ACW rejects many mapping changes from Huron County Planning Department
BY SCOTT STEPHENSON
At the most recent Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh (ACW) planning meeting, members of the Huron County Planning and Development Department presented a staff report to council on the ongoing update to the township’s zoning maps.
ACW finished a review and update of its official plan in 2022, which necessitated an update to its zoning maps and bylaws. ACW Council then voted to pass the text portion of the bylaw, while deferring a decision on the mapping portion, as there were a number of landowners who had outstanding objections to proposed zoning changes on their parcel of land. Council directed staff to have further conversations with landowners to see if a resolution could be met in regards to the mapping changes.
Zoning bylaws designate the permissible land use within ACW, in accordance with the municipality’s official plan, which outlines ACW’s general policies for future land use. The plan is intended to minimize land use conflicts, address emergent needs like increased housing and environmental concerns, and continuing to support the robust agricultural and existing communities of the area.
The zoning bylaws are the tool by which the plan is put into effect. The bylaws provide for the day-to-day administration of the plan, and contain legally-enforceable requirements. They also define what types of buildings are allowed on a property, what street setbacks are required, and determine the size lots need to be, among other things.
The zoning maps divide the municipality into zones with specific standards and uses, such as AG1 for General Agriculture, NE1 for Natural Environment, FD for Future Development, LR2 for Lakeshore Residential, RG1 for Recreational Golf Course, and so forth. Construction and development that does not comply with a zoning bylaw is not permitted. This prevents lands zoned as agricultural from being developed into a recreational golf course, for example. The zoning bylaws and maps also consider environmental concerns like lakeshore erosion hazards and conservation areas, as well as issues that could affect the health and well-being of the public. The purpose of the mapping update is to accurately reflect the features that currently exist on the landscape.
The majority of the objections involve changes involving the designation of Natural Environment (NE) features. The report states that landowners have objected to having parts of their property, such as woodlots, rezoned as NE, not because they wish to develop those areas, but because they feel NE zoning is a “punishment” for having undertaken stewardship activities. Others fear that NE zoning comes with increased regulations that could have a negative impact on farming operations. The report also clarifies that nothing in any policy would limit the agricultural use of land adjacent to natural features.
Huron County Manager of Planning Denise Van Amersfoort presented the staff report containing their recommendations and supporting documentation. She began by offering an update on the process so far. “We have done consultation with all of the landowners, through open houses last fall, and that culminated in the public meeting in February. At that time, there were outstanding objections - since that time, we have received additional outstanding objections. We’ve also had the opportunity to meet with many members of the public. I really did appreciate those members who sat down with us since the time of the public meeting that had the opportunity to share their perspective. I think that was really important for staff, to be able to re-evaluate some of the recommendations, and make adjustments.” She offered some examples of mapping changes that staff had made since the public meeting. “They are changes that can be made on a technical basis.... if an error had occurred in the aerial interpretation of a natural area, if there was significant ash that was impacted by the emerald ash-borer such that the area had been cleared, or was about to be cleared, if there were substantial invasive species that needed to be addressed, if agricultural practices had been established - then those areas were removed from Natural Environment (NE).”
Staff also removed any proposed NE zoning designation to areas near municipal drains after a number of residents brought up the possibility that it could restrict the necessary dredging of the drains. “There was no suggestion that the NE zoning was going to impede that, but because there was such a concern from landowners, we removed it,” Van Amersfoort explained.
She also clarified that staff is unable to override the provincial government and other agencies when it comes to non-technical objections to zoning changes. “In Ontario, we have a provincial-led planning system, which means that the province of Ontario directs through the Planning Act, and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).... What are the provincial interests?” Once the province outlines its policies, the county planners follow them. “From a staff perspective, we look at the PPS, we develop official plan policies. That is what the zoning bylaws are based on. We also have to take into consideration things like conservation authority regulations. So staff have some degree of discretion when looking at technical considerations, but there are other considerations that staff cannot consider.” Proper stewardship of the land is one of those “other things” that staff is not allowed to consider. “I wholeheartedly concur that there are incredible stewards in ACW - there’s no question of that. What I have had to explain to landowners is that, as staff, I am not able to consider stewardship as a factor in evaluating zoning. That is a factor that staff cannot consider - council can.”
