of the following criteria: o Naturally occurring (i.e., not planted) trees (as defined in the species list of Appendix D in the Greenbelt Technical Paper) o 10 or more trees per ha greater than 100 years old or 50 cm or more in diameter; o Any woodlands wholly or partially within 30 m of a significant wetland; habitat of an endangered or threatened species; significant woodland; or • Any woodland 0.5 ha or greater in size meeting at least one of the following criteria: o A provincially rare treed vegetation community with an S1, S2 or S3 in its ranking by the M.N.R.’s N.H.I.C; o Habitat of a woodland plant species with an S1, S2 or S3 in its ranking or an 8, 9, or 10 in its Southern Ontario Coefficient of Conservatism by the N.H.I.C., consisting of 10 or more individual stems or 100 or more sqm of leaf coverage; or • Any woodland of any size overlapping with one or more of the following features: o P.S.W.s; o Life Science A.N.S.I.; o Earth Science A.N.S.I.; o Fish habitat; Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 74 Page 235 of 304 Agenda item a) o Significant valleylands; o Significant wildlife habitat; and o Habitat of threatened species and endangered species. To be consistent with the Greenbelt Technical Paper, a woodland must have an average minimum width of 40 m measured to crown edges to qualify as a ‘significant’ woodland according to these criteria. Figure 1 provides a conceptual illustration of significant woodlands when applying the above using existing and available information (e.g. significant wildlife habitat, age of trees and composition of species was not used to map significant woodlands on Figure 2). This illustration of woodlands is based on existing woodland datasets. It is understood that the Region intends on updating the datasets available to identify woodlands in an effort to improve the accuracy of the significant woodland dataset. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 75 Page 236 of 304 Page 237 of 304 Agenda item a) Figure 1. Significant Woodland mapping using recommended criteria. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 76 This page is left intentionally blank. Page 238 of 304 Agenda item a) Agenda item a) Significant Valleylands Valleylands are landform features formed by watercourses and contain a watercourse for some part of the year. Often, as a result of their topography (e.g., deep valleys, steep slopes, often wooded, sometimes containing seepage areas, etc.) they are some of the most prominent and enduring natural features on the landscape in southern Ontario. Other features, such as forests and wetlands, have more frequently been removed or filled over for settlement areas, agriculture and development. In the P.P.S. (2020), valleylands are defined as: “… a natural area that occurs in a valley or other landform depression that has water flowing through or standing for some period of the year.” Under the P.P.S. the definition of significance with respect to valleylands means: “ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or natural heritage system.” The definition of a significant valleyland under the Growth Plan mirrors that of the P.P.S. with the additional statement that “[significant valleylands] are to be identified using criteria established by the Province.” With respect to Provincial criteria, several may be useful in identifying criteria to identify significant valleylands in Niagara Region: • Greenbelt Plan 2005. Technical Definitions and Criteria for Key Natural Heritage Features in the Natural Heritage System of the Protected Countryside (O.M.N.R., 2012): criteria applicable within the Greenbelt Plan area. Direction from the Province (M.N.R.F.) is to use the criteria for significant valleylands from the Greenbelt Technical Paper within the Growth Plan N.H.S. • The Natural Heritage Resource Manual (N.H.R.M., 2010): criteria generally applicable throughout Ontario. Prepared in support of the 2005 P.P.S. The principles contained in this document remain relevant for the identification of natural heritage features in Ontario. The criteria can be used to identify significant valleylands outside of the Growth Plan N.H.S. Significant Wildlife Habitat (S.W.H.) Significant Wildlife Habitat (S.W.H.) is generally identified as those areas of ecological importance for supporting and providing specialized wildlife habitat form and/or function. S.W.H. represent the best quality examples of habitat types available on the landscape. The province prepared the ‘Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Ecoregion Schedules’ (M.N.R.F., 2015) to provide geographically-based guidance for the identification of significant habitat. Municipalities have the opportunity to identify equally or more restrictive criteria for the identification of S.W.H.; however, the S.W.H. Criteria Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 78 Page 239 of 304 Agenda item a) Schedules are generally used as the basis for identification of S.W.H. at the municipal level. The Ecoregion 7E Criteria Schedule applies to Niagara Region. Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (A.N.S.I.) Life Science A.N.S.I.s are identified as being high quality example(s) of ecological form and function in each Ecodistrict in the province (provincially significant) and the Region (regionally significant) and are generally defined by natural heritage features (e.g., a woodland, valley top of bank, etc.) and generally exclude anthropogenic land uses (e.g., residential areas / properties). Earth Science A.N.S.I.s represent the best examples of geologic and geomorphic landforms and areas (e.g., a moraine) in each Ecodistrict in the province (provincially significant) and the Region (regionally significant). They may encompass a single feature or a group of related features (e.g., a drumlin field). As geologic / geomorphic landforms, the overlying land use may include a composite of natural and anthropogenic uses (e.g., woodland, agricultural, rural residential, etc.). The M.N.R.F. identifies A.N.S.I.s and provides available mapping to municipalities. Fish Habitat A comprehensive discussion on the relationship between Fish Habitat and the new N.O.P. is included as Section 13 of the Natural Environment Background Study. A brief summary is provided below. The Federal Fisheries Act provides a definition for Fish Habitat, which has been adopted across the P.P.S. and Provincial plans. It should be noted that the definition does not stipulate that the watercourse or waterbody have fish residing in it (i.e., be direct fish habitat) to be considered fish habitat under the Fisheries Act or in accordance with those plans that have adopted the definition. Within Niagara Region, fish habitat may therefore include: • Watercourses and waterbodies that seasonally or permanently provide direct or indirect fish habitat; o Waterbodies containing fish habitat may exclude constructed off-line ponds (e.g., active irrigation ponds, stormwater ponds) • Intermittent watercourses or headwater drainage features that provide contributions in terms of baseflow, material (e.g., substrates) or allochthonous inputs important to the maintenance of downstream fish habitat; • Shoreline features that provide direct contributions in terms of materials (e.g., substrates) or allochthonous inputs important to the maintenance of fish habitat in Lake Ontario. For the purpose of defining and identifying Fish Habitat to which natural environment policies will apply, the Federal Fisheries Act definition should be included in the new N.O.P. Where detailed fish habitat mapping is not available, all waterbodies, permanent Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 79 Page 240 of 304 Agenda item a) or intermittent streams, headwaters, seasonally flooded areas, municipal or agricultural surface drains, lakes and ponds (excluding human-made off-line ponds such as stormwater management ponds), should initially be considered fish habitat unless and until it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority that the feature(s) do not meet the definition of Fish Habitat (per the Fisheries Act). Based on the review provided in the Natural Environment Background Study, it is recommended that Fish Habitat not be mapped (although appropriate polices for protection would still apply). However, screening and identification of Fish Habitat can be supported by using available detailed Fish Habitat mapping provided by the M.N.R.F., Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the conservation authority, or other mapping and data sources as suitable. Types or categories of Fish Habitat (e.g., warm water or cold water) can be used to inform management objectives, mitigation and potential enhancement activities, which could be appropriately informed by watershed planning. Habitat for Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat for Endangered Species and Threatened species is defined through the Endangered Species Act (2007) and may be identified through a variety of project processes (e.g., a subwatershed study); however, it is confirmed and managed by the Province through their administration of the Endangered Species Act (2007). Habitat mapping for many species may not be maintained as a comprehensive dataset. Habitat mapping access is generally highly restricted by the Province, in part owing to the sensitive nature of the data. It should be recognized that habitat mapping for Endangered and Threatened species is incomplete and will change over time as surveys are completed and/or as species designations change (e.g., new species are listed or de-listed as Endangered or Threatened). It is not recommended this category be mapped as a component of the Region’s N.H.S. Linkages In the context of N.H.S. planning, linkage means an area that provides ecological connectivity between natural heritage features. Linkages support a range of community and ecosystem processes enabling plants and animals to move among natural heritage features, in some cases over multiple generations. Linkages are preferably associated with the presence of existing natural areas and functions and should be established where they will provide an important contribution to the long-term sustainability of the overall N.H.S. The Growth Plan identified a N.H.S. as one complete system. This system was developed by identifying core areas that include concentrations of natural features and connecting them with linkages, although core areas and linkages are not separately mapped. In Niagara Region, core areas for the Growth Plan N.H.S. were defined by the Province as being natural features that are 100 ha in size or greater. The Growth Plan Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 80 Page 241 of 304 Agenda item a) ‘Technical report on criteria, rationale and methods’ (M.N.R.F., 2018) provides a thorough review of approaches to identifying core areas, including how core areas were identified in the N.H.S. for the Growth Plan. In addition, the Growth Plan technical report considers the following when identifying linkages: • Natural features (e.g. water courses, valleylands, woodland/wetland patches) and rural/agricultural lands without barriers that connect core features; • Connectivity/permeability (i.e., linkages were not identified where bisected by major roads); • Length (no minimum); and • Width ≥ 500 m (e.g., added 250 m on each side of watercourses that qualify). It should be recognized that the Growth Plan N.H.S. was undertaken at a