On Council agenda for December 12th there is a staff report making comments on Bill 23 with the objective of these remarks being posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) which has a deadline of December 30. Bill 23, (More Homes Built Faster) was introduced on October 25 and was quickly given royal assent. The staff report is very comprehensive in identifying the impact on the municipality to both grow and provide healthy and sustainable communities. Below are a couple points that really jump out at me.
Given that a large portion of King’s land mass is rural I am pleased how the report does highlight the unique issues and risks for our rural areas in terms of increasing residental development in the rural areas. The question is whether increasing rural housing is done at the direct expense of losing agricultural land or does it do so indirectly as it will challenge current standards/practices for minimum separation distances between residence and farm activities. The report also flags that rural residental areas do not have same access to municipal services; the question is whether there would be an expectation of closing that gap and how would that be funded.
As indicated in the report it is currently prohibited to extend water and wastewater services from a Great Lakes Source into Greenbelt settlement areas serviced by rivers, inland lakes or groundwater. This prohibition which is included in the Growth Plan may be eliminated in Bill 23 as the latter proposes to merge the Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). If it is eliminated both Nobleton and Schomberg may have the option of growth serviced by Great Lakes systems following an environmental assessment. Clearly this would have a significant impact on the vision of what these two communities can be in terms of size. The report asks for clarification.
I am very pleased that the report firmly provides feedback about the notion of ecological Offsets and the proposed policy. Its quite evident that the writers of Bill 23 do not really understand the infinite value of our natural heritage. I thought of that when I read that there will be limits to Offsets: “Some wetlands like coastal wetlands, bogs and ferns and other areas that historically have been important for recreation and tourism should be ineligible for offsetting.” No mention of how wetlands absorb greenhouse gases, absorb water to minimize flooding after heavy rains. No mention of how wetlands are a tool to mitigate climate change (absorb water, act as a carbon sink.)
The concerns expressed by Staff about revising the setbacks from natural heritage features is also appropriately being highlighted as a concern. As indicated there is a risk that natural heritage features will be harmed because there is development activity too close to it. But it also strikes me if we think there is risk to the natural heritage feature I wonder if in some cases there is also less safety for the consumer, so to speak. e.g. During the period of all the fires in British Columbia in 2021 I recall there being conversation about homes being built too close to the forests.
And finally there is the question as to how Bill 23 will impact the Greenbelt Act and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.
As always you can register to make a deputation verbally or you send an email and it will be sent to Council. To register and/or send an email please do so by noon on December 12 by contacting clerks@king.ca.
Oh my. I thought that I had commented all the ERO listings that were posted related to Bill 23. Now I realize that there are more postings. Thanks for alerting us about the other sections. I am not happy about wetlands being isolated instead of considered as a complex working together, or about Nobleton and Schomberg possibly being connected to the Big Pipe for sewage, with all the development that would bring.