The report contained a list of all the objections that had been resolved since the public meeting, as well as all the documents pertaining to those that were still outstanding. Van Amersfoort suggested they walk through each of these objections, take into account the perspective of the landowner and consider why the recommendation was being made. “We seek council’s direction,” she said. “We’re not asking council to make any decisions this evening, we’re asking for you to provide us direction. Following tonight’s meeting, we will go back to change the mapping as per council’s direction.”
The first objection was in regards to a section of deciduous woodland along Lake Huron that is currently zoned Lakeshore Residential - Seasonal (LR1). The vacant lands are largely within the 25-year erosion zone hazard, and entirely within the 100-year erosion zone hazard. Staff consulted with the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA), who cited Ontario Regulation 41/24, which states that, “In general, development activity within the shoreline erosion hazard on vacant lots of record shall not be permitted”. As this provincial regulation bars the construction of any new residences, seasonal or not, staff recommended that the lots be rezoned to NE1.
Van Amersfoort went on to further the case for rezoning based on her personal observations. “I’ve been to the site, I’ve taken a look - it’s incredibly steep, and there’s an active hazard there. We can see it, and from our perspective, it’s somewhat misleading to leave a LR1 zone on this property.” Earlier in the meeting, she had reminded council that members of the community choose to spend money on property based on the way they intend to use it. Were a person to purchase vacant land zoned LR1, they would likely do that in order to develop seasonal residences, which, by order of the province and the MVCA, is not permitted.
Huron County Planner Celina McIntosh also presented a proposed change in the zoning of a property containing a mixed woodlot within the lakeshore’s 100-year erosion zone, meaning that it is also regulated by the MVCA. The land is currently zoned as a Recreational Campground (RC1), but staff recommended that the forested, hazardous section be rezoned to NE1.
Council chose not to support either of these recommendations from staff, choosing instead to direct staff to leave the zonings as they are. This does not mean that any development will ever be permitted in these hazard zones.
Councillor Jennifer Miltenberg questioned why other members of council chose not to support the staff recommendation when it came to areas within the erosion hazard zone. “I’d be far more comfortable doing these individually, and being able to question why. Maybe I’m voting incorrectly? I have no idea what just happened, and I’d like to know, going forward, what is happening... clearly, there’s a different thought process I am completely unaware of. If anyone who is voting ‘no’ can tell me why, I can be educated.”
The rezoning of small sections of agricultural lands was discussed next. Most of the land in question is zoned either AG1 or AG4, and contains one or more features that have been proposed for the NE1 designation - such as rivers, woodlots, wetlands, and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI). Many of these features are also already protected by forest conservation bylaws and various conservation authorities. Councillor Wayne Forster asked if these landowners were now happy with what was happening, or if the complaints were still outstanding. He also asked if staff could find a way to resolve the remaining issues. Van Amersfoort reiterated that these objections were all the ones that could not be resolved by staff, and required direction from council.
After the first few agricultural properties were presented, Deputy-Mayor Bill Vanstone commented that he preferred to side with the landowners. “I would like to see these stay the way they are. I don’t want to see them go to NE1. That’s my opinion.”
Van Amersfoort offered council some edification on the purpose of accurate mapping. “It’s important to note that, from a zoning bylaw standpoint, we want to be clear about if there is building activity permitted in an area or not. If we leave it zoned AG4, it gives the impression that there would be something permitted there, when, in fact, based on the conservation authority’s regulations and the forest conservation bylaw, there may not be. So I think that’s the difficulty. It becomes confusing for the landowners to understand what is permitted in different parts of the property.”
Mayor Glen McNeil agreed that Van Amersfoort was making sense. Miltenberg also agreed with her, saying, “The onus, then, would be upon the landowner, and the danger would be for resale value, where someone thinks it’s AG4 and maybe they’re not aware of the layers. Can they see those layers if they do due diligence on the property?” Van Amersfoort confirmed that potential property buyers could find the information without including it in the actual zoning designation, but they would have to already know what they were looking for. “Technically, the area of natural and scientific mapping is all public information, but I wouldn’t say that’s a normal due diligence exercise,” she explained. Council chose not to support staff’s recommendation that these areas be rezoned to realistically reflect the permitted land use. This does not mean that these areas are no longer protected by conservation authorities and forestry bylaws.
The report also contained NE rezoning recommendations for wetlands located on ACW properties. Some of these wetlands have already been designated as provincially significant wetlands, while others were deemed locally significant by Huron County staff. When the zoning map update began, locally significant wetlands were protected by the MVCA, but a recent change in provincial policy has left these features unprotected and unregulated. Despite this change, staff still believes that the NE1 designation is an accurate representation of the locally significant natural wetland features on these properties. Council chose not to support the recommendation.