Greater Golden Horseshoe scale that captures the larger/more significant features/areas (referred to as ‘core areas’) and links the larger core areas. The Growth Plan Regional N.H.S. Mapping – Technical Report (O.M.N.R.F., 2015, p. 4) recognizes this in the following statement: “Given that N.H.S. mapping for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is on a broad, regional scale, it is focussed on identifying larger core areas and broad linkages. The mapping was not intended to identify all areas and connect features that may be important to consider at a local or smaller scale…” The N.H.S. at the Niagara Region scale, including the identification of linkages, should therefore identify additional features and linkages that are important at the scale of the Region to meet the objectives and targets for the Niagara Region N.H.S. Based on the review of best practices and guidance documents provided in the Natural Environment Background Study, the following criteria should be considered for identifying Niagara Region Linkages: • Large Linkages = Between large Core Areas (>50ha): 200-400 m wide; • Medium Linkages = Between medium Core Areas (>20 ha): 100-200 m wide; and • Small Linkages = Between small Core Areas (>10 ha): 50-100 m wide. In applying these recommended criteria, the approach of identifying core areas is solely intended to inform the location for ecologically appropriate linkages; as such, core areas would not be mapped in a schedule in the new N.O.P., nor have policies associated with them. In the case of identifying linkages for Niagara’s N.H.S., core areas can be defined as an individual feature or group of features in close proximity to each other (e.g., within 120 m) that have functional ecological connectivity (i.e., their proximity to each other supports ecological functions, such as wildlife habitat, exchange of genetic material, etc.). Figure 2 provides a conceptual illustration of how linkages can be identified following this approach. The recommended approach for identifying core areas for the purpose of identifying linkages will be further discussed in the Regional Natural System(s) Technical Report, to be completed during Phase 6 of the Natural Environment Work Program. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 81 Page 242 of 304 Page 243 of 304 Agenda item a) Figure 2. Preliminary conceptual linkage options. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 82 This page is left intentionally blank. Page 244 of 304 Agenda item a) Agenda item a) Key Hydrologic Features Key Hydrologic Features are discussed in Section 2.1. Other Natural Heritage Features and Areas There is currently no definition for this optional component of the N.H.S. However, this component could include any number of natural features that do not currently meet the criteria to be considered on of the listed components in the definition for ‘Natural Heritage Features and Areas’. For example, this component may include: • Other woodlands (i.e., not meeting the criteria as Significant Woodland); • Non-P.S.W.s (defined in section 1.1.1) in settlement areas; • Other valleylands; and • Other wildlife habitat. Other than non-P.S.W.s, these features are not currently defined, nor are criteria proposed at this time. Lands That Have Been Restored or Have the Potential to Be Restored to a Natural State [Enhancement Areas] There is currently no definition for this optional component of the N.H.S. However, this component would function as and can be referred to as enhancement areas. Enhancement areas can include those areas recommended for restoration or enhancement as identified in watershed plans and other environmental studies or reports. These can be identified through consultation with the N.P.C.A. and can be identified through mapping sources, such as E.L.C. mapping. The Natural Environment Background Study (Section 14) provided a review of best practices related to identifying potential enhancement areas. Based on applying accepted landscape ecology principles, the following objectives should be considered when identifying enhancement areas to key features: • Achieve minimum size threshold of core area (woodland/swamp = 20 ha, wetland/open habitat = 10 ha); • Group key natural features to create larger contiguous natural areas; • Reduce edge habitat and increase proportion of interior conditions (> 100 m from edge); and • Include critical function zones and important catchment areas critical to sustaining ecological functions. Types of enhancements to mapped key features (i.e., Significant Woodlands, P.S.W.s, Life Science A.N.S.I.s) and potential criteria can be developed by applying these accepted landscape ecology and biogeography principles related to size and proximity. For example, options for criteria could include the following: Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 84 Page 245 of 304 Agenda item a) • Enhancement Option 1: o Fill ‘bays and inlets’ along the edge of features - < 30 m wide o Fill interior gaps in features - < 0.25 ha o Fill gaps between features - < 30 m • Enhancement Option 2: o Fill ‘bays and inlets’ along the edge of features - < 60 m wide o Fill interior gaps in features - < 0.5 ha o Fill gaps between features - < 60 m • Enhancement Option 3: o Fill ‘bays and inlets’ along the edge of features - < 100 m wide o Fill interior gaps in features - < 1.0 ha o Fill gaps between features - < 120 m Figure 3a, 3b and 3c provide a conceptual illustration of how each enhancement option may appear as enhancements to key features. To understand the relative difference in area these enhancement areas cover for each of the options, the areal coverage for each enhancement option within the visual extent of the figure is provided as follows: • Enhancement Areas Option 1 = 856 ha • Enhancement Areas Option 2 = 1,195 ha • Enhancement Areas Option 3 = 3,157 ha Visually, and spatially, moving from Enhancement Area Option 1 through 3, more enhancement areas are captured resulting in a larger N.H.S. Enhancement Area Option 1 would in effect overlap with buffers, should they be required. Therefore, Enhancement Area Option 1 would result in very little increase in overall area of the N.H.S. should minimum buffers be required. For the example illustrated in Figure 3b, Enhancement Area Option 2 would identify approximately 50% more area than Enhancement Option 1, by filling in larger gaps, indents, and bays/inlets. Enhancement Area Option 3 would identify an even larger area of enhancement, achieving a similar visual and functional result for the N.H.S. as was developed by the Province for the N.H.S. for the Growth Plan, where the N.H.S. for the Growth Plan includes the areas in between key natural heritage features. The policies in the Growth Plan restrict the percentage of land that can be developed in areas of the Growth Plan N.H.S. not occupied by a key natural heritage feature, as described in Section 4.2.2.3 of the Growth Plan. Through implementation of the Growth Plan policies where new development or site alteration is proposed, there is a requirement that a portion of the area must “remain or be returned to natural self-sustaining vegetation”, thereby having the effect of ‘enhancing’ the key natural heritage features of the N.H.S. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 85 Page 246 of 304 Page 247 of 304 Agenda item a) Figure 3a. Conceptual enhancement areas for Option 1. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 86 Page 248 of 304 Agenda item a) Figure 3b. Conceptual enhancement areas for Option 2. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 87 Page 249 of 304 Agenda item a) Figure 3c. Conceptual enhancement areas for Option 3. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 88 This page is left intentionally blank. Page 250 of 304 Agenda item a) Agenda item a) Areas That Support Hydrologic Functions Hydrologic Functions are defined in the P.P.S. (2020) and the Growth Plan as: “the functions of the hydrological cycle that include the occurrence, circulation, distribution and chemical and physical properties of water on the surface of the land, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere, and water’s interaction with the environment including its relation to living things.” The definition includes every potential component of water as it relates to the N.H.S. and W.R.S. Whereas the other components of the natural environment system provide more clear direction relating to definitions and potential criteria, there are no specific criteria to identify areas that support hydrologic functions. To capture other features/functions/areas that support hydrologic functions, which have not been specifically included in other components of the natural environment system, the following features/areas could be considered as part of this optional component: • Floodplain, flooding hazard, floodway; • Dynamic beach hazard; and • Karst. Buffers and Vegetation Protection Zones Section 15.1 of the Natural Environment System Background Study provided a comprehensive review of policy requirements and exemptions for V.P.Z.s in the Provincial plan areas and Provincial N.H.S.s, a review of comparator municipal approaches to identifying and implementing buffers, and best practices to identifying buffers. The Background Study provided the following recommendations related to V.P.Z.s and buffers: • The new N.O.P. will need to provide a definition of V.P.Z., and policies for the protection and implementation of exemptions (e.g., agriculture) and minimum required V.P.Z.s that is consistent with the Greenbelt and Growth Plan. The Region may consider including requirements for buffers and even prescribe minimum buffers as part of the natural environment system. • The new N.O.P. must ensure that policies related to buffers to V.P.Z.s refer to and are consistent with the Greenbelt Plan policies 3.2.5.7 and 3.2.5.8, which notes that the agricultural community is exempt from Policy 3.2.5.4 and 3.2.5.5 within the Niagara Peninsula Tender Fruit and Grape Area. • The Region may consider developing a guidance document for determination of buffers as part of site-specific studies (e.g., subwatershed plan, secondary plan, E.I.S.). There are several examples from comparator municipalities, which the Region may be able to draw from. Following from these recommendations, review of best practices and comparator municipal approaches to identifying buffers, the following approaches to determine Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 90 Page 251 of 304 Agenda item a) buffer widths for key natural features areas (as listed in Table 2 within the main body of this Technical Report) is suggested for areas outside of the Provincial plan areas: 1. Minimum buffers (can be determined to be larger based on site-specific studies and following guidance documents developed by the Region) a. Outside of settlement areas i. All features = 30 m b. Inside of settlement areas i. P.S.W.s = 30 m ii. All other key natural features = 15 m 2. Mandatory buffers that can be refined (increased or decreased) following a refinement framework or guidance developed by the Region) a. Inside and outside of settlement areas i. All features = 30 m Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 91 Page 252 of 304 Agenda item a) Appendix 2: Descriptions and Criteria for Select Components of the Water Resource System Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 92 Page 253 of 304 Agenda item a) This page is left intentionally blank. Page 254 of 304 Agenda item a) Description and Criteria for Select Components of the Water Resource System The Mapping Discussion Paper and Natural Environment Background Study provided a review of the components recommended for inclusion in the W.R.S. The following builds on that review with further discussion of the components, providing definitions where they have been developed, and indicating if criteria have been established or need to be established to aid in identifying the component. Key Hydrologic Features Permanent and Intermittent Streams Permanent and intermittent streams are those that contain water for a sufficient period in an average year to develop defined channel form and morphology. Intermittent streams may be dry during parts of the year. They may include features where the water table is above the stream bottom during parts of the year. The Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan define intermittent stream as follows: "Stream-related watercourses that contain water or are dry at times of the year that are more or less predictable, generally flowing during wet seasons of the year but not the entire year, and where the water table is above the stream bottom during parts of the year.” (Greenbelt Plan) Inland Lakes and their Littoral Zones The Greenbelt Plan defines inland lakes as “any inland body of standing water, usually fresh water, larger than a pool or pond or a body of water filling a depression in the earth’s surface”. However, it is recommended additional parameters or size criteria be determined as informed through watershed planning or equivalent. The littoral zone of a lake refers to the area near shore where the light penetrates to the lakebed making this zone the most ecologically productive area in a lake and which supports rooting aquatic vegetation. Seepage Areas and Springs The Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan define Seepage Areas and Springs as “sites of emergence of groundwater where the water table is present at the ground surface.” (Greenbelt Plan) Wetlands The Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan define wetlands as: “Lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water, as well as lands where the water table is close to or at the surface. In either case the presence of abundant water has caused the formation of hydric soils and has favoured the dominance of either hydrophytic plants or water tolerant plants. The four major types of wetlands are swamps, marshes, bogs and fens. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 94 Page 255 of 304 Agenda item a) Periodically soaked or wet lands being used for agricultural purposes which no longer exhibit wetland characteristics are not considered to be wetlands for the purposes of this definition. Wetlands are further identified, by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry or by any other person, according to evaluation procedures established by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, as amended from time to time.” (Greenbelt Plan) Wetlands components are previously discussed in Section 1.1. Key Hydrologic Areas Significant Groundwater Recharge Area The Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan defines a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area (S.G.R.A.) as follows: “An area that has been identified: a) as a significant groundwater recharge area by any public body for the purposes of implementing the P.P.S., 2014; b) as a significant groundwater recharge area in the assessment report required under the Water Act, 2006; or c) as an ecologically significant groundwater recharge area delineated in a subwatershed plan or equivalent in accordance with provincial guidelines. For the purposes of this definition, ecologically significant groundwater recharge areas are areas of land that are responsible for replenishing groundwater systems that directly support sensitive areas like cold water streams and wetlands. (Greenbelt Plan) Groundwater recharge areas are classified as “significant” when they supply more water to an aquifer (which is used as a drinking water source) than the surrounding area (N.P.C.A., 2013). In other words, a recharge area is considered significant when it helps to maintain the water level in an aquifer that supplies a community with drinking water, or supplies groundwater recharge to a coldwater ecosystem that is dependent on this recharge to maintain its ecological function (N.V.C.A., 2015b). Significant groundwater recharge areas are subdivided by the groundwater vulnerability and assigned scores of 6, 4 or 2 for groundwater vulnerabilities of high, medium and low, respectively (N.P.C.A., 2009). Highly Vulnerable Aquifers The Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan define a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer (H.V.A.) as follows: "Aquifers, including lands above the aquifers, on which external sources have or are likely to have a significant adverse effect.” (Greenbelt Plan) H.V.A.s are areas of high groundwater vulnerability that “typically consist of granular aquifer materials or fractured rock that have a high permeability, are exposed near the Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 95 Page 256 of 304 Agenda item a) ground surface, and have a relatively shallow water table” (N.P.C.A., 2009). Aquifer Vulnerability Index (A.V.I.) groundwater vulnerability assessments have been completed to improve the delineation of highly vulnerable aquifers. The A.V.I. groundwater vulnerability assessments were based on regional hydrostratigraphic interpretations (N.P.C.A., 2009). The H.V.A. delineation reflects the increased vulnerability of the shallowest identified aquifers by transport pathways. H.V.A are also defined as aquifers, including lands above the aquifers, on which external sources have or are likely to have a significant adverse effect (Greenbelt Plan, 2017). Significant Surface Water Contribution Areas The Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan define Significant Surface Water Contribution Areas as follows: "Areas, generally associated with headwater catchments, that contribute to baseflow volumes which are significant to the overall surface water flow volumes within a watershed.” Ground Water Features Recharge/Discharge Areas An area where rain or snow seeps into the ground and flows to an aquifer is called a recharge area. Recharge areas tend to be areas that are characterized by permeable soils, such as sand or gravel, which allow the water to seep easily into the ground. Discharge areas are locations where groundwater transitions to the surface through springs or seeps, often into wetland features or watercourses. Another important recharge area that may be considered as part of a W.R.S. includes Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (E.S.G.R.A.s). “E.S.G.R.A.s are identified as areas of land that are responsible for supporting groundwater systems that sustain sensitive features like coldwater streams and wetlands” (Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, 2014). Ecological significance of the recharge area is identified where there is a “linkage” between the recharge area and an ecologically significant feature (e.g., a reach of a coldwater stream, a wetland, or an A.N.S.I.). The identification of an E.S.G.R.A. represents the pathway in which recharge would reach that feature. In this way, E.S.G.R.A.s would be important areas to include, in order to provide a connection or linkage between Key Hydrologic Features and Key Natural Heritage Features. Water Tables The water table refers to the upper surface or elevation of the saturated zone in an aquifer (i.e., the soil that is saturated with groundwater). This elevation or location of the water table can vary substantially over time and spatial location. Aquifers and Unsaturated Zones An aquifer is the underground storage of groundwater within permeable rock or unconsolidated sediment. By definition, water can be extracted from, or enter, an aquifer with relative ease. Unconfined aquifers are those in which surface water can enter directly. Confined aquifers are those that are situated between impermeable Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 96 Page 257 of 304 Agenda item a) layers of stone or sediment. Aquifers may exist at shallow depths close to watercourses, or may be found at much greater depths. The unsaturated zone of an aquifer refers to the porous underground area that is above the water table. Saturated zones refer to the underground area in which water occupies all pores and fractures. Surface Water Features Headwaters Headwaters are not defined in the Provincial plans. The Evaluation, Classification and Management of Headwater Drainage Features Guideline, prepared by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Credit Valley Conservation (2014) defines Headwaters as: “Non-permanently flowing drainage features that may not have defined bed or banks; they are first-order and zero-order intermittent and ephemeral channels, swales and connected headwater wetlands, but do not include rills or furrows”. This guideline document provides criteria for identifying and classifying headwater drainage features (H.D.F.s) for the purpose of recommending an approach to management. Management recommendations are provided based on the classification of the feature, such as: • Protection (important functions); • Conservation (valued functions); • Mitigation (contributing functions); • Recharge Protection (recharge functions); • Maintain or Replicate Terrestrial Linkage (terrestrial functions); and • No Management Required (limited functions). According to the H.D.F. guidelines (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Credit Valley Conservation 2014), protection H.D.F.s are recommended to be protected in situ and conservation H.D.F.s should either be protected or ensure that their form and function are replicated in a natural channel design if relocated. Other management recommendations are generally related to maintaining hydrologic functions that can be achieved through storm water management designs and low impact development options. Terrestrial linkage functions would be considered as part of the N.H.S., and are therefore not recommended for inclusion as part of the H.D.F. component of the W.R.S. As such, it is recommended that if H.D.F.s are to be included as a component of the W.R.S., ‘protection’ and ‘conservation’ H.D.F.s be included and protected as part of the system. Recharge/Discharge Areas This has been previously defined under Ground Water Features. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 97 Page 258 of 304 Agenda item a) Associated Riparian Lands As the Growth Plan definition for ‘Surface Water Features’ states, Associated Riparian Lands “… can be defined by their soil moisture, soil type, vegetation or topographic characteristics” (as defined in part of the definition for Surface Water Features in the Growth Plan 2019). Riparian zones are the ecotone or interface between a watercourse and the terrestrial vegetation community and are characterized by hydrophilic plants. Hydrologic Functions The intent of the W.R.S. is to provide long-term protection for the functions associated with Key Hydrologic Features and Key Hydrologic Areas. As defined in the P.P.S., hydrologic function is defined as: “The functions of the hydrological cycle that include the occurrence, circulation, distribution and chemical and physical properties of water on the surface of the land, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere, and water’s interaction with the environment including its relation to living things.” Consideration of elements that could be mapped to protect hydrological function include the following: • Floodplain – the regulatory floodplain is defined by N.P.C.A. as the floodlines corresponding to the 100 - year flow event and represents the flood hazard area. • Karst Features –Karst landscapes form due to the dissolution of soluble rocks such as limestone and dolomite. The resultant geology includes underground drainage systems such as sinkholes, caves, and rivers. The surface of karstic terrain is marked by dissolution features referred to as karren and is bare/rocky or supports a shallow overburden of soil that could support unique ecological communities. Generalized mapping of karstic terrain is available from the Ontario Geological Survey and is refined based on site-specific observations. Linkage between karst features and both the W.R.S. and N.H.S. is undertaken as part of watershed planning. Shoreline Areas Shorelines are the interface between terrestrial and aquatic environments, allowing for interactions between them, providing: specialized habitats (e.g., natural beach, overhanging cover, bird stopover or nesting, etc.), natural cover, areas of shoreline erosion or accretion, nutrient and sediment filtration / buffering, shading, foraging opportunities, etc. Naturalized shorelines also allow for natural shoreline processes, provide filtering / buffering and assist in protecting and maintaining water quality. The form and function of natural shorelines and shoreline features are important components of a connected and dynamic natural environment system. It should be noted that hazards, including shorelines and the dynamic beach hazard, are also regulated according to the Conservation Authorities Act and through policies of Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 98 Page 259 of 304 Agenda item a) the various Conservation Authorities (N.P.C.A. in Niagara Region). The regulated area is typically identified as 30 m (98 ft) from the limits of the shoreline flood hazard. This regulated area should be considered when developing criteria for Shoreline Areas in addition to direction provided in watershed planning reports. Options for Regional Natural Environment System – June 2020 page 99 Page 260 of 304 Agenda item a) Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-685-4225 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca July 24, 2020 Council Session CL 12-2020, July 23, 2020 LOCAL AREA MUNICIPALITIES SENT ELECTRONICALLY RE: Memorandum CAO 16-2020 – Supplemental Information – Options to Consider for Mandating Face Coverings Minute Item 10.1 CL 12-2020, July 23, 2020 Regional Council, at its meeting held on July 23, 2020, passed the following resolution: That Memorandum CAO 16-2020, dated July 23, 2020, respecting Supplemental Information - Options to Consider for Mandating Face Coverings, BE RECEIVED; and That Regional Council APPROVE the temporary by-law to require mandatory face coverings in enclosed public places during the COVID-19 pandemic attached as Appendix 4 to Memorandum CAO 16-2020. Council subsequently passed By-law 2020-46 being a by-law to require mandatory face coverings in enclosed public places during the COVID-19 Pandemic. This by-law shall come into force and effect on July 31, 2020. A copy of the by-law is attached for your reference. Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk Page 261 of 304 Agenda item a) Page 262 of 304 Agenda item a) Page 263 of 304 Agenda item a) Page 264 of 304 Agenda item a) Page 265 of 304 Agenda item a) Page 266 of 304 Agenda item a) Page 267 of 304 Agenda item a) Page 268 of 304 Agenda item a) Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-685-4225 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca July 24, 2020 Council Session CL 12-2020, July 23, 2020 LOCAL AREA MUNICIPALITIES SENT ELECTRONICALLY RE: Signing of the AMO-Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres - Declaration of Mutual Commitment and Friendship with Niagara Region And Friendship Centre Support Minute Item 11.2 CL 12-2020, July 23, 2020 Regional Council, at its meeting held on July 23, 2020, passed the following resolution: WHEREAS Niagara Region is working with the local Indigenous Friendship Centres, the Fort Erie Native Friendship Centre and the Niagara Regional Native Centre; WHEREAS the Fort Erie Native Friendship Centre and the Niagara Regional Native Centre have been active contributors to the wellbeing of residents in the community; WHEREAS Niagara Region has a good and ongoing relationship with the Fort Erie Native Friendship Centre and the Niagara Regional Native Centre and wants to set a leading example in the area of Indigenous relations by demonstrating overlapping community interest and work; WHEREAS the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres (OFIFC) Declaration of Mutual Commitment and Friendship reflects the municipality’s understanding of and working relationship with Indigenous people in the community; WHEREAS the Fort Erie Native Friendship Centre and the Niagara Regional Native Centre are contemplating the signing of this declaration and participation in related concurrent activities during the virtual AMO Conference in August of 2020; Page 269 of 304 Agenda item a) AMO-OFIFC Resolution WHEREAS this declaration is a living document that additional local Friendship Centres can sign onto at any future date. NOW THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED: 1. That Niagara Regional Council AUTHORIZES the Regional Chair to sign in conjunction with the local Indigenous Friendship Centres, the joint AMO-OFIFC Declaration of Mutual Commitment and Friendship on behalf of the Region and participate in related concurrent activities during the AMO 2020 Conference; 2. That Council DIRECT staff to work with AMO in order to coordinate the declaration signing and related concurrent activities in advance of the AMO 2020 Conference; and 3. That the Regional Clerk CIRCULATE the AMO-OFIFC Declaration of Mutual Commitment to the Local Area Municipalities of Niagara for consideration by their respective local Councils. A copy of the AMO-OFIFC Declaration of Mutual Commitment to the Local Area Municipalities of Niagara is attached for consideration by your Council. Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk Page 270 of 304 Agenda item a) Declaration of Mutual Commitment and Friendship (FINAL) Improving the Quality of Life of Indigenous People Across Ontario’s Municipalities Joint and Ongoing Commitment Between Signatories: the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres (OFIFC) 1. WHEREAS in Ontario, over 85 percent of Indigenous people live in municipalities; 2. WHEREAS the growing percentage of Indigenous people living in municipalities and the Friendship Centres that serve them participate in and contribute to municipal community life; 3. WHEREAS the Friendship Centres have existed in Ontario municipalities for over half a century and have vital roles to play in community development, social cohesion, and improving the quality of life for Indigenous people living in urban and rural areas; 4. WHEREAS the Friendship Centres receive their mandate from their communities and are inclusive of all Indigenous people; 5. WHEREAS municipal governments have a growing and critical role in human and social services and community development and many have shown leadership in working in partnership with Indigenous organizations; 6. WHEREAS the Truth and Reconciliation Commission defines reconciliation as “an ongoing process of establishing and maintaining respectful relationships”; 7. WHEREAS strengthening relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people is essential to municipal governments, Friendship Centres, and communities across Ontario; 8. WHEREAS municipal governments play an important role in providing and delivering valuable programs and services to meet the needs of their residents, as well as being responsible, in all or some part, for over two hundred and eighty (280) pieces of provincial legislation that impact daily life of all who live in Ontario; 9. WHEREAS many municipal governments and Friendship Centres have taken up the responsibility to collaborate on a variety of initiatives that improve Indigenous quality of life and have had tangible community impacts; 10. WHEREAS municipal governments are on the front-lines working directly with all individuals to support and determine social determinants of health, demonstrating a notion of direct responsibility contributing to community wellbeing and prosperity; 11. WHEREAS the AMO has developed the Indigenous Relations Task Force to advise the AMO Board of Directors on municipal-Indigenous relationship building; 12. WHEREAS the OFIFC was founded in 1971 and works to support, advocate for and build the capacity of member Friendship Centres across Ontario; 13. WHEREAS the Friendship Centre Movement is the largest Indigenous service network in the province supporting the vibrant and quickly-growing Indigenous population through programming, research, education, and policy advocacy; 14. WHEREAS AMO and OFIFC are partnering on a variety of initiatives to improve collaboration and information sharing amongst our membership, not limited to the work 1 Page 271 of 304 Agenda item a) of the AMO-OFIFC Indigenous Relations Working Group and the AMO-OFIFC Memorandum of Understanding signed on date; AND 15. WHEREAS this declaration is a living document that municipal governments and Friendship Centres can sign onto or use as a framework for the development of local or regional declarations that can be addended to this declaration; THAT SIGNATORY MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS RECOGNIZE: 16. THAT Indigenous people reside and build community and resilience in municipalities across Ontario; 17. THE value of Indigenous knowledge and expertise to design, plan, implement, and evaluate public policy and programs that impact the wellbeing of Indigenous people is paramount; 18. THE responsibility taken up by Indigenous Friendship Centres to meet Indigenous community need; 19. THE value of building relationships and partnerships with Friendship Centres to improve the quality of life of Indigenous people in their municipality; AND 20. THAT the exchange of information and skills within and between municipal governments and related associations contribute to improved understanding in the area of Indigenous relations. THAT SIGNATORY ONTARIO INDIGENOUS FRIENDSHIP CENTRES RECOGNIZE: 21. THAT they are and have been leaders in urban Indigenous community development and in reflecting and responding to the needs of Indigenous people in municipalities for over half a century; 22. THAT they are engaged in local and regional affairs and that they contribute to municipal life and that they lead the Indigenous social, community, economic, and cultural development of municipalities across Ontario; 23. THE responsibility taken up by municipal governments to meet and serve Indigenous communities; 24. THAT municipal governments provide essential services that Friendship Centre community members rely on to thrive; 25. THAT municipal governments are leaders in Ontario in meeting community needs through local programs, services and community development, be they in human and social services, public safety or public works/infrastructure, and are integral to community well-being and the social determinants of health; 26. THAT the development and maintenance of good relationships and partnerships with municipal governments is essential to achieving long-term positive impact on Indigenous communities; AND 27. THAT Friendship Centres acknowledge that they operate in a municipal landscape and rely on municipal governments. 