Classifying a natural feature as provincially significant is done by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). Staff’s recommendation is to rezone all of these wetlands from either NE1 or AG to NE5. Under the PPS, these wetlands are not available for development under any circumstances, which would be reflected through ACW’s NE5 designation. Both NE1 and NE5 zoning reflect the fact that existing structures and agricultural uses are allowed to continue, but any further development that could negatively affect the environment is subject to some restrictions. NE1 lands can potentially be developed, provided that an environmental impact study shows that the proposed development will do no harm. No development is allowed on provincially significant wetlands, and the NE5 designation is intended to inform landowners of that fact. “It’s simply an area that the province has deemed that there’s no development permitted here. That’s the difference... they’re the most protected spaces, from the province’s standpoint.” The NE5 designation would not prevent sustainable tree removal, trail-cutting, or any existing activities.
Van Amersfoort offered several reasons as to why the NE5 designation would be advantageous to landowners. “Many of these spaces have been designated as provincially significant wetlands going back a number of years in the township,” she said. “Provincially significant wetlands are the most protected space within the township. They are also an area where landowners are eligible for 100 per cent property tax exemption through what is known as the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program (CLTIP).”
CLTIP is a provincial program that recognizes, encourages and supports the long-term private stewardship of Ontario’s important natural heritage features. ACW’s NE5 zoning is intended to be applied to natural features that are already designated as provincially significant. If a landowner is willing to commit to continuing to protect and steward the natural feature, and allow it to be inspected if requested, they can qualify for the CLTIP tax exemption. “So we want to very clearly identify, for both staff and landowners, where the provincially significant wetlands are throughout the township,” Van Amersfoort stated. “I think the point of provincially significant wetlands is that there’s a sense of recognition from the province that these are the most protected spaces, and the landowners don’t have the ability to yield an income or use those properties, which is why the CLTIP program exists... These are spaces that you can’t do much with, and so we’re not going to charge any taxes for that portion of your property.”
Miltenberg was reluctant to rezone these wetlands to reflect their protected status. “Can you get something out of NE5 back to NE1, or are we there forever?” She pointed out that she and the province have different ideas about what makes a wetland significant. Van Amersfoort explained that it is entirely the province’s decision as to whether or not a wetland is deemed worthy of protection. “We at the local level are unable to make that call, neither at the township level nor the county level. That is strictly done by the MNRF. They do reevaluate the wetlands now and again, and the boundaries do change... there is no notification, there is no consultation process - it is done strictly by the province. This is an exercise of us essentially taking that database from the province where they say, ‘This is where the significant wetlands are’, and reflecting that on our mapping. We’re not making any interpretation.”
There was still confusion amongst council as to the difference between the NE5 designation and the provincial designation. “The NE5 is the local approach to identifying where the provincially significant wetlands are. We don’t determine where they are, we’re just saying ‘let’s zone them NE5 so everyone’s clear on what is a provincially significant wetland, and what is otherwise a natural environment feature.’” Clerk Florence Witherspoon added that there is nothing the township or the county can do to change the provincially protected status of the wetlands.
McIntosh reiterated that the provincial designation already prevents the land from being developed. “We are just reflecting that through our NE5 zoning.” Vanstone advocated for leaving the zoning as is. “I don’t think we have to listen to the province at all on this. If we decide to take this to NE5, it’s almost impossible for those people to do anything with that... I would far sooner see it left at NE1.” Council chose not to support staff’s remaining NE5 rezoning recommendations. They also chose not to support the majority of the remaining staff recommendations regarding NE1 designations.
After they finished voting, Miltenberg asked if council would get in trouble down the road for going against provincial policy. Van Amersfoort explained how the mapping process works. “First of all, I’ve been with the department for 15 years, and I’ve never had anyone propose a development in a provincially significant wetland. Those areas are simply not conducive to development. Secondly, if they proposed development, we would not be able to issue them a permit, as they are also regulated by the conservation authority, and they have that provincial classification. So, ‘will you get in trouble?’ is the question - I mean, ultimately, no. I think transparency was what the staff perspective was. We clearly understand the direction from council and we will move forward on that basis.”
Staff will now complete the zoning maps and present them for the final time in July.