2 Page 272 of 304 Agenda item a) ALL SIGNATORIES RECOGNIZE: 28. THAT we are uniquely positioned to improve community-wellbeing through local policy development, programs and services as we are well-equipped to be responsive to community needs; 29. THAT community-identified needs and priorities should provide the basis for policy and program development, and that we are uniquely positioned to improve the quality of life of Indigenous people living in municipalities; 30. THAT mutual respect, responsibility, trust, transparency and collaboration to meet common community priorities are key principles of relationship building between non- Indigenous and Indigenous organizations; 31. THAT the Friendship Centres and municipal governments play key roles in working against racism, inequality, discrimination, and stigma within and between communities; 32. THAT the goal of this declaration is to provide municipal governments and Friendship Centres with a framework for relationship-building to advance reconciliation in communities across Ontario; 33. THAT the goal of this declaration is to enhance social cohesion between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people and support closer cultural, social and civic ties between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people; 34. THAT we can play a leadership role and set a standard by advancing reconciliation locally and regionally through partnerships and collaboration; 35. THAT fostering local and regional partnerships is integral to improving the quality of life for all communities; AND 36. THAT we establish and maintain an ongoing dialogue and working relationships at the local and provincial orders. SIGNATORIES AND ADJACENT DATES: AMO OFIFC Ongoing Signatures: Municipal Governments (Elected Officials) Friendship Centres (Presidents) 3 Page 273 of 304 2.2% E 2.5.: 1%_...»m.I§I; as._.a:__=s____= _§x§_MwMmWunW§ Umm:_u8um_.€Oézmq ow._.m:m3_ >m<0: 3m< :m Io<< oo=mn:o:osmsmmm.<<=_>262 <0: : <05 n8um: Omaummm._,mo 9 <<: <0: om: _9_ <<:=m<9. mmo: Em < 15% . Agenda item a) 2...=.$2 =. E W Curbside Waste, Recyclingand Organics Collection — Service Effective Monday, October 19, 2020 C ‘”’Grims%lgyCollection Areal Page 276 of 304 Designated Business Area Level Of Service Enhanced _'i‘3_§_"_‘=*____/_£e_£‘_9.'1 Agenda item a) om» Nlnpra nqian its ...wu.n.Pmleninnin mm Zen: ummm: Gli?al?) I Thlxmap wa com .Or a xuumu umi; Ummq _u3um:< Os3m._.9 ._.m:m3. >m I92 oo=mn:o:Ormsmmm<<=_>262 <0: >mm_<=xmn_-cmmn8_um:< oimam 2 Em Ummazm?maw:mEmmmbammmAUw>mv_<9: u3_um:< <<=_qmom. <9: v3cm:<<<=_:m <9: w_.cmmag mam . >__ooimsma 3cm.“am$35 ?owoo__mo:o:3 .\ m.3. oz Em am<9. oo__mo:o:ma :2 cm?oamm.93. Em =63 cm?oqm. <<: E. =.E =.W n__asa___.§:_=_m z_~m§..‘\\\ .55.. as=§:a=a=== 3gx:wm::.:.W:v:m _»m::oEo mmzcmom003mEm: _:::m 2.: :0» 0:_< m:00::mmmvmao?mmosE Em mmm_0:.m _.mo<0_Eoms:oamaom00__mo:0: 0:0m:m3m.:5 <3: m_m0mzms<<_E sEm: z_mom:m_<=xm0- cmm_0:00m:_mmmqm 0::m3_< mmasm05. >:0:m 0: 20.833 :mEm_»mm_0:m_00__m0m0: mm2_omm 0:..m_:m 0..z_mmm:m.m0m>m 8:30 Em.. _<=xm0-cmm _0:0_0m&mmmm:0:.“ ms m _<_0<:.m8 m _u:E:o oamaomE Em ®:mm: wE <0: mm:0:< w_:m0 ®:m< woxmmms:O:mm: wEm0:_Em ma:2% Em3 :0 m.“03m 0.. 0:_. m <<:__m<0: m_.m0: Em Emcmzm.ozmox0S 0:: :m00m:E0:::0m:m3 :0: _00m_0:mEmmm o:m3_0.0:mEm: m:mm0.._ m:u00:. Page 278 of 304 _<_0:m::0:3m:0: 0: Em o0__m0:0: osmzmmmms:.80_m .8 mcnnon<0:: 0:00m:<_ E0_:::_o m :92 Emm?m200. 2.: cmm :5; :0: _0m:_0:0m:0:.._.0mmEm:< <0: <05 Agenda item a) n: E. =.mgm. Wm .2.Wmmm.:N\\?lE.mm..m_w 25295E §___=__._ E 3 s_=2§_=§___= 3a§_§w§ Umma_u_1oum: >m<0: 3m< :m I92 0o=mo:o: osmzmmm<<=_>12: <0: >mEm osama 2 Bmzmmma9. m_ <9: U:=aEm<<=_:m <05 c:__a_:o.mm._cmmam®.m >__ooimama 3cm...cmmmvoi 3. oozmozosc<.\ m.3. oz Em 32 Q. oo__mo:o:mammnm?m 3.3. Em :6EcmE_1m. Ponmamm_.momm o:_. m:<__.o:3m:..m_ S?mo? ..o1£Sm omzmqmaosm.._.:mamo_m_o:Emm 2.30:3 cmmmqon qmmmmqo?awnEmozommE Em Eq:m:.< mag 93:0 oosmczmmoz. OS ..EQEommsoémq Em: o:_ _<_o I92 3 ma _~mmn_<31.5 0:253 : <05 c:__n_Em.m:2 m_qmmQ _<_oqm.3o3,.m:o: o: Em oo__mo:o:oymsommman8o_m 8 mauve:<9: u_.o_um:<.Eo_cqEm m :m<< 3oE_m Emm?mmum.is cmoo3Emwoos. Sm: :_mmm«m«mm_o:.nm\ Emmnm31 ccam?mm.: 3.. =.E2=.W 2_a§:_.m 2.5% =:a=m=2E2___= 3§w$_mwMWmnW,¥ Umm?_u8_um: >m :92 0o__mn:o: Ormsnmm<<=_>mmnn<0: >mm: _:nEmEm_.Oo33m8_m_ mag _:m..:c=o:m_cowsu8um: <0: <5: :m >__oos?imqm 35* cmmm..-oc1oq oo__mo.n_o:3 Nm.3. o: Em Q3 2 oo__mozo:mag 32 335 mn.3, Em :62 cm?oam. Emmmmno.6 Em” 5% Eoumamm3cm” cmEammA8m.8qm <<=<0o__mo:o: osmsmmm>_.mwmmsm_<_mam z.mmmBmmm_o:m_Ocean: m_on_6 E =___§m=8===_=z _uomoxd_Mw...~.m~_..?_M.m.w.m__Mm?,._;m,0,.M_w_«_N 9: m:<:o:3m:8_ E.__mm28: 886 mmzm?zozm.asmQmo_m8: Emw mcunonmaummmqon :mmmm:oE.vmm?32.08 E Em 3955 man93.8 oozmczmmos. oo__mo:o: _<_o :92 noma _»8& ..o_.Em Ormsmmm _.. <0: mm:9: w_cmmm:m <<:=m<9. m:mo: Em < _<_o:m38:39.0: oz Em oo__mo:o:osmsommmag 8o_m 8 mcvuo:<9: n8cm:<.Eo_caEm m :92 Emm?mmu? <5: cmm ._.:m:w E. =.mg=. Agenda item b) Rt[ N T R Community Services Our Focus: Your Future Legislative Services July 21,2020 Sent via email: [email protected] The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau Prime Minister House of Commons Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6 Honourable and Dear Sir: Re: Ganada/US Border Crossings Please be advised the Municipal Council of the Town of Fort Erie at its meeting of July 20, 2020 received and supported the attached correspondence from Christian Provenzano, Mayor, City of Sault Ste. Marie, in collaboration with border city mayoral colleagues across Ontario supporting the Federal Government's decision to close the Canada/US Border and requesting the Federal Government maintain its current position until the risk of COVID-19 travelling into Canada from the United States is minimized and there is objective data that indicates the growth and spread of the COVID-19 virus across the United States has slowed dramatically and is at a minimum consistent with the growth and spread of the virus in Canada Thank you for your attention to this matter in keeping Ontarians safe and healthy. Y very truly, Carol Schofield, Dipl.M.A. Manager, Legislative Services/C cschofi [email protected] CS:dlk Encl. Cc: Sent via email: The Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister [email protected] The Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario [email protected] Wayne Gates, MPP-Niagara Falls, Legislative Assembly of Ontario [email protected] Sam Oosterhoff, MPP-Niagara West-Glanbrook, Legislative Assembly of Ontario [email protected] Jennifer Stevens, MPP-St. Catharines [email protected] Jeff Burch, MPP-Niagara Centre J [email protected] Dean Allison, MP-Niagara West [email protected] Chris Bittle, MP- St. Catharines [email protected] Tony Baldinelli, MP- Niagara Falls [email protected] Vance Badawey, MP- Niagara Centre [email protected] The Regional Municipality of Niagara Niagara Area Municipalities and Border Mayors (mayor.provenzano , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], mavor@sarnia.ca , [email protected]) Mailing Address: The Corporation of the Town of Fort Erie 1 Municipal Centre Drive, Fort Erie ON L2A 256 Office Hours 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Phone: (905) 871-1600 FAX: (905) 871-4022 Web-site: www.forterie.ca Page 283 of 304 Agenda item b) CIry COUNCTL RESOLUTION Agenda Number: 8.2 Title: Canada/United States Border Closure Date: Monday, July 13,2A20 Moved by: Councillor C. Gardi Seconded by: Councillor S. Hollingsworth Whereas due to the COVID-19 pandemic Canada and the United States agreed to close their shared border on March 21 , 2020 and that closure, with exceptions, has been extended to July 21, 2020; and Whereas Canada has managed to slow the spread of COVID-19 across the country including ourown community of Sault Ste. Marie and District of Algoma; and Whereas the United States has not slowed the spread of COVID-19 and cases continue to grow in the United States at a much more significant rate than Canada; and Whereas Canadians across the country including here in Sault Ste. Marie have made and continue to make many sacrifices to slow the spread of COVID-19 and minimize the risk to each other and our larger community; and Whereas Mayor Provenzano has been working with his border city mayoral colleagues across Ontario to advocate for and support the continued closure of the Canada/United States border with the current terms and conditions; Now Therefore Be lt iesolved that this resolution shall serve to support the Federal Government's decision to close the Canada/US border and to request that the Federal Government maintain its current position until the risk of the COVID-19 travelling into Canada from the United States is minimized and there is objective data that indicates the growth and spread of the COVID-19 virus across the United States has slowed dramatically and is at a minimum consistent with the growth and spread of the virus in Canada; Further Be lt Resolved that this resolution shall serve to support the work that Mayor Provenzano has undertaken with his mayoral colleagues across Ontario and encourages that work to continue until Cou ncil directs otherwise. Canied Tied, Defeated Defeated Officially Read and Not Deart with I PostryRf,6;AfVED JUL 2 0 202$ Page 284 of 304 Christian Provenzano BtY cotlilcll Agenda item b) August 11, 2020 Deb Reid Executive Director Niagara Regional Police Service Board 5700 Valley Way Niagara Falls, ON L2E 1X8 Sent via email: [email protected] Re: Motion regarding Body Cameras for Police Officers - Comments from City of St. Catharines Anti-Racism Advisory Committee Our File 35.65.75 Dear Ms. Reid, At its meeting held on August 10, 2020, St. Catharines City Council approved the following motion: WHEREAS St. Catharines City Council asked for advice from the Anti-Racism Advisory Committee on body cameras for police and other reforms; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City Council endorse the following recommendations from the Anti-Racism Advisory Committee: Training Increase Crisis Intervention Training to being offered at least 4 times a year or until as close to 100% of front line officers as possible at any given time would have completed the training; Add cross-cultural mental health training to its Crisis Intervention Training; Add implicit bias and anti-racism trainings in its refresher trainings and that these trainings be led by experts from equity seeking groups, along the lines of the African Canadian Legal Clinic's recommendations to the Ipperwash Inquiry: “That police forces develop an anti-racism curriculum and training program to be incorporated into any existing training programs on use of force and which will be mandatory for recruits, new officers, and serving officers. The training should be designed and delivered by independent experts in anti-racism to ensure a full understanding of racially biased policing, racial discrimination and the racialized communities police serve, particularly with respect to use of force. This training should be provided as a refresher on a regular basis. The training program should be independently and regularly evaluated to assess its efficacy with respect to effecting anti-racist behavioral and attitudinal change.” Page 285 of 304 Agenda item b) Re-assessing police service standards to shift its budget The NRPS Chief and Board re-assess “adequate policing” requirements based on removing welfare checks, mental health, and suicide threat calls, as well as foot patrols that are only demanded because of perception; That the Niagara Regional municipality shift these funds from the reduction of the NRPS budget to a dispatched civilian service such as the EMS; Civilian Review The establishment of a local purely civilian (no former police officers) body including members from equity seeking groups with oversight, disciplinary powers, and the power to refer charges for prosecution over police officers; Establish the office of a purely civilian (no former police officers) Ombudsperson with full access to police records and data; Releasing Statistics Publish online details of police-reported hate crimes for each incident including location, date and time, the protected group which was attacked, and the nature of the crime; Publish online the use of force by race data required to be submitted to the Ministry of the Solicitor General under the Anti-Racism Act; Extend the collection of race data to traffic stops and publish online these statistics as well as the outcome (any charges) for traffic stops; Hiring Increase diversity hiring to at least 15% of the recruiting class over three years, and further as per the African Canadian Legal Clinics recommendation to the Ipperwash Inquiry: “That police recruits be screened for prejudicial and racially discriminatory attitudes, similar to screening already being done for personality attributes, criminal record, and family background. That police forces be encouraged to retain independent employment equity experts to develop concrete, measurable and attainable goals to increase the number of racialized people, particularly African Canadians and Aboriginals, especially in positions of responsibility, in order to achieve a “critical mass” of representation and diversity to promote cultural and organizational change”; That these independent employment equity experts undertake a comprehensive review of the hiring, recruitment, selection, and management practices of the NRPS; Page 286 of 304 Agenda item b) 8 Can’t Wait Campaign Require all officers to have a duty to intervene against excessive use of force or abuse; Prohibit shooting at moving vehicles; Performance Reviews As per the African Canadian Legal Clinic's recommendation to the Ipperwash Inquiry: “That police forces ensure that complaints and concerns against police officers relating to use of force, particularly when the complainant is racialized, are reflected and factored into the assessment of each officer’s performance review and or promotions.”; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that St. Catharines City Council call on the Niagara Region, through the Police Services Board, to immediately begin the process of implementing the above recommendations; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this motion be forwarded to all local municipalities; the offices of all Niagara-area MPPs and MPs; the offices of the Attorney General of Ontario Doug Downey, the Attorney General of Canada David Lametti and Federal Public Safety Minister Bill Blair; and request comment from the Solicitor General of Ontario Sylvia Jones. FORTHWITH” If you have any questions, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at extension 1524. Bonnie Nistico-Dunk, City Clerk Legal and Clerks Services, Office of the City Clerk :em Cc. Hon. Bill Blair, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, [email protected] Hon. David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, [email protected] Hon. Doug Downey, Attorney General, [email protected] Chris Bittle, MP - St. Catharines, [email protected] Dean Allison, MP - Niagara West, [email protected] Vance Badawey, MP - Niagara Centre, [email protected] Tony Baldinelli, MP - Niagara Falls, [email protected] Jennifer Stevens, MPP - St. Catharines, [email protected] Jeff Burch, MPP - Niagara Centre, [email protected] Wayne Gates, MPP - Niagara Falls, [email protected] Sam Oosterhoff, MPP - Niagara West-Glanbrook, [email protected] Kenneth Gansel, Chair, Niagara Regional Police Service Board Ann-Marie Norio, Regional Clerk, [email protected] Niagara Area Municipalities Page 287 of 304 Agenda item b) City of Welland Corporate Services Office of the City Clerk 60 East Main Street, Welland, ON L3B 3X4 Welland Phone: 905-735-1700 Ext. 2159 1Fax: 905-732-1919 Email: wvvw.we|Iand.ca “Two _ “MM cIerk@we||and.ca I August 7, 2020 File No. 20-88 SENT VIAEMAIL Niagara Region 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way PO‘ Box 1042 Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Attention: Ann-MarieNorio, Regional Clerk Dear Ms‘ Norio: Re: August 4,_2020— WELLANDCITY COUNCIL At its meeting of August 4, 2020, Welland City Council passed the following motion: “THAT THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WELLAND receives for information and supports the request from the Region of Niagara dated July 23, 2020 regarding Minute Item 11.2 CL 12-2020: Signing of the AMO-Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres - Declaration of Mutual Commitment and Friendship with Niagara Region and Friendship Centre Support.” Yourswtruly, Tara Stephens City Clerk TS:cap c.c.: Area Municipalities, sent via email Page 288 of 304 Agenda item c) Municipality of West Grey 402813 Grey County Rd 4 Durham, ON N0G 1R0 Re: Anti-racism resolution Please be advised the council of the Municipality of West Grey at its regular meeting held on July 7, 2020 passed the following resolution: Whereas West Grey council condemns the unjust treatment, oppression, and racism against those who identify as black, indigenous, and people of colour; and Whereas council acknowledges that systemic racism exists and persists in every community and institution in Canada, including West Grey, creating social and economic disparities from education, to healthcare, to housing, to employment, and justice; and Whereas council supports the Bruce Grey Poverty Task Force belief that everyone deserves to live free of systematic oppression or racialized violence; and Whereas the report by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada contains ‘Calls to Action’ several of which are actionable by local governments including Call 57: “We call upon federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to provide education to public servants on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations. This will require skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism”; and Whereas council is committed to anti-racism as demonstrated in the foundation of our 2020 Vision Plan whereby we set goals to listen to our community, value diverse voices, and build partnerships; Municipality of West Grey council resolution Page 289 of 304 Agenda item c) Therefore be it resolved that the Municipality of West Grey will actively work towards anti-racism and anti-oppression at every opportunity beginning with annual training for council, committee members, and employees for anti-racism, anti-oppression, diversity and inclusion, and the history of Aboriginal peoples; and Further that this resolution be circulated to media, lower tier municipalities in Grey and Bruce; Grey County; Bruce County; West Grey Public Library, West Grey Police Service, Grey Bruce Public Health Unit; Bluewater District School Board; and Bruce Grey Catholic District School Board. Lindsey Glazier Administrative Assistant, Clerk’s Office Copy: Ontario Municipalities West Grey Public Library West Grey Police Service Grey Bruce Public Health Unit Bluewater District School Board Bruce Grey Catholic District School Board Municipality of WestPage Grey 290 council of 304 resolution Agenda item d) Ministry of Municipal Affairs Ministère des Affaires municipales and Housing et du Logement Office of the Minister Bureau du ministre 777 Bay Street, 17th Floor 777, rue Bay, 17e étage Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Tel.: 416 585-7000 Tél.: 416 585-7000 234-2020-1284 April 16, 2020 Dear Head of Council: As you know, on March 17, 2020, our government declared a provincial emergency pursuant to the authority granted under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act (EMCPA). I am writing to update you that on April 16, 2020, our government issued an emergency order under the EMCPA (O. Reg. 157/20) to provide municipalities with the flexibility to deploy certain of their staff to where they are needed most. At this critical time, it is important that municipalities continue to work collaboratively and engage in good faith with their bargaining agents. The order is effective immediately and we intend for it to remain in effect for the duration of the declared provincial emergency. I know that these are challenging times for municipalities, particularly as the situation around us changes so quickly. In these unprecedented times, I have heard a strong and consistent message from municipalities and numerous sector organizations that the authority to enable work deployment similar to what has been provided by the Province for hospitals and public health units is urgently needed to ensure continuity of critical services. I thank you for sharing these concerns. We have heard you and have worked quickly to issue this order. This order is a temporary measure and provides your municipality – as an employer – the authority to take any reasonable measure necessary to respond to COVID-19 with respect to internal work deployment. In order to exercise this authority, if it hasn’t already, the municipality will need to also declare an emergency under section 4 of the EMCPA concurrent with this order. The authority provided for in this order includes the ability for municipalities to redeploy certain of their staff within the same employer or to employ volunteers to perform bargaining unit work, cancel leaves and change assignment of work, for those priority services listed in the order. The orders specify conditions under which the authority can be exercised. This includes requiring a municipality to provide at least 24 hours of advance notice to affected bargaining units before implementing a redeployment plan. The Occupational Health and Safety Act and existing rights under the Employment Standards Act will continue to apply. Municipalities, as employers, are required to comply with all provincial orders, as Page 291 of 304 Agenda item d) Head of Council Page 2 well as any guidance and safety standards prescribed by the province for COVID-19. They are also responsible for ensuring that any staff being reassigned to new duties have the required training and skills. Full details of the orders can be reviewed online at Ontario.ca/alert. I want to acknowledge and applaud the proactive efforts that many municipalities have already taken to engage in good faith with their bargaining agents to keep their staff employed and safe, and to establish local arrangements to redeploy employees to high- need areas. I would also encourage municipalities to continue leveraging their existing authorities as employers and building on pre-existing relationships and structures with your bargaining agent partners, such as joint health and safety committees, to address staffing needs and allocate resources. Moreover, as you and others in your organization consider whether and how you will exercise the authority under the emergency order, I would ask that you maintain the following important objectives: • In making staffing decisions, first provide opportunity for full-time work to existing part-time staff before seeking out and employing extra full-time staff from outside your organization. • In redeploying staff, should there be a difference in the terms and conditions of work, in the different departments of the organization, the expectation is that staff will not receive a lower wage than their home position. Municipalities are encouraged to review this and other applicable orders (available on the Government’s Emergency Information webpage at: Ontario.ca/alert) and work with their legal counsel for advice and understanding of the flexibility it provides to you in managing your organizations. If your municipality chooses to implement the authority in these orders, I would ask that you keep my staff apprised by letting your local Municipal Services Office know when you use it. If your municipality has any further questions regarding this order, we encourage contacting your local Municipal Services Office. I thank you for your continued support and collaboration in these challenging times. This collaborative relationship is critical at all times, and never more so than during this emergency. Page 292 of 304 Agenda item d) Head of Council Page 3 Visit Ontario’s website to learn more about how the province continues to protect Ontarians from COVID-19 Sincerely, Steve Clark Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing c: Chief Administrative Officers Municipal Clerks Kate Manson-Smith, Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Brian Rosborough, Executive Director, Association of Municipalities of Ontario Cam Guthrie, Chair, Large Urban Mayor’s Caucus of Ontario Karen Redman, Chair, Mayors and Regional Chairs of Ontario Jane Albright, President, Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association Page 293 of 304 Agenda item d) Ministry of Ministère des Municipal Affairs Affaires municipales and Housing et du Logement Office of the Minister Bureau du ministre 777 Bay Street, 17th Floor 777, rue Bay, 17e étage Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Tel.: 416 585-7000 Tél. : 416 585-7000 234-2020-3359 August 12, 2020 Mayor Jeff Jordan Town of Grimsby 160 Livingston Avenue P.O. Box 159 Grimsby ON L3M 4G3 Dear Mayor Jordan: On July 27, 2020, as part of the federal-provincial Safe Restart Agreement, the Ontario government announced that it had secured up to $4 billion in emergency assistance to provide Ontario’s 444 municipalities with the support they need to respond to COVID- 19. I am writing to you today to provide further details on this funding investment. Municipalities play a key role in delivering critical services that Ontarians rely on and are at the frontlines of a safe reopening of the economy. This investment will provide support to municipalities and public transit operators to help them address financial pressures related to COVID-19, maintain critical services and protect vulnerable people as the province safely and gradually opens. It includes: • Up to $2 billion to support municipal operating pressures, and • Up to $2 billion to support municipal transit systems. The Honourable Caroline Mulroney, Minister of Transportation, will provide more information on the transit stream of this funding. I would also like to acknowledge the Federal government in their role in this historic agreement. As Premier Ford has indicated, “by working together, we have united the country in the face of the immense challenges brought on by COVID-19 and secured a historic deal with the federal government to ensure a strong recovery for Ontario and for Canada”. Under the municipal operating stream, $1.39 billion will be available to Ontario’s municipalities to address operating pressures and local needs. This funding will be allocated in two phases: 50% allocated in Phase 1 for all municipalities, and 50% allocated in Phase 2 for municipalities that require additional funding. 1 Page 294 of 304 Agenda item d) The Safe Restart Agreement also includes a second phase of Social Services Relief Funding (SSRF) totalling $362 million. This is in addition to significant investments made earlier to the SSRF and in support of public health. Details will be outlined in a letter to Service Managers in the coming days. Municipal Operating Funding Phase 1: Immediate Funding for Municipal Pressures Phase 1 of this funding will be allocated on a per household basis and I am pleased to share that the Town of Grimsby will receive a payment of $682,100 to support your COVID-19 operating costs and pressures. Please note that your municipality is accountable for using this funding for the purpose of addressing your priority COVID-19 operating costs and pressures. If the amount of the funding exceeds your municipality’s 2020 COVID-19 operating costs and pressures, the province’s expectation is that your municipality will place the excess funding into reserves to be accessed to support COVID-19 operating costs and pressures that you may continue to incur in 2021. Your municipality will be expected to report back to the province in March 2021 with details on your 2020 COVID-19 operating costs and pressures, your overall 2020 financial position, and the use of the provincial funds in a template to be provided by the ministry. More details on this reporting will be shared in the coming weeks. In the meantime, I am requesting that your municipal treasurer sign the acknowledgement below and return the signed copy to the ministry by email by September 11, 2020 to [email protected]. Please note that we must receive this acknowledgement before making a payment to your municipality. We intend to make payments to municipalities in September, subject to finalizing details. Phase 2: Funding for Additional Municipal Pressures I anticipate that the funding our government is providing through Phase 1 of the municipal operating stream will be sufficient to address COVID-19 costs and pressures for most municipalities. However, we recognize that some municipalities have experienced greater financial impacts arising from COVID-19 than others. As a result, we are offering a second phase of funding to those municipalities that can demonstrate that 2020 COVID-19 operating costs and pressures exceed their Phase 1 per household allocation. To be considered for this Phase 2 funding, municipalities will be required to submit reports outlining their COVID-19 operating costs and pressures in a template to be provided by the ministry. These reports will be due by October 30, 2020. Municipalities that require additional time to submit their report are asked to reach out to their Municipal Services Office contact by October 30, 2020 to request an extension to November 6, 2020. Please note that the ministry is unable to consider municipal requests for Phase 2 funding if the municipality has not submitted its report by November 6, 2020. 2 Page 295 of 304 Agenda item d) A template for this municipal report and request for consideration for Phase 2 funding will be provided shortly and will require: 1. Information about measures the municipality has undertaken to reduce financial pressures (e.g. use of reserves, cost saving measures); 2. Explanation of how the municipality applied or plans to spend Phase 1 funding towards COVID-19 operating costs and pressures; 3. A year-end forecast of COVID-19 operating costs and pressures; 4. Actual COVID-related impacts as of the end of Q3 of the municipal fiscal year (September 30, 2020); 5. Treasurer’s statement as to accuracy of reporting; 6. Resolution of Council seeking additional funding. Municipalities who are eligible and approved to receive funding under Phase 2 will be informed before the end of the calendar year and can expect to receive a payment in early 2021. Our government will continue to be a champion for communities as we chart a path to a strong economic recovery. We thank all 444 Ontario municipal heads of council for their support through our negotiations with the federal government. Working together, we will ensure Ontario gets back on track. Sincerely, Steve Clark Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing c. Municipal Treasurer and Municipal CAO By signing below, I acknowledge that the per household allocation of $682,100 is provided to the Town of Grimsby for the purpose of assisting with COVID-19 costs and pressures and that the province expects any funds not required for this purpose in 2020 will be put into reserves to support potential COVID-19 costs and pressures in 2021. I further acknowledge that the Town of Grimsby is expected to report back to the province on 2020 COVID-19 costs and pressures and the use of this funding. Name: Title: Signature: Date: 3 Page 296 of 304 Agenda item e) GRIMSBY & DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE “PARTNERS IN PROGRESS" [email protected] 33 Main St W www.grimsbychamber.com Grimsby. ON 905-945-B3l9 UM lR3 August 6, 2020 TO: Town of Grimsby ATTN: Town Clerk CC:Town Councillors Grimsby Town Hall 160 Livingston Ave Grimsby, ON L3M4X1 RE: Canada United Shop Local Campaign The Grimsby & District Chamber of Commerce hasjoined the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in support of Canada United,a national movement to support local businesses across the country. As part ofthe movement, RBChas brought together more than 50 of Canada's leading brands, businessassociations, and Chamber networks to rallyCanadians to “show localsome love’’by buying,dining, and shopping local,to help kickstart our economy. Canadians are encouraged to watch the Canada United videos online at GoCanadaUnited.ca, like posts from @GoCanadaUnited on social media and use #CanadaUnited to demonstrate their support. For each ofthese actions, until August 31, 2020, RBCwillcontribute 5 cents, up to a maximum contribution amount of $2 million,to the new Canada United Small Business ReliefFund, while working with government and corporate partners to source additional contributions to the fund during the course ofthe campaign. As ofthe Ontario Chamber network callyesterday morning, the corporate fundingsecured was nearing $3 million. The Fundwillprovide small businesses with grants of up to $5,000 to cover expenses related to personal protective equipment (PPE), renovations to accommodate re-opening guidelines, and developing or improving e-commerce capabilities. The Canada United Small Business Relief Fundwillbe administered by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce on behalfof the national Chamber network. Small business owners who are interested in the program can visit GoCanadaUnited.ca or the Grimsby Chamber website to learn more about grant application details,includingeligibilitycriteria. Grimsby & District Chamber of Commerce Page 297 of 304 Agenda item e) The Grimsby & District Chamber of Commerce asks the Town of Grimsby to proclaim and recognize August 28 to 30, 2020 as the Canada United Weekend in Grimsby. We invite Council, staff, local businesses, and all residents tojoin the Canada United movement by buying and dining locally, and celebrating and supporting local businesses. Ifyou would like more information on the initiative, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sin er 1l.e Rebecca Shelley? Executive Direct On behalf ofThe Grimsby & District Chamber of Commerce Grimsby 8. District Chamber of Commerce Page 298 of 304 Agenda item a) The Corporation of the Town of Grimsby By-law No. 20-61 A By-law to appoint a Screening Officer for the Town of Grimsby. Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby approved By-law 16-82 on November 21, 2016, being a by-law to regulate stopping, standing and parking of vehicles and to establish a system for Administrative Penalties; And whereas Council of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby deem is expedient to have additional Screening Officers; Now therefore the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby enacts as follows: 1. That Paul Nickerson is hereby appointed to be a Municipal Law Enforcement Screening Officer for the Town of Grimsby under the direction of the Director of Planning, Building and By-law. 2. And that the powers and duties of the said Screening Officer shall be set out in the Town of Grimsby’s by-laws. 3. And that the term of the said Screening Officer shall commence on the 18 day of August 2020. Read a first time this 17 day of August, 2020. Read a second and third time and finally passed this 17 day of August, 2020. ______J.A. Jordan, Mayor ______S. Kim, Town Clerk Page 1 of 1 Page 299 of 304 Agenda item b) The Corporation of the Town of Grimsby By-law No. 20-62 A By-law to Prohibit and Regulate the Discharge of Firearms and Bows in the Town of Grimsby Whereas Paragraph 11(2) 6 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, enables a municipality to pass a by-law to protect the health, safety and well-being of its residents; And whereas Section 119 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, enables a municipality to pass a by-law for the purpose of public safety, to prohibit or regulate the discharge of guns or other firearms, including air guns, spring guns, cross-bows, long-bows or any other weapon; And whereas the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Grimsby determines that the discharge of firearms and bows could create a safety hazard for the public; Now therefore the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby enacts as follows: 1. Short Title 1.1. This By-law shall be known as the Discharge of Firearms and Bows By-law. 2. Definitions For the purpose of this By-Law: 2.1. “Agricultural purposes” means the growing of crops, including nursery and horticultural crops; raising of livestock; raising of other animals for food, fur or fibre, including poultry and fish; aquaculture; horse boarding; apiaries; agro-forestry; maple syrup production; and associated on-farm buildings and structures.” 2.2. “Bow” means a long bow, compound bow, re-curve bow, cross bow, or any class thereof, from which any arrow or any other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing bodily injury or death to any Person; 2.3. “Firearm” means any weapon from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged and that is capable of causing bodily injury or death to any Person and includes, but is not limited to, a sling shot, air gun, paint ball gun, and spring gun; 2.4. “Highway” means a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct, or trestle, any part of which is intended for, or used by, the general public for the passage of vehicles; 2.5. “Livestock” as defined in Livestock and Livestock Products Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.L.20, as amended, or any successor legislation thereto; 2.6. “Peace Officer” includes a municipal law enforcement officer, Page 1 of 4 Page 300 of 304 Agenda item b) police officer, animal control officer or a provincial conservation officer; 2.7. “Person” includes a corporation and its directors and officers, and the heirs, executors, assignees and administrators or the other legal representatives of an individual and their respective successors and assignees; 2.8. “Problem Wildlife” means any bird or animal that is defined as wildlife in the Wildlife Act, RSA 2000, c. W-10, as revised from time to time, and which is destroying or harming or is likely to destroy or harm any land, livestock or property. For clarity, pestiferous birds does not include pheasants, geese, ducks, and other game birds; 2.9. “Public Land” includes parks, conservation areas, forestry lands, school property, and recreational areas; 2.10. “Public Centre” means land on a registered plan of subdivision, any place of worship, public hall or school property; 2.11. “Town” means the Corporation of The Town of Grimsby; 3. Prohibitions 3.1. No Person shall discharge, cause to be discharged, or permit to be discharged a Firearm or a Bow in the Town except in accordance with this By-law; 3.2. No owner or occupier of a property shall permit the discharge of a Firearm or Bow on the property that they own or occupy except as provided for in this By-law; and, 3.3. Every Person that discharges a Firearm on any parcel of land on which a Person may lawfully discharge a Firearm in accordance with this By-law shall ensure that no shot, bullet, bolt, arrow or projectile passes over: (a) any Highway, Public Land or Public Centre. 4. Exceptions This By-law shall not apply to: 4.1. Any Peace Officer acting in the course of their duty under the authority of their employment; 4.2. Any Person or organization that for ceremonial or other purposes has obtained advance permission from Council to perform any act otherwise prohibited under this By-law. This may include: (a) A person firing blank ammunition for or in connection with lawful use in a motion picture, television, stage productions and historical displays or educational programs of a public museum; (b) A person firing blank ammunition for the purpose of starting or controlling a sporting event of a similar nature to foot racing, sailing or golf. Page 2 of 4 Page 301 of 304 Agenda item b) 4.3. Any Person in the course of an organized shooting competition, practice or training event provided that: (a) Such event has received the prior written approval of Council; (b) A copy of the approval is maintained on the site of the event and is available at all times for inspection by any Peace Officer who requests to inspect same; and (c) The approval is in fact produced for inspection by such Peace Officer immediately after the request is made. 4.4. Any Person who is a member of an incorporated gun, shooting or archery club in the course of club activities, provided that: (a) The discharge of the Firearm takes place on a range, the location of which has been approved by Council prior to the discharge of the firearm in question: (b) Where necessary by law, the location has been approved by the Solicitor General for Ontario prior to the discharge of the Firearm in question; (c) Evidence of Council's approval and evidence of the Solicitor General's approval is maintained on the range and available for inspection at all times by any Peace Officer; and, (d) Evidence of approval is in fact produced for inspection by a Peace Officer immediately after a request is made. 4.5. The discharge of a Firearm by a Person on lands actively being used for Agricultural Purposes if the purpose of the discharge of the Firearm is for the protection or preservation of livestock or crops from Problem Wildlife, provided: (a) the type of gun used is a shot gun using shot no larger than 2 gauge; and, (b) the discharge of the Firearm is not within one hundred and fifty (150) metres of a dwelling, public park or private park, a public open space or the premises of an educational institution, day nursery, or a religious institution, including but not limited to any building, structures or grounds (occupied or not) related thereto. 5. Enforcement 5.1. The provisions of this By-law may be enforced by a Peace Officer or any Person appointed to enforce the by-laws of the Town; and, 5.2. No person shall hinder or obstruct, or attempt to hinder or obstruct a Peace Officer or other person so authorized who is performing a duty or exercising a power under this By-law pursuant to Section 426 of the Municipal Act, 2001. 6. Severability 6.1. Notwithstanding that any clause or any part or parts of this By-law may be found by any court of law to be invalid or beyond the Page 3 of 4 Page 302 of 304 Agenda item b) power of the Council to enact, such clause, part or parts shall be deemed to be severable, separate and independent and enacted as such. 7. Penalty 7.1. Every person who contravenes any provision of this By-law is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine, and such other penalties, as provided for in the Provincial Offences Act and the Municipal Act, 2001, as each may be amended from time to time. 8. Repeal 8.1. By-law 76-38 be hereby repealed in its entirety. 9. Effective Date 9.1. This By-law comes into force and takes effect on August 17, 2020. Read a first time this 17 day of August, 2020. Read a second and third time and finally passed this 17 day of August, 2020. ______J.A. Jordan, Mayor ______S. Kim, Town Clerk Page 4 of 4 Page 303 of 304 Agenda item c) The Corporation of the Town of Grimsby By-law No. 20-63 A By-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby at its meeting held on August 17, 2020. Whereas the Municipal Act 2001, Section 5(1) provides that the powers of a municipal corporation shall be exercised by its Council; And whereas the Municipal Act 2001, Section 5(3) provides that a municipal power, including a municipality’s capacity, rights, powers and privileges under Section 9, powers of a natural person, shall be exercised by by-law unless the municipality is specifically authorized to do otherwise; And whereas in many cases action which is taken or authorized to be taken by Council does not lend itself to the passage of an individual by-law; Now therefore the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby enacts as follows: 1. That the minutes of the meeting of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby held on the July 20, 2020 be hereby approved. 2. And that with respect to each motion, resolution and other action taken by Council at its said meeting is, except where the prior approval of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal or other authority is by law required, hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed as if all such proceedings were expressly embodied in this By-law. 3. That where no individual by-law has been or is passed with respect to the taking of any action authorized in or by the above mentioned minutes or with respect to the exercise of any powers by the Council in the above mentioned minutes, then this By-law shall be deemed for all purposes to be the By-law required for approving and authorizing and taking of any action authorized therein or thereby, or required for the exercise of any power therein. 4. That the Mayor and the proper staff of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the said action of the Council or to obtain approvals where required and except where otherwise provided, the Mayor and the Town Clerk are hereby directed to execute all documents necessary on behalf of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby and to affix the Corporate Seal thereto. Read a first time this 17 day of August, 2020. Read a second and third time and finally passed this 17 day of August, 2020. ______J.A. Jordan, Mayor ______S. Kim, Town Clerk Page 1 of 1 Page 304 